The Consecration
Respect My Authority
as to why many otherwise faithful Catholics consider the New Mass -- in
particular the formula for consecrating the Eucharist to be heretical (at
best).
Cunneen
Usually the claim that the Tridentine Mass was fixed for all times by Pius V.
Consequently, the modern church is wrong to claim that they can change it.
"Wrong" can range from "mildly misguided" (these folks are disgruntled
Catholics) to "heresy or worse" (these folks may claim they are Catholics, but
they are in schism from the church, since they refuse to share in the church's
eucharist.).
There's also an underlying antiProtestant sympathy at work here, too. Seems
too many people grew up with the implicit belief that anything Protestant is
automatically bad (and maybe anything Catholic circa 1950 is automatically
good). The inclusion of Wesley and Luther hymns, using English, with lay
involvement, is just too Protestant for them to stomach. They yearn for the
good old days of war, when a Catholic was a Catholic and a Protestant was the
enemy. (Things were much simpler then...)
You'll probably get a line-for-line analysis of the Tridentine vs. the "Novus
Ordo." (As soon as you see the mass referred to as Novus Ordo, you know you've
got one of the borderline schismatics; Catholics refer to it as the Mass or the
Liturgy.) Watch out for them comparing what was said silently by the priest
(in the old liturgy) with was it said out loud in the new. They rarely include
the current silent prayers during the offertory. They're not in the
missalettes, so it's easy to fall for their arguments. Check your parish's
Sacramentary for what's REALLY said.
They can really be nitpickers. Credo means I believe; the English translation
of the mass says "We believe". The bishops committee thought it was more
appropriate for group recitation, and Rome didn't object. This however is a
change in the "**Holy** **Creed** of **Christendom**!!!" so they thunder
about the modernism of the American bishops.
Enjoy. Once around the track was enough for me. They're similar to arguing
with fundamentalists...
Deo Gratias
John
Respect My Authority
Mass is the Mass! I have read that the new words or formula for Consecration
is either a bad translation (from latin to English) or a deliberate change
to the original formula -- that is that the Eucharistic sacriface is not
"for some" (pro multis) is in the tridentine formula but "for all" -- the
present. Its not a question of inclusion. Its theological. What's the
problem?
Cunneen <cun...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990602020133...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
Cunneen
Mass is the Mass! I have read that the new words or formula for Consecration
is either a bad translation (from latin to English) or a deliberate change
to the original formula -- that is that the Eucharistic sacriface is not
"for some" (pro multis) is in the tridentine formula but "for all" -- the
present. Its not a question of inclusion. Its theological. What's the
problem?
>>
Ultimately the sacrifice of the Mass re-presents the sacrifice of Calvary,
where Christ died for all. (It's Calvin who believed Jesus only died for the
elect; not Catholic belief at all.)
The "pro multis" (for many) is a direct quote from the scripture (Matt and
Mark), so it has the authority of the scripture. But the theology of the
current prayer of consecration is certainly unassailable.
Deo Gratias
John
Respect My Authority
formula and why do folks even say that the church is Rome is an anti-church
(the Sede Vacante crowd.) ? We need to make clear to others who read notes
in this newsgroup that the so-called traditionalists are schismatic and
anyone who rejects the Magisterium of the Church and the Authority of the
Pope is an outcast -- anathema!!
Cunneen <cun...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990603021710...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
Wil
<hia...@cyberdude.com> wrote:
>OK -- so why all the hubbub? Why all these accusations that it is an invalid
>formula and why do folks even say that the church is Rome is an anti-church
>(the Sede Vacante crowd.) ? We need to make clear to others who read notes
>in this newsgroup that the so-called traditionalists are schismatic and
>anyone who rejects the Magisterium of the Church and the Authority of the
>Pope is an outcast -- anathema!!
>
>> John
I donąt think so:
Who belongs to the Catholic Church?
836 łAll men are called to this catholic unity of the People of GodŠ. And
to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful,
others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by Godąs
grace to salvation.˛[320]
Respectfully submitted
Wil
dumbox
In particular, the new Mass (or new liturgy) has, as the words of
consecration for the Host the words
"Take this, all of you, and eat it: this is my body which will be given
up for you"
Whereas the Latin Mass contains
"Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes: Hoc est enim Corpus Meum"
(Take ye and eat ye all of this: For this is My Body)
Now, this is in line with the actual Gospel evidence:
"And while they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed and broke,
and gave it to his disciples, and said, "Take and eat; this is my
body"." (Matt 26.26)
"And while they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessing it, he broke
and gave it to them, and said, 'Take: this is my body'" (Mark 14.22
"And having taken bread, he have thanks and broke and gave it to them,
sating 'This is my body which is being given for you; do this in
remembrance of me.'" (Luke 22.19)
With the possible exception of Luke, it appears that, first of all, the
new liturgy is not a faithful translation of the Latin Mass, and it also
appears that it does not accurately reflect the Gospel text, either.
The consecration of the Wine is carried out in the new Mass with the
following words:
"Take this, all of you, and drink from it: This is the cup of my blood,
the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you
and for all men so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me."
In the Latin Mass, the words of consecration are:
"Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes: Hic est enim Calix Sanguines mei, novi
et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis
effundetur in remissionem peccatorum."
(Take ye and drink ye all of this: For this is the Chalice of My Blood,
of the new and everlastin testametn, the mystery of fairh, which for you
and for many shall be shed unto the remission of sins)
Matt 26.27-28: "All of you drink of this; for this is, for this is my
blood of the new covenant, which is being shed for many unto the
forgiveness of sins."
Mark 14.24: "This is my blood of the new covenant, which is being shed
for many."
Luke 22.17-18: ""Take this and share it among you"
Luke 22.20: "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which shall be
shed for you."
We can see above that the new Mass has not accurately translated the
words of consecration which go back to the Gospels themselves. Christ
did not consecrate the Wine as being poured out "for all" but "for
many". So, essentially, the problem with the words of consecration is
that they have been changed. Ironically, the Anglican church preserved
the statement "for many" when it translated the Mass from Latin into
English.
As to the authority of the Council of Trent and Pope St. Pius V to
command their successors, I understand that no Pope has that authority
or right. As far as I can see, the real difficulties with the words of
consecration is that they have been changed from their original form.
A better source to consult on this whole matter would be "Problems with
the New Mass" by Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy. In it he outlines fairly
clearly what doctrinal problems are inherent to the new mass.
Yours in Christ
dumbox
Cunneen
to detect any difference (other than the pro multis) between the translations.
I've been looking at the variety of consecratory prayers from the various
Catholic Churches (Byzantine, Syrian, Coptic) and there is a wide variation in
the prayers. All are anchored in the institution narratives, but the exact
wording differs greatly. Demanding absolute uniformity just isn't catholic.
As for the pro multis, are you claiming that Catholic theology holds that
Christ only died for some, rather than all??? That's serious Calvinism, and
not Catholic at all.
Deo Gratias
John
Respect My Authority
with someting as fundamental as the Eucharist.
Cunneen <cun...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990604210636...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
student
Respect My Authority <hia...@cyberdude.com> wrote in message
news:eJRUn43r#GA.236@cpmsnbbsa03...
> I generally agree with your posts but it is not "nitpicking" to be
concerned
> with someting as fundamental as the Eucharist.
>
>
> Cunneen <cun...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:19990604210636...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> > You folks are unbelievable nitpickers! You have to be a linguist with a
> grudge
> > to detect any difference (other than the pro multis) between the
An interesting question is: why did they change the words?
Shouldn't they try to use as exact a version as possible?
What was wrong with the version true to the Gospels?
Why do they make the priest lie when he says the words -
for he really does.
student
Michael Townsend
Cunneen,
>I don't want people to go ballistic but I would like a clear cut explanation
>as to why many otherwise faithful Catholics consider the New Mass -- in
>particular the formula for consecrating the Eucharist to be heretical (at best).
Stricyly speaking, consecration has never been necessary.
Since the Bible teaches that the communion service is a Remembrance;
that is, it is a looking back to Christ's once-only self-sacrifice on the cross
almost 2,000 years ago, there is no necessity for a repetition of the perfect
once-only work of Christ the Saviour and Redeemer.
When Christ cried out on the cross, "It is Finished !" [ Gospel of John 19 ; 30 ],
He wasn't lying.
However, all roman-catholics believe that Jesus =was= in fact lying when He made
that statement. I see it as deplorable that roman-catholics should believe that
Jesus Christ is untruthful but this fact is undeniable.
But to return to my original point, since Christ's sacrifice on the cross was
once-only, there is no need for any more sacrifice, therefore there is no need for
the bread and wine to be consecrated at the communion service.
>Usually the claim is that the Tridentine Mass was fixed for all times by Pius V.
Some people still believe this and as you know, they insist that the only valid rite
is the Tridentine model.
What do you see as being the principal differences between the present-day
eucharistic liturgy and that of Trent ?
>Consequently, the modern church is wrong to claim that they can change it.
Surely this doesn't mean that you consider the last three popes to be reactionary or
mistaken in their opinions ?
>"Wrong" can range from "mildly misguided" (these folks are disgruntled
>Catholics) to "heresy or worse" (these folks may claim they are Catholics, but
>they are in schism from the church, since they refuse to share in the church's
>eucharist.).
>There's also an underlying antiProtestant sympathy at work here, too.
>Seems that too many people grew up with the implicit belief that anything Protestant
>is automatically bad (and maybe anything Catholic circa 1950 is automatically good).
Since neither Jesus nor any of His apostles were roman-catholics, there is no
justification for this bigoted and pharisaical attitude by these anti-protestant
people.
Some of my best friends are Protestants and they are very godly people,
so this anti-Protestant bigotry is distressing and certainly not in the spirit of
"aggorniamento".
>The inclusion of Wesley and Luther hymns, using English, with lay involvement,
>is just too Protestant for them to stomach.
I personally like Luther's hymns. My favourite is "A Mighty Fortress is our God".
Say what they like, Luther certainly was a committed GOD-fearing man of strong faith
in Christ, and money-grubbing scoundrels like Tetzel deserved all the rough
treatment they got.
What was even more scandalous that Tetzel's mercenary activities was that neither
the papacy nor the Vatican bureaucracy made any attempt to curtail or terminate
Tetzels's trade but instead they officially sanctioned the marketing of indulgences
for money.
It's very likely that the pope of that time and his bureaucracy were so spiritually
inept and compromnised that Luther's Biblical exegesis was light-years beyond the
carnal mentalities of the then pope and his cronies in the Curia.
>They yearn for the good old days of war, when a Catholic was a Catholic
>and a Protestant was the enemy. (Things were much simpler then...)
It's only a few years since roman-catholics were indoctrinated to refer to
protestants as "dogs" and fit only fir Hell.
Yet, as I reminded you above, neither Jesus Christ nor any of His apostles were
roman-catholics.
>You'll probably get a line-for-line analysis of the Tridentine vs. the "Novus
>Ordo." (As soon as you see the mass referred to as Novus Ordo, you know you've
>got one of the borderline schismatics;
Hmmm. Could it be that the Real Schismatics are they who prefer the Novus Ordo ?
>Enjoy. Once around the track was enough for me. They're similar to arguing
>with fundamentalists...
But don't rubbish the fundamentalists too quickly because the record shows that
Jesus and Paul were Fundanmentalists in their time.
At least you know where you stand with the fundamentalist people who have truth as
their first prioity. They at least don't muck about with fusty old traditions and
fossilised opinions as do the average run-of-the-mill religious guru.
Dominus vobiscum
MIchael
UticaCW
What is your problem??? Why do you keep posting such venemous lies in the
Catholic ng?? You write with enough intelligence that it is plain that you are
not just some fundie farm boy learning to use his computer. Yet you toss off
the worst sort of lies and misinterpretations of Scripture so as to make me
wonder whether your marble bag has a gaping hole in the bottom?
>However, all roman-catholics believe that Jesus =was= in fact lying when He
>made
>that statement.
No. We believe Jesus. We don't believe you, because: a.) you obviously can't
read the plainest, most literal sense of the Bible; 2.) because you are blinded
by an irrational hatred of the Catholic Church.
> I see it as deplorable that roman-catholics should believe that
>Jesus Christ is untruthful but this fact is undeniable.
Oh is it? I deny it.
>But to return to my original point, since Christ's sacrifice on the cross was
>once-only,
But Jesus Christ is ... the same yesterday ... today ... forever ... ,. Jesus
is ~still~ the Lamb that was slain. Jesus says that the bread and wine are
his body and blood ... and Paul confirms this. The Bible says it, I believe
it, that settles it.
>therefore there is no need for
>the bread and wine to be consecrated at the communion service.
Whatever. But Jesus says the wine and bread are his blood and body. Paul
says the bread and wine are Jesus' body and blood. Since the beginning of the
Church, the fathers have taught that Jesus is present in the Eucharist. That's
all reason enough for me. If you don't like it, take it up with Jesus.
>Since neither Jesus nor any of His apostles were roman-catholics, there is no
>justification for this bigoted and pharisaical attitude by these
>anti-protestant
>people.
Hah! Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Peter was the first Pope. The
apostles were Catholic. Stamp your feet and deny it all you want, but thems
the facts.
>They at least don't muck about with fusty old traditions and
>fossilised opinions as do the average run-of-the-mill religious guru.
That's a laugh. The fundies I know, and I know a lot, are as hide-bound in
man-made traditions as any main-line church. They just won't admit it.
>
>Dominus vobiscum
>
The Lord ~IS~ with John ... he's Catholic.
James T. Savidge
Michael Townsend wrote:
>
> On 2 Jun 1999, cun...@aol.com (Cunneen) wrote:
>
> Cunneen,
>
> >I don't want people to go ballistic but I would like a clear cut explanation
> >as to why many otherwise faithful Catholics consider the New Mass -- in
> >particular the formula for consecrating the Eucharist to be heretical (at best).
>
> Stricyly speaking, consecration has never been necessary.
>
> Since the Bible teaches that the communion service is a Remembrance;
> that is, it is a looking back to Christ's once-only self-sacrifice on the cross
> almost 2,000 years ago, there is no necessity for a repetition of the perfect
> once-only work of Christ the Saviour and Redeemer.
>
> When Christ cried out on the cross, "It is Finished !" [ Gospel of John 19 ; 30 ],
> He wasn't lying.
>
> However, all roman-catholics believe that Jesus =was= in fact lying when He made
> that statement. I see it as deplorable that roman-catholics should believe that
> Jesus Christ is untruthful but this fact is undeniable.
"It" may have been a reference to the fourth cup of the passover meal.
Four were required. Only three had been consumed by the end of the meal,
before they went to the garden.
Quoted from The Fourth cup by Scott Hahn:
The first cup is the blessing of the festival day, it's the kiddush
cup. The second cup of wine occurs really at the beginning of
the Passover liturgy itself, and that involves the singing of
psalm 113. And then there's the third cup, the cup of blessing
which involves the actual meal, the unleavened bread and so
on. And then, before the fourth cup, you sing the great hil-el
psalms: 114, 115, 116, 117 and 118. And having sung those
psalms you proceed to the fourth cup which for all practical
purposes is the climax of the Passover.
Now what's the problem? The problem is that gospel account
says something like this: after the third cup is drunk Jesus
says, "I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until I am
entering into the kingdom of God." And it says, "Then they
sang the psalms." Every Jew who knows the liturgy would
expect: and then they went ahead and said the grace and the
blessing and had the fourth cup which climaxed and
consummated the Passover. But no, the gospel account say they
sang the psalms and went out into the night.
....
"They put a sponge full of the sour wine on hyssop and held it to
his mouth. When Jesus had received the sour wine he said the
words that are spoken of in the fourth cup consummation, "It is
finished."
....
And I would also suggest that the Passover meal by which Jesus
initiated the new Covenant in his own blood did not end in the
upper room, but at calvary. It's all of one piece. The sacrifice
begins in the upper room with the institution of the Eucharist
and it ends at calvary. Calvary begins with the Eucharist.
The Eucharist ends at Calvary. But in another way of thinking,
it ain't over yet! Cause it ain't over till it's over. Paul tells
us in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8, "Christ our Passover lamb has been
sacrificed, therefore"_what?_we don't need to have any more
sacrifice? Therefore we don't need to have any more ritual,
therefore all we have to do is have a personal relationship with
Jesus Christ and invite him into our hearts and everything else
is taken care of? No, he's too knowledgeable about the Old
Testament to say any of that. He says, "Christ our Passover lamb
has been sacrificed; let us therefore celebrate the feast." What
feast? The whole Passover feast. It's not complete yet. What do
you mean?
...
And what is a covenant? A sacred family bond. In the Old
Testament any family that sacrificed a lamb and sprinkled the
blood had to eat the lamb. It wasn't enough to say, 'Well we
don't like lamb do we, kids? Why don't we make lamb cookies?
Little lamb wafers that symbolize the lamb? We'll eat those
and those'll be enough, right? Symbolic presence of the lamb,
and all that?' No, you'd wake up and you'd be dead. You ate the
lamb and you burned what was left. But you ate the lamb to
reestablish and restore communion with your heavenly Father
through His firstborn Son and Lamb. That's the way it was in
the Old Testament, and St. Paul recognizes that it's still the way
it is in the new covenant, only in spades, only with more glory.
Why? Because Christ our Passover has been sacrificed for us.
Once and for all on calvary he's been put to death,
therefore_what? Therefore we've nothing to do. Just celebrate
the sacrifice, which is over and done with_ No, something's
missing. We need to eat the Lamb. We need to receive the
Lamb to restore communion and to complete the sacrifice and
to keep the feast . It's proper, and we now judge it to be
necessary. 1 Corinthians 5:7-8, "Christ our Passover Lamb has
been sacrificed and now let us celebrate the feast." And the
next five chapters in many ways St. Paul describes how the
Eucharist is to be celebrated, because it's the culmination of
the Passover sacrifice.
May God lead us to a fuller understanding of His truth and may His peace go
with you.
James T. Savidge, <tsav...@fastlane.net>, Monday, June 7, 1999
-------------------------------------------------
Resources:
The Fourth Cup -- The Sacrament of the Eucharist
Audio tape by Scott Hahn
Transcript at:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/4thCup.TXT
That transcript and others are attached to the Dr. Scott Hahn links page at:
http://pw2.netcom.com/~darcyj/files/drhahn.html
--
1 Peter 3:8-15
[8] Finally, all of you, have unity of spirit, sympathy, love of the
brethren, a tender heart and a humble mind. [9] Do not return evil for evil
or reviling for reviling; but on the contrary bless, for to this you have
been called, that you may obtain a blessing. [10] For "He that would love
life and see good days, let him keep his tongue from evil and his lips from
speaking guile; [11] let him turn away from evil and do right; let him seek
peace and pursue it. [12] For the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous,
and his ears are open to their prayer. But the face of the Lord is against
those that do evil." [13] Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous
for what is right? [14] But even if you do suffer for righteousness' sake,
you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, [15] but in
your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense
to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it
with gentleness and reverence;