Monday, March 22, 2021

Mass Destruction

 


My spiritual father, Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, lived an extraordinary life. The religious, political, and other personages he knew, combined with his myriad unusual experiences in a unique era of the world, would make for an unapparelled priest of intrigue. In his early years, Father was taken prisoner at the Battle of Dunkirk, and was wounded while escaping (successfully) from a Nazi concentration camp. After Belgium was liberated from Nazi tyranny on February 4, 1945, young Fr. DePauw, less than three years a priest, became good friends with many of the American soldiers stationed there. 

The Nazi command (including Hitler himself) knew the days of their "Thousand Year Reich" were numbered. Nazi Germany would unconditionally surrender to the Allies just over three months later, on May 8, 1945 (one week after Hitler committed suicide). During those months before Germany's surrender, several high-ranking members of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, would try to escape to South America. More than a few of them had planned for this when the tide of the war turned against them. As was the case with certain spies meant to wreak havoc in the United States (Operation Pastorius), they knew they would need to pretend to be Americans to get past certain U.S. check-points.  

These Nazis had learned to speak perfect, fluent English without a trace of a German accent. They made sure to know American idioms, pop culture, important figures, and even minutiae about where they allegedly lived in the United States. They would present themselves as American soldiers with fake papers (identification), and once past the check-point, they could use various means to escape to South America. Father was friends with a certain American sergeant, whose job it was to check the papers of any soldier seeking to leave and verify they were legitimate. 

One day, a Catholic chaplain with the U.S. Army arrived at the sergeant's check-point. Something about this chaplain just "didn't seem right" as he later told Fr. DePauw. He couldn't put his finger on what was wrong, so he detained him for over two hours asking question after question. All his answers checked out. At this point, the sergeant's Commanding Officer intervened. Pulling Father's friend aside, he asked him if he was out of his mind. "You're detaining a Catholic chaplain and an officer [all Chaplains start off with the rank of second-class lieutenant]. And you're basing this on..what? Some strange hunch? We're not the Nazis; this priest has rights. You release him now, and ask his forgiveness. Hopefully, he won't file a complaint against you leading to your court martial." (Dialogue from my memory and notes---Introibo). 

He went back and apologized to the priest. "That's OK young man, you're just doing your job! No hard feelings; I'm a priest and I forgive you." The sergeant--a devout Catholic from childhood-- boldly asked, "Father, may I ask just one last question, and I promise you may leave immediately?" The priest sighed. "Well, I've been here over two hours now, but go ahead--ask me your final question." The young sergeant looked straight into his eyes and asked, "Please tell me Father: What's the correct response to Introibo ad altare Dei?"  The "priest's" mouth dropped open; he was speechless. He was arrested and detained. Two days later it was revealed that the sergeant had successfully captured a high-ranking Nazi trying to escape. Fr. DePauw then said to me, "This should serve as a reminder that the test of a true priest--indeed--any true Catholic, is how well they know and love the True Mass." 

Many times in the more than ten years since I started this blog, readers have commented asking, "How could so many priests, theologians, bishops, etc., have gone along with the Vatican II sect?" Fr. DePauw gave the answer that day. By the 1950s, "country club Catholicism" had taken hold. People no longer took the study of the Integral Catholic Faith seriously--and the Mass was the most beautifully clear and concise exposition of that same Faith. You had priests offering Mass in a hurried and slovenly manner, without devotion and never giving sermons on the truths of Faith. Their vocations became little more than jobs they performed begrudgingly. The laity attended Mass out of habit, and would choose the aforementioned priests who offered Mass quickly and slovenly just to "get it over with" and do more important things--like watching sports or going shopping. The theologians who weren't Modernists, had rationalized what was happening post-1958 because they didn't want to accept the truth about what was going on. As for most of the rest, they never even realized what they lost--the greatest gift in the universe; the One True Faith. 

The lack of knowledge of the Faith continues to be exemplified today, in those holding themselves out to be "teachers" and even "saviors" of the Church.  Two such examples will suffice to make my point:

  • $teve $kojec, of the site "One Peter Five," is the owner of a "theology-free" zone. His basic contention is that the Church can (and has) defected, and the "pope" can be a heretic. He makes six-figures from donations so people can listen to him explain why they should follow his teachings over that of the man he acknowledges as "pope." He offers very little more than his own ipse dixit for his assertions. What can this man possibly know of the True Faith? 
  • David L. Gray of davidlgray.info, has a Masters degree in theology, and no discernable credentials in history, yet promotes himself as both a "theologian" and a "historian." His articles and videos are little more than his (badly informed) opinions on various topics such as sedevacantism and the Novus Bogus "mass." 
A few weeks ago, an acquaintance gave me a self-published book by one Adam S. Miller, and wanted my opinion on it. Miller is a "Vatican II sect Feeneyite"--- he accepts the Vatican II sect which teaches universal salvation, while simultaneously holding the Feeneyite heresy which denies Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. Don't try to make sense of it, because you really can't. His book is entitled Is the New Mass (sic) of Pope (sic) Paul VI Invalid?, (second edition, 2010). At 114 pages, it is a short (and very painful) read. One of the stated purposes of his book is to be "A refutation of the arguments denying the validity of the N.O.M." ["Novus Ordo Missae" or "New Order of Mass (sic)"]. This post will show just how badly he fails in this endeavor, with a virtually citationless rambling devoid of even a basic understanding of Catholic theology. 

Miller: Wrong in Even His Basic Contentions

From the back cover: Whether traditional or progressive, conservative or liberal in orientation, all Catholics will benefit from this work, for the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Mass is the center piece (sic) of Catholic life.

While the Sacrifice of the Mass is indeed the "centerpiece of Catholic life," you are either Catholic or not. In the Vatican II sect, there are divisions just like in Anglicanism. You can be "High Church," "Low Church," or "Broad Church," although they are all pretty much Marxists these days. Is Miller implying there are four divisions in the Church? Is traditional the same as conservative and progressive the same as liberal? What is an "orientation"? What is the "conservative" orientation on transubstantiation versus the "liberal" orientation? This is an outgrowth of the heretical ecclesiology of Vatican II. You are either (a) Catholic and accept all Church teachings or (b) you are not Catholic by way of heresy, schism, or apostasy (assuming a valid baptism). 

Miller barely mentions the "elephant in the room." 

Most of his tome is dedicated to showing that the Novus Bogus "mass" is valid despite the corrupted Consecration Form over the Wine. He spends most of his pages "refuting" Fr. James Wathen (ordained 1958, d. 2006), Patrick Henry Omlor (d. 2013), and Dr./Fr. Rama Coomaraswamy (d.2006). Fr. Wathen was a "recognize and resist" (R&R) Feeneyite. Both Omlor and Coomaraswamy were sedevacantists from the early days (1960s). Only briefly does Miller address sedevacantism. This is analogous to writing a critique of Dwight David Eisenhower and Douglas MacArthur and only briefly mentioning they were army generals. Sedevacantism also explains much which his book doesn't even try to defend:

  • If Montini wasn't pope (Paul VI), then his service must be rejected outright since Canon 1257 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law states that "Only the Apostolic See has the right to regulate the liturgy [i.e., the ritual of public worship] and to approve liturgical books." (See canonists Abbo and Hannon, The Sacred Canons, [1952], 2:512).  
  • Miller devotes seven pages to an addendum "Was the New Mass Legally-Canonically Promulgated?" (pgs. 103-109). He correctly proves that Montini went through all the procedures necessary to promulgate the Novus Bogus. He also correctly states that the Church cannot give that which is evil, citing to Canon VII on the Mass from the Council of Trent. Finally, he gets it right that the only way to claim the so-called "New Mass" is evil is to be a sedevacantist because to hold Paul VI to Benedict XVI as real popes, and claim the new Rite evil, would involve a contradiction. 
  • Where Miller goes seriously wrong is when he states on page 104, One reason that we know that the sedevacantist position cannot be sustained is that Pope Paul VI did  properly and legally approve and promulgate the N.O.M., despite what some say about its legality. Huh? I don't know of any sedevacantist who holds that Montini wasn't pope because he didn't properly promulgate the Novus Bogus and thereby ceased to be pope. It is morally certain that Montini was not pope from at least November 21, 1964, when he signed the heretical document Lumen Gentium. If he were truly pope, the Holy Ghost would have prevented him from signing it. (I am of the opinion Montini never attained to the papacy). A pope falls from office by Divine Law if--as a private theologian--he professes heresy. That Miller could write such drivel in 2010, with so much information about sedevacantism on the Internet alone, is deplorable. 
It's All That Matters
For a Sacrament to be valid, five things are necessary: proper minister, correct matter, correct form, proper intention on the part of the minister, and no invalidating obex ("obstacle") on the part of the recipient. (See theologian Tanquerey, Dogmatic Theology, [1959], pgs. 183-213). In the Eucharist, which can only come about through the Mass, the proper minister would be a valid priest or bishop. Correct matter is unleavened bread (in the Latin Rite) and wine; correct form is the Words of Consecration over both bread and wine. Proper intention means the offering priest or bishop must intend to do what the Church does, and in the Eucharist there can be no invalidating obex on the part of the one who receives. (An example of an invalidating obex would be Holy Orders performed on a woman). 

In the form of a sacrament, the form will be held as invalid where there is a substantial change in meaning. Hence, if the priest said, "THIS IS A SYMBOL OF MY BODY" instead of "THIS IS MY BODY," the Mass is invalid. Likewise, were he to say "THIS IS A BODY," it would also be invalid. Matter and form must be certainly valid, and doubtful matter must never be used. A doubtful sacrament is treated as invalid in the practical order. (See theologian Jone, Moral Theology, [1961], pgs. 308-309).  The International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) charged with translating the Novus Bogus into English changed the Words of Consecration over the Wine from: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD OF THE NEW AND EVERLASTING TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH: WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS--to---FOR THIS IS THE CUP OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT; IT SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR ALL MEN UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS. 

Several changes were made: the chalice is now a "cup," the phrase "the mystery of faith" was removed, and "many" was rendered as "all men"--and later to be politically correct---as "all." The problem with this "translation" (even a first year Latin student knows pro multis means "for many"), is that it substantially changes the meaning of Our Lord's own words. (The "correct translation" was produced by Joachim Jeremias, a Protestant theologian--See The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, [1977], pgs. 178-182; 225-231; his translation was later definitively proven wrong by myriad Biblical scholars). 

The Catechism of the Council of Trent tells us Christ said many not all and explained why:
With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: ‘Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many’; and also of the words of our Lord in John: ‘I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom Thou hast given Me, because they are Thine. (Emphasis mine). Christ was speaking of the efficacy of His Sacrifice, the many who would cooperate with His grace and actually achieve salvation. It is true that Christ died for all--that His Sacrifice was sufficient for all to be saved--but all do not believe and live good lives so only many will be saved. Hence, by changing "many" to "all" the Vatican II sect introduced the heresy of Universalism (that all go to Heaven) into the very Words of Christ, falsely making Our Lord speak a lie. This alone made the service dubious, and hence to be avoided. (The Vatican II sect actually changed "all" back to "many" in 2008--after most valid priests had passed away). 

Miller attempts to tell us that either word (many or all) is valid. The reasons he gives are incredibly flawed. Before going through his attempted defense of the Consecration, there are two independent reasons the Novus Bogus is invalid, yet since he dismisses sedevacantism, Miller doesn't even address them. 

1. Invalid Minister of the Sacrament. Montini's new Rites of priestly ordination and episcopal consecration are invalid. Without a valid priesthood, it doesn't matter what the so-called priest says, it will be null and void. Therefore, after 40 years of invalid Holy Orders starting in 1968, the sect changed the words back. Secondly, the idea of Universalism had sufficiently permeated all aspects of the Vatican II sect, so they could throw a bone to "conservative" members to show they are "interested in preserving Catholic truth." 

2. Invalid Intention. The Words of Consecration are now called the Words of Institution, and recited within an "Institution Narrative" in the "Eucharistic Prayer." In the Canon of the Mass, the priest must stop, bend over the host or chalice to be Consecrated, and speaking in a secret (low) voice, he must say the words attentively and devoutly without interruption. This is to show that the priest is not simply repeating the Words of Our Lord spoken almost 2000 years ago in some narration of a historical event, but he intends to perform the action of Consecration effectuating transubstantiation here and now. In reciting the Words of Institution in an Institution Narrative, the "priest" does the exact opposite. He reads it as one big historical story, thereby vitiating his intention to consecrate, according to some theologians like rubrician O'Connell. It is analogous to baptizing a baby within the context of reading the Gospel of St. Matthew Chapter 28--is the intent to baptize here and now, or are you simply reciting what took place in the time of Our Lord's life on Earth? 

Many Defenses--All Fail
Miller offers the following arguments to prove that the Words of Consecration over the wine are valid with the word all replacing many:

1. The word "all" does not necessitate the heresy of Universalism, because it can be interpreted as meaning "many."

Scripture. Despite the clear teaching of the Council of Trent that the word "all" was specifically not used, Miller claims that "all" can be used in place of "many" without substantial change. He cites verses of Scripture to (allegedly) prove his point:

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Emphasis mine). Yet Christ and His Mother never sinned, so all is not entirely inclusive. 

Philippians 2:21 For all seek the things that are their own; not the things that are Jesus Christ's. (Emphasis mine).  Obviously, some do seek the things of Christ, only many do not.

Two problems. (i) It is the Magisterium that decides the meaning of Scripture, not Adam Miller. The Catechism of the Council of Trent decided Christ said (and meant) "many," not "all" when He consecrated the wine--and explained why; case closed. (ii) There are times many means many in Scripture. How would Miller render these passages:

St. Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. (Emphasis mine). Many cannot mean all, unless everyone goes to Hell.

St. Matthew 24: 4-5  And Jesus answering, said to them: Take heed that no man seduce you: For many will come in My name saying, I am Christ: and they will seduce many. (Emphasis mine). Are we to read this as "For ALL will come in My name saying, I am the Christ; and they will seduce ALL"? 

2. Three Eastern Rite Liturgies Have Included the Word "All"

Miller describes the Anaphora of St. John the Evangelist (without citation) as saying:
This is the Chalice of My Blood of the New Testament: Take, drink ye of it: this is shed forth for the life of the world, for the expiation of transgressions, for the remission of sins to ALL that believe in Him forever and ever. (Emphasis in original; pg. 15). I have no idea where Miller got this as no citation is provided. Yet assuming, ad arguendo, it's legitimate, the phrase "That believe in Him [Christ] forever and ever" after the word ALL modifies the phrase so as to read, "ALL those who believe in Christ forever and ever" an expression signifying all the elect for which Christ's Blood was shed; the efficacy of Christ's Sacrifice about which the Council of Trent spoke. No such qualifying phrase exists in the Novus Bogus.

Miller then describes the Anaphora of St. Mark (again without citation) as saying:
This is the Blood of the New Testament: Take, drink ye all of it, for the remission of sins of you and of ALL the true faithful, and for eternal life. (Emphasis in original; pg. 15) Once more, assuming ad arguendo, that this is legitimate, the phrase "the true faithful" modifies all so as to read, "ALL the true faithful" i.e., the elect. 

Interestingly, I was unable to find these Anaphoras in my pre-Vatican II books on the Eastern Rite Liturgies. I did , however, find them online as part of Eastern Schismatic Liturgies. 
(See syriacorthodoxresources.org/Liturgy/Anaphora/John.html; See also syriacorthodoxresources.org/Liturgy/Anaphora/Mark.html). 

Lastly, Miller claims the Maronite rite used to have the word "ALL" in the Consecration of the Wine. However, for his sources he lists an "Eparchial Liturgist" from Brooklyn (without citation to where he got this information) and even the "Liturgist" admits, "The original Syriac texts from our Liturgy [was] translated 'For Many.'" (See Miller's book pg. 16). He also cites an Eastern Rite priest of the Vatican II sect "from a private correspondence with an associate of the author." Basically, "a friend of a friend told me..." That's not exactly, "the sources of scholars." As this source is unverifiable, of dubious expertise, and not unbiased, I will simply dismiss it. 

3. The "Principle of Supplied Catholic Understanding." 
 
You've never heard of the Principle of Supplied Catholic Understanding (PSCU)? Don't feel bad; neither has anyone else. Adam Miller made it up. On pg. 19 of his book, Miller writes:
At Vatican Council I, the Church infallibly declared that what She puts forth is "to be believed and held by all the faithful according to the ancient and continual faith of the Universal Church" (Pastor Aeternus, Denz:1821 [DS:3052]; italics added).

He then tells his readers The Church, then, requires the faithful to understand the approved new form, as she does for all the others, according to Catholic teaching, according to what she means by the terms. No, Adam, She does not. The term in magic tricks "hocus pocus" is an anti-Catholic slur. The Words of Consecration over the bread (in the true Mass) are HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM (FOR THIS IS MY BODY). Protestants said it was "pope-ish magic" changing bread into God by "Hoc-est Poc-est." That became corrupted to "hocus pocus" and was to be associated with magic. According to Miller's PSCU, if  "hocus pocus" replaced the traditional form, Catholics would be required to understand it as the valid Form. Maybe he should call his invented principle "The Principle of Orwellian Newspeak" where war is peace, freedom is slavery, and many is all. 

Miller's only citation for his made up PSCU is part of a sentence twisted out of context from the 1870 Vatican Council's infallible decree on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. Here's what Pastor Aeternus says in context:

We, for the preservation, safe-keeping, and increase of the Catholic flock, with the approval of the Sacred Council, judge it to be necessary to propose, to be believed and held by all the faithful according to the ancient and continual faith of the Universal Church, the doctrine of the institution, perpetuity, and nature of the sacred Apostolic Primacy, by which the strength and solidity of the entire Church is established, and at the same time to proscribe and condemn the contrary errors, which are so harmful to the flock of Christ. (Emphasis mine). The Vatican Council of 1870 was teaching that the doctrine of the Apostolic Primacy was "to be believed and held by all the faithful" because it was always held "according to the ancient and continual faith of the Universal Church." It has absolutely nothing to do with the interpretations concerning the forms of sacraments. That's why there isn't a single approved theologian or canonist who teaches the "PSCU." It doesn't exist.

Finally, why does Miller even care what words are used in the Consecration at Mass? In October of 2001, the Modernist Vatican published a document entitled Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East. It declared as valid a liturgy that contains no Words of Consecration at all. The Anaphora makes reference to the Body and Blood of Christ, and even says that we offer to God the Body and Blood of Christ, but there is nowhere to be found anything that even comes close to what the Modernists call an "Institution Narrative" and what Catholics call the Words of Consecration. Why does the Vatican II sect consider it valid? "...the words of Eucharistic Institution are indeed present in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in a coherent narrative way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological (!) way, that is, integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise, and intercession." This overthrows all Catholic teaching on the matter and form of the Sacrament since the founding of the Church. Miller should have used this made up "euchological way" to argue for validity, which sounds more impressive (but makes no more sense), than the PSCU.


4. The Words "This is My Body" and "This is the Chalice of My Blood" are sufficient for Consecrating the Eucharist.
The Church has never defined whether those words alone suffice. Some theologians agree, some teach more than those words are necessary. Since there can be no doubt in confecting the sacraments, the "Long Form" using all the words is necessary to ensure against invalidity.

What the Church Teaches
Theologian Halligan teaches:
The form of consecration of the bread is: “Hoc est enim corpus meum,” of the wine: “Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti, mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.” The word “enim” does not pertain to validity and its omission is a venial sin. The words which precede these formulas, viz., “Qui pridie… Simili modo…” in no way pertain to the form. It is commonly taught today that the essential words of the form of the Eucharist—and their omission would invalidate the form—are: “Hoc est corpus meum,” “Hic est calix sanguinis mei” (or “Hic ast sanguis meus”). Some hold that the remaining words “novi et…” are essential. In practice it is gravely prescribed to pronounce the entire form; if any of the words from “novi et…” on are omitted, the whole form is to be repeated conditionally. (See The Administration of the Sacraments, [1962], pg. 103). 

The words must be repeated conditionally because since the Church has not settled the matter, the whole form (not just "This is the Chalice of My Blood") must be used to remove doubt because they may be necessary to validity. The old axiom, "A doubtful sacrament is no sacrament at all," holds true.

Why would those other words be necessary? According to theologian Wengier:

That is why His consecration or transubstantiation had to be and was sacrificial or propitiatory. And He clearly expressed that propitiatory character of His consecration by the words: “quod pro vobis tradetur” —“which shall be delivered for you” and “qui pro vobis, et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum” —”which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.” Consequently, we, too, must use the same words or their equivalent. We must clearly express the propitiatory or sacrificial character of our consecration, because our Mass is the same Sacrifice as that of Christ renewed by us, as the Council of Trent teaches and as it is clear from the institution itself. A simple formula demonstrating the presence of Christ’s Body and Blood under the species does not tell us whether that which Christ did or what we do is a sacrifice or not. Therefore, besides the demonstrative words, our consecration form needs other words determining the purpose of the Blood’s effusion, which is the destruction of sin. This doctrine of St. Thomas and his followers, Henricus Henriquez, Amicus, and others, is in perfect harmony with the nature of our Mass.

It is not necessary to express that teleology in both consecrations. Our Latin formula omits the ‘quod pro vobis tradetur’ in the consecration of the bread. It prefers to give to the teleology its formal place, namely, in the consecration of the wine, which being changed into Blood apparently separated (in the species only!) from the Body, formally signifies its death — death which subsequently our formula determines, adding the purpose of this death: ‘pro vobis… pro multis … in remissionem peccatorum.’

The transubstantiation, then, is not sufficient by itself for a Mass. It must be a sacrificial transubstantiation, expressing an oblation made to God for sins. This peculiar expression must be verbal (not only mental), because it is an integral part of the form of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, and every sacrifice (in the strict sense) is an external act of worship, signifying the internal dedication. (See The Eucharistic Sacrifice, [1955], pg. 157). 

Conclusion
When people don't understand the Mass and the Integral Catholic Faith, you get a 114 page tome that uses a made up principle, and a false understanding of Sacramental Theology, to convince you a Modernist bread and wine service performed around a table is a valid "mass." It's no wonder Adam Miller is in the Vatican II sect and a Feeneyite. Had people only understood and loved the Faith and Mass, the Great Apostasy may not have happened as it did back in 1964. 

To this day, I have yet to meet a priest who offered the Mass with more love and devotion than Father DePauw. In the sacristy, he had a plaque from a Church destroyed in Belgium during World War II. It read, "Priest of Christ: Offer this Mass as if it were your First Mass; as if it were your Last Mass; as if it were your Only Mass." Father read it every day, and lived by those words. For those of us lucky enough to still have access to a Traditionalist Church or Chapel, let's never take what we have for granted. Rather, as Lent winds down, let's resolve as follows--"Member of Christ's One True Church: Attend this Mass as if it were your First Mass, as if it were your Last Mass, as if it were your Only Mass." 

ADDENDUM--3/24/21
A member of the Vatican II sect has been commenting below in an attempt to prove the Novus Bogus to be valid. I'm adding this addendum since it is more appropriate and beneficial to my readership to see the objections he raises and my replies together as an addendum.---Introibo 

Preliminary remark: As a member of the Vatican II sect, my interlocutor accepts the Pauline Ordination and Consecration Rites of 1968 as valid, so he does not address the lack of proper minister. He has not touched upon defect of intention arising from an "Institution Narrative." He believes Montini (Paul VI) had the right to change the Mass as he was allegedly "pope." Hence, I will only defend my assertion of defect in form. I will paraphrase his objections which can be read in the original comments below. 

Objection #1:  The Novus Bogus signifies the passion in the consecratory prayer of the bread, "which is given for you." Likewise, it is indicated by the short phrase "which is shed for you." The sacrificial nature is also indicated in the phrase "shed for you." The fruits are being applied to those receiving the sacrament. The translation issue between "for many" and "for all" doesn't negate that.  If the bread can be transubstantiated without sacrificial terminology, then so can the blood.

Indeed the sacrificial character and the fruits of the mass are indicated by "shed for you" just as much as "given for you." Both of which are contained in the Novus Bogus. The "short form" is therefore sufficient for a valid Mass. 

Reply: From theologian  de la Taille, Mysterium Fidei (1931):
It is quite certain, as all admit, that the words: This is My Body, This is the chalice of My Blood (or other equivalent words), by which is demonstrated the presence of the Body and the Blood of Christ under the appearance of the bread and the wine, are essential to the form of consecration. But a further question arises: whether, in addition to this indication of the Body and the Blood of Christ, there is necessary, as a part of the form, and as an essential part of it, a determination of the propitiatory end in view, as, for example, by words which indicate that what is enacted in symbol is done for us, unto the remission of sins.

“St. Thomas, after Innocent III (whose words are quoted below), in 3 S. 78,3, and more positively still in I Cor., II, lect 6, together with all his early disciples, whom the Salmanticenses quote with approval, maintains that such words are essential (De Euchar. Sacram., disp. 9, dub. E, para. 2, n. 22). Modern theologians for the most part, following St. Bonaventure (4 D. 8,2,1,2), deny that such words are essential.

“Two main arguments are given for this denial: one resting on intrinsic principles; the other drawn from positive dogmatic sources.

“The first line of reasoning is as follows: the conversion of the bread into the Body and the wine into the Blood is quite sufficiently signified without any further determination of the kind mentioned: therefore it is effected without this further determination; because in the Sacraments the words effect what they signify.

“The second reason is this: neither the Scripture narratives nor the liturgies agree as to the precise tenor of these determinative words. Therefore they are outside the ambit of the form.

“However, neither of these reasons seems convincing.

“Taking the second argument first, we find a sufficient refutation of it in the following fact: in every one of the liturgies, with the exception of a few very corrupt Ethiopian ones (some of which are known aliunde to be invalid), as well as some very degraded productions of the Syrian schismatics, we find invariably conveyed, besides the separate demonstration of the Body and Blood, an indication of the propitiatory intention for which the symbolic separation of Body and Blood, or the blood-shedding designated by it is made. So we have, in every case, an equivalent sense in the formulae; and this, we maintain, is all that is necessary to secure the necessary uniformity of the form, as will be sufficiently proved by what we have to say immediately in refutation of the first objection proposed above, by the development of our own intrinsic argument, derived from the nature of things.

“Coming, then, to the first argument of our adversaries, we think that it is sufficiently refuted by the development of our own argument. But first we must presuppose that there is no question here of what Christ could have done, if He willed, but only of what He did will to do. And it is quite plain that He willed to offer sacrifice. Again the question is not, here, whether the indication of the Body and Blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine would of itself sufficiently signify (and accordingly would avail, if our Lord so instituted, to accomplish effectively) some real presence or not; but the question is: would such an indication signify a real presence in the condition of immolation whereby the sacrifice would be enacted? And this, it seems, we must deny. For the real presence of the Body and Blood of Christ could undoubtedly be realized by the actual effective words without any sacrifice whatever; just as Christ could, without sacrifice, change into His Body and Blood any other kind of material (corporeas) substances, such as stones, water and so on. Certainly just as Christ could have died without His death having the proper character of a sacrifice (as is the case with the martyrs); so, too, He could have left us some symbol of His death in His Body and Blood, even to be partaken of by us at a common banquet by way of food, for instance for the sole purpose of fostering charity amongst us, and all this without dedicating a victim to God, or without any propitiatory action. But Christ did in fact will that this conversion of the bread and wine into His Body and Blood should be a sacrifice; by transubstantiation He willed to offer sacrifice, He willed to offer the transubstantiation, but to make a transubstantiation whence He Himself would issue as God’s Victim or Theothyte.

“This being His will, the mere indication of His Body and Blood would not suffice for His purpose in the line of sacramental form: for it would not express this purpose, as we have said above; it was necessary that a further determination should be added to this demonstration of the Body and Blood, by which it would be plain that what was done was sacrificial, immolative. And for this it would be sufficient if the work done were plainly designated as propitiatory.

“That is to say, it would suffice if it were plainly indicated that for us the Blood was asked from the Body, and that the death so brought about availed for us before God unto the remission of sins, whether this be expressed as in the formula of our Missal (qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum), or by any other equivalent formula, as already explained by us in III (Vol. I)…

“Amicus, S.J., is even more clear and explicit (De Sacram., disp. 24, n. 46): You will urge: at least the words for you, for many are not necessary, seeing that the sacrificial character is sufficiently declared by the words shall be shed. But we deny the consequence. For unless the end to which the blood-shedding is directed be expressed, THE SACRIFICIAL CHARACTER IS NOT EXPRESSED, SINCE THE BLOOD COULD BE SHED, AND STILL NOT BE SHED BY WAY OF SACRIFICE: IF, FOR EXAMPLE, IT WERE SHED NOT AS AN ACT OF WORSHIP ON THE PART OF ANYONE NOR FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY ONE” (Emphasis in the original).

As was pointed out by one of my readers, Aquinas believes "This is My Body" alone expresses a sacrificial character:

Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 78, Article 3, Reply to Objection 2:

As was said above (ad 1; 76, 2, ad 1), the blood consecrated apart expressly represents Christ's Passion, and therefore mention is made of the fruits of the Passion in the consecration of the blood rather than in that of the body, since the body is the subject of the Passion. This is also pointed out in our Lord's saying, "which shall be delivered up for you," as if to say, "which shall undergo the Passion for you."

Hence, the sacrificial nature was expressed twice. Yet the Church demands that the ENTIRE form be recited, because the Church did not settle the question. Theologian de la Taille, approvingly quoting another eminent theologian (Amicus), does not agree that "shall be shed" suffices--as seen above. 

Objection #2: But if it is morally certain that the "short form" suffices, isn't that proof the "long form" is not needed, just "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood...which shall be shed"?

Reply: No. It was the teaching of many theologians that the short form would suffice, but IN PRACTICE the long form must be used BECAUSE THE CHURCH HERSELF HAS NOT DECLARED IT SUFFICIENT AND DEMANDS RECITATION OF THE ENTIRE FORM. When something is declared morally certain by the Church you may do so. The controversy over the handing over the instruments of Sacrifice for Holy Orders is a good example. Most theologians declared it morally certain that it was not necessary, citing to the Eastern Rites that did not do it, but had valid orders. Nevertheless, the Church had not decided, and if there was a defect in the traditio instrumentorum, it had to be conditionally repeated, and the priest could not function until it was corrected. 

It wasn't until 1947 when Pope Pius XII settled the issue in Sacramentum Ordinis. Although the pontiff agreed that the Eastern Rites were valid without the traditio instrumentorum, it may have been necessary to validity by ecclesiastical precept in the Latin Rite. "If it was at one time necessary even for validity by the will and command of the Church, every one knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established...It follows as a consequence that We should declare, and in order to remove all controversy and to preclude doubts of conscience, We do by Our Apostolic Authority declare, and if there was ever a lawful disposition to the contrary We now decree that at least in the future the traditio instrumentorum is not necessary for the validity of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy." (para. # 3 & 4). 

Until the Church authoritatively settles what exact words are necessary, we must keep Her command to repeat the ENTIRE FORM, for She has declared it so by Pope St Pius V and Pope Benedict XIV. 

Objection #3: If a sacrament needs to be repeated even one has moral certainty regarding its validity that would put sedevacantists in a precarious position regarding the sacrament of confession. Overlooking the fact that supplied jurisdiction only applies when common error prevails, and since the majority of sedevacantists explicitly deny there are bishops with ordinary jurisdiction (or have doubtful jurisdiction), then supplied jurisdiction doesn’t apply.

Reply: I addressed jurisdiction here: http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-church-can-supply-jurisdiction-but.html. His objection fails because the Church has not decided the issue and the Church requires the long form. We have moral certainty for Penance. The analogy is therefore inapposite and fails.  The problem with this Vatican II sect apologist is that he wants to decide the issue with his (non-existent) Magisterial authority.

(I asked the V2 apologist if he accepted Wojtyla's Mass without the Words of Consecration. The following Objection summarizes what he claims). 

Objection #4:  "Do you not accept the decision ratified by John Paul the Great Apostate that NO WORDS OF CONSECRATION ARE NECESSARY?" Have you ever examined the anaphora of St. Sixtus II? What is required is that a substantial change occurs. This may be indicated in various ways. Likewise, the sacrificial nature of the mass may be indicated in various ways also.

Reply: Yes I have. The anaphora of "St. Xystus" is from the Schismatic EO and has never been declared  valid. Uniates (Eastern Rites in union with Rome) were required to ADD THE WORDS OF CONSECRATION to many of their anaphoras before Vatican II. Proof: On May 23, 1957, The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office declared invalid the concelebration of the Mass by priests who, whatever their intention may be and even wearing all the Sacred Vestments fail to pronounce the Words of Consecration. (See Acta Apostolicae Sedis 49, [1957], pg. 370).

In this post I have demonstrated that the Church cannot change the substance of the Sacraments. Yet we have a service which they approved --an Eastern Schismatic/heretical  Nestorian service that contains NO WORDS OF CONSECRATION. 

Ad arguendo,  let's assume Wojtyla was a true pope (John Paul II). The fact that he has dispensed with the Words of Consecration, the Form of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, we would have to conclude one of two things:
  • Christ's words at the Last Supper pertain to the substance of the sacrament AND the Church can change the substance of the Sacraments--OR---
  • Christ's words at the Last Supper do NOT pertain to the substance of the sacrament
Either conclusion is: (a) against ALL Catholic teaching and practice on the subject, and (b) goes against the unanimous teaching of the approved theologians, canonists, and Doctors of the Church. 

Like so many other members of the Vatican II sect, my interlocutor makes bold statements that can't be backed up. He states: "What is required is that a substantial change occurs. This may be indicated in various ways. Likewise, the sacrificial nature of the mass may be indicated in various ways also."

Says who? By who, I mean what pope has declared that a service devoid of the words "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood" (let alone the Long Form!) can confect the Sacrament? Certainly no valid pope pre-Vatican II. Not the Holy Office or any other Roman Congregation. No Doctor of the Church, approved theologian or canonist HAD EVER TAUGHT THOSE WORDS COULD BE ABSENT AND NOT SPOKEN "IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST" (in persona Christi).

The fact my interlocutor does not want to face is that Vatican II started a new sect with a false pope.
Wojtyla was one of them. I pray to God he may wake up and convert to the One True Church of Christ.

93 comments:

  1. What's your take on Leon Degrelle of Belgium?
    He'd go onto live in Catholic Spain from 1945 until his death in the 1980's.
    God bless -Andrew

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andrew,
      He helped the Nazis against his own people, and was excommunicated. The excommunication was lifted on a technicality and he was supported by German bishops whose faith was more than questionable. Degrelle is no one I will ever hold in esteem.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. I respect your opinion.
      He tried to help free Catholics living in Eastern Europe from the communist USSR.
      God bless -Andrew

      Delete
    3. Example: freeing a group of men from murder and pushing another group to murder does not make you a hero.

      He was a Nazi collaborator and a Holocaust denier, which is enough.

      To the end of his life, he never gave up his Nazi ideology, and continued praising Hitler.

      How is any Nazi a hero? It doesn't matter if he viewed Nazism compatible with Catholicism or something. Catholicism is opposed to Nazism. As if there were no papal condemnations of Nazism like Pope Pius XI's "Mit brennender Sorge".

      Delete
    4. Disagree on many of your points but freedom of speech is not allowed in 2021 nor do we want this blog banned.
      God bless -Andrew

      Delete
    5. What do you disagree on, exactly? Do you truly believe in Nazism and in Hitler???

      I'm not sure how this is related, but do you believe in absolute freedom of speech?

      Delete
    6. No I don't but it's contradictory to allow free speech to one side and not the other.
      God bless -Andrew

      Delete
    7. Good heavens! No, your reply is erroneous and unCatholic. Why do you think the popes and saints were in favor of burning heretics and their books?

      See Introibo's article, "Inquisition Apologetics"
      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2020/09/inquisition-apologetics.html

      It is definitely NOT tolerable to allow any pro-Nazi and pro-Hitler here!

      You didn't answer the first question:
      Are you pro-Hitler and pro-Nazism? Like Degrelle who, to the end of his life, said the only thing he regretted about World War II was that [Nazi] Germany had lost?

      It's obvious why his excommunication was lifted by the German bishops. But what's obvious as well was why he was excommunicated in the first place. What was it?

      Delete
    8. I did answer it.
      God bless -Andrew

      Delete
    9. Which is, yes, you do support Hitler and Nazism?

      Delete
    10. Stop being presumptuous.
      God bless -Andrew

      Delete
    11. So, no? You never said "yes" or no", sorry

      Delete
    12. Why are you concerned with my opinion especially given I've answered your question?
      This is interesting...
      God bless -Andrew

      Delete
    13. I don't know your answer. Please just say yes or no.

      Delete
  2. I have two Latin-French missals published before the advent of the V2 sect. That of dom Gaspar Lefebvre belonged to my mother and was published in the 1950s and I found the second missal at my former place of volunteering. This missal was published under Pope Saint Pius X. In both cases, the words "pro multis" have been translated into "the multitude", "the multitude of men". I have searched several dictionaries and the word "multitude" can mean "a large number of" or "the crowd". I think the first sense is correct.

    I don't read theology books but I do learn a lot from my visits to this blog and others like NovusOrdoWatch. I also read the Ottaviani intervention which explains the differences between the Novus Bogus and the true Mass. If all Catholics knew this, the churches would be empty since the beginning of sect V2 but even the elect are deceived in this period of apostasy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simon,
      Yes, if only people knew the Faith and the Mass. These are perilous times in which we live.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  3. The fact is Fr. Gomar was not a Sedevacantist. He died in communion with Rome. He was R&R. That is the real story of him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon6:07
      No, the fact is he didn't want to accept what was happening, but was a convinced sede since at least 1999. He did not use Wojtyla's name in the Canon and referred to him as either "John Paul" or "the man in white at the Vatican"--never with the title "pope." Was he ever excommunicated? No. Did he follow V2, or any of their "bishops"? No. This was done on purpose to get people away from the Vatican II sect. Whether or not anyone agrees with his methods or not, is another story.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. So Gomar was a secret sede pretending to be R & R. He did such a good job that he is still acknowledged and praised by the Novus Ordo to the present day.

      Delete
    3. Any valid Priest or Bishop who died before 2008/2009 gets a pass because they didn't live to see how utterly desolate our World + Church would come to exist.
      This includes Bp.Lefebvre.
      God bless -Andrew

      Delete
    4. @anon3:32
      You mean FR. DEPAUW--if you're going to insult a true priest of Christ who was chosen to keep the Faith alive by God, at least spell his name correctly--GOMMAR.

      He is "praised by the Novus Ordo to the present day," really? You mean by Rockville Centre "Bishops" John McGann and William Murphy who referred to him as "schismatic," disobedient" and even "heretical" ? The only time they EVER used that last word was in reference to him!! Please cite how he is praised by current "bishop" John Barres, who ignores Fr. Evangelista (Fr's successor). How about Bergoglio? Praise for him too?

      Should you be referring to the "Apostolic Blessing" on his 50th ordination anniversary from JP II, that came from the Vatican at the request of one of the Chapel members who wrote away for it! As a joke, this same person asked for such a citation for an ANGLICAN "priest"! It was granted, and his family friend laughed how it congratulated him for 50 years in the CATHOLIC priesthood!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    5. Andrew,
      That's a kind way to look at it. In the case of Fr DePauw, there wouldn't be any Traditionalist Churches as there are today if he wasn't THE FIRST along with Bishop KURZ to denounce Vatican II. Fr. DePauw came against the Robber Council while it was still going on--December 31, 1964--just 40 days after the creation of the V2 sect!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. I'm aware of his background + history.
      Complete respect & admiration for the late Fr.DePauw.
      Requiescat in Pace Fr.Gommar DePauw.
      God bless -A

      Delete
  4. I have a question about the liturgy. Peter F. Anson in "Churches: Their Plan and Furnishing" writes that "It is worth mentioning that altars facing the people are provided for by the rubrics of the Roman Missal. Most authorities maintairi that for this reason they are permitted, despite the fact that some bishops, eg, in Germany, have prohibited them in recent years. A test case would be interesting! " (page 85). Is it true? Could a real pope allow this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I took a quick look at Mr. Anson's book (available for free at this link: https://archive.org/details/churchestheirpla010156mbp/page/n95/mode/2up) and it seems to me that he tried to distort the Church's norms regarding the placement of altars to make a case for the modernist-hijacked New Liturgical Movement (Mr. Anson's book came out in 1948; Pope Pius XII had already condemned some erroneous propositions of this liturgical movement in 1947 in "Mediator Dei").
      The footnote you quoted (#23) refers to the following paragraph on p. 76:
      "As the bishop, vested in cope and mitre, and carrying a thurible, is ordered to go ROUND (emphasis in the original text) the altar seven times during the consecration ceremonies, it is important that a fixed altar, or at least the high altar, should stand free of the wall (reference to footnote #22). A space of AT LEAST (emphasis in original) 2 ft. 6 in. should be allowed. This is the only rubric that mentions the position of the altar, otherwise an architect can place the altar when he thinks best (reference to footnote #23). Side altars may stand against a wall if there should not be sufficient room to allow them to stand free. This usage, as some authorities point out, is one of those which in certain places possibly have become customs with the force of law."

      What do you think of it, Introibo?

      God Bless,
      Joanna S.

      Delete
    2. Joanna,
      I agree with your assessment. Anson seems to be distorting norms for the Modernist cause.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  5. If priests didn't give sermons on the truths of the Faith then what did they talk about?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon12:45
      My parents were in their 30s during most of the 1950s, and told me how most sermons were about "being nicer," re-reading the Gospel to show how Jesus "did the right thing" and so should we all, and donate more money. My father said that he never heard a priest talk about theology until Fr. DePauw, and never really understood the Mass until he explained it in many of his excellent sermons on the various parts of the Mass.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. The movie "Unbroken" shows a Catholic Church in the 1930's.
      The sermon featured a Priest saying
      "Love your neighbor!"
      It's a good msg but it's right on par with what you're saying about lukewarm sermons pre-1965.
      God bless -Andrew

      Delete
  6. I find it strange that if the sacrificial nature of the mass needs to be indicated by the consecratory prayer, then why does the Council of Trent define that the phrase "This is my Body" suffices for a valid consecration, without the additional, “which is given up for you.” In addition, if the sacrificial nature of the mass needs to be indicated, then only the phrase “which is shed for you” would suffice to indicate as much.

    Although the Catechism of Trent provides the longer version of the institution as the form of the Eucharist, it clearly distinguishes between the words which signify the change in substance and the fruits which pertain to the Sacrament. The Catechism states:

    Concerning this form no one can doubt, if he here also attend to what has been already said about the form used in the consecration of the bread. The form to be used (in the consecration) of this element, evidently consists of those words which signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the blood of our Lord. Since, therefore, the words already cited clearly declare this, it is plain that no other words constitute the form.
    They moreover express certain admirable fruits of the blood shed in the Passion of our Lord, fruits which pertain in a most special manner to this Sacrament. Of these, one is access to the eternal inheritance, which has come to us by right of the new and everlasting testament. Another is access to righteousness by the mystery of faith; for God hath set forth Jesus to be a propitiator through faith in his blood, that he himself may be just, and the justifier of him, who is of the faith of Jesus. Christ. A third effect is the remission of sins.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon9:28
      Many theologians agree with that idea. However, a significant minority do not. In practice, the Church acknowledges She has not settled the matter, because if part of the Words of Consecration over either host or wine are omitted the rubrics REQUIRE the priest to recite the ENTIRE CONSECRATION FORMULA (over bread and/or wine). The only exception is if the word "ENIM" is omitted, which does not affect validity.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Even under the assumption that the sacrificial nature of the mass needs to be indicated in the form, you wouldn't need the entire formula. All you would need is the phrase "which is shed for you", without the additional "and for many" or "mysterium fidei".

      Delete
    3. Introibo Ad Altare DeiMarch 23, 2021 at 12:31 PM

      @anon11:07
      Only the Church can make that decision. Not you. Not me. Additionally, the Catechism of the Council of Trent makes it clear that “for you” referred to the faithful Apostles present, and “for many” are the rest of the elect.

      De Defectibus of Pope St Pius V (in all altar missals) directs the priest to recite the ENTIRE FORM; not just up to a certain point.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. That's an embarrassing argument, since the consecratory prayer for the bread is also directed towards the apostles: "This is my body given for you."

      Since the apostles are no longer alive, the context would change the meaning of the words to those present at the mass.

      The reason given for the necessity for the longer formula was that the sacrificial nature of the mass needs to be indicated in the form. In the New Mass, the phrase "This is my body which is given for you" would be sufficient to indicate the sacrificial nature of the mass. Likewise,
      the two distinct phrases "for you" and "for all" would also indicate it as well; although the latter would confuse the application of the fruits of mass with the atonement, which is indeed done for all. The translation was indeed erroneous, but not such that would invalidate the form. And the Church has indeed implicitly affirmed this. You just reject the true Church.




      Delete
    5. @anon1:16
      Ah! A member of the Vatican II sect! It is you and not I who rejects the Church. The Church has never decided what words are essential. From an approved theologian, Cappello:
      The form for the consecration of the wine is this: Hic est enim calix Sanguinis Mei, novi et aeterni testamenti, mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. The words: Hic est (enim) calix Sanguinis Mei, are certainly essential.

      “Certain authors agree that the other words: novi et aeterni testamenti,etc., also pertain to the essential form. St. Thomas himself seems to follow this opinion, although some theologians and other authors think that the Angelic Doctor felt quite otherwise. Whatever is thought of the opinion of the Sacred Doctor and of other theologians, the opposite view is the common opinion and is thus morally certain. In practice, he would certainly sin gravely who would omit these words, and if he had said the first words only, he ought to repeat the entire form conditionally.”--See De Sacramentis (1932).

      The Church has never decided, and in the administration of a sacrament if ANYTHING would make it dubious the doubt must be removed. This is done by repeating the ENTIRE consecration formula.

      I have sufficiently dealt with "all" vs. "many" above. Yet, why should you care? Maybe the words are present in a dispersed euchological way! Rejecting the True Church? Bergoglio says "proselytism is solemn nonsense" so don't worry be happy!

      The only way to offer a true defeater is if the Church defined the issue. She has not. I'll take the opinions of approved theologians like the great Cappello, professor of the Gregorian Pontifical Institute, over yours any day.

      I'll be praying for your conversion.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. Introibo,
      But what is meant by "the opposite view is the common opinion and is thus morally certain" from the citation above? Doesn't that mean that we can be morally certain that omitting longer formula, while certainly a sin, wouldn't invalidate the Mass?
      SAP

      Delete
    7. anoniman,
      No. If it were a settled matter, then these theologians would not require the words of consecration to be repeated, for the Sacrament would have already been confected. Cappello does indeed think it is morally certain, yet since the Church has never settled the issue, the safest course MUST be followed to escape any possibility of invalidity.

      Until the form is definitively settled (as was the case of Holy Orders by Pope Pius XII in 1947 "Sacramentum Ordinis"), we must follow what popes and the approved canonists/theologians have taught--repeat the ENTIRE FORM or risk invalidity.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    8. Given that the phrase "mysterium fidei" is an eleventh century Latin innovation (not contained in any of the eastern liturgies) De Defectibus can't be defining the essential form of the sacrament, but only the rite pertaining to the latin west. otherwise, the eastern churches would be offering invalid sacraments. this is analogous to the decree to the Armenians regarding the matter of holy orders.

      Delete
    9. @anon6:10
      It might very well be that "mysterium fidei" is not essential. The rest may be. However, that is for the Church to decide and She has not done so. I never stated De Defectibus was defining the form. Quite the opposite. It is precisely since the form was not defined, the whole integral form must be repeated. Otherwise, the theologians and popes would not command the ENTIRE form to be repeated, but would specify the precise words.

      Otherwise, you end up like the Vatican II sect, declaring a "mass" as valid with no Words of Consecration because as long as you say "Body and Blood of Christ" at some point prior to communion, it supposedly suffices for validity. Insanity.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    10. Trent defined that the form for the consecration of the bread was “This is My body,” without the additional phrase “which is given for you.” Although it left untouched the essential form for the consecration of the wine, the catechism of Trent clearly distinguishes between the form and the fruits of the sacrament, implying the additional words pertain to the latter.

      The reason you gave for the necessity of the additional phrase is because according to some theologians the form must indicate the sacrificial nature of the Mass. I already argued that the additional phrase “which is given for you” after “This is My Body,” and “which is shed for you” after “This is My Blood,” would indicate as much.

      Since the New Mass contains both, you have to appeal to some other argument for the necessity of the longer formula. You simply resort to the claim that a doubtful sacrament must be repeated. Yet you admit that it is not in fact doubtful, since you concede that we have moral certainty regarding its validity.

      If a sacrament needs to be repeated even one has moral certainty regarding its validity that would put sedevacantists in a precarious position regarding the sacrament of confession. Overlooking the fact that supplied jurisdiction only applies when common error prevails, and since the majority of sedevacantists explicitly deny there are bishops with ordinary jurisdiction (or have doubtful jurisdiction), then supplied jurisdiction doesn’t apply. And if supplied jurisdiction doesn’t apply, then sedevacantists don’t have the sacrament of confession. And if sedevacantists don’t have confession, they don’t possess the means of sanctification, and hence undermining the indefectibility of the Church.

      Delete
    11. @anon9:28

      St. Thomas Aquinas answers why "This is My Body" suffices for the sacrificial nature of the Consecration in Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 78, Article 3, Reply to Objection 2:

      As was said above (ad 1; 76, 2, ad 1), the blood consecrated apart expressly represents Christ's Passion, and therefore mention is made of the fruits of the Passion in the consecration of the blood rather than in that of the body, since the body is the subject of the Passion. This is also pointed out in our Lord's saying, "which shall be delivered up for you," as if to say, "which shall undergo the Passion for you."

      Delete
    12. @anon8:37
      I've dealt with jurisdiction here:
      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-church-can-supply-jurisdiction-but.html.

      From St. Alphonsus Liguori in his Book "The Holy Eucharist:"

      The words Pro vobis et pro multis (“For you and for many”) are used to distinguish the virtue of the Blood of Christ from its fruits; for the Blood of our Savior is of sufficient value to save all men, but its fruits are applicable only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault. Or, as the theologians say, this Precious Blood is (in itself) sufficiently (sufficienter) able to save all men, but (on our part) effectually(efficaciter) it does not save all — it saves only those who cooperate with grace. This is the explanation of St. Thomas, as quoted by Benedict XIV.

      In the footnote:
      De Miss. Sacr. 1.2, c. 15. — Benedict XIV here observes that St. Thomas (P. 3, q. 18, a. 3) seems to favor the opinion of those who make the essential form of the consecration of the chalice consist in all the words that the priest pronounces as far as Haec quotiescumque; because the words that follow, Hic est enim calix Sanguinis Mei, are determinationes praedicati, (determinations of the predicate) that is to say, Sanguinis Christi (the Blood of Christ), and consequently, belonging ad integritatem ejusdem locutionis (to the integrity of the same words), are de substantia formae (of the substance of the form). St. Pius V caused the contrary opinion to be erased from the commentary of Cajetan.

      Now, why as a member of the Vatican II sect do words Matter? Do you not accept the decision ratified by John Paul the Great Apostate that NO WORDS OF CONSECRATION ARE NECESSARY? So you have to explain to me why any of this matters as long as "Body and Blood of Christ" are somewhere mentioned prior to communion overthrowing sacramental theology since the foundation of the Church.

      Do you also believe that "proselytism is solemn nonsense"? Atheists can go to Heaven? Why worry about sin and confession? Negative theology!!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    13. "AnonymousMarch 23, 2021 at 10:10 PM"

      The quote by St. Thomas reaffirms my position that the Novus Ordo signifies the passion in the consecratory prayer of the bread, "which is given for you." Likewise, it is indicated by the short phrase "which is shed for you." The sacrificial nature is also indicated in the phrase "shed for you." The fruits are being applied to those receiving the sacrament. The translation issue between "for many" and "for all" doesn't negate that.

      Delete
    14. "St. Pius V caused the contrary opinion to be erased from the commentary of Cajetan."

      The theory that Pius V redacted Cajetan's works is usually in reference to his teaching on Limbo. In any event, Pius V didn’t order the redaction of Cajetan’s teaching on the possibility of salvation for unbaptized infants. It was removed by the editor. (cf. George J. Dyer, “Limbo: Unsettled Question,” p. 145).


      "Do you not accept the decision ratified by John Paul the Great Apostate that NO WORDS OF CONSECRATION ARE NECESSARY?"

      Have you ever examined the anaphora of St. Sixtus II?

      What is required is that a substantial change occurs. This may be indicated in various ways. Likewise, the sacrificial nature of the mass may be indicated in various ways also.


      Delete
    15. Your article doesn't address my argument regarding if your premise that a doubtful sacrament needs to be repeated. You can't even claim moral certainty regarding whether you bishops have jurisdiction, so if your claim is true, then you're going to have to repeat all of your invalid confessions.

      Delete
    16. "AnonymousMarch 24, 2021 at 7:48 AM"

      Read this part:

      therefore mention is made of the fruits of the Passion in the consecration of the blood rather than in that of the body

      Notice he is explaining why the consecration of the bread does not include "which will be given up for you" (which was removed by the Catholic Church, at least in the Roman Rite) and explains what you complained of in your first sentence above.

      Which was: "I find it strange that if the sacrificial nature of the mass needs to be indicated by the consecratory prayer, then why does the Council of Trent define that the phrase "This is my Body" suffices for a valid consecration, without the additional, “which is given up for you.”"

      So St. Thomas Aquinas answered what you found strange. I was referring to that topic.

      Delete
    17. I don't think I was complaining, rather I was making a counter argument. If the bread can be transubtantiated without sacrificial terminology, then so can the blood.

      Indeed the sacrificial character and the fruits of the mass are indicated by "shed for you" just as much as "given for you". Both of which are contained in the Novus Ordo.



      Delete
    18. @anon7:56
      Please read my ADDENDUM to my post above.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    19. Introibo,
      Interesting, but Capello's choice of words seems a bit unclear. You are right, he says that entire form should be conditionally repeated, but moral certitude is, if I am not mistaken, by definition certitude beyond reasonable doubt. He calls it morally certain common opinion, which seems to suggest that Church understands it as morally certain (it wouldn't make sense to say "it is my opinion, therefore it is morally certain" - moral certainty proceeds from the Church).
      Anyways, sorry if I seem to be nitpicking, it just seemed to me that choice of words is unfortunate...
      SAP

      Delete
    20. Concerning the last paragraph by theologian de la Taille, the Novus Ordo does signify that it is shed for others when it says “which is shed for YOU… for the remission of sins”. So the “for many” wouldn’t even be requisite under the conditions you laid out. The sacrificial nature is also indicated in the consecratory prayer for the bread, “which is given for YOU.” So even if the New Rite didn’t contain the additional phrase after “This is the Chalice of My Blood,” the sacrificial nature would still be indicated in the consecratory prayer of the bread.


      “ We have moral certainty for Penance. The analogy is therefore inapposite and fails.”

      How do you have moral certainty regarding the sacraments when you explicitly deny that your bishops have ordinary jurisdiction, or doubtful jurisdiction at best? Common error only applies when you have reason to believe they have ordinary jurisdiction.



      Delete
    21. @anon6:13
      Guy, I'm trying to be more charitable and less of a hothead this Lent--I don't want you to ruin it for me. I have adequately shown that ONLY THE CHURCH CAN DECIDE WHAT WORDS ARE NECESSARY (and you don't even get de la Taille). "Many" may be necessary and "all" changes the meaning substantially.

      You believe that a "mass" can have NO WORDS OF CONSECRATION and still be valid. And I'm supposed to discuss jurisdiction with you? Please.

      I'll give you a Vatican II sect answer: We don't need jurisdiction. In his 1977 book, written by him in Italian, Segno di Contraddizione,("Sign of Contradiction") "Cardinal" Wojtyla states, "Tutti gli uomini, fin dall'inizio del mondo e fino alla sua fine, sono stat redenti e giustificati da Cristo e dalla sua Croce." Translation: "All men, from the beginning of the world and until its end, have been redeemed AND JUSTIFIED by Christ and his Cross." (pg. 90) If we are justified we are in the state of sanctifying grace, and thereby saved if we die in that state. "All men" means "all humans" whether or not baptized and whether or not they are even in good faith.

      Moreover, as "pope" taught in Redemptor Hominis (1979), para. #13: Christ the Lord indicated this way especially, when, as the Council teaches, "by his Incarnation, he, the Son of God, in a certain way united himself with each man". Continuing in the same encyclical, Wojtyla writes, Accordingly, what is in question here is man in all his truth, in his full magnitude. We are not dealing with the "abstract" man, but the real, "concrete", "historical" man. We are dealing with "each" man, for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united himself forever through this mystery."

      Therefore if we are justified and united to Christ forever by virtue of the Incarnation, separation from God by sin and Hell is impossible! So Penance is superfluous and jurisdiction unnecessary! And not just for us BUT FOR ALL!

      Take care,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  7. Sometimes I wish Father DePauw had stayed in Belgium instead of moving to the United States. He could have done a lot of good there! Unfortunately, Belgium is now one of the most godless countries in the world. Do you know the story of King Baudouin, ruler of Belgium from 1951 to 1993? As a devout Catholic, he refused to ratify the abortion law in 1990(which would make killing unborn children legal in Belgium), as a result of which the government removed him from office for a few days. A true hero, just like that other Belgian: Father Damien, the apostle of the lepers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon3:11
      Yes, two excellent Catholics from Belgium, and he knew King Baudouin quite well! I am, however, glad he came to the United States, or I would never have met him, and who knows what would have become of me!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Didn't King Baudouin call King Leopold II a genius?

      Delete
    3. Introibo Ad Altare DeiMarch 23, 2021 at 2:50 PM

      @anon8:13
      I honestly don’t know. If any of my readers know and have a citation, I’ll be happy to publish it.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. @ Introibo
      He said this during his speech at the independence ceremony for the Congo. Baudouin was full of praise for the fact that Leopold II had helped to bring Western civilization to Africa: schools, hospitals, Christianity. This was in 1960 and would indeed sound weird and even inappropriate today. We now know more about Leopold II and the horrors he committed during his reign over the Congo Free State (An independent nation and not a colony of Belgium). Leopold II, unlike Baudouin, was not a devout man and among other things a notorious adulterer. The current king of Belgium, Filip, apologized for the atrocities of his ancestor a year ago.

      Delete
    5. The genocide and barbarity of Africa post 1960 is just as bad if not worse than King Leopold II.
      God bless -Andrew

      Delete
    6. @anon3:55
      If you have a link or source to look that up it would be helpful to see the context. Remember, too, I never claimed he was a saint, and if 100% accurate, he did something wrong. That being said, he stands head and shoulders above moral degenerates like the Windsor family of England. He tried hard to be a devout Traditionalist Catholic.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    7. Introibo, are you referring to the current Windsor family?

      Delete
    8. @Introibo
      Leopold II most likely had an extramarital affair with the famous dancer Cleo de Merode. What is certain is that he fathered several bastard children with a prostitute. According to some historians, there are also indications that he was a pedophile. The brother of king Baudouin, the later king Albert II, also had an extramarital relationship with lady de Seyls-Longchamps for many years. They have a daughter together: Delphine. For years Albert II and Paola also lived separately and neglected their children, including the current King. It was King Baudouin who took care of the children and put pressure on his brother to end this affaire. Belgium has only had 2 excellent kings: Albert I (1909 -1934) and Baudouin (1951 - 1993). Both very devout Catholics: not just on paper, but also in their words and actions. The Windsors have lost much of their prestige. When Queen Elisabeth II is gone, they will lose all their credibility. As a Catholic, I naturally prefer the monarchy over the republic.

      Delete
    9. @anon10:15
      Yes.

      @anon12:57
      Thank you for the information!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    10. Introibo, is this about the recent racism issue about them? Or something else? I'm also aware of the queen's public stance about homosexuals.

      Do you support UK, Canada, Australia, etc. ridding their monarchy and becoming republics?

      Delete
    11. @anon5:12
      It's about them being moral degenerates. They serve no purpose, having no political power.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    12. @Introibo
      Most modern monarchies are constitutional and don't have any political power.The only countries with an absolute monarchy I can think of are Vatican City and Saudi Arabia.

      The French Revolution and World War 1 already swept away most of the old political and social order by 1918. From the 1960s on morals and religion would disappear as well.

      The monarchies that survived World War 1 fell victim to te revolutions of the 1960s. Most monarches and people of nobility were just hit as badly by those ideas as common people in the street. We can see this quite clear in England.

      Delete
    13. @anon3:23
      Just a reminder that constitutional =/= completely ceremonial.
      Before WW1, monarchs had great power despite being constitutional.

      Today, monarchs are to be silent for every political issue except when they're needed to promote acceptance of homosexuality, etc. as if to demoralize those against the modern world.

      @Introibo,
      What exactly did they do that they're moral degenerates? I'm just curious since I don't know much about them.

      I understand about them not holding any political power, but I think we need to understand this is also the norm in republics in Europe. Most presidents in Europe also don't have political power unlike in the USA. Which is used as an argument for unifying the nation, since the head of state is supported by an overwhelming majority. (Trump was voted by 46.1% percent in 2016, Biden 51.3% in 2020, at least officially, while 82% of Japanese support their unelected emperor, and 74% of the British support their unelected queen)

      Delete
  8. Another great article introibo. Do you know if Eastern Rite clergy are still valid? I have heard they have "updated" their rites. But I can never pin any of them done on the rubrics for their ordination.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Introibo Ad Altare DeiMarch 23, 2021 at 12:35 PM

      John,
      In 1990, all Eastern Rites had their Canon Law and sacraments altered to be more in line with Vatican II. In my opinion, that alone is enough reason for doubt. I have not done an examination of their rites and subsequent changes.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. I have tried to find those revisions to Eastern Rites. To date I have not seen or read anything that would out their validity in question. But there is not much discussion about their changes. I would hope they didnt invalidate their sacraments like the NO sect.

      Delete
    3. Introibo, are consecrations in the Eastern rite that do not contain "mysterium fidei" doubtful? I thought that was only in the Roman Rite.

      Delete
    4. For years I've tried to look up the 1990 Eastern Rite revisions online ➕ it doesn't have a proper e-citation.
      I will look for an updated used book online.
      All I can find are random copies of official proclamations online saying their codes were "updated" circa 1990.
      God bless -Andrew

      Delete
  9. Another excellent article, as always. On the topic of the Eastern Rites, I have recently been talking with a NO Jesuit (at the request of my mother who wished to see if he would hold the same position as me (which she claims was extremist) in regards to a hypothetical situation that we had argued over). He's studying at Rome, I believe, and so I agreed to discuss the above-mentioned topic with him out of curiosity to how he would respond to my propositions (and to show my mother, hopefully, that I'm not brainwashed :/).* At some point, we switched topics to the Eastern Rites and I'll quote his claim that started the separate thread:
    "Finally, remember the diversity of the Catholic Church.
    - In the Universal church in communion with the Bishop of Rome, we have 24 Churches (23 of which do not support their theology on Augustine, St. Thomas or Medieval Scholastic thought) with beliefs quite different from the Latin Church (filioque, sacraments, redemption, reason for Incarnation, Mary, just mention a few) and for whom only the first seven councils along with CVII are valid, since the rest were mainly for internal Latin Church matters.
    - In the Latin Church, we have the non-Roman rites (Ambrosian in Italy, Lyonese in France, Mozzarabic in Spain) which liturgy reflect diverse theological thought from that of the Latin Church.
    - In the Roman Rite, we do have the liturgy of St. Pius V (Usus Antiquior, Extraordinary rite), yet most believers who worship under this rite today are not sedevacantist and accept CVII. Then, yes, we have the liturgy of St. Paul VI (Novus ordo, Ordinary rite), which have been much abused, despite the teachings of the Council, and not because of it.
    - Breaking with Trent, we had the Chinese rites in China (until the Dominicans and the Franciscans opposed the Jesuits), but we have the Zaire rite today (although approved only in 1985, it was based on approved pre-1958 rites approve in Africa)."

    CVII refers to Vatican II (Segundo Concilio Vaticano). I'm hardly versed on other Rites, but I mainly just challenged him on the idea that they don't accept the other Councils as valid on the grounds that it would violate the mark of Unity. Of course he never explained what he means by "valid" so perhaps he'll go into semantics.

    * In regards to the quality of the discussion, I was surprised that most of what he said (on the topic of sin and culpability) was surprisingly (*initially*) orthodox, however errors started emerging as he introduced ambiguities and baseless assertions in defense of Vatican II (though I had not mentioned it explicitly, we had talked some years ago and he knew more or less where I stood so he was, I suppose, trying to push toward that discussion). Among his claims that he did not provide evidence (be it from theologians, Scripture, etc.), he claimed that Trent was discontinuous in thought from Patristic thought and Vatican II was discontinuous with Trent, going back to Patristic thought.

    If anyone could offer some information/insight as to what is (actually) required of the Eastern Rites (in regards to what they believe) and where this "priest" errs, I'd greatly appreciate it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I just found a continuation of this discussion for further context (this is the “priest” continuing in response to my first objection on the mark of Unity):
    “The Church has always been diverse, while holding common the essential of the faith. The essentials were mainly what was defined/condemned at councils. Yet, the Church as also recognized local councils and universal councils. Due to the Schism (which began much earlier) from the Eight council (4th Constantinople) until Trent, we could say they were local councils of the Latin Church. Excluding your mother Church, the Maronites, the Eastern Churches did not enter in communion with Rome until after Trent. They entered in communion keeping their theology and way of proceeding. Theologically speaking, the exceptions were the Chaldean Catholics, and the 6 Catholic church form the Oriental orthodox tradition, which had to accept Ephesus and Chalcedon and the first seven councils, which were essential to the faith.” The beginning of this message (response from the "priest") which mentions “differences in theology” can be read in my next post, if curious*
    So in regards to this, I don’t see how [what apparently Latin Catholics refer to as] Ecumenical Councils can be regarded as local councils. Aren’t there infallible aspects to them, which demand assent (from Divine Faith). For instance, the quote mentioned earlier in the article from Pastor Aeternus? If this is the case, I don’t see any context in which one can regard said councils as anything other than “valid” nor withhold assent.

    ReplyDelete
  11. (3rd Post in regards to my question on Eastern Rites, continuing from second post)

    *"Some basic ecclesiology in the spirit of the Fathers of the Church. There is one Church founded by Christ. This Church stands on three legs: One faith (in Christ), One adoration (the Eucharist) and One leadership (Apostolic). Yet, whenever the Church expanded, at each place, it developed different liturgies, spiritualities, canon laws (using today's language), and, yes, even theologies. They were united in the essential, and diverse in the rest. When the theological differences became significative, councils were called (locally and universally) to clarify. This is how dogmas were defined, mainly against heresies. Yet, only those ideas brought to councils were defined as dogmas (afterwards, also the Pope). If not defined in a council or condemned, there were not considered central to the faith and churches continued to believe different thinks and worship differently. This is the first 1,000 years of the Church. Some examples that you may know:
    - Married vs. Celibate priests
    - 6 historical rites, and several with sub-rites, of celebrating the Eucharist, of which the Roman rite is one, but not the oldest. Each, with its own sacred language.
    - Use of Leavened vs. Unleavened bread (Greek Catholics use leavened bread) for the Divine Liturgy.
    - Some list of sacraments, excluded Marriage, while including the Washing of the Feet, the Crowning of a King, the tonsuring of religious, or the Funeral rites. In the Latin Church, it was not defined as seven until one of the Lateran Councils, which did not apply to any of the non-Latin churches. The Orthodox defined also seven Sacraments only after Trent (not because of Trent), but they have a much richer spirituality of Sacramentals, where those left out are included."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dapouf,
      This "priest" is WAY off base! He has no citations to support his assertions. Catholocism is Catholocism. Period. The Eastern Rites must obey all papal and ecumenical council teachings the same as the Latin Rite.

      Never did they "believe differently" unless they were Eastern Schismatics/heretics. With the exception of the list of Sacraments, none of those disciplines involve faith/morals. The list of sacraments might have been such BEFORE they were defined, but no Eastern Rite theologian taught such afterwards without condemnation by Rome. He has provided no sources stating otherwise.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. I've read the Canon of the Latin Rite pre-1962 was just as old as the other Rites + separately the Roman Rite Good Friday Mass of Pre-Sanctified (pre 1956) was the oldest Liturgy in all of Christendom?
      Is this wrong?
      God bless -Andrew

      Delete
    3. Andrew,
      The Canon was unchanged from 604-1961. The Good friday Rites are extremely old--I'm not sure if it can claim to be THE oldest. If I find a citation, I'll post it.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. Didn't Pope St. Pius V remove the clause praying for the monarch in the Canon in 1570? (because of the Protestant Reformation)

      Delete
    5. Also, the order of the Roman Canon was radically altered in the 2nd-3rd centuries, which is why the Consecration is in the middle in the Roman Canon.

      Also, about the "priest" above, it's actually normal for many "Catholics" to say that these days, that the Easterners are free to deny the Immaculate Conception, Filioque, Purgatory, etc. I've seen a Novus Ordo Eastern rite priest who denied the Words of Institution are sufficient for the Consecration (the epiclesis is needed). This was condemned by Pope St. Pius X in 1910. When some Nestorians converted to Catholicism in the 15th century Rome made sure to insert the Words of Institution which was not present in their anaphora. As we see in Introibo's article above, in 2001, John Paul the Great Apostate declared the anaphora without the Words of Institution as valid. And no Novus Ordo actually thinks otherwise today except for some semi-trads.

      It's very sad. If you tell them that the Church always told them to believe in Filioque, Purgatory, Immaculate Conception, that the epiclesis is not necessary, you will be called a latinist, perhaps an old-fashioned ultramontantist radical traddie. They actually will leave "Catholicism" (the Novus Ordo Church they believe to be Catholic) rather than have their rites latinized by a centimeter, not that I believe they should be latinized, but it just shows that these modern Eastern "Catholics" hold their "Catholic" faith only conditionally. I've seen one of them insult the Council of Trent and said they distance themselves as much from it. All this stupid nonsense is something never heard from pre-Vatican II Eastern-rite true Catholics. These modern Eastern "Catholics" are the counterpart of our semi-trad Latin Massists who don't care about the "pope issue" and just want to attend the Latin Mass, whether by a Novus Ordo "priest" or sedevacantist priest. Just the smells and bells.

      Delete
    6. @anon10:30
      It was him or Pope Clement VIII. I stand corrected on that point.

      @anon11:01
      Very true!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    7. (Part 1)

      Thank you for your replies!

      Introibo, this is very true I've asked him to provide sources for most of his claims and he's failed to do so thus far. The only attempts he's made at offering sources are "going back to Church fathers and understanding Patristic thought" and remarks like that. Going back to the Easterners, my brother found the following from Denzinger (note: the "priest" made a remark in the messages I already provided on how the Maronite Church was my "mother Church". This is because my mother is Maronite):

      Profession of Faith which Is Prescribed for Orientals (Maronites)*

      Denzinger

      [From the Constitution, "Nuper ad nos.,, March 16. 1743]

      (Note: First it mentions how they revere and accept the first 8 universal synods, mentioning specific teachings taught in them. It then continues: )

      "1468 I venerate also and accept all the other universal Synods which have been lawfully held and confirmed by the authority of the Roman Pontiff, and especially the Synod of Florence; [there follows what is gathered and excerpted as far as the meaning goes from the decree on the union of the Greeks (namely, n.691-693), and from the decree for the Armenians (see n. 712 f.), of the Council of Florence]. . . .

      1469 Likewise, I revere and accept the Council of Trent [see n. 782 ff.], and I profess what was defined and declared in it, and especially that there is offered to God in the Mass a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice, for the living and the dead, and that in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, in accordance with the faith that had always been in the Church of God, there is contained truly, really, and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and hence the whole Christ, and that there is made a change of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, which change the Catholic Church most fittingly calls transubstantiation, and that under each species and in each single part of each species, when a division is made, the whole Christ is contained.

      1470 Likewise, I profess that there are seven sacraments of the New Law instituted by Christ, our Lord, for the salvation of the human race, although not all of them are necessary for each individual: namely, baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony; and (I profess) that these confer grace, and that of these, baptism, confirmation, and orders cannot be repeated without sacrilege. Likewise (I profess) that baptism is necessary for salvation, and hence, if there is imminent danger of death, it should be conferred at once and without delay, and that it is valid if conferred with the right matter and form and intention by anyone, and at any time. Likewise (I profess) that the bond of the sacrament of matrimony is indissoluble, and that, although a separation of bed and board may be possible between the Spouses because of adultery, heresy, and some other causes, nevertheless it is not lawful for them to contract another marriage

      1471 Likewise, (I profess) that the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions must be accepted and revered; also, that power of granting indulgences has been left to the Church of Christ, and that their use is very salutary for Christian people.

      Delete
    8. 1472 Likewise, I accept and profess what was defined in the aforesaid Synod of Trent about original sin, about justification, about the list and interpretation of the sacred books of both the New Testament and the Old [cf. n. 787 ff., 783 ff.]
      1473 Likewise, all other things I accept and profess, which the Holy Roman Church accepts and professes, and I likewise condemn, reject, and anathematize, at the same time all contrary things, both schisms and heresies, which have been condemned, rejected, and anathematized by the same Church. In addition, I promise and swear true obedience to the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Blessed Peter, the prince of the Apostles and the vicar of Jesus Christ. And that this faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, etc. . . . [as in the Tridentine profession of faith, see n. 1000 ]."


      I don't know if by putting Maronites in parentheses it means that this profession of faith is in reference to them solely, but it's just about the mindset I would expect from the Eastern Rites. If it's the case for the Maronites, I don't see why it wouldn't be the case for the rest of them.

      Finally, would it be correct to object to this "priest's" claim on the Eastern Rights on the grounds of the mark of Unity, or is there something better with which I could object (aside from claiming a lack of sources)?

      Finally, would it be correct to object to this "priest's" claim on the Eastern Rights on the grounds of Unity or is there something better with which I could object (aside from claiming a lack of sources)?

      @anon11:01 this appears very true.

      God Bless.

      Delete
    9. Correction. Sorry I meant 3rd-4th centuries, not 2nd-3rd.

      Delete
    10. Dapouf,
      Use this from theologian Van Noort:
      "Christ willed that His Church enjoy unity of faith and of profession (credal unity) which consists in this, THAT ALL MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH HOLD AND MAKE PROFESSION OF THE SAME DOCTRINE AS IT IS PRESENTED FOR BELIEF BY THE CHURCH'S TEACHING OFFICE" ("Dogmatic Theology" 2:126; Emphasis mine). It is impossible for any person not to profess what the Church teaches (papal decress, ecumenical councils, Roman Congregations, unanimous consent of approved theologians, etc.) and be a Catholic.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  12. Pray for the Soul of Eric Tolley.
    He was murdered in Boulder CO shooting and assisted at SSPV/CSPV traditional Chapels.
    He leaves behind Wife ➕ 7 Children.
    God bless
    -Andrew

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andrew,
      Yes, very sad. I ask all my readers to pray for the repose of his soul, and if able, have a Mass offered. Please pray for his family that God may give them strength.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  13. Do you know of any prayer or prayers that are specifically for missing someone you've loved in within one's past?
    God bless -Andrew

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andrew,
      I'll look. I ask any readers with such information to please pass it on to me.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  14. How is the concept of "essence", "substance" and "nature" to be understood in the context of the dogmas about Holy Trinity and transubstantiation? In the Holy Trinity there is one being of God that exists in three persons - the Three Persons have one divine nature in common. On the other hand, in transubstantiation, the substance of the bread is transformed into that of the substancy of Body of Christ, and substany of the wine is transformed into the substnacy of Blood of Christ. Are these concepts - nature, substance and essence the same?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon6:05
      It's been quite some time since I received such a philosophical query!

      The NATURE of a thing coincides with its ESSENCE; but while essence refers to BEING , which realizes the thing, NATURE refers to ACTING which expands it. SUBSTANCE is that which can exist of itself. In God, there is only one and most simple substance, in which, however, subsist Three Divine Persons, constituted by three distinct relations. (See theologian Parente, "Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology" [1951]).

      I hope this helped!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  15. Since we're on the topic of philosophy, to what extent does one need to think of God as "good" when making an act of perfect contrition?

    If I say "I was able to ate a meal a while ago, therefore God is good, and because of that I am sorry for offending him" does that count as perfect contrition?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon5:41
      It is not merely thinking "God is good," but according to theologian Jone, perfect contrition is had when the motive for your sorrow is the love of God as the Highest Good and for His Own sake. If that is accompanied by at least an implicit will to go to Confession and amend your life, your sins will be remitted even outside Penance.(See "Moral Theology" [1961], pg. 395).

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  16. Introibo and Everyone,
    I please ask for your prayers as I am in a very physical dangerous situation in my home life.
    Thanks.
    JoAnn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Will do.
      Send a stipend via snail mail or PayPal to a traditional chapel and have a Holy Sacrifice of the Mass offered for yourself asap.
      God bless -Andrew

      Delete