Br. Peter Dimond argues "for all" renders Mass invalid
[Disclaimer: I am not convinced that changing Our Lord's words to "for all" invalidates the Mass, but that does seem to be at least a possibility. Or perhaps the bread is consecrated, but the wine is not. Or perhaps some but not all of the graces imparted by the sacrament have been lost, because the consecration no longer signifies the mystical body of Christ, and sacraments effect what they signify. May the Good Lord return to His Church a Mass more faithful to His words, and may His help come to us, soon!]
From the Most Holy Family Monastery website:
Short, Irrefutable and Devastating proof from a new angle that the word “all” in place of “many” renders the New Mass invalid
By Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.
Recently, various writers have continued to assert that the change in the Traditional Formula of Consecration from “many” to “all” does not render the New Mass invalid. The heretic Bob Sungenis and his ridiculous arguments immediately come to mind. Unfortunately, people are still listening to these lying teachers and continuing to attend the New Mass as a result. In our material we have shown how, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, such a change does result in invalidity. We have demonstrated this simply by quoting the Council of Florence’s decree on the words of Consecration, in conjunction with Pope St. Pius V’s reiteration of those words and his statement that any change of meaning results in invalidity. However, there is, in our opinion, an even stronger and more devastating way to show why the use of “all” in place of “many” renders the New Mass invalid. We have never discussed it before in our material, so we present it now. Note: other writers have brought this devastating argument out and expanded upon it at length, but unfortunately their treatments of this are often very long and complex – so that, unfortunately, only those willing to read their long treatises and think about them in detail grasped the nevertheless devastating point of the argument. The following hopefully simplifies this argument – an argument which, in reality, is very simple – so that more people will internalize how it totally devastates any claim that the word “all” can validly replace “many” in the words of Consecration. This is by far the strongest argument on this particular matter.
In his famous Bull, Apostolicae Curae in 1896, Pope Leo XIII teaches:
“All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they effect and effect the grace which they signify.”
The Sacraments must signify the grace which they effect and effect the grace which they signify. If it does not signify the grace which it effects and effect the grace which it signifies, it is not a sacrament – period. So, what is the grace effected by the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist? The Council of Florence, the Council of Trent and St. Thomas Aquinas all teach the same on this matter.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” On the Eucharist, 1439: “Finally, this is a fitting way to signify the effect of this sacrament, that is, the union of the Christian people with Christ.”
Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Sess. 13, Chap. 2: “He (Christ) wished, furthermore, that this (the Eucharist)… be a symbol of that one ‘body’ of which He Himself is the ‘head’, and to which He wished us to be united, as members, by the closest bonds of faith, hope and charity…”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 73, A. 3: “Now it was stated above that the reality of the sacrament [of the Eucharist] is the unity of the mystical body, without which there is no salvation…”
As the Council of Florence, the Council of Trent, St. Thomas Aquinas and many other theologians teach, the grace effected by the Eucharist is the union of the faithful with Christ; in other words, the Mystical Body of Christ. Note: the grace effected by the Eucharist [the union of the Mystical Body] must be carefully distinguished from the Eucharist itself: the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.
Since the union of the faithful with Christ/the Mystical Body is the grace effected by the Sacrament of the Eucharist – or what is also called the reality of the Sacrament (Res Sacramenti) or the grace proper to the Sacrament of the Eucharist– this grace must be signified in the Form of the Consecration for it to be valid, as Pope Leo XIII teaches. Okay, so we must look at the Traditional Form of Consecration and find where this grace – the union of the faithful with Christ – is signified.
The Traditional Form of Consecration as declared by Pope Eugene IV at the Council of
FOR THIS IS MY BODY. FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS.
Note again: we are looking for that part of the Form which signifies that the person who receives this sacrament worthily becomes united or more strongly united with Jesus Christ and His Mystical Body.
Do the words “FOR THIS IS MY BODY. FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD” signify the union of the faithful with Christ/the Mystical Body? No. They signify the true Body and Blood of Christ, which become present when this Sacrament is confected; but these words don’t signify the union of the faithful with Christ or the Mystical Body, which is the grace effected by the Eucharist. Again…
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” On the Eucharist, 1439: “Finally, this is a fitting way to signify the effect of this sacrament, that is, the union of the Christian people with Christ.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 73, A. 3: “Now it was stated above that the reality of the sacrament [of the Eucharist] is the unity of the mystical body, without which there is no salvation…”
Do the words “OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT” signify the union of the faithful with Christ/the Mystical Body? No. These words do not signify the Mystical Body either, but rather they contrast the temporary and prefiguring sacrifices of the Old Law with the eternal and propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
Do the words “THE MYSTERY OF FAITH” signify the union of the faithful with Christ/the Mystical Body? No. These words signify the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, as Innocent III teaches; they do not signify the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ.
Do the words “WHICH SHALL BE SHED” signify the union of the faithful with Christ/the Mystical Body? No. These words denote true sacrifice.
The only words left in the Form of Consecration are: “FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS.”
The remission of sins is necessary for incorporation into the Mystical Body, and remission of sins is an indispensable component of true Justification, by which one is fruitfully united to Jesus Christ. The words “for you and for many” denote the members of the Mystical Body who have received such remission.
Thus, we can see that the words “FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS” are the words in the Form of Consecration which signify the union of the faithful with Christ/the union of the Mystical Body of Christ – which is the grace proper to the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
Now, if we look to the Novus Ordo Form of Consecration, do we find the Mystical Body/the union of the faithful with Christ [the grace proper to the Sacrament of the Eucharist] signified? Remember, the Form must signify the Mystical Body in order for it to be valid. Here is the form of Consecration in the New Mass or Novus Ordo:
This is my body. This is the cup of my blood, of the new and eternal testament. It shall be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.
Is the union of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ signified by the words “for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven”? No. Are all men part of the Mystical Body? No. Are all men part of the faithful united with Christ? No. We can see very clearly that the New Mass or Novus Ordo most certainly does not signify the union of the Mystical Body [the grace proper to the Sacrament of the Eucharist], and therefore it is not a valid sacrament!
Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, 1896:“All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they effect and effect the grace which they signify.”
Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, 1896: “That form cannot be considered apt or sufficient for a Sacrament which omits that which it must essentially signify.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence,: “…this is a fitting way to signify the effect of this sacrament, that is, the union of the Christian people with Christ.”
One does not have to say anything more… the New Mass is not valid!
It is very interesting to note that in all the formulas of Consecration in the Catholic Church, whether it be the Armenian Liturgy, the Coptic Liturgy, the Ethiopic Liturgy, the Syrian Liturgy, the Chaldean Liturgy, the Malabarese Liturgy, etc. the union of the faithful with Christ/the Mystical Body is signified in the words of Consecration. And no liturgy that has ever been approved by the Church has used the word “all” in the Formula of Consecration.
Form of the Consecration of the Wine Used in Eastern Rites
THE ARMENIAN LITURGY: “This is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for many for the expiation and forgiveness of sins.”
Note that the union and members of the Mystical Body are signified by the words “for you and for many for the expiation and forgiveness of sins.”
THE BYZANTINE LITURGY: “This is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.”
Note that the union and members of the Mystical Body are signified by the words “for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.”
THE CHALDEAN LITURGY: “This is my Blood of the New Eternal Covenant, the mystery of faith, which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.”
Note that the union and members of the Mystical Body are signified by the words “for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.”
THE COPTIC LITURGY: “For this is my Blood of the new Covenant, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins.”
Note that the union and members of the Mystical Body are signified by the words “for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins.”
THE ETHIOPIC LITURGY: “This is my Blood of the New Covenant which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sin.”
Note that the union and members of the Mystical Body are signified by the words “for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sin.”
THE LITURGY OF MALABAR: “For this is the chalice of my Blood of the New and Eternal Testament, the mystery of faith, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins.”
Note that union and members of the Mystical Body are signified by the words “for you and for many for the remission of sins.”
THE MARONITE LITURGY: (this form is identical to that which was always used in the Roman Rite)
THE SYRIAN LITURGY: “This is my Blood, of the New Covenant, which shall be poured out and offered for the forgiveness of the sins and eternal life of you and of many.”
Note that the union and members of the Mystical Body are signified by the words “for the forgiveness of the sins and eternal life of you and of many.”
Thus, we see that the Formula of Consecration in all these liturgies signifies the union of the faithful with Christ/the Mystical Body of Christ. But the Novus Ordo says, “for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven,” and this does not signify the Mystical Body, since all do not belong to the Mystical Body. Thus, the Novus Ordo does not signify the grace which the Eucharist effects. It is not valid.
Thus, a Catholic cannot attend the New “Mass” under pain of mortal sin. Those who persist in doing so are committing idolatry (worshipping a piece of bread). Jesus Christ is not present there. The host is merely a piece of bread, not Our Lord’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. The Church has always taught that to approach a doubtful sacrament (which employs doubtful matter or form) is mortally sinful. In fact, Pope Innocent XI, Decree of the Holy Office, March 4, 1679 (Denz. 1151), even condemns the idea that Catholics can receive "probable" sacraments. And the New Mass is not merely doubtful, it is clearly invalid, since it does not signify the grace it is supposed to effect. It is actually worse than a Protestant service; it is an abomination, which falsifies the words of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith.
This is why the fruits of the New Mass are so bad, so rotten, so evil, so destructive to the Faith.
The facts above totally refute those deceived teachers who tell us that “all” can be substituted for “many” in the words of Consecration. These men are deceiving Catholics and leading them to Hell. Please be evangelistic and spread this information far and wide to inform as many people as possible why no one can attend the Novus Ordo and why it is certainly invalid. Please spread this information to silence the defenders of the validity of the New “
Appendix
Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5, Part 1:
"The words of Consecration, which are the FORM of this Sacrament, are these: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. Now if one were to remove, or change anything in the FORM of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the sacrament."
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, "Cantate Domino": "However, since no explanation was given in the aforesaid decree of the Armenians in respect to THE FORM OF WORDS which the holy Roman Church, relying on the teaching and authority of the apostles Peter and Paul, has always been wont to use in the consecration of the Lord's Body and Blood, we concluded that it should be inserted in this present text. It uses this form of words in the consecration of the Lord's Body: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And of His blood: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS."(Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 581)
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 78, A. 3:
"I answer that, there is a twofold opinion regarding this form. Some have maintained that the words 'This is the chalice of My blood belong to the substance of the form, but not those words which follow. NOW THIS SEEMS INCORRECT, because the words which follow them are determinations of the predicate, that is, of Christ's blood: consequently they belong to the integrity of its (i.e., the form's) recitation."
St. Alphonsus De Liguori, Treatise on 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 applied only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault... This is the explanation of
The Catechism of the Council of Trent, On the Form of the Eucharist:
"The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His Blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore (our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews and Gentiles. 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." (The Catechism of the Council of Trent, TAN Books, 1982, p. 227.)
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 8, Nov. 22, 1439, "Exultate Deo": "All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does. If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected." (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Georgetown Univ. Press, Vol. 1, p. 542; Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, no. 695)
www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com
Labels: new Mass translation, pro multis
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home