I have a request for two Catholics on here....

Mysterium Fidei

Well-known member
Sry but you are very mistaken. Nothing you stated constitutes an invalid mass.
St. Pope Pius V in his papal Bull De Defectibus on defects which may occur at the celebration of Mass. Section 5, defects of form.

"Defects on the part of the form may arise if anything is missing from the complete wording required for the act of consecrating. Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are:

HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, "For this is my Body" and HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: MYSTERIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM "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."

If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin."

Also, by the way, "mystery of Faith" was moved out of the consecration formula of the wine.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Its comments like these that make me wonder how Catholics get through their every day lives. You apparently can't see a blatant contradiction when one appears. Do you really have to be told what to do every single second of the day?
No. But then again, you are characterizing my argument. My point is not that I need the Church to hold my hand as I read Scripture and tell me what every single verse means, because I am too stupid to understand. Taken GENERALLY, one can read Scripture and figure it out.

However, Scripture is NOT my personal property. Scripture belongs to the Body of Christ. Thus, if I want to truly understand it--then I read it--through my union with the larger Body of Christ and not in isolation of that larger community. I submit my personal judgement to that of the Church and I submit to the authority of the Church to teach me. Does a student read their text book in isolation from their teacher and the tradition in which that text book was authored and written?

Besides--need I point out the irony of you saying "You don't need the Church to tell you what Scripture means" while--then attempting to explain to me what Scripture means? If I do not need Rome, I do not need YOU either.
Or do you possess the mental capabilities to function on your own?
My Faith is individual, but my Faith is not private. My Faith is individual, but my Faith is not isolated. In other words--I live my Faith as part of a larger body. My Faith is exercised as part of a larger body.
Its called context. There is also something called discernment. Which Catholics struggle with here on a daily basis.
Only if one believes the Protestant caricatures.
Hmm, did i say 'the usa is the church'? No, i simply meant that after 200 years a lot has changed in the usa. What'll it look like in another 200? Your argument is after Augustine things were pretty set as far as infant baptism. That's 400 years after the birth of the church. A lot has changed in church history. Who cares if infant baptism was the majority? It wasn't in the first century or the bible.
And yet--people who were a lot closer to the time of the Apostles and early Church, and a lot smarter than you or I thought it WAS. I would say---their teaching is a lot more relevant--than some anonymous Protestant fundamentalist on a website.

Put another way--I should dismiss the teaching of the ECF on the subject of infant Baptism.......but.......accept YOUR teaching--becasue---some anonymous Protestant fundamentalist on a website-----is a more credible witness as to what the Scriptures teach and mean, WHY EXACTLY?

Put yet another way---"You don't need Rome to tell you what the Scriptures mean. You can read and understand Scriptures for yourself.....now listen to me tell you why you are wrong about infant Baptism and why the Scriptures don't teach it..."
If you have to employ eisegesis in scripture to get to you teaching, then yes, its not only not implicit but its not explicit either.
Again---the irony: "'You don't need the Church to tell you what Scripture means. You can read Scripture for yourself and understand them. Now listen to me explain to you why you need me to show you how to properly 'exegete' the Scriptures, becasue if you don't listen to me, you might fall in to eisegesis...'" Again, if I don't need Rome, I do not need you either.

See, when Protestants use that stupid "You don't need Rome" bit--they prove too much. Fine. I don't need "Rome." But I don't need YOU either.
So in your view something that is implicit in the bible can after time become explicit? I don't buy that at all. You are saying for instance; The bible says a lot about prayer and no one in the bible prays to anyone other than God. But wait a second, hundreds or even thousands of years later BAM prayer to the dead is explicit! Is that how it works?
That is a bit of a caricature, but----yeah, sort of!

What I am saying is that the light gets brighter through the centuries, not darker. Not everything the Scriptures teach, or implications of other things that ARE in the Scriptures was immediately apparent to the infant Church. The Spirit guides the Church into ALL TRUTH. Thus, as the Church reflects on and meditates on the Scriptures---and what the Scriptures teach, the Church is lead to an even deeper understanding of the Truths, as well as the implications of the Truths that are in Scripture. Hence, that which was implicit in the Scriptures, as time progresses is made more explicit.
 
Last edited:

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
St. Pope Pius V in his papal Bull De Defectibus on defects which may occur at the celebration of Mass. Section 5, defects of form.

"Defects on the part of the form may arise if anything is missing from the complete wording required for the act of consecrating. Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are:

HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, "For this is my Body" and HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: MYSTERIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM "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."

If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin."

Also, by the way, "mystery of Faith" was moved out of the consecration formula of the wine.
If the priest does-----on his own authority? YES, absolutely. It would be an invalid Mass. The Mass does not belong to the priest.

If, however, the Church updates or changes the form, that is different. Besides---the translations of the Bible use "all" or "many." They seem to be interchangeable.
 

Mysterium Fidei

Well-known member
If the priest does-----on his own authority? YES, absolutely. It would be an invalid Mass. The Mass does not belong to the priest.

If, however, the Church updates or changes the form, that is different. Besides---the translations of the Bible use "all" or "many." They seem to be interchangeable.
All and many do not mean the same thing. Every elementary school student could tell you that, but it was apparently lost on the innovators of the Novus Ordo "mass."

all: the whole amount, quantity, or extent of
many: consisting of or amounting to a large but indefinite number

St. Pope Pius V, Quo Primum:

"Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women – even of military orders – and of churches or chapels without a specific congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read privately in accord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church. This Missal is to be used by all churches, even by those which in their authorization are made exempt, whether by Apostolic indult, custom, or privilege, or even if by oath or official confirmation of the Holy See, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them by any other manner whatsoever."
 

Mysterium Fidei

Well-known member
Oh the humanities!

Yes, how terrible. Communion in the hand is a crime against humanity that calls out to heaven for vengeance. If only we only went back to the way it was in 1950--why all would be right with the world, cancer would be cured, and everyone would live happily ever after.

Do not misunderstand: there nothing wrong with respect for the Blessed Sacrament. I am not suggesting that the Blessed Sacrament is only bread--or that--we can treat it like Protestants treat their version of Communion. I am suggesting that I do not see how reception of Communion on the tongue is any more "holy" and "reverent" than reception on the hand. I am also suggesting that I do not see why a lay person cannot assist with distribution of Holy Communion. How is that somehow unreverent?

If God deigns to come to us under the form of bread and wine in the first place, it is sort of hard to understand why He would have a problem with a lay person assisting with the distribution of Communion, or reception on the hand. Why is the notion of creating a throne with your hands for the Blessed Sacrament, then placing the Sacrament on your tongue someone less reverent than reception directly on the tongue?

Really? Cause---Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden both would have grown up under the Old Rite and Mass you speak of. The Tridentine Mass didn't help them much, did it?

I just do not think it is that simple. I believe the new Mass and trappings of Catholicism can be just as reverent when celebrated according to the true intentions of Vatican II.

See---you Rad Trad types seem to present this as a choice between the Tridentine Mass----and------the Archdiocese of Chicago. Has it ever occurred to you that there are many parishes that have reverent "Novus Ordo" Masses?
Yeah, I know you are a Protestant at heart, which you have admitted to. You show that you have no Catholic sense at all and harbor a hatred for any Catholic tradition, just like your fake pagan worshiping "pope."

No, but thanks for telling me. That makes me sad. I never met him, but I could have seen myself as a friend of his if I knew him. May he rest in peace. He wasn't all that old I do not think. I did enjoy listening to him--even though I thought he was a bit crazy. Despite my references to him on this site, I did have a bit of respect for him. I will donate a Mass intention for the repose of his soul. Maybe I will meet him in heaven one day.

Actually I wanted to email him and ask him whether he thought priests could ordain. I never did. Apparently in history there are accounts of priests (abbots) ordaining with permission from the pope. I cannot seem to get a simple straight answer from anyone on this question. What is your opinion on that?

But yes---as misguided as he was---I will agree that he was probably more Catholic than Jorge.
Yes, "Michael", David Bawden was only about 64 years of age, I believe. From what I read he died of a cerebral hemorrhage.

I have read that in extraordinary circumstances priests could be given permission to do confirmations and even ordain in absence of a bishop, but those powers would have to come directly from the pope. A bishop couldn't take it upon himself to grant these extraordinary powers independently.

Similar powers were granted to Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc. He received "extraordinary" authority from Pope Pius XI providing him with the ability to act in all manners and circumstances that would normally require recourse to the Holy See. Pius XI had conceded special powers to the Archbishop to perform consecrations without referring to Rome for approval.

December 8th, 1939 Pope Pius XII renews the extraordinary authority granted to Archbishop Thuc. His authority to act with these special powers was never rescinded by subsequent popes.

Archbishop Thuc, seeing the state of affairs in the Roman Catholic Church (the liberal revolution led by the hierarchy) after Vatican II, used this authority to continue to ordain Catholic bishops and priests for tradition, so that the faithful would have recourse to the true Catholic Sacraments administered by validly ordained priests.

The GIRM says that? So disinfect it!

Vatican II did attempt to recover the meal aspect of the Mass. The Mass is the sacrifice of Christ, but it is also a sacred meal. It is the Banquet Feast of the Lamb.


That does not entail Vatican II is outright DENYING the sacrificial aspect.

And you are basing your opinion on that article/broadcast?

:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
The Protestant Novus Ordo Supper service is a communal meal and not a sacrifice.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Yeah, I know you are a Protestant at heart, which you have admitted to. You show that you have no Catholic sense at all and harbor a hatred for any Catholic tradition, just like your fake pagan worshiping "pope."
No, sir, what I hate are the "I am more Roman than Rome" types, the "I am more Catholic than the pope" types, the "Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who is the most Catholic one of all" types.
Yes, "Michael", David Bawden was only about 64 years of age, I believe. From what I read he died of a cerebral hemorrhage.
That, again, is said. And that, apparently was recent--like August 2. I wonder what will happen to his Church.
I have read that in extraordinary circumstances priests could be given permission to do confirmations and even ordain in absence of a bishop, but those powers would have to come directly from the pope. A bishop couldn't take it upon himself to grant these extraordinary powers independently.
I have heard this argued myself--and it makes sense. Bishops have what is known as the "fullness of order." Some Vatican II people say "fullness of the priesthood." "Fullness of the priesthood" is a misnomer. It is "fullness of order." When one is ordained to the priesthood, one has the "fullness of the priesthood." The difference between a priest and a bishop--is not that a priest lacks the powers--say to Confirm or ordain, but that certain powers are "locked." Those powers can be used in extra-ordinary circumstances provided the proper authority--pope or bishop "unlocks" or "unbinds" those powers. But this to my knowledge is theological speculation. I am not aware that the Church has formally pronounced on this.
Similar powers were granted to Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc. He received "extraordinary" authority from Pope Pius XI providing him with the ability to act in all manners and circumstances that would normally require recourse to the Holy See. Pius XI had conceded special powers to the Archbishop to perform consecrations without referring to Rome for approval.
But that is just about liceity--not validity. If a bishop ordained me a bishop without permission from Rome, I would be a bishop. That consecration would be ilicit but not invalid. But if I wanted to function as a bishop--then the pope---would have to receive me into the college and grant me jurisdiction.
The Protestant Novus Ordo Supper service is a communal meal and not a sacrifice.
It is both and.

Now who is the Protestant? You, like the Protestants, create false dichotomies where there are none.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
All and many do not mean the same thing. Every elementary school student could tell you that, but it was apparently lost on the innovators of the Novus Ordo "mass."

all: the whole amount, quantity, or extent of
many: consisting of or amounting to a large but indefinite number

St. Pope Pius V, Quo Primum:

"Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women – even of military orders – and of churches or chapels without a specific congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read privately in accord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church. This Missal is to be used by all churches, even by those which in their authorization are made exempt, whether by Apostolic indult, custom, or privilege, or even if by oath or official confirmation of the Holy See, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them by any other manner whatsoever."
You know--you are great a finding obscure quotes from obscure popes that have long since been forgotten.

You must be great on Jeopardy. You are the master of obscurity.

If you were an American historian, you would probably be great at teaching the lesser known Presidents.
 

Mysterium Fidei

Well-known member
You know--you are great a finding obscure quotes from obscure popes that have long since been forgotten.

You must be great on Jeopardy. You are the master of obscurity.

If you were an American historian, you would probably be great at teaching the lesser known Presidents.
St. Pope Pius V is hardly an obscure pope. You are ignorant of the history and doctrines, disciplines and liturgy of the Catholic Church prior to the beginning of your Novus Ordo religion. You religion began at Vatican II. You wouldn't recognize Catholicism if it slapped you in the face.

I post examples of the magisterium of the Church, but it doesn't mean anything to you. It's just stodgy, old, irrelevant stuff that was taught by some rigid traditionalists before Vatican II. You can flush 1960 years of Church doctrine and history down the loo, because it's meaningless to you.
 
Last edited:

RayneBeau

Well-known member
Its comments like these that make me wonder how catholics get through their every day lives. You apparently can't see a blatant contradiction when one appears. Do you really have to be told what to do every single second of the day? Or do you possess the mental capabilities to function on your own? Its called context. There is also something called discernment. Which catholics struggle with here on a daily basis.
Roman Catholics are unaware that "discernment" demands that where Scripture speaks with clarity, a hard line must be drawn. Jesus Christ is against human philosophy, He's against empty deception, He's against human tradition, and He is against the elementary principles of this world.

"Don't let other's spoil your faith and joy with their philosophies, they are wrong and shallow answers built on men's thoughts and ideas, instead of on what Christ has said." (Col. 2: 8)
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
St. Pope Pius V is hardly an obscure pope. You are ignorant of the history and doctrines, disciplines and liturgy of the Catholic Church prior to the beginning of your Novus Ordo religion. You religion began at Vatican II. You wouldn't recognize Catholicism if it slapped you in the face.

I post examples of the magisterium of the Church, but it doesn't mean anything to you. It's just stodgy, old, irrelevant stuff that was taught by some rigid traditionalists before Vatican II. You can flush 1960 years of Church doctrine and history down the loo, because it's meaningless to you.
Sir, no. The problem is that when you look at quotes from history answering some question, you have to understand that those are the result of very specific circumstances and are directed at those circumstances. In other words---the answer to the question is narrow--an answer to a specific question in a specific set of circumstances.

You seem to want to take ANY statement from a pope that appears to agree with your ideology and then apply it extremely broadly--when the statement may not be intended to be applied that broadly.

I think statements like the ones you quote should be interpreted within a narrow historical context that applies when the circumstances that gave rise to the statement exist.

Thus, if I had the time and the interest---what I would do with the statements you have quoted is go back and research the broader context in which they appear. What was happening that gave rise to that statement? What did the pope mean by the terms employed? How were those terms used at the time? How did people understand them at the time? Are the circumstances of today in any way analogous? Should they be applied today in the exact same sense, etc?

There is a lot more to things, sir, then just going back, finding obscure quotes from obscure popes, saints, etc, and then jumping to conclusions about what their application today becasue they seem to agree with one's ideology. How many Protestants love to quote Ligouri's statements about Mary and then jump to the conclusion that "See? Catholics worship Mary?"

You do realize I could go back and find countless statements from the ECF affirming the supremacy of the Scriptures--in other words--statements form the ECF that sound very Protestant. But none of us, me or you, jump to conclusions that those statements equate to Sola Scriptura, right? Why is that? Context. I would suggest the same applies with the quotes you are using.
 
Top