1P5 Article: The New Rite of Consecration is Valid.

[andy]

Reply to OBJ 8 should not leave any uncertainty that it is "many" though.

The Consecration always takes place withing a context of the Mass. And the Mass always is said by a priest with a context of the Faith in the Church, and is not some universal pronouncement. In that context "for all" just sound wrong.

Fr. Hesse does not prove that using "for all" renders the Sacrament invalid, only doubtful.

[Justin Martyr]

Reply to OBJ 8 should not leave any uncertainty that it is "many" though.

That it is more fitting and what was said by Our Lord, admitted. That the words are part of the substance of the form, denied - as St. Thomas explains. The latter is what is relevant when discussing validity.

Interestingly, St. Thomas mentions the Mysterium Fidei explicitly when he's discussing the substantial part of the form, yet we know the Eastern Rites are valid in spite of their lack of the Mysterium Fidei. One has to wonder if it's the meaning the words are meant to signify that really matters, rather than the words themselves. But anyway.

The Consecration always takes place withing a context of the Mass. And the Mass always is said by a priest with a context of the Faith in the Church, and is not some universal pronouncement. In that context "for all" just sound wrong.

Certainly, it is extrinsically inferior and far less fitting than pro multis. I don't think anyone disagrees on that. Rome did change all the translations to better match pro multis after all.

Fr. Hesse does not prove that using "for all" renders the Sacrament invalid, only doubtful.

There is no practical difference, as one treats doubtfully valid sacraments as invalid.

[Acolyte]

So Judgement Day arrives.

One cradle Catholic is standing next to another one. One has never attended the NO and was baptized and confirmed in the old rites by clergy who were ordained in the old rite. He was born in 1950.

The other is younger and was born in 1999. Grew up on the NO and all. Baptized and confirmed by clergy ordained in the new rites.

Both are standing before Our Lord in a state of grace. Both accept Church teachings. Both are orthodox. Will the one who never received any sacraments from clergy ordained in the old rites be treated differently by Our Lord ?

[Lavenderson]

So Judgement Day arrives.

One cradle Catholic is standing next to another one. One has never attended the NO and was baptized and confirmed in the old rites by clergy who were ordained in the old rite. He was born in 1950.

The other is younger and was born in 1999. Grew up on the NO and all. Baptized and confirmed by clergy ordained in the new rites.

Both are standing before Our Lord in a state of grace. Both accept Church teachings. Both are orthodox. Will the one who never received any sacraments from clergy ordained in the old rites be treated differently by Our Lord ?

Would you treat a healthy person different than an unhealthy person, even though they're both alive?

Speculating on the subjective actions of God doesn't sit well, but objectively speaking a good Catholic attending in the NO is like trying to reach the age of 100 but only eating fast food. Possible, but less probable. Healthy food and fast food will both sustain you from starving to death, but the consequences of eating fast food over time are not negated by either the unhealthy man's ignorance of healthy food or his lack of healthy food options in his area.

Mind you, by fast food I'm referring to the NOM as promulgated on paper in the original Latin. Clown mass attendees might as well be cookie worshipers.

[Lavenderson]

The use of "for all" does not alter the meaning necessary for the form to be valid, as it does not change the meaning in regard to intending to effect a change of the wine into the Precious Blood, nor does it change what is affirmed about the effects of the Precious Blood; namely the securing of our eternal heritage, justification by grace, and the removal of sins which are the impediments to both of these things.

Your quotation had OBJ 8 and the reply removed from the rest of the context. Just because it more fitting to use pro multis (as even the post-conciliar Church affirms, hence why they forced the translations to change), does not mean "for all" would invalidate the form; just like how "The Sevant of God is Baptized" instead of "I baptize thee" and "May God forgive you" instead of "I absolve thee" are both valid forms.

"I absolve thee" and "May God forgive you" are much closer in meaning than "for all" and "for many." Its comparing apples and oranges.

Christ died for all in potency, not in act (potential vs actual). The distinction exists for a reason. If speaking in potential terms doesn't invalidate the Consecration then it would neither be invalid to declare myself as Pope, simply because its in the (very distant) realm of potential.

As Fr.Hesse points out in the video shared earlier, I cannot prove with absolute certainty that "for all" invalidates the Consecration, but neither could you prove with absolute certainty that it remains valid. "Therefore, we face certainty on doubt." A sentence condemned by Pope Bl. Innocent XI: "For pastoral reasons you may approach sacraments according to the probability as to it's validity."

[Acolyte]

Would you treat a healthy person different than an unhealthy person, even though they're both alive?

Speculating on the subjective actions of God doesn't sit well, but objectively speaking a good Catholic attending in the NO is like trying to reach the age of 100 but only eating fast food. Possible, but less probable. Healthy food and fast food will both sustain you from starving to death, but the consequences of eating fast food over time are not negated by either the unhealthy man's ignorance of healthy food or his lack of healthy food options in his area.

Mind you, by fast food I'm referring to the NOM as promulgated on paper in the original Latin. Clown mass attendees might as well be cookie worshipers.

I get all of that and agree with what you say.

I'm simply asking if anyone thinks laity will be held accountable for the questionable changes post VII.

[Justin Martyr]

The use of "for all" does not alter the meaning necessary for the form to be valid, as it does not change the meaning in regard to intending to effect a change of the wine into the Precious Blood, nor does it change what is affirmed about the effects of the Precious Blood; namely the securing of our eternal heritage, justification by grace, and the removal of sins which are the impediments to both of these things.

Your quotation had OBJ 8 and the reply removed from the rest of the context. Just because it more fitting to use pro multis (as even the post-conciliar Church affirms, hence why they forced the translations to change), does not mean "for all" would invalidate the form; just like how "The Sevant of God is Baptized" instead of "I baptize thee" and "May God forgive you" instead of "I absolve thee" are both valid forms.

"I absolve thee" and "May God forgive you" are much closer in meaning than "for all" and "for many."

No, they're not. In the case of the two rites of penance, one is deprecatory, the other is indicative. One explicitly affirms that forgiveness is given by the priest through the power given him by God and that this is a juridical act, the other is only explicitly a prayer asking God to forgive them. Yet both were and are used in the Church.

For all vs. For many is more a question of emphasis; both intend to signify in meaning that christ died for all, but his blood is only effaciously applied to many. Neither signify a substantial part of the form in any case, so even if the meaning was different it would not touch on validity. St. Thomas is clear on what must be signified in the form.

If the New Rite of penance was verbatim the Byzantine Rite, I guarantee people would decry it as invalid too. Seriously, read the whole thing:

My spiritual child, N., who have confessed to my humble person, I, humble and a sinner, have not power on earth to forgive sins, but God alone; but through that divinely spoken word which came to the Apostles after the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, saying, Whosesoever sins you forgive are forgiven, and whosesoever sins you retain are retained, we are emboldened to say: Whatsoever you have said to my humble person, and whatsoever you have failed yo say, whether through ignorance or forgetfulness, whatever it may be, may God forgive you in this world and in that which is to come.

May God Who pardoned David through Nathan the Prophet when he confessed his sins, and Peter weeping bitterly for his denial, and the sinful woman weeping at His feet, and the publican and the prodigal son; May that same God forgive you all things, through me a sinner, both in this world and in the world to come, and set you uncondemned before His terrible Judgment Seat. (In the name + of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.) Have no further care for the sins which you have confessed, depart in peace.

Obviously this form is valid (and more ancient than the current Latin form to boot, which used to be deprecatory as well); but if this had been made the new rite of penance, many on this forum would decry it as "ecumenism" and "a denial of catholic dogma on the juridical nature of penance, and the power given to the priest", complete with copious misquoted and maliciously misinterpreted quotes from the post-conciliar magisterium to "prove" it.

You want to talk about doubtfully valid and breaking with Apostolic tradition? Then do I have a little story to tell you about how an entire rite of the Church changed the matter used in the Sacrament of the Eucharist to one used by monophysites and judaizers specifically in order to signify their errors.

I am of course referring to unleavened bread.

Its comparing apples and oranges.

Christ died for all in potency, not in act (potential vs actual). The distinction exists for a reason.

This is exactly what the Jansenists taught: That Christ's blood has infinite satisfactory value, so it could potentially give grace to and save all; but, in act, he died only to give grace to and save the elect.

That is heretical. If one instead maintains that Christ died only for the Faithful (rather than only the elect) then it is Proximate to Heresy. Christ actually died for the end of providing grace and salvation to all. That his blood is only applied to many, and that only many are saved, does not contradict this.

If speaking in potential terms doesn't invalidate the Consecration then it would neither be invalid to declare myself as Pope, simply because its in the (very distant) realm of potential.

It's not speaking in potential terms; Christ truly shed his blood for all and merited grace for all in act.

As Fr.Hesse points out in the video shared earlier, I cannot prove with absolute certainty that "for all" invalidates the Consecration, but neither could you prove with absolute certainty that it remains valid. "Therefore, we face certainty on doubt." A sentence condemned by Pope Bl. Innocent XI: "For pastoral reasons you may approach sacraments according to the probability as to it's validity."

It is certainly valid, both on the basis of St. Thomas and the fact the Church can not promulgate or approve doubtfully valid rites. To do so would mean She defected.

[awkward customer]

The idea that the NO Rite for consecrating Bishops is invalid would be just too awful to contemplate, wouldn't it.  And so it has to be valid, doesn't it.  Forces as evil as that simply cannot be at work, can they.

Just think of the level of evil genius that would be involved.  Get your apostate Modernist servants into positions of power throughout the Church.  Make sure that when they ruin the Mass, they leave enough of the words in place to convince people that the rite is valid, while at the same time ensuring that the liturgical changes to the Mass are the focus of attention while at the same time destroying the Faith of millions. And then quietly render the rite of consecration invalid.  You could destroy the priesthood in a generation - no more bishops, no more priests.  It's genius! 

[Justin Martyr]

The idea that the NO Rite for consecrating Bishops is invalid would be just too awful to contemplate, wouldn't it.  And so it has to be valid, doesn't it.  Forces as evil as that simply cannot be at work, can they.

Just think of the level of evil genius that would be involved.  Get your apostate Modernist servants into positions of power throughout the Church.  Make sure that when they ruin the Mass, they leave enough of the words in place to convince people that the rite is valid, while at the same time ensuring that the liturgical changes to the Mass are the focus of attention while at the same time destroying the Faith of millions. And then quietly render the rite of consecration invalid.  You could destroy the priesthood in a generation - no more bishops, no more priests.  It's genius!

EDIT: I retract what I said in the slashed through portions. I had forgotten about the Eastern Catholic Bishops

Indeed, it would be catastrophic. Such a scenario would entail the defection of the Church due to a lack of formal and material apostolicity; for both Sedeplenists and Sedevacantists, as none of the sede Bishops claim or have ordinary jurisdiction, and all of the Bishops who have ordinary jurisdiction are formally adhere to Vatican II and are inside "The Conciliar Church".

Of course, if it is valid Sedes have some legs to stand on in regard to the Apostalicity of the Church; even an anti-pope could validly supply ordinary jurisdiction to the Bishops he appoints and approves, as his juridical acts would be supplied jurisdiction to do so as a result of common error. But that is contingent on them being valid Bishops in the first place.

It's an interesting Catch 22. Frankly I don't know why the sedevacantist Bishops don't just claim ordinary jurisdiction by a divine/miraculous grant (which St. Vincent Ferrier and a few others have had in history) and then proceed to elect a Pope, but that's neither here nor there.

[awkward customer]

The idea that the NO Rite for consecrating Bishops is invalid would be just too awful to contemplate, wouldn't it.  And so it has to be valid, doesn't it.  Forces as evil as that simply cannot be at work, can they.

Just think of the level of evil genius that would be involved.  Get your apostate Modernist servants into positions of power throughout the Church.  Make sure that when they ruin the Mass, they leave enough of the words in place to convince people that the rite is valid, while at the same time ensuring that the liturgical changes to the Mass are the focus of attention while at the same time destroying the Faith of millions. And then quietly render the rite of consecration invalid.  You could destroy the priesthood in a generation - no more bishops, no more priests.  It's genius!

Indeed, it would be catastrophic. Such a scenario would entail the defection of the Church due to a lack of formal and material apostolicity; for both Sedeplenists and Sedevacantists, as none of the sede Bishops claim or have ordinary jurisdiction, and all of the Bishops who have ordinary jurisdiction are formally adhere to Vatican II and are inside "The Conciliar Church".

Of course, if it is valid Sedes have some legs to stand on in regard to the Apostalicity of the Church; even an anti-pope could validly supply ordinary jurisdiction to the Bishops he appoints and approves, as his juridical acts would be supplied jurisdiction to do so as a result of common error. But that is contingent on them being valid Bishops in the first place.

It's an interesting Catch 22. Frankly I don't know why the sedevacantist Bishops don't just claim ordinary jurisdiction by a divine/miraculous grant (which St. Vincent Ferrier and a few others have had in history) and then proceed to elect a Pope, but that's neither here nor there.

We agree.  It would be a disaster.

But is it possible and if it is, why wouldn't Satan try it?

[Justin Martyr]

We agree.  It would be a disaster.

But is it possible and if it is, why wouldn't Satan try it?

Given the dogma of indefectibility, it is impossible for the Catholic Church to promulgate invalid or doubtfully valid sacramental rites. If the Church could, then She could defect; the Church can not defect and this is know with the certainty of faith; ergo...

[andy]

Justin,

Based on what you said, we would have to consider a baptism with form "I baptize you <name> in the name of Holy Trinity" valid. Would not you?

[Justin Martyr]

Justin,

Based on what you said, we would have to consider a baptism with form "I baptize you <name> in the name of Holy Trinity" valid. Would not you?

No, because the Holy Trinity is not a person (it is a concept), and the explicit mention of the persons (though not necessarily by their common names) are a substantial part of the form; unlike the case under discussion which does not touch upon the substantial part of the form for consecration of the Precious Blood as articulated by St. Thomas; namely, the signification of the change of the wine into the Precious Blood, the securing of our eternal heritage, justification by grace, and the removal of sins.

[Justin Martyr]

As an aside, I thank all of you for your discussion on this thread. Talking and reading about the Precious Blood over the past couple of days made it much easier to meditate on the Sorrowful Mysteries when I prayed my nightly rosary.

[Lavenderson]

Its comparing apples and oranges.

Christ died for all in potency, not in act (potential vs actual). The distinction exists for a reason.

This is exactly what the Jansenists taught: That Christ's blood has infinite satisfactory value, so it could potentially give grace to and save all; but, in act, he died only to give grace to and save the elect.

That is heretical. If one instead maintains that Christ died only for the Faithful (rather than only the elect) then it is Proximate to Heresy. Christ actually died for the end of providing grace and salvation to all. That his blood is only applied to many, and that only many are saved, does not contradict this.

If speaking in potential terms doesn't invalidate the Consecration then it would neither be invalid to declare myself as Pope, simply because its in the (very distant) realm of potential.

It's not speaking in potential terms; Christ truly shed his blood for all and merited grace for all in act.

Our issue is one of semantics, not dogma, so put the heresy-finger back in the holster. I agree that Christ died for the end of providing grace and salvation to all. That's called sufficient grace, because it provides the potential for all to be saved, without which we would not even have the possibility. But in reality, only efficient grace saves a soul from going to hell, because only some are actually saved.

Again, if speaking in potential terms doesn't invalidate something as real as the Consecration then it would neither be invalid to declare myself as Pope, simply because its in the realm of possibility. You answered: "It's not speaking in potential terms." I absolutely agree, the Consecration does not speak in potentialities, because to do so would not reflect what actually ends up happening in reality.

Saying Christ's Redemption provides salvation to all in act leads to something insidious in my view: If some souls still go to hell, then God shedding His Blood was in vain for those cases. However if nothing God does is ever in vain, then His Redemption didn't merely provide the possibility for all to be saved, but actually saves everyone without exception, leaving Hell empty aside from the fallen angels. The problem is glaring to me.

As this relates to the use of "for all", the only thing still certain to me about the vernacular NO is doubt.