Honestly, I’ve come to the conclusion that there is no, nor was there ever, a reasonable “middle ground” conservative Catholicism. “Conservative Catholicism” was always doomed to failure, because of its attempt at creating a middle ground between the orthodoxy and orthopaxis of historical Catholicism and the catholicism that emerged after VII beside the Novus Ordo, mainly in the name of (a mostly false) ecumenism. The Novus Ordo CAN be offered in a reverent sacred manner devoid of liturgical abuse. I’ve found a handful of examples, probably a half dozen done this way on a regular basis. Unfortunately the Novus Ordo as it exists in America (and what I saw in Haiti, the only other country I’ve personally witnessed the Mass) is that 98% of Novus Ordo masses in America contain some element of either liturgical abuse, heterodoxy, banal insipid music, etc. Some of them are not only illicit but also invalid. Traditional Catholics are almost 100% onboard with the traditional theology regarding marriage only between man and women, all sexual activity outside marriage is mortally sinful as well as contraception and abortion, and every other hot button issue. Belief in the Real Presence is universal among Traditional Catholics. “Conservative Novus Ordo Catholicism” is not orthodox in its beliefs according to polls, and it’s rates of belief in the essentials Traditional Catholics hold dear is approaching that of both Protestants and the culture at large. And it’s belief in the True Presence isn’t even a given. PBXVI’s “reform of the reform” has proven untenable. No amount of bluster on the part of the Vatican or local bishops can put the mess of the reality of 98% of Novus Ordo masses back in the bottle. The Novus Ordo is irreformable and thus will be eliminated. Am I saying Christ is not Truly Present at a valid Novus Ordo Mass? Of course not! But the vast majority of Novus Ordo Masses are a clear and present danger to our Faith and that of our children. A truly bad Novus Ordo Mass should be avoided as a danger to one’s eternal salvation. Literally. That said, I attend a valid licit orthodox and reverent Novus Ordo Mass 95% of the time now, as I have access to two parishes local to me where it’s offered correctly, and the option to kneel to receive on the tongue is available at both locations. Unfortunately this is such a rare occurrence that it’s almost unprecedented in America. If this were not available to me, I would only be attending a TLM, even if that meant going to a chapel in “irregular canonical status” with Rome. The “conservative Catholic Novus Ordo” option is dying. Orthodox Catholics want and are seeking out the TLM. In another generation the Novus Ordo will be gone, fortunately. After the minor chastisement and the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart the Mass WILL be restored and all this acrimony and middle ground will be gladly forgotten.
Must respectfully disagree, Brian. I've been to plenty of NOMs, usually accompanied or finished by Eucharistic Adoration, and I don't think a valid, Grace-Giving Holy Mass in the Catholic Church can be accurately characterized as a "danger to the Faith". That is the Old Wathenite Error: I go also to SSPX TLMs, as and when they are available, like on Sunday. On other subjects, the Priests there are good. But on this issue, they are mistaken. And while they are not as extreme as the wretched Fr. Wathen (who impiously/sacrilegously taught that every NOM is a Mortal Sin, that every Mainstream Catholic Priest is an "Idolater"), nevertheless, over the course of time, some SSPX Priests have been influenced by his error and departed from the original (and prudent) position of Archbishop Lefebvre. (1) go to TLMs as often as possible, but (2) if one is not available within reasonable distance, go to the NOM. [edit: the link: https://reasonstobechristian.com/f/major-mistake-sspx-is-making-which-“encourages-atheism-per-abl] Archbishop Lefebvre's earlier position and Fr. Ripperger's current teaching is right: The TLM is Objectively Superior and must be preferred whenever available. but the NOM is not a sin, and cannot be, let alone a "mortal sin", and must be availed of as a Grace-Giving Eucharistic Sacrifice when available. The Pre-Vatican II theological evidence, from Van Noort etc, is clear. If the NOM is a sin, Catholic Christianity was always a lie. And it isn't of course.
I go both Novus Ordo and Traditional Masses. Mostly to Novus Ordo because they do morning masses which I much prefer. As to the richness of the Liturgy I prefer the Old Mass very much. Also during lock downs the Traditional Mass kept right on going in secret without those awful masks and mad separation things they did which drove me crazy. I was sitting yesterday after Mass peacefully doing my rosary after the Novus Ordo Mass in my local Parish Church when the Sacristan and the altar server wandered in and talked and laughed right in front of me in the Church all through my rosary which drives me crazy; this would never happen up in the Traditional Church. There are several concerns about the Novus Ordo Rite, but for me it is not a killer. It reminds me of having to choose two hotels, if I had to choose personally it would always be the Traditional, all else being equal. But I understand that most Catholics just can't have the Old Rite any more and I respect this. One thing does give me pause though. I think Traditionalists have been much, much firmer in standing their ground against the New Waves of Heresy that are over taking the Church. SO that's something to consider. But I am going to the Novus Ordo Mass this morning and I am fine with it. I think a lot of what we take out of the Mass is what we take into it. I go there to pray. Not as as a Social Occasion. One thing though I do notice in Rome is that the Novus Ordo masses tend to be celbrated much more strictly there, closer to the Ancient Mass. A far better liturgy.
That picture reminds me of what I see in St Mary's Church in the heart of Belfast - such a holy place - even though exclusively Novus Ordo I can almost see beyond the veil in that sanctuary - so many prayers must have been said in that chapel down through the years to make it such a mystical place.
I never said it was. I was only referring to NOMs filled with heresy and liturgical abuse: “A truly bad Novus Ordo Mass should be avoided as a danger to one’s eternal salvation. Literally.” And I clearly stated I usually attend a valid licit NOM. What I stated has nothing whatsoever to do with those who claim the NOM should be avoided. My apologies if I wasn’t clear enough in this regard.
I never attended the Tridentine Mass, so I can't say much about the differences between the traditional and the new rite; however, a break between the traditional and the post-conciliar church that causes me some discomfort is the fact that the 1992 catechism states that Muslims worship the same God as Catholics, while the Koran denies the divinity of Christ, his divine sonship, and his atoning death, in addition to the fact that the concept of Islamic paradise is the satisfaction of the sins that most lead souls to hell, according to Saint Jacinta.
The grounds for claiming Muslims and Jews worship the same God as Catholics while denying the Holy Trinity rests on the claim that only three religions declare the God of Abraham is their God. https://tradicat.blogspot.com/2014/06/is-object-of-catholic-jewish-and.html Lord have Mercy!
https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/priestly-ignorance-of-the-new- Priestly Ignorance of the New Mass If priests are not aware of the origins of the new Mass, how can we expect fruitful dialog about the fact that some people prefer the preconciliar Mass to the modern one? Msgr. Richard C. Antall At a reunion of priests on the occasion of an anniversary, there was a discussion of the many aspects of Church life, especially about the suppression of the pre-Paul VI Roman Rite. Only one of the priests had celebrated the Mass of St. Pius V, and some of the padres were surprised at how some younger priests favored the old Mass. “I just believe that when the Second Vatican Council said that we had to use English that we have to accept what it said,” opined one of the brethren. In my usual and subtle way, I commented on his statement. “What are you talking about? The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy was written before the Novus Ordo was written and speaks of permitting the vernacular, not mandating it.” In fact, the Constitution says, “The use of the Latin language is to be maintained in the Latin rites, except where a particular law might indicate otherwise” (36.1). The next statement reads, “there cannot at all infrequently [haud raro] exist a practice of using the local language…firstly in the readings and in instructions given to the people, in someprayers and in some of the singing” (emphasis added). Paragraph 54 also calls for “a suitable place for the local language” in the liturgy, not the exclusion of Latin. The Second Vatican Council called for a reform of the liturgy but did not write the new Missal. There is a real need to distinguish the conciliar teaching on the Eucharist in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy and the reforms that were promulgated afterward. The Novus Ordo was composed after the bishops went home and the pope had approved the decrees. Just as there are those who quibble with the use of the phrase Tridentine Mass, there is much more reason to distinguish the teaching of the Council from the postconciliar Mass. Just as there are those who quibble with the use of the phrase Tridentine Mass, there is much more reason to distinguish the teaching of the Council with the postconciliar Mass.Tweet This Msgr. Klaus Gamber was a severe critic of the New Mass. He had no trouble distinguishing it from the Council teaching, however. He wrote: “There is also a consensus that the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy corresponded in many respects to the legitimate pastoral requirements of our time. But no such consensus exists when we look at the reforms that were actually introduced.” Cardinal Ratzinger, in the preface of a French edition of Gamber’s book The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background, had a very startling comment on the work of the committees that rewrote the Roman Missal. After mentioning J.A. Jungmann’s theory of the organic development of the Western liturgy, he wrote, What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it—as in a manufacturing process—with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product. (This is the translation on the book cover of Gamber’s work, it varies somewhat from that given in the Ignatius Press collected works, with “insipid” instead of banal.) Louis Bouyer, one of the liturgical theologians at the Council had a similar idea. “You’ll have some idea of the deplorable conditions in which this hasty reform was expedited when I recount how the second Eucharistic prayer was cobbled together…I cannot reread that improbable composition without recalling the Trastevere café terrace where we had to put the finishing touches to our assignment in order to show up with it at the Bronze Gate by the time set by our masters” (Memoirsof Louis Bouyer, 222). It sounds like some of the reforms were written as I wrote some college term papers, the night before they were due. The man in charge of the process of producing the final reforms was, in Bouyer’s no-holds-barred description, “the mealy-mouthed scoundrel… the Neapolitan Vincentian, Bugnini, a man as bereft of culture as he was of basic honesty” (Memoirs, 219). Bugnini is the bugbear of many people who see him connected with conspiratorial figures. In Memoirs, Bouyer attests to the Neapolitan’s manipulation of the efforts of his coworkers. In a private discussion with Pope St. Paul VI, Bouyer found out that the pontiff did not understand why a certain detail of the liturgy was included. “Naturally, I answered: ‘Why simply because Bugnini had assured us that you absolutely wished it.’ His reaction was instantaneous: ‘Can this be? He told me himself that you were unanimous on this!’” Bouyer seemed to believe other people were using Bugnini. What is clear, however, is that St. Paul VI was not completely satisfied with the reform package he eventually ratified. Some of the ambivalence of the pontiff explains why he gave a special permission for the Old Mass to continue to be celebrated in England, with restrictions. This so-called “Agatha Christie Indult” was given when a group of intellectuals and artists, including non-Catholic Agatha Christie, had petitioned the pope to allow the rite to survive under limited conditions. It says something about the saint’s reading in English that he was said to have recognized the author of Miss Marple but not Evelyn Waugh, who also signed. I am sure that only a minority of priests know about the backstory of how the new Missal was produced. Even when the new translation of the Missal came out in 2011, when some very crucial changes were promulgated (even the wording of the consecration of the Precious Blood), or in the fix given to the Collect Prayers, the translation of which was apparently defective in every Mass said with the English language Missal for over fifty years, there was never much information given about the haste and even intrigue involved in the postconciliar “reform.” If priests (and, of course, and more culpably, the bishops) are not aware of these things, how can we expect fruitful dialog about the fact that some people prefer the preconciliar Mass to the modern one? It was my personal hope that the revival of the Mass of St. Pius V would truly promote “the reform of the reform.” Instead, the argument has led some people to extreme positions, including some of the so-called “traditionalists” who I feel are on the side of the angels but whose opinions have been caricatured and manipulated to stop needed adjustments to the New Mass. Things could still change for the majority of parishes and parishioners. The ad orientem option with the Novus Ordo would improve the spirituality of the priests and focus the attention of the people on the sacrifice and not on the sacrificers. I am disappointed with so many priests, and, of course, bishops, who decry “the priest turning his back on the people” as the favored cliché argument used against priest and people looking to God. They obviously don’t get the point of the discussion. We should start disabusing those “conservatives” who attack the Council in principle, not taking into account the unique style of rhetoric and the reasons behind it, and without reading the actual documents, and at the same time those liberals who defend a “Council” that never was, never will be, nor never should have been. More light, less heat about liturgical topics requires a broader and deeper approach to liturgical theology than what I received in seminary (and what the Second Vatican Council saw as necessary) and than what I believe is available in most formation programs today. The Council wanted to rescue the liturgy from rubricism; now we seem to have two competing rubricisms, the old and the new, with a number of young priests and seminarians in favor of the old. The center, it seems, does not hold, but that is where most of us are. I hate to sound like Mercutio on the Montagues and Capulets, but sometimes… Author Monsignor Antall is pastor of Holy Name Parish in the Diocese of Cleveland. He is the author of The X-Mass Files (Atmosphere Press, 2021), and The Wedding (Lambing Press, 2019).
but they reject the Apostles' Creed and its fundamental tenets of faith. Wouldn't that put them on the side of the Gnostics, who in the early church already worshiped a different God?
They're Muslims and Jews; they fail to acknowledge that the God of Abraham is a Trinity of Persons. In this respect Catholicism contains the fullness of Truth. Neither the Church nor I are claiming that everything is just fine. Jews and Muslims still need to be evangelized. John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; 28 and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”31 The Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these do you stone me?” 33 The Jews answered him, “We stone you for no good work but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God.”
While I'm sure that I will make some enemies, I must state what I believe to be the truth. I believe that certain prayers found in Novus Ordo cause great offense to God. To understand why, you must compare the prayers of the Novus Ordo to the "equivalent" prayers found in the Tridentine Mass. If you don't do a comparison, you will not understand what has been INTENTIONALLY removed from the traditional prayers. It is this INTENTIONAL removal of certain words from these prayers that causes the offense to God. I will provide three examples (in order of importance): 1. In the Tridentine Mass, St. Michael is called upon 7 times. He is not mentioned in the Novus Ordo liturgy. St. Michael is our protector from Satan. Why would reference to him be removed? 2. The Offertory prayers have been changed from an offering of the victim/host for sins (TLM) into an offering of the "work of human hands" in the form of bread and wine (Novus Ordo). Only Jesus's offering on Calvary can satisfy. Our human "works" alone cannot satisfy. What justification could there be for this change? 3. The meaning/sense of words of the consecration for the Precious Blood (the "form" required for validity) has been changed in all 4 Eucharistic Prayers. This universal change was to the phrase "the mystery of faith," taking the phrase out of its original context with its traditional meaning and transplanting it into a new context and creating a new/variable meaning of that phrase. Why change the Sacramental "form" that had been in place since time immemorial? The last point being the most important from the perspective of "validity," I will explain in more detail. To change the "form" of the Eucharist, as has been done in the Novus Ordo, is like changing the "form" of Baptism into something like "I baptise you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Spirit." By removing that one word "Holy" from the baptismal "form," you would invalidate the Sacrament of Baptism. Similarly, by removing the phrase "the mystery of faith" from the traditional "form" of the Eucharist, you invalidate the consecration of the Precious Blood. There are two Eucharistic consecrations that occur in the real Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This double-consecration (Body and then Blood) represents the immolation/destruction of the Victim (Jesus) by separating His Body and His Blood Sacramentally. If the double-consecration does not happen, the propitiatory Sacrifice does not happen. You are left with defective Mass, a mere "sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving," which was the intention of the masonic and Protestant architects of the Novus Ordo liturgy to begin with. You might think that this is just my opinion that a small change in the wording of "the form" can cause invalidity of the Sacrament. But you would be wrong. This is, in fact, St. Pius V's opinion. And his Magisterial declaration, in the papal Bull Quo Primum, in which the Tridentine Missal was promulgated, supports what I said. In the instruction De defectibus, which has been included in every Tridentine Missal since it original publication, St. Pius V said the following: V - Defects of the form 20. 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, and HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: MYSTERIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM 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. I know, you will say that the Pope Paul VI promulgated the changes to "the form," so it must be okay. But you must understand this. In this Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, Pope Paul VI was not replacing the Mass of Pius V with the Novus Ordo liturgy. Rather, he was revising and adding a new "Rite of Concelebration" to the already existing Roman Missal. This new Rite of Concelebration had been authorized in the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium at Vatican II. The Rite of Concelebration was supposed to be used only on very specific occasions, such as the liturgies for episcopal consecrations, priestly ordinations, and the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday. Certain Vatican infiltrators (not the Pope) performed a kind of magic trick, making people think that a full "replacement" of the Mass had been authorized. But Benedict XVI proved that was not the case in Summorum Pontificum when he stated that the Traditional Mass was "never abrogated." So the Novus Ordo is validly promulgated as the new Rite of Concelebration. But that does not mean that the Novus Ordo replaces the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Mass of St. Pius V. Please do not shoot the messenger. You have free will. You can look up what I have told you and come to your own conclusions. I have provided all the links to the documents. I know many people are confused and have been misled. But now you must choose to seek out the truth and follow it wherever it takes you, which should be to your nearest TLM. May God bless you in your search.
I don’t question your logic here. However, how do you explain real verifiable Vatican approved Eucharistic Miracles at Novus Ordo Masses if they are intrinsically invalid as you seem to state here?
Even the SSPX recognizes the validity of the Novus Ordo: https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/new-eucharistic-miracle-poland New Eucharistic Miracle in Poland May 01, 2016 Source: District of the USA A report on the most recent Eucharistic miracle in Poland with an answer to a common objection. Recent miracles, which are investigated by scientists and made public by the proper ecclesiastical authority: are they not in the plan of God? And today as in the past, are they not a reminder of His Real Presence, a powerful apologetical argument, and an invitation to increase our faith and devotion? On Christmas Day, 2013, a consecrated host accidentally fell to the floor during the distribution of Communion in the parish of St. Hyacinth, Legnica, Poland. The priest picked it up and placed the host in a container with water as the rubrics prescribe in such a case. Soon after, red stains appeared on the host. The then bishop of Legnica, Stefan Cichy, created a commission to investigate it. In February, 2014, a tiny red fragment of the host was separated and placed on a corporal. The Scientific Process Samples were taken in order to conduct thorough tests by the Department of Forensic Medicine in Szczecin. The final medical statement reported that “in the histopathological image, the fragments were found containing the fragmented parts of the cross striated muscle. It is most similar to the heart muscle.” DNA tests also determined the tissue to be of human origin, and found that it bore signs of distress. The Vatican Investigates In January 2016, Bishop Kiernikowski presented the matter to the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. On April 10, Bishop Zbigniew Kiernikowski of Legnica made public in a Communiqué that a Eucharistic miracle had happened in 2013. In accordance with the Holy See’s recommendations, he ordered parish priest Andrzej Ziombrze “to prepare a suitable place for the Relic so that the faithful could give it the proper adoration.” I also ask for providing the visitors with information and conducting the regular teaching that could help the faithful to have the proper attitude to the Eucharistic cult. I also command to form a book to register all received benefits and other miraculous events.” Bishop Kiernikowski concluded his announcement with these words: I hope that this will serve to deepen the cult of the Eucharist and will have deep impact on the lives of people facing the Relic. We see the mysterious sign as an extraordinary act of love and goodness of God, who comes to humans in ultimate humiliation.” In Sokolka, Poland in 2008, a similar miracle took place, and a separate investigation led by Prof. Maria Elizabeth Sobaniec-Łotowka and Prof. Stanislaw Sulkowski, both from the University of Bialystok, concluded that the fragment analyzed was cardiac muscular tissue of a dying man. Historical Details Following their conquest of Russia, the Mongols (Tatar) commanded by Batu Khan invaded Poland and Hungary in 1241. As it happened so often in the history, Poland stood up courageously to defend Europe and stop the invaders. At the Battle of Liegnitz, or Legnica, on April 9, 1241, the Mongols defeated a Polish army under Henry II, prince of Lower Silesia. But this battle put an end to the Mongol invasion for some time. They turned away from Bohemia and Poland and headed south. The Soviets – who often used symbols - had a Red Army battalion in Legnica composed exclusively of soldiers from Central Asia. The parish where these events happened is dedicated to St. Hyacinth, the first Polish Dominican and companion of St. Dominic. In 1240, during the Siege of Kiev by the Mongols, as the friars were fleeing, Hyacinth went to save the ciborium from the tabernacle in the monastery chapel. He heard the voice of Mary, asking him to take her with him. Hyacinth lifted the large stone statue of Mary and saved both the Blessed Sacrament and Our Lady. St. Hyacinth's church in Legnica was built in 1904/5 by order of Emperor Guillaume II when Silesia was under the Prussian dominion. It was then a Protestant temple built “in memory of Emperor Frederic III”. In 1945, the Red Army used it as a stable for horses. In 1972, when it was eventually converted to the Catholic Faith, it was the unique case of a Protestant church converted into a Catholic church in recent Polish history. Answer to a Common Objection Some may ask the question: how can God allow a miracle to happen in the context of the New Mass? When we say the New rite is defective, we do not say all the Masses celebrated with this rite are invalid. We say that the rite in itself departs from the unequivocal expression of the Catholic doctrine about the priest, the Real Presence, and the propitiatory character of the sacrifice. During any valid Mass, the host is consecrated and therefore Our Lord is present under the species of wine and bread, no matter how the reverence of the priest and of the assistants treat Him. In fact, Church history shows us that Eucharistic miracles - which consist precisely in the appearance of other species - often happen because of doubt or irreverence. At Lanciano, the priest doubted the Real Presence. At Cascia, the priest was irreverent by putting the host in his breviary for a sick call. Whenever the mass is valid, Our Lord is present. God freely manifests His power by a miracle to rectify the attitude towards the reality of the Eucharist. May these miracles lead to the suppression of Communion in the hand and bring the definitive triumph of the traditional Mass!
BrianK, there is a double-consecration. The "form" of the consecration of the Body did not change in the Novus Ordo. So, if a validly-ordained Priest uses the words of consecration of the Body, "This is my Body," with the proper Sacramental matter and intention, then I have no reason to doubt that the host would be transubstantiated. Having said that, there are many questions surrounding the modern Eucharistic Miracles. I do not take those claims at face value. And, even assuming that they are true, God can perform miracles at any time for reasons that we don't understand. If these miracles are authentic, God may have performed them for reasons other than to prove the validity of the Novus Ordo liturgy. That is an assumption, but not proven by the mere fact that a miracle occurred. One thing I'm sure of is that God would not perform a miracle with the intention of undermining the infallible Magisterium of St. Pius V.
Unfortunately I don’t think the MOG forum is the place for this kind of speculation PNF. The validity of the Novus Ordo is a given; this is NOT the place to deny the Real Presence in either the Body or the Blood at the consecration at the NOM. Not even the SSPX goes there. For good reason.
PNF, In the Novus Ordo Consecration of the Blood, the equivalent of MYSTERIUM FIDEI (The Mystery of Faith) is extracted from the consecration of the Blood and proclaimed aloud to the faithful present, immediately following. Since the words, MYSTERIUM FIDEI (The Mystery of Faith), were not spoken by Jesus Himself, why does their placement immediately following the words of Consecration instead, invalidate the Consecration of the wine? I don't understand. You do say MYSTERIUM FIDEI has been used in the words of Consecration since time immemorial. Could you provide examples?
Hi Mario. I will let Dr. Kwasniewski explain some background on the question. Let me know if, after reading what he has to say, you would like me to clarify what I said. https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2020/07/the-displacement-of-mysterium-fidei-and.html
IMO there is no conservative or liberal Catholicism. This is a false dichotomy, and Chesterton explained that very well. There is faithful/orthodox or unfaithful/unorthodox Catholics, period.
I will take a look at the above, but I just found this in Thomas Aquinas' Summa (see: The Mystery of Faith below) Objection 9. Further, the words whereby this sacrament is consecrated draw their efficacy from Christ's institution. But no Evangelist narrates that Christ spoke all these words. Therefore this is not an appropriate form for the consecration of the wine. Response: Consequently it must be said that all the aforesaid words belong to the substance of the form; but that by the first words, "This is the chalice of My blood," the change of the wine into blood is denoted, as explained above (Article 2) in the form for the consecration of the bread; but by the words which come after is shown the power of the blood shed in the Passion, which power works in this sacrament, and is ordained for three purposes. First and principally for securing our eternal heritage, according to Hebrews 10:19: "Having confidence in the entering into the holies by the blood of Christ"; and in order to denote this, we say, "of the New and Eternal Testament." Secondly, for justifying by grace, which is by faith according to Romans 3:25-26: "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood . . . that He Himself may be just, and the justifier of him who is of the faith of Jesus Christ": and on this account we add, "The Mystery of Faith." Thirdly, for removing sins which are the impediments to both of these things, according to Hebrews 9:14: "The blood of Christ . . . shall cleanse our conscience from dead works," that is, from sins; and on this account, we say, "which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins."
