“Conservative” vs Traditional Catholicism

I second Mario's question, PNF. As far as I can see, Dr. Kwasniewski does not say that this removal of the Mysterium Fidei invalidates the Consecration of the Wine - although he does criticise the removal severely.

"7. As Always, Tradition Is the Way Forward

The mystery of our faith is intimately and intrinsically bound up with hunc praeclarum calicem, “this precious chalice.” The whispered words mysterium fidei stand at the heart of the consecration of the chalice. Their removal is emblematic of what was done to the liturgy as a whole, when the heart of so many rites was ripped out of them. Even if the words mysterium fidei are not necessary for signifying transubstantiation (and thus, the consecration can be “effective,” and the Mass “valid,” without them), the removal of the phrase from its age-old position exudes the attitude: nothing is sacred."

 

I read Peter's argument against the re-positioning of MYSTERIUM FIDEI. In keeping with Aquinas' insights, I conclude that the wisdom of shifting it to the form of an acclamation by Paul VI is both unfounded and sad. It would have been far better left untouched. However, I disagree that your conclusion of invalidity is necessarily true. Peter doesn't state that nor does Aquinas touch upon the issue of invalidity. Sad as the situation is, I think your claim of invalidity goes one step too far.

Double sigh!!

 

I agree. An af firmation of the True Presence is needed. I often pray silently in worship of His actual Presence at that moment.

 

At least the Jews still worship the Father, though very imperfectly. This is the Father we are familiar with from the Old Testament.

The being whom the Mohammedans worship bears little resemblance to Our Father.

 

No shame in being bettered by GKC!

 

In the case of Mormons, there is an extra-biblical literature on which they base their faith called "the Book of Abraham", The translation was supposedly made in 1835 by Joseph Smith Jr. from a set of Egyptian papyri acquired from exposure; however, it seems that they are directing their worship to a false God due to their very strange cosmology and theology that says that God the Father was once a mortal being like us.

 

If Christ was sent by the Father, but the Jews have rejected Him...are they still truly worshipping the same God? Jesus said no one comes to the Father except by Him, and that those who deny Him will be denied by Him to the Father. He and the Father are One. Can someone reject Christ without rejecting the Father? I would think only a Jew that knows nothing about Christ could still be possibly worshipping the true God, yet imperfectly.

 

My two cents on this - theologically on a low level, only based on experience.
My family, including me, attended TLM exclusively from the beginning of the nineties until about 2018.
Since then, this is no longer possible - the reasons for this are unimportant at this point - we currently only go to Holy Masses via TV.
Almost only Novus Ordo Masses are broadcast there.
At the beginning I had great difficulties with this and constantly noticed the less holy acts.
There are huge differences between Novus Ordo masses. That is also one of the problems. The priests have too many possibilities to rearrange.
But there are also very good priests with very good Novus Ordo Masses.
I know from a TLM priest who switched to the SSPX that the congregation, i.e. the laity, put pressure on many Novus Ordo priests to offer hand communion, for example.
There are many differences, the difference between TLM and Novus Ordo in dealing with the consecrated host is sometimes extreme.
But it's okay for us now, I'm more devout now than I used to be
That has nothing to do with the Novus Ordo , life has directed it that way
And we regularly have communion brought to us by TLM priests.

 

Yes Mario, St. Thomas's position is consistent with St. Pius V when he stated the following:

"it must be said that all the aforesaid words belong to the substance of the form."​

All of the words of the traditional form are necessary because they "substantial." The "substance" of something cannot be divided and, at the same time, remain the same thing. So the "substance of the form" cannot be chopped up and remain the same "form of the Sacrament." This is what St. Pius V says in De defectibus as well.

You can read the entire Article from the Summa for yourself:

https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.III.Q78.A3

That Article very clearly juxtaposes two theological opinions debated in St. Thomas's time:

1. One group of theologians claimed that only the words "this is the chalice of my blood" is necessary for the confection of the Sacrament.

2. St. Thomas and other theologians claim that "all of the aforesaid words" (i.e., 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 forgiveness of sins.) are necessary for the confection of the Sacrament.​

But that debate was officially ended when Pope St. Pius V sided with opinion #2 in De defectibus. So, the fact that the phrase "mysterium fidei" is necessary to "the form" is settled and infallible.

The next question is can the words "mysterium fidei" be moved from its traditional context inside the actual "form" and placed in a different context outside of the "form" and still retain its meaning as part of "the form" of the Sacrament? The answer should be obvious: the answer is No.

No one claims that the new Novus Ordo acclamation "The Mystery of Faith," which is followed by one of the three phrases is part of "the form" of the Sacrament in the Novus Ordo "eucharistic prayer." Here are the words of Pope Paul VI in Missale Romanum:

Thus, in each Eucharistic Prayer, we wish that the words be pronounced thus: over the bread: ACCIPITE ET MANDUCATE EX HOC OMNES: HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, QUOD PRO VOBIS TRADETUR; over the chalice: ACCIPITE ET BIBITE EX EO OMNES: HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI, QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM. HOC FACITE IN MEAM COMMEMORATIONEM. The words MYSTERIUM FIDEI, taken from the context of the words of Christ the Lord, and said by the priest, serve as an introduction to the acclamation of the faithful.​

Again, think about "the form" of Baptism. That Sacramental "form" cannot be tampered with. Words cannot be removed and rearranged in a way that changes the meaning or adds words or takes away necessary words. The fact is that "the form" of the Novus Ordo consecration of the Precious Blood is substantially different from what St. Thomas (theologically) and what St. Pius V (Magisterially) said was required of that Sacramental "form."

 

Hi InVeritatem. I was using Dr. K's article to explain to Mario why the change to the phrase "mysterium fidei" was important, not that I agreed with his ultimate conclusion. Dr. K seems to come to a different conclusion than I do. Although, please note that he includes the conditional "if" in his statement (bold by you).

I have provided evidence from St. Thomas (theological) and from Pope St. Pius V (Magisterial) to substantiate my conclusion. I cannot explain why Dr. K comes to his, rather ambiguous, conclusion. But both I and Dr. K agree that the change, at the very least, "exudes the attitude: nothing is sacred." The change is an offense against Sacred Tradition. Said another way, it is a sacrilegious change, at best.

 

Just to clarify, your saying the bread is transubstantiated into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ?

 

I believe the wheaten host can be transubstantiated in the Novus Ordo, as long as there is valid matter, form, intention and minister.

However, the Double Consecration is necessary for the "Holy Sacrifice" to be properly consummated. If we assume that the Eucharist is present in the consecrated wheaten host, but that the Precious Blood is not also transubstantiated in the Novus Ordo, then there would be no Double Consecration. If there is no Double Consecration, then there would be no "Holy Sacrifice." And the result would be a terrible sacrilege, according to Canon Law:

Can. 927 It is absolutely forbidden, even in extreme urgent necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other or even both outside the eucharistic celebration.

Can. 927 — Nefas est, urgente etiam extrema necessitate, alteram materiam sine altera, aut etiam utramque extra eucharisticam celebrationem, consecrare.
​

The latin word "nefas" is also translated as "wicked." The reason it would be "wicked" to consecrate the Eucharist outside of the authentic Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is that the Eucharist is, properly speaking, the "fruit" of the Sacrifice on Calvary. To confect the "fruit" without the performing the Sacrifice in the Mass is an offense against Our Lord by not recognizing the spilling of His Blood as the only proper origin of that "fruit."

When one understands the goals of the Masonic and Protestant architects of the Novus Ordo, one can understand the likely motives behind the changes that were made.

 

Thanks for that clarification. No "double" consecration = no Holy Sacrifice.

 

So PNF, I am mindful of BrianK's dictum that the validity of Novus Ordo Masses is a given on this forum. I certainly believe that, and I do not intend to muddy the waters or cause confusion on this matter.

You point out that there is a double Consecration occuring in the Mass, and you claim that in the Novus Ordo Mass (NOM) the second of these Consecrations, that of confecting the Wine into the Precious Blood, is invalid and therefore the Precious Blood is not in fact produced in that Mass. You claim that the repositioning of the words "mysterium fidei" / "the mystery of faith" to just after the "words of the consecration" causes this invalidity.

In the original TLM the "mysterium fidei" words are bracketed by the (corresponding Latin) colon delimited words of the proximal: "TAKE THIS ALL OF YOU AND DRINK FROM IT, FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT," and the distal words: "WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS."

In the Novus Ordo the proximal and distal words are joined together and "the mystery of faith" is proclaimed immediately after the proximal-distal words by both the Priest and the congregation.

So I believe Mario's question still stands: "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 believe it does not:

1. St. Pius V proclaims magisterially that

"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."

It is a fact that the form of the consecration is logically and gramatically compound and has within it logical elements. In fact the "mysterium fidei" element is bracketed by colons on either side, showing it is elemental in nature. So what has occurred in the transition to the NOM is that the order of the elements of the wording has been changed. This change has not altered the meaning or substance of the entire words whatever. Therefore the Precious Blood is able to be confected in the NOM. Furthermore, in his encyclical entitled Mysterium Fidei, Pope Paul Vi quotes St. John Chrysostom who said:

"It is not man who makes what is put before him the Body and Blood of Christ, but Christ Himself who was crucified for us. The priest standing there in the place of Christ says these words, but their power and grace are from God. This is my Body, he says, and these words transform what lies before him." By analogy, it is the words "THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD" which tranforms the wine into the Precious Blood.

2. Neither has the change added or taken away anything from the substance or form of the Consecration; so there is no grave sin involved. The mysterium fidei still refers to the Precious Blood. The fact that the proclamations by the congregation are less than ideal has no bearing on the validity of the Consecration. We can still privately contemplate the mystery of faith in a more appropriate way.

3. Logically, the change in the positional ordering of the "mystery of faith" does not in any way abrogate the purose of it as defined by St. Thomas Aquinas:
"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." The mysterium fidei in the NOM still refers to the Precious Blood.

4. In addition, all of the words of the traditional form still exist in the NOM. There is nothing to dictate that a substance which can be comprised of elemental natures cannot undergo internal rearrangements without losing the properties of the substance.

In summary, the NO Mass is valid and licit with no grave sin involved. That said, I do believe that the Traditional Mass is a better container for the God-given graces deriving therefrom as described by Roger below (see between 2:20 and 5:20):

 

Inveritatim,

You were more thorough than I. PNF's position calls into question the Novus Ordo as a whole. If there is no valid sacrifice there would be no Holy Mass apart from TLM. PNF gave me pause, but what I conclude is: knowing that I've heard no recent Bishop (i.e. Athanasius Schneider), Cardinal (i.e. Burke), or Pope (Benedict XVI) make a similar claim regarding all Novus Ordo Masses being invalid, I will let the issue slide. I don't consider any of these three orthodox prelates lightweights or negligent in regard to the Holy Mass. The second two gave support for both Rites. Other individuals, like Taylor Marshall, would have been all over this as well, if PNF was correct.

PNF's intention is sincere, but he goes too far. If he were correct, then the Abomination of Desolation would be fact, and we would have not only apostate Clergy, but no Catholic worship apart from the TLM outliers and certain Masses of other Rites.

God bless the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

 

Hi InVeritatem. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think that all of the points you make assume that, in the Novus Ordo liturgy, the words "mysterium fidei"/"the mystery of faith" are included in what is officially acknowledged by the Vatican to be "the words of Consecration." Am I correct that you make that assumption? It is a critical assumption, because only during the "consecration" can the Sacramental "form" be properly invoked. In other words, the transubstantiation occurs upon completing the words of the "consecration" and no where else does that happen.

So let's look at what the Vatican says about the timing of the words of "consecration" during the Novus Ordo liturgy. This can be found in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), which states:

274. ...During Mass, three genuflections are made by the priest celebrant: namely, after the showing of the host, after the showing of the chalice, and before Communion. ...​

43. ...Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration. ...​

So, from these two quotes from the official Vatican instruction manual for the Novus Ordo liturgy, we can understand precisely that one of the three genuflections in the Novus Ordo takes place immediately AFTER the consecration of the chalice.

If you look at any Novus Ordo missal, you can see that the rubrics require the priest to genuflect BEFORE he says "mysterium fidei"/"the mystery of faith." Here are the exact words from the Missal:

The Consecration of the Wine
[The priest uncovers the Chalice and says:]

[He takes the chalice and, holding it slightly raised above the altar, continues:]

P: In a similar way, when supper was ended, he took this precious chalice in his holy and venerable hands, and once more giving you thanks, he said the blessing and gave the chalice to his disciples, saying:

[He bows slightly.]

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT, FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT, WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS. DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME

[The bell is rung the priest shows the chalice to the people, places it on the corporal, and genuflects in adoration].

P: The mystery of faith.

[The people continue, acclaiming:]

R: We proclaim your Death, O Lord, and profess your Resurrection until you come again.

Or:
R: When we eat this Bread and drink this Cup, we proclaim your Death, O Lord, until you come again.

Or:
R: Save us, Saviour of the world, for by your Cross and Resurrection you have set us free.​

Please note that the phrase "the mystery of faith" is said AFTER the priest genuflects. But as the GIRM says, the "consecration" happens BEFORE that genuflection. Therefore, in the Novus Ordo liturgy, the words "the mystery of faith" are not considered to be included in the words of "consecration."

Again, as I have demonstrated, this is not my opinion. The official texts from the Vatican require this interpretation.