“Conservative” vs Traditional Catholicism

Well PNF, I think that you are having to adopt a very Pharsaical, overly fastidious and legalistic jumping through hoops to try to prove invalidity of the consecration. I do not like to have to descend into this theological rabbit hole and don't have time for back and forth arguing about minutiae.

I do believe that theology is subject to the constraints of logic and the law of non-contradiction, even if Popes and ecclesial authorities may not be fully aware of all these ramifications. I say that while in subjection to the Magisterium of the Church. In addition, on earth creatures are subject to the constraints of time - that includes (or can include) the human nature of the Precious Body and Blood of Jesus, albeit hypostatically united to its Divine nature.

To give an example, one can only be either pregnant (with child) or not. There is a time of conception. In the Blessed Virgin Mary the time of the Immaculate Conception was at the exact time of her completing the words, "Be it done unto me according to Thy Word". In the case of humans, there may be an act of conception which encompases the time of conception.

In the case of the priestly confection of the Precious Blood, there is an Act of Consecration which occurs over a period of time encompassing the discrete event of The Consecration, i.e., the exact time of trans-substantiation. During the Act of Consecration, the Consecration event occurs exactly at the time the words "FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD" are completed by the priest. The mysterium fidei is a logical qualifier of "THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD". It is part of the Act of Consecration but, being a descriptive qualifier, it is not required to bring about the The Consecration event, i.e., the trans-substantiation event. This is consistent with the Church Father, St. John Chrysostom's statement on the "transformation" occurring during the Act of Consecration, promulgated by St. Pope Paul VI.

So I believe that when the priest invites the congregation to the proclamations by saying "the mystery of the faith", this is the final clause in the Act of Consecration. The Precious Blood is already confected at this stage and by the law of non-contradiction cannot be un-confected. By right, the genuflection could be done either directly after the Consecration event or after the mysterium fidei (I say that in all humility), rather than after the compound qualifier and imperative clauses: "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."

It is the words of God spoken in persona Christi by the priest which are important to the form, not the priestly genuflections. However, out of practical considerations the genuflection is slightly delayed after the Consecration event, but does still occur during the Act of Consecration. The genuflections fulfill a different purpose, that of offering God present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, in the Precious Blood on the alter, the adoration which is rightfully His, and as soon as is practicably possible after the trans-substantiation event. As St. Augustine says: "It was in His flesh that Christ walked among us and it is His flesh that He has given us to eat for our salvation; but no one eats of this flesh without having first adored it . . . and not only do we not sin in thus adoring it, but we would be sinning if we did not do so."

I will leave it at that as this discourse may not be conducive to a proper respect for the Body and Blood of Our Lord, the Holy Spirit and the Eternal Father.

 

https://www.vatican.va/content/bene...ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate.html

1. Charity in truth, to which Jesus Christ bore witness by his earthly life and especially by his death and resurrection, is the principal driving force behind the authentic development of every person and of all humanity. Love — caritas — is an extraordinary force which leads people to opt for courageous and generous engagement in the field of justice and peace. It is a force that has its origin in God, Eternal Love and Absolute Truth. Each person finds his good by adherence to God's plan for him, in order to realize it fully: in this plan, he finds his truth, and through adherence to this truth he becomes free (cf. Jn 8:32). To defend the truth, to articulate it with humility and conviction, and to bear witness to it in life are therefore exacting and indispensable forms of charity. Charity, in fact, “rejoices in the truth” (1 Cor 13:6). All people feel the interior impulse to love authentically: love and truth never abandon them completely, because these are the vocation planted by God in the heart and mind of every human person. The search for love and truth is purified and liberated by Jesus Christ from the impoverishment that our humanity brings to it, and he reveals to us in all its fullness the initiative of love and the plan for true life that God has prepared for us. In Christ, charity in truth becomes the Face of his Person, a vocation for us to love our brothers and sisters in the truth of his plan. Indeed, he himself is the Truth (cf. Jn 14:6).​

 

​

2Cor 4: 5 For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. 6 For it is the God who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

 

I originally 'liked' your post because I assumed that your statement that 'the Precious Blood is not also transubstantiated in the Novus Ordo' was a conditional one. I don't agree with this assumption being an absolute and I am grateful to InVertitatem for clarifying things for my stupid brain.

 

A coherent, though not necessarily correct, argument, but one I've never heard before. The Novus Ordo has been around for over half a century. Why have we not seen the many orthodox and traditional Catholics kicking up an enormous rumpus? If such a cataclysmic spiritual disaster has been in process since the late sixties, one which would dwarf all the other ones that we're all so well aware of, perhaps Our Lady might have thought to mention it at Akita?

 

"Give us this day our daily bread...". Words of Our Lord Himself. If this was being denied us for the last three generations, it's import would have been Cosmic. Reassuring, and undoubtedly Intentional, are the Eucharistic miracles which you demonstrated early in this thread. It is, nevertheless, salutary to discuss these things. From my own point of view, when I find my Sunday Mass so insipid and so unworthy of the Sacrifice which it celebrates, it is a boost to be reminded that the Sacrifice Is and that the rest, no matter how cringeworthy, (in fairness not disrespectful, but cringeworthy is just not good enough) is mere window dressing to be offered up.

 

I think that if the rite of the new mass were invalid, then the orthodox church would be the only true one for having preserved the rites that update the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary in an unbloody way.

 

I do apologise if my use of the term 'pharsaical' strayed into veritas in non caritas. One thing the dialogue with PNF has resulted in for me is a deeper appreciation of the "mystery of the faith".

I was thinking of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, with the destruction and the immolation of the Sacrificial Victim, Our Lord Jesus Christ. In this context, the immolation of the victim means the sprinkling of the Precious Blood, and it reminded me of the Passover when God told the Israelites to sprinkle the blood of the sacrificial lamb on the door posts of the house in order to avoid a visit from the angel of death. And of course the blood was sprinkled upon both the upright and horizontal posts - thus symbolising the shape of the Cross. God also told them that they must eat or consume the sacrifical lamb after that.

That led me to thinking about the last words of Jesus on the Cross, which were 'Consumatum est', which means 'it is finished'. Fr. Ripperger tells us that in the older traditional rite there was a distinction between the 'consumatum est' and the 'finitum est'. He says the 'consumatum est' corresponds to the priest consuming the Sacrificial Host, whereas the 'finitum est' corresponds to the 'ite missa est' or 'it is sent', which the priest said at the close of the Mass. This means that the Sacrifice of the Mass has been sent to God. Fr. Ripperger says the demons actually reminded him of this distinction during exorcism. He says that according to the demons, in the Sorrows of Our Lady, the sixth sorrow (Jesus is taken down from the Cross into her arms) is Our Lady's 'consumatum est'. The seventh sorrow of Our Lady at the Tomb corresponds to her 'finitum est' (it is sent). In some ways this reminds me of the final send off in the funeral Mass ('receive his soul and present him to God Most High'). Sometimes 'finitum est' is translated as 'it is over'. However, I think all of this enriches our understanding of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. See 31:22 to 34:20 for an explanation of this in the video below (the explanation of the Offertory starts before this):

 

Today, only the Mass from the Vatican was broadcast on both relevant TV channels.
Therefore, a final thought from a layman.
I do believe that in some Novus Ordo Masses it is questionable whether transubstantiation takes place or not.
Because I have doubts with some priests whether they still believe in the Real Presence.
Especially with some bishops and cardinals.
And the priest's belief in it is another condition, I think?
(perhaps this has already been mentioned in this thread, I have not read all the arguments in depth)

 

I do believe the priest must truly have the intention of changing the host/wine into Christ. I want to hear others' thoughts on this though. This is something I'd never even considered until last year, and it is quite alarming in its implications.

 

The priest must intend what the Church intends as one of the requirements for validity.

 

I do believe that there has been infiltration into the Church. It’s quite possible that the Church was infiltrated before Vatican II. Would that mean that there were invalid
Tridentine Masses? Just a horrid thought.
However, those situations are beyond our human control and I let God take care of it all.
Sometimes it’s just opening a can of worms.

 

I think I've been very lucky with the priests I've encountered, thanks be to God. I might complain about their taste in hymns, and other secondary and tertiary matters, but I think they've been sincere.

I hope that has been, is and will continue to be the case for all on here.

 

This is my experience as well. God has blessed us here with good sound priests.

 

Yes, I agree. God has blessed us in that way and continues to do so.