Clicks442
Scapular
10

INVALID Mass coming to a Church near YOU!

Invalid Mass coming to a Church near you!
On November 30, 1947, Pope Pius XII issued the Apostolic Constitution, Sacramentum Ordinis in which again it is asserted that the Church may not interfere with the substance of the sacraments. He writes:
'As the Council of Trent teaches, the seven sacraments of the New Law have all been instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord, and the Church has no power over the substance of the sacraments, that is over those things which, with the sources of divine revelation as witnesses, Christ the Lord himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign.'
In this extract from the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius XII we are instructed as to the sense of the term 'substance' in the phrase 'substance of the sacraments.'
Substance, as in 'substance of the sacraments,' in that Apostolic Constitution, is that
a) to which divine revelation witnesses and
b) which our Lord himself decrees to be preserved in a sacramental sign.
Over this 'substance of the sacraments', it is stated: 'the Church has no power.'
promultis.blogspot.com/…/fr-meuli-argues…
Prayhard
'For all' was used since the late '60s when the Canon was translated as part of the 'transitional Missal.' It supposedly was banished with revisions in 2011, but all trendy relics use 'for all.'
Georgia59
Our Lady oversaw an Exorcism in 1977-78 and this came up -- the Demons were forced to admit the change comes from them -- if "all" is said the Consecration is invalid! -- The Demons were NOT included so "many" is correct and "all" is not....
LionsOnTheBeach
I read the link here yesterday and found it interesting. Am I right in thinking that the English "translation" also used "for all" for a while? Thanks for any response, Google wasn't very helpful with this question.
Scapular
Yes. The typical edition in Latin “multis” translated “ all “ which is omnibus. Wrong. Actually if you think of it a lie in the two most important lines of all time!!!
Prayhard
It used that translation since the Canon was translated in the late 60s, just before the NOM. 'For many' is an ancient Jewish formula, and this notion that it meant 'for all' is incredible, yet academics contended that.
LionsOnTheBeach
Thanks @Scapular and @Prayhard. It's terrible to think there is a compelling argument that almost all Masses from Advent '69 until '11 may have been invalid.
Regardless of validity, the modernist argument that they are simply emphasizing another [more important] aspect of the Faith implies that Christ was mistaken to choose the words He chose.
Prayhard
Even where an Episcopal Conference has mandated 'for many,' elderly Fr Trendys use 'for all.'
Scapular
Not Pope Paul’ ads but Fred’s mass (Mc Manus)
Scapular
Dr Bobus
I hesitate critiquing Fr Meuli, who I understand was a very good priest and a promoter of Latin liturgy.

The Latin Novus Ordo has pro multis. The question only concerns the translations. Of course, in the Vulgate it is pro multis, also in the Greek Septuagint.

He cites the Summa but in the end does not agree with the conclusion of St Thomas, who distinguishes between the Essence and Substance …More
I hesitate critiquing Fr Meuli, who I understand was a very good priest and a promoter of Latin liturgy.

The Latin Novus Ordo has pro multis. The question only concerns the translations. Of course, in the Vulgate it is pro multis, also in the Greek Septuagint.

He cites the Summa but in the end does not agree with the conclusion of St Thomas, who distinguishes between the Essence and Substance of the Sacramental Form. In order for validity the Sac Form must communicate the essence. The Eucharist is unique because there are two consecations, neither of which alone is sufficient to make present the Sacrifice--even though each alone consecrates the host and wine. Thus if valid matter is used for the first consecration but not the second, the host is consecrated but not the wine. And vice versa. Thus, whoever receives the host would receive the Body of Christ even though the Sacrifice would not have been confected--it would not have been a mass.

Each Sacramental Form signifies what the matter will become, but neither is sufficent to signify the Sacramental Sacrifice, which is the combination of both consecrations.