It is currently Tue Aug 20, 2019 9:11 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ] 
 Is the new New mass valid? 
Author Message

Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 12:07 am
Posts: 48
New post Is the new New mass valid?
I never attend novus ordo churches but I heard a rumour that the anti-Rome has changed some of the English missals so that the priest now reads "for you and for _many_" at the place of the wine. What do list members say: is the new New mass valid?

Edit: for many...


Last edited by Gandolfo 1958 on Wed May 30, 2012 10:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Wed May 30, 2012 6:50 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Is the new New mass valid?
No.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Wed May 30, 2012 7:51 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Is the new New mass valid?
The phrase was originally translated, "for you and for all men". It was later changed to "for you and for all". Several years ago, a command was issued from Rome to translate this offending phrase as "for you and for many". I have read that, after those several years have passed, the English version has finally been changed as of the first day of Advent of last year. (I haven't actually been to one of these services, so I don't know what individual priests are actually doing as many of them were very much against the new and approved translation, but, I guess, officially, they now use this new translation.)

I really don't know whether the Novus Ordo is valid, even if it is said in the original Latin language since it is, by its very own admission, more a commemoration of the Last Supper and not most definitely a Sacrifice. I would hesitate to say that the Novus Ordo is definitely invalid if it were actually said by a faithful priest ordained in the old rites by a bishop who himself was ordained in the old rites and, I think, in the 1970s and even into the 1980s you might find a faithful priest so ordained who truly had the intention of offering a Sacrifice and said the Novus Ordo out of a misguided sense of obedience and duty.

Today, however, I do not believe that any priest who says the Novus Ordo--even once--has the faith (unless he truly repents of that deed) and no one should assume that he truly has the intention of offering a Sacrifice for the living and the dead. Instead, we should have the assumption that he is doing as the Novus Ordo's instructions say, commemorating the Last Supper. As a Protestant service, it has no more validity as a true Mass than a Protestant service. Though a Mass can be valid even when said by a faithless priest, it cannot be if the priest clearly does not have the intention of doing as the Church does and the problem with the Novus Ordo is that the service does not expressly indicate the priest's intention in its prayers.

In England there was a period of time after the date of the King's declaration that he was the head of the Church in England that priests who served in the Church of England were still Catholic. At some point in history, those priests ceased being Catholic. I think the time has already passed that one can assume the good will of all priests who serve the Novus Ordo and the Conciliar establishment. It will be a while yet before we can say the same about the lay faithful. What event will mark the end of the lay Catholic of good will in the Conciliar church? Will it be the official recognition of homosexual marriage? (No, I just read about a bishop in Germany who raised that issue and he's still a bishop in good standing with Rome.) Will it be the official acceptance of artificial birth control? (No, Benedict 16 has already broached that one as well--in a disgusting way.) Will it be the official recognition of deaconesses and priestesses? We'll see when that comes sometime in the next few years.


Wed May 30, 2012 8:03 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 10:54 pm
Posts: 29
New post Re: Is the new New mass valid?
TKGS said:
Quote:
The phrase was originally translated, "for you and for all men". It was later changed to "for you and for all". Several years ago, a command was issued from Rome to translate this offending phrase as "for you and for many".

In fact, despite instructing the world’s bishops, via Cardinal Arinze in 2006, that the words “for you and for all” should revert to “for you and for many”, Benedict himself stuck to “for you and for all” (zo zat zinz may be forgivn), both on his subsequent trip to Australia, and his more recent jamboree in the UK. The videos in evidence may still be available on YouTube.

TKGS said:
Quote:
Though a Mass can be valid even when said by a faithless priest, it cannot be if the priest clearly does not have the intention of doing as the Church does and the problem with the Novus Ordo is that the service does not expressly indicate the priest's intention in its prayers.

I believe that the true Mass derives its validity from the Church and not from the celebrant. Of course, it is possible for a validly-ordained priest to invalidate the true Mass by not having the intention “to do what the Church does”, but it is impossible for a validly-ordained priest, to make valid a form of Mass that is inherently invalid on account of its own failure to correspond with “what the Church does”.

It seems to me that, given its departure from Sacred Tradition and the ecumenical pot in which it was brewed, the Novus Ordo Missae cannot possibly correspond to “what the Church does”, and is, therefore, inherently invalid.

By “invalid”, I mean incapable of fulfilling Christ’s intentions in instituting the Sacrifice of the Mass.


Wed May 30, 2012 10:08 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Is the new New mass valid?
Senex wrote:
In fact, despite instructing the world’s bishops, via Cardinal Arinze in 2006, that the words “for you and for all” should revert to “for you and for many”, Benedict himself stuck to “for you and for all” (zo zat zinz may be forgivn), both on his subsequent trip to Australia, and his more recent jamboree in the UK. The videos in evidence may still be available on YouTube.


He did the same thing when he visited the United States. According to the "news" reports in the Conciliar establishment press, he was bound by the "approved translation" in effect at the time of his visit.


Wed May 30, 2012 10:50 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 12:07 am
Posts: 48
New post Re: Is the new New mass valid?
TKGS wrote:
I really don't know whether the Novus Ordo is valid, even if it is said in the original Latin language since it is, by its very own admission, more a commemoration of the Last Supper and not most definitely a Sacrifice. I would hesitate to say that the Novus Ordo is definitely invalid if it were actually said by a faithful priest ordained in the old rites by a bishop who himself was ordained in the old rites and, I think, in the 1970s and even into the 1980s you might find a faithful priest so ordained who truly had the intention of offering a Sacrifice and said the Novus Ordo out of a misguided sense of obedience and duty.


Thanks for the explanation. You raise a good point: is the novus service invalidated per se by the incomplete intention expressed in the instruction or can a priest supply the intention? My understanding is that the intention of the church is expressed by the church herself: so a traditional mass is valid if the priest performs the rite regardless of his personal intention. If that is so then Im not clear that a priest could rectify a service devised with expressly deficient intention. And if the novus sect is not Catholic then I dont see how the historical Church could supply intention for the sectarian service. But then again, would the expressed intention of a sect constrain the intention of an orthodox priest? I just dont know. I heard that the anti-Rome issued a second instruction for the novus service after the Ottaviani intervention. Do you know if that instruction expressed an adequate intention?


Wed May 30, 2012 11:33 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 12:07 am
Posts: 48
New post Re: Is the new New mass valid?
Senex wrote:
Of course, it is possible for a validly-ordained priest to invalidate the true Mass by not having the intention “to do what the Church does”,


Is that correct? I heard that the priest's intention doesnt affect the sacramental intention so long as he recites the words. The priest intends to perform the sacrament according to the rite of the church and the church supplies the intention of the sacrament.


Wed May 30, 2012 11:42 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 10:54 pm
Posts: 29
New post Re: Is the new New mass valid?
TKGS said:
Quote:
He did the same thing when he visited the United States. According to the "news" reports in the Conciliar establishment press, he was bound by the "approved translation" in effect at the time of his visit.

So on the one hand, to woo the SPPX, he instructed bishops worldwide to correct the mistranslation, and on the other, he bent to their wishes after they failed to comply with the instruction. He acts as if he knows that he lacks the authority of a Supreme Pontiff.


Wed May 30, 2012 11:45 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 12:07 am
Posts: 48
New post Re: Is the new New mass valid?
Senex wrote:
TKGS said:
Quote:
He did the same thing when he visited the United States. According to the "news" reports in the Conciliar establishment press, he was bound by the "approved translation" in effect at the time of his visit.

So on the one hand, to woo the SPPX, he instructed bishops worldwide to correct the mistranslation, and on the other, he bent to their wishes after they failed to comply with the instruction. He acts as if he knows that he lacks the authority of a Supreme Pontiff.


LOL @ Benedict!


Wed May 30, 2012 11:55 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Is the new New mass valid?
Have you read any of the articles and books here? http://strobertbellarmine.net/newmass/newmass.htm

If not, I recommend that you do so. Then if you have questions, please feel free to ask them.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu May 31, 2012 2:58 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 11:20 am
Posts: 9
New post Re: Is the new New mass valid?
"Hence the final phrase of the form for the Consecration of the Wine in its entirety -- to wit: "for you and for many unto the remission of sins" -- comprises the essential words signifying the grace of the Sacrament -- to wit: the union of the Mystical Body. The words "you" and "many" designate the members; the words "unto the remission of sins" signify the cause underlying the principle of existence of their unity, without which there is no vital unity, namely, their living in the state of sanctifying grace.

The ICEL's corrupted form, "for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven," by saying "all" fails to designate the members of the Mystical Body since not all men are members of the Mystical Body, but only "many" are members."
http://strobertbellarmine.net/newmass/precis.html

What to think about these old eastern forms?

"This is my Body, which is broken for life and salvation of all human race and is given for a remission of trespasses and a everlasting life." (Ignatii Patriarchae)

"This is my blood, take and drink of it all, this is shed for the life of the world, for the exoneration from blames, the remission of sins and the everlasting life." (S. Joannis Patriarchae)

Thanks.


Thu Sep 06, 2012 7:18 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Is the new New mass valid?
Gandolfo 1958 wrote:
Senex wrote:
Of course, it is possible for a validly-ordained priest to invalidate the true Mass by not having the intention “to do what the Church does”,


Is that correct?

I think that is not correct: as long as a valid minister does what the Church DOES, the Sacrament is valid. No one can know what goes on in the "internal forum" except God. Therefore, the Church always bases Her proof for the validity of any Sacrament only on what occurs in the "external forum". I.e. what one sees and/or hears.

Gandolfo 1958 wrote:
I heard that the priest's intention doesn't affect the sacramental intention

I think you meant to say "sacramental validity", rather...

Gandolfo 1958 wrote:
so long as he recites the words. The priest intends to perform the sacrament according to the rite of the church and the church supplies the intention of the sacrament.

Something like that...yes.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Fri Sep 07, 2012 6:20 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:25 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Is the new New mass valid?
Ken and Gandolfo,

I posted Chapter 5, Summation and Conclusion, of The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments (REV. RAPHAEL DE SALVO, O.S.B., S.T.L. 1949) in the "Texts" forum http://sedevacantist.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1317&sid=53bc6b1b986a1cbfe2f58e569260746a. It is an interesting read.

Ken Gordon wrote:
Gandolfo 1958 wrote:
Senex wrote:
Of course, it is possible for a validly-ordained priest to invalidate the true Mass by not having the intention “to do what the Church does”,


Is that correct?

I think that is not correct: as long as a valid minister does what the Church DOES, the Sacrament is valid. No one can know what goes on in the "internal forum" except God. Therefore, the Church always bases Her proof for the validity of any Sacrament only on what occurs in the "external forum". I.e. what one sees and/or hears.

Gandolfo 1958 wrote:
I heard that the priest's intention doesn't affect the sacramental intention

I think you meant to say "sacramental validity", rather...

Gandolfo 1958 wrote:
so long as he recites the words. The priest intends to perform the sacrament according to the rite of the church and the church supplies the intention of the sacrament.

Something like that...yes.


It doesn't seem like this is completely correct based on De Salvo's book. Here are some pertinent quotes.

Quote:
This same thing can be applied to man's role in the confection of the sacraments. As he fulfills the requirement of positing the matter and the form he either intends to confect or not to confect a sacrament, or at least to do what the Church does. There is not any question about his intention of performing the external actions. He deliberately posits them and is responsible for them if he is a free agent, and this constitutes a human act. But in regard to the confection of a sacrament, there is a true sacrament if he intends this to be the result of his actions. If he does not intend this effect, which can be present in the general intention of doing what the Church does, his operations stop short of it. The will of man cannot be forced. The mere fact that the minister does not will to confer a sacrament, or at least to do what the Church does, makes it impossible for him to produce such a result as long as that will is present and has predominance over all other intentions.

Quote:
The problem seems to be reducible to the principle of contradiction: when the matter and the form are placed, the minister intends at least in general to do what the Church does, or he lacks this intention. If he has the intention, the result is a sacrament; if he does not, no sacrament is confected.

If the true intention of confecting a sacrament is lacking, the element of the serious external performance seems to contribute very little or nothing to the contention that those actions thus posited constitute a true sacrament.29 In fact it is a misnomer to call an action "serious" if the internal serious intent is lacking. Such so-called "serious" performances are not serious at all. That they are apparently serious is true, but that they are really serious is false.

Quote:
The will or the intention necessary for validity can equally be lacking whether the intention of performing the whole rite as a sham is hidden or apparent. Thus, although the declaration of the Council of Trent is applicable particularly to the apparent jocose performance, it seems to apply also to the jocose performance which is hidden.

Quote:
Admittedly, these external circumstances are an indication that the minister has the proper intention, but the indication can be false. The mere fact that a minister performs the rites of Baptism in a Church wearing sacred vestments does not prevent him from having an intention destructive of the sacrament. The reason for the insufficiency of these external circumstances to effect validity is the fact that intention by its nature is something internal, and although it can be indicated by external things, it cannot be replaced by them. Consequently, if in such circumstances the minister performs the sacramental rites with the positive intention of not confecting a sacrament, the sacrament would be invalid.

Quote:
Vermeersch writes that the priest who has bread before him, but merely recites the fact and the words used by Christ, does not confect the sacrament, because he has no intention of the sacrament.48 No one would consider that consecration a true one in which the priest pronounces the words of consecration over the bread and wine in practice for his first Mass.49 If the priest has before him eleven hosts and intends to consecrate only ten, he does not consecrate any if he does not determine which ten he will consecrate.60

Quote:
Lehmkuhl gives an interesting case of conscience on the point. A certain priest had lost his faith and had joined a forbidden society, after which time he began to perform his priestly duties in an external manner only. He religiously observed the correct and exact performance of the matter and the form in the sacraments he administered, but inwardly he intended not to do what the Church does and what Christ instituted.

The solution of the case declares that the sacraments conferred by the priest were null and to be repeated absolutely.51 In all these cases there is no question about the correct matter and form, but only about the lack of the inner intention necessary for valid confection. The external intention was present in each case, since the matter and the form were administered in a serious manner.


Fri Sep 07, 2012 8:11 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Is the new New mass valid?
Joe Cupertino wrote:
Quote:
The mere fact that the minister does not will to confer a sacrament, or at least to do what the Church does, makes it impossible for him to produce such a result as long as that will is present and has predominance over all other intentions.


Quote:
Consequently, if in such circumstances the minister performs the sacramental rites with the positive intention of not confecting a sacrament, the sacrament would be invalid.


Quote:
He religiously observed the correct and exact performance of the matter and the form in the sacraments he administered, but inwardly he intended not to do what the Church does and what Christ instituted.

As I understand it, in order for the intention of the priest to be a significant reason to doubt the validity of the sacrament, the officiating priest must have a POSITIVE intention to NOT do what the Church does AND that fact must become publicly known. Otherwise, in every case which lacks that positive intention, the Church has declared the sacraments to be valid.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:13 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:25 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Is the new New mass valid?
Ken Gordon wrote:
As I understand it, in order for the intention of the priest to be a significant reason to doubt the validity of the sacrament, the officiating priest must have a POSITIVE intention to NOT do what the Church does AND that fact must become publicly known. Otherwise, in every case which lacks that positive intention, the Church has declared the sacraments to be valid.


Yes, I think what you are saying is basically stated by De Salvo in conclusion #4 below. When discussing intention, though, I think a distinction should be made between the question of whether a sacrament would be valid in actuality and the question of whether it is presumed to be valid. Since internal intention is necessary for validity, a minister who did not have this internal intention in confecting a sacrament, would not have actually confected a valid sacrament, even though he did not externally manifest a contrary intention. Though he may have seriously performed all of the rites and it is presumed that he had the requisite intention because a contrary intention was not externally manifested, that presumption of validity would not actually make the sacrament valid if he did not have the requisite internal intention. If internal intention was lacking in the minister confecting the sacrament and nothing was manifested to the contrary, no one would know that the sacrament was invalid, there would be no reason for being doubtful about the validity, and it would be presumed to be valid; but it still would be invalid in actuality. The presumption of validity does not actually make the sacrament valid. A sacrament could be invalid in actuality, even though it ought to be presumed to be valid.

Quote:
J. CONCLUSIONS

The study of the Dogmatic Theology on the intention of the minister in the confection of the sacraments warrants the following conclusions:

1. The opinion of Catharinus and the school of external intention is not explicitly condemned, but in view of the common teaching of the great majority of theologians, the decrees of the Councils, and the condemnation of the proposition of Farvacques, it stands virtually condemned.

2. The internal intention is required for the validity of the sacraments. This, however, is not a matter of faith.

3. In practice the doctrine of external intention may never be used.

4. Provided the minister seriously performs all the sacramental rites, there is no need for being doubtful about the validity of the sacraments, for it is presumed that the minister has the requisite intention, unless he externally manifests the contrary. In the words of Pope Leo XIII:

The Church does not judge about the mind and intention in so far as it is something by its nature internal, but in so far as it is manifested externally, she is bound to judge concerning it.58

5. The common opinion is that the external intention is insufficient for a valid sacrament, and thus, whenever it is certain that a minister, in conferring any of the sacraments which cannot be repeated, uses only the external intention and does not inwardly wish to do what the Church does, the sacrament should be repeated conditionally if the case is urgent. If it is not urgent, recourse should be had to the Holy See for a decision.59

In this exposition of the teaching of the Church and the common opinion of theologians throughout the centuries it is not intended to make the ministers and the recipients of the sacraments doubtful or scrupulous about the sacraments which they administer and receive. It is rather a matter of presenting in so far as possible the official teaching on a matter of great importance. It is hoped that the matter of external intention is more in the class of theory than practice. In fact, J. O'Kane calls the question of external and internal intention very speculative, saying that in practice the internal intention is hardly ever wanting.60 It must also be recalled that the sacraments can be rendered null not only by the lack of intention, but also by the lack of correct matter and form, which could happen without the least suspicion on the part of the faithful. However, the latter could happen by accident, whereas the former could happen only through the deliberate will of the minister.

As to the objection that no one could be certain of having received the sacraments if internal intention is required, it seems futile. We are living among rational creatures and in the moral order of things we must depend upon one another for the sincerity of these actions as well as other actions of our daily life, and have the assurance that Christ protects His Church and enables her to safeguard and perpetuate the sacraments. Christ promised that He would be with His Church until the end of the world. Although men cannot be metaphysically certain of having received the sacraments, all may, according to common sense, depend upon the fidelity of Christ's ministers in the administration of the sacraments, and according to faith rely upon the indefectibility of the Church and her ministers as a body.61


Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:31 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 am
Posts: 696
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Is the new New mass valid?
Joe Cupertino wrote:
A sacrament could be invalid in actuality, even though it ought to be presumed to be valid.

No. I don't agree with this conclusion. As the quotations you mention state, Christ protects His Church. Besides, if the Church states that a particular sacrament was valid, then IMHO, it IS valid, period.

We can speculate all we want, I suppose, but that does not preclude accepting the Church's decision on these matters.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon


Sat Sep 08, 2012 3:04 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:25 pm
Posts: 80
New post Re: Is the new New mass valid?
Ken Gordon wrote:
Joe Cupertino wrote:
A sacrament could be invalid in actuality, even though it ought to be presumed to be valid.

No. I don't agree with this conclusion. As the quotations you mention state, Christ protects His Church. Besides, if the Church states that a particular sacrament was valid, then IMHO, it IS valid, period.

We can speculate all we want, I suppose, but that does not preclude accepting the Church's decision on these matters.


Ken,

I don’t have a great deal of knowledge and understanding about the doctrine of intention, so I certainly could be wrong in my conclusions. However, I have to make the best conclusions I can based on the resources I have. Though I’ve read other sources on the doctrine of intention in the sacraments, most of what I know comes from Fr. De Salvo’s book. It is the most extensive treatment I’ve seen on the subject. I think the proposition I stated is not a speculation at all, but a conclusion deduced from this book. For the question of whether it is possible for a sacrament to have been invalid, even though it ought to be presumed to be valid, there seems to be only two possible, simple, conclusions that could be made.

A. It is possible for a sacrament to have been actually invalid, even though it ought to be presumed valid.
B. It is impossible for a sacrament to have been actually invalid, even though it ought to be presumed valid.

Fr. De Salvo's statement about Christ protecting His Church doesn’t preclude Proposition A and isn't stating Proposition B. It is a very general statement that doesn’t necessarily address the question of actual validity in every instance, and, therefore, doesn't negate the possibility that in some instances a sacrament may have been invalid, even though it ought to be presumed valid because the contrary intention was hidden.

Proposition B, the impossibility of actual invalidity while validity ought to be presumed, seems to be nearly equivalent to the doctrine of external intention, which is virtually condemned. This proposition seems to be contrary to some of the statements in the quotes I provided from chapter 5. For instance, these two statements below from chapter 5 don’t seem like they could be true if Proposition B were true. Proposition B seems contrary to the fact that a sacrament is invalid if the lack of necessary intention is hidden and contrary to the fact that it’s possible for the external indication of proper intention to be false.

Quote:
"The will or the intention necessary for validity can equally be lacking whether the intention of performing the whole rite as a sham is hidden or apparent. Thus, although the declaration of the Council of Trent is applicable particularly to the apparent jocose performance, it seems to apply also to the jocose performance which is hidden."


Quote:
"Admittedly, these external circumstances are an indication that the minister has the proper intention, but the indication can be false."


Though I think the above statements from chapter 5, and chapter 5 in general, are strong enough alone to show Proposition B false and Proposition A necessarily true, I think other statements from Fr. De Salvo’s book show this beyond a reasonable doubt. I’ll post these below, only adding bold formatting and no other comments for the sake of time. The italics is in the original.

I have one last comment, though, before posting these other quotes. If proposition B were true, then it would not be possible for a sacrament to be recognized or declared as invalid at a later time when the minister externally manifested that he did not have the necessary intention. According to Proposition B the presumption of validity, prior to this external manifestation, would be equivalent to actual validity. Therefore, the sacrament would be actually valid prior to the minister’s external manifestation of a contrary intention. Under Proposition B, no matter how much or in what way the minister later externally manifested a contrary intention, the sacrament would have been actually valid and considered as such, since prior to the manifestation it was, according to Proposition B, actually valid because it was presumed valid. In this case it would be illogical to say that the sacrament was actually valid, but then was not actually valid after the future external manifestation by the minister, since a sacrament is either actually valid or invalid at the moment it is confected. If only one case exists in the history of the Church where a sacrament was presumed valid until the minister externally manifested a contrary intention, and then was declared invalid; then Proposition B is false and Proposition A is true.

Anyways, I think the following quotes from Fr. De Salvo’s book will help make things clear.

Quote:
pp.23-24
"In the sacrament of Matrimony the contract cannot have validity in the internal forum without the intention of the contracting parties. Even the internal witholding of the consent of one of the parties would be sufficient to vitiate the contract in the sight of God, though in the external forum it would be considered valid unless the secret lack of intention could be proved.

The same conclusion could be duduced with the remainder of the sacraments, for by the very fact that a man is the minister of God it is fitting that he act according to his nature, that is, with intention."


Quote:
p.52-53
"One of the most explicit indications of the need for internal intention found in the writings of the Angelic Doctor is his commentary on the twenty-seventh distinction of the Fourth Book of Sentences of Peter Lombard. In this passage Peter Lombard said that marriage was valid if the parties pronounced the words of consent and did not will it in their hearts to give consent.

Commenting on this passage, St. Thomas concludes that intention is equally necessary for this sacrament as it is for any other. If anyone externally receives baptism without the intention, the sacrament is not valid. He points out that in the same way they do not contract matrimony who pronounce the words, but do not have the interior consent. However, since the internal intention is not apparent, such a marriage will be considered valid. This seems to justify the interpretation that in other passages where he says that the internal intention is not necessary, he is referring to moral certitude."


Quote:
pp.62-63
"The doctrine of external intention is demonstrated by several examples: the judge who would pass a sentence while joking and drinking would not be taken seriously, since he shows by his actions that he is not acting in a serious manner. But if he would observe all the procedures of law and seriously and freely pass a sentence with a grave voice and countenance, the judgment would be valid, even if the judge mentally did not intend to absolve the guilty party or impose a fine. Thus, in the same way the sacraments which are apparently confected in a serious manner are really valid.

It is true that the sentence of such a judge would be considered valid, since it is presumed that his judgement corresponded with his apparently serious actions. But in se the judgement is not valid in the internal forum. In the event that the true intention of the judge came to light, the state might declare that the judgment stands. The state has the power to do this for the common good.

But in the case of the sacraments we have no assurance from Christ that He will render those sacraments valid which appear to be such by the outward appearance of sincerity in the minister who lacks a true internal intention. "


Quote:
p.69
"2. A contract, matrimony, a vow, an oath and other things of this kind are valid even if the internal intention is lacking. Therefore, the same is true of every sacrament [this is an objection from the school of external intention].

In reply to this objection a distinction must be made: it is true that such things have validity in the external forum, but this is not the case in the internal forum. It is correct that as long as these things are done in a serious manner, they have validity before the Church and society. Until it is proved that the internal intention was lacking, they will be considered valid and will carry with them their corresponding obligations which follow on validity. But in the case of the sacraments validity in the external forum will not supply for validity in the internal forum and in the sight of God. This latter kind of validity must be present before the sacraments are productive of the effects of character and special sacramental grace or of grace alone, as the case may be. "


Quote:
p.70
"Although the state may supply validity when a judge passes sentence in a serious manner without the internal intention of making use of his power, the act of the judge is per se invalid. For the sake of the common good such acts are considered valid both in the external and internal fora. A sacrament which is administered without the internal intention is considered valid in the external forum unless the defect of internal intention is discovered. However, it is not considered valid in the internal forum because the Church, since she is not the institutor of the sacraments, cannot supply the defect of the intention, and Christ has never indicated that He would supply it. "


Quote:
pp.79-80
"The necessity of internal intention is shown also by a comparison of the confection of sacraments with human affairs. In human affairs intention is required for the validity of an act. This intention must be not merely external but internal. In every contract it is necessary that the will concern itself with the object of the contract and consent to it and not merely pretend to consent to it. The fact that in the external forum a contract is considered valid provided the external consent is present makes little difference, since it is considered valid on the supposition that the internal consent was present at the time it was made. If it becomes clear later that the internal consent was lacking, the act would be considered null even in the external forum.

This is also the case when Matrimony is celebrated fictitiously. If the internal intention is lacking, the contract is invalid regardless of how sincerely the parties exchange their vows. The intention is to simulate in a serious manner. A similar case is that of the judge who would observe all the formalities in pronouncing a sentence, but inwardly would positively intend not to impose a penalty. In the external forum such acts would be considered valid, but when the true state of affairs came to light, the contracts and the sentences would be declared invalid on account of the lack of intention.

The laws of a state may declare certain acts valid even if the internal intention is lacking and in this way supply what is lacking in the apparently serious external performance. This is done sometimes for the sake of the common good; but there is no assurance from God that He will supply the defect of internal intention in the minister of the sacraments.

The need for internal intention is well demonstrated in the conditional conferring of the sacraments. It is the common teaching of theologians that the sacraments can be and should be conferred conditionally at times, e.g., when the priest is doubtful whether or not he has correctly absolved and when there is doubt about the ability of the recipient to receive a certain sacrament. When the sacrament is thus conditionally conferred this fact need not be externally expressed but may be only the internal intention of the minister. Accordingly, a sacrament conferred conditionally has all the appearances of a valid sacrament, but it is not if the condition is not verified. According to those who teach external intention the apparent validity is a real validity. In their theory not even the contrary intention would affect the validity in the least, which is at variance with the common teaching."


Quote:
pp.89-90
"From this passage it is clear that the intention of conferring a sacrament is necessary, and that a sham performance of the external actions invalidates the sacrament. But the next clause especially when he exteriorly manifests his intention is of great concern, for it was this clause which the school of Catharinus used in its contention that as long as the sacrament appeared to be performed seriously, the confection of the sacrament was infallible. They say that the case in view is clearly a mimic representation. The school of internal intention contends that this is not the case, but that the sacrament is equally invalid whether the mimic representation is hidden or apparent. The particle especially openly shows that even if the mimicry is not manifested externally the sacrament is invalid nevertheless. In this passage St. Thomas means that when the mimicry is externally manisfested, the sacrament is not only null, but it is also considered such by the Church. If the defect of the mental intention would not invalidate the sacrament, the external manifestation of this fact would not destroy the validity, since the manifestation does not add a special defect, but supposes and manifests the one already in existence."


Quote:
p.91
"This special mention [by St. Thomas in De Ecclesiae Sacramentis] of the intention of the minister indicates that it is something separable from the positing of the matter and the form. The apparent interpretation of this passage is that if the minister deliberately and seriously posits the matter and the form without intending to confect a sacrament, there would be no valid sacrament, although this would not be apparent. "


Regards,
Joe

P.S. Perhaps someone can move this discussion to a new topic, titled something like "Intention in the Sacraments" :D


Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:17 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 8:46 pm
Posts: 16
New post Re: Is the new New mass valid?
John Lane wrote:
Have you read any of the articles and books here? http://strobertbellarmine.net/newmass/newmass.htm

If not, I recommend that you do so. Then if you have questions, please feel free to ask them.


This link seems to discuss this issue prior to the recent translation change from "for all" to "for the many". Is there an updated version/another link that discusses (in)validity after this change? Or did I miss it in the link?


Wed Aug 27, 2014 9:14 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Is the new New mass valid?
No, there isn't, as far as I'm aware.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Aug 27, 2014 11:21 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Is the new New mass valid?
Even with the change to "for many", it seems that the "new and improved translation" may still be faulty.

Here is the form for the Novus Ordo in its original:

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.

Leaving the Mystery of Faith aside and assuming that does not affect validity (an assumption that is not universally accepted), this form includes the clause that precedes the form in the traditional Mass which usually translates as:

"Take and drink ye all of this,"

The Novus Ordo ICEL translation of this phrase is, "Take this, all of you, and drink from it," So far, even with a difference in style, the translation has the same meaning and would not affect validity.

The next statement, however seems to be a problem. The Latin form in the Novus Ordo is identical to the Latin form of the traditional Mass sans the "mysterium fidei".

If traditional translations are accurate, the translation of the next clause is:

"For this is the Chalice of my Blood of the New and Eternal Testament, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins."

The ICEL translation is:

"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."

These two translations do not mean the same thing. In the traditional translation, the subject of the sentence is "Chalice", i.e., "the Chalice of my Blood". In the ICEL translation, the subject is also "chalice", i.e., "the chalice of my Blood", but then the phrase is modified with an appositive phrase, "the Blood of the new and eternal covenant". So, the first question is whether it is the Chalice of my Blood that is of the New and Eternal Testament (or covenant) or is it only the Blood that is of the New and Eternal Testament (or covenant). I'm not sure. Perhaps this does not change the meaning of the clause to affect validity, but perhaps it does. I leave this argument to others, but the two translations are clearly different.

It is the second difference that I find definitely problematic. The next phrase of the form is traditionally translated as:

"which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins."

The ICEL translation is: "which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins."

Unless the "remission" of sins and the "forgiveness" of sins means the same thing, these two translations have different meanings. Now, after looking up the two words, I see that they have similar meanings, but the connotation of the two words in English are different. Additionally, why would the ICEL use "forgiveness" for the Latin remissionem when they use "forgive" in the Our Father for dimitte?

While I don't really know whether these translation changes actually affect validity, I do know that I distrust translators who decide to make changes in long accepted translations without explanation. And, because the ICEL has demonstrated it's desire to publish English versions of various Latin texts that are clearly brand new prayers rather than translations at all in other portions of the Novus Ordo, I do not have the confidence that they have made a correct translation in the most essential prayer of the service.

I recall a conservative Novus Ordo who made his mark by publishing a column, "What Does the Prayer Really Say", in The Wanderer. He demonstrated and, to my mind, proved that the ICEL made many editorial changes in translations for the express purpose of changing how English speaking Catholics thought about the Catholic Faith. So, what does the prayer really say? Whatever it does say, it doesn't seem to say what the ICEL is telling us that it means.

_________________
Daniel Peck, Indiana, United States


Thu Aug 28, 2014 2:48 pm
Profile

Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 8:46 pm
Posts: 16
New post Re: Is the new New mass valid?
It's interesting that you focused on "remission" vs "forgiveness". As I read the two translations what stood out for me was "shed for you" vs "poured out for you". The former makes it clear that we are speaking of Christ shedding his Blood. The latter could be interpreted as merely wine being poured out of a chalice. The former sounds more Catholic. The latter sounds more Protestant.

And with all of the Protestantization of the rest of the Mass, I'm thinking this too was no accident. "Shed for" expresses a different meaning than "poured out" for me. Does the Latin in the NO use the same verb or are they different as in the English?


Thu Aug 28, 2014 9:24 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 8:46 pm
Posts: 16
New post Re: Is the new New mass valid?
2Vermont wrote:
It's interesting that you focused on "remission" vs "forgiveness". As I read the two translations what stood out for me was "shed for you" vs "poured out for you". The former makes it clear that we are speaking of Christ shedding his Blood. The latter could be interpreted as merely wine being poured out of a chalice. The former sounds more Catholic. The latter sounds more Protestant.

And with all of the Protestantization of the rest of the Mass, I'm thinking this too was no accident. "Shed for" expresses a different meaning than "poured out" for me. Does the Latin in the NO use the same verb or are they different as in the English?


Generally, I do not understand why different English words were used when we have the word "remission" and "shed" in our language. Why didn't they just use the same words?


Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:45 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Is the new New mass valid?
I think that I did not discuss the difference between "shed" and "poured out" because I recall reading descriptions of Christ's crucifixion which say that His Blood was poured out on the altar of the cross in the way the high priest poured out the sacrificial lamb's blood on the altar in the temple.

Looking at Google Translate, however, I'm not sure precisely what effundetur means. It seems that both "shed" and "poured out" could possibly be valid translations. I'll have to leave this to the Latin scholars who know what they're talking about. By the way, I don't think the members of ICEL are "Latin scholars". They have an agenda which is not to "translate" but to subtly change the faith of those who hear their translations.

_________________
Daniel Peck, Indiana, United States


Fri Aug 29, 2014 11:38 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Is the new New mass valid?
One reason for choosing different synonyms could be simple pride. The great scholars of the ICEL would look decidedly foolish if after all their work they arrived at the words printed in tens of thousands of layman's missals in the 'fifties...

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Aug 29, 2014 10:47 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:58 am
Posts: 50
Location: Massachusetts, USA
New post Re: Is the new New mass valid?
John Lane wrote:
One reason for choosing different synonyms could be simple pride. The great scholars of the ICEL would look decidedly foolish if after all their work they arrived at the words printed in tens of thousands of layman's missals in the 'fifties...


No doubt pride is at the root of it. But also think about the time that it was originally created. The 1960s. Revolution. Change is good. Evolution - everything evolves to be better. Old means out-dated. Generation gap. Establishment = evil. etc. Change for its own sake was considered an improvement. And since they were modernists they didn't really believe in transubstantiation anyway so for them there was no risk of invalidating anything. We got the leaders we deserved. We were lukewarm and Our Lord gave us a good kick in the pants. On the bright side, we have magnificent opportunites to prove our love for God and our neighbor now. Little opportunities for sacrifices everywhere. Lots of opportunities to practice the spiritual works of mercy. This forum is a treasure chest.


Sat Aug 30, 2014 4:09 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 8:46 pm
Posts: 16
New post Re: Is the new New mass valid?
ClemensMaria wrote:
John Lane wrote:
One reason for choosing different synonyms could be simple pride. The great scholars of the ICEL would look decidedly foolish if after all their work they arrived at the words printed in tens of thousands of layman's missals in the 'fifties...


No doubt pride is at the root of it. But also think about the time that it was originally created. The 1960s. Revolution. Change is good. Evolution - everything evolves to be better. Old means out-dated. Generation gap. Establishment = evil. etc. Change for its own sake was considered an improvement. And since they were modernists they didn't really believe in transubstantiation anyway so for them there was no risk of invalidating anything. We got the leaders we deserved. We were lukewarm and Our Lord gave us a good kick in the pants. On the bright side, we have magnificent opportunites to prove our love for God and our neighbor now. Little opportunities for sacrifices everywhere. Lots of opportunities to practice the spiritual works of mercy. This forum is a treasure chest.


Catholics in the 1960's, pre-Vatican II, were "lukewarm"?


Sat Aug 30, 2014 11:54 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:58 am
Posts: 50
Location: Massachusetts, USA
New post Re: Is the new New mass valid?
2Vermont wrote:
ClemensMaria wrote:
John Lane wrote:
One reason for choosing different synonyms could be simple pride. The great scholars of the ICEL would look decidedly foolish if after all their work they arrived at the words printed in tens of thousands of layman's missals in the 'fifties...


No doubt pride is at the root of it. But also think about the time that it was originally created. The 1960s. Revolution. Change is good. Evolution - everything evolves to be better. Old means out-dated. Generation gap. Establishment = evil. etc. Change for its own sake was considered an improvement. And since they were modernists they didn't really believe in transubstantiation anyway so for them there was no risk of invalidating anything. We got the leaders we deserved. We were lukewarm and Our Lord gave us a good kick in the pants. On the bright side, we have magnificent opportunites to prove our love for God and our neighbor now. Little opportunities for sacrifices everywhere. Lots of opportunities to practice the spiritual works of mercy. This forum is a treasure chest.


Catholics in the 1960's, pre-Vatican II, were "lukewarm"?


In the Archdiocese of Boston they were. They were not cafeteria Catholics or terrible sinners or anything like that. But very few put much effort into understanding the truths of the Faith. How do you explain why only about 2% (or less) of Catholics understood that they could not follow modernist clergy? I have found that most of the "Greatest Generation" and Baby Boomer Catholics were very poorly catechized. Not only that but they were heavily Americanist, believing in religious liberty and ecumenism even before V2 was unleashed. But they sincerely believed that was the true doctrine of the Church. It would be a mistake to gauge the health of the Church based solely on numbers. The numbers were outstandingly good prior to V2 but modernism had steadily gained the upperhand after Pope St. Pius X's pontificate.


Sat Aug 30, 2014 6:49 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Is the new New mass valid?
Have you read, "The Faithful Departed" about the Boston Archdiocese? It's a fascinating read. Very sad, but very enlightening. The post-V2 leadership of the diocese simply didn't have the faith, that much becomes totally clear.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Sep 01, 2014 12:59 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:58 am
Posts: 50
Location: Massachusetts, USA
New post Re: Is the new New mass valid?
John Lane wrote:
Have you read, "The Faithful Departed" about the Boston Archdiocese? It's a fascinating read. Very sad, but very enlightening. The post-V2 leadership of the diocese simply didn't have the faith, that much becomes totally clear.


I actually haven't read it. I should read it but it is hard to get motivated to read about a disaster that I have lived through and which is not yet over. I also have to wonder how well Phil Lawler can identify the root causes of the problem given that he is a conservative Novus Ordo Catholic. But based on what I have heard he did a good job of documenting the crisis.


Mon Sep 01, 2014 8:48 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Is the new New mass valid?
He did, although he is focussed on moral failings and attempts, unsuccessfully, to take the catastrophic problem back into the pre-V2 church by documenting a couple of examples of less serious failings back when...

The point that becomes clear as you read the book is simply that the post-V2 authorities didn't believe. That is what stands out from their actions and failures to act, repeatedly. One realises that the motive principles at work are entirely natural ones, and not even kind or generous naturalism - they are self-preservation, "PR", and naturalistic damage-control, without any real concern for the victims - especially not the scandal to the victims' faith, which was tremendous.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Tue Sep 02, 2014 2:29 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.