I only spent a short period of my life–less than a month–doubtful of the formula, used since 1969 to consecrate both bread and wine. When I read, this morning, MISSALE ROMANUM by P. Paul VI and understood in light of what I have read of canon law, that popes can change what other popes have done: excluding sacred doctrine–I finally understood this wrotten mess between the two masses of P. Pius V and P. Paul VI, in terms of formulas to consecrate both bread and wine–P. Paul VI specified: the mystery of faith has remained within the context, of what Christ spoke. I believed that transposing the mystery of faith, changed the meaning altogether apart from Transubstantiation, and all the changes from sentence structure, to words that no longer mean the same thing to people. Now Bishop Jamie of the Sacramento Diocese, during his mass for the veneration of the relic of St. John Vianny, has shown to me just how legalistic I have become about the mass as a sacrifice, rather than a Last Supper. Trust toward authorities across my generation X as an American, cannot be inexcusable, but dealing in a healthy manner what I have done to corrupt my own nature is an allowance toward forgiveness.
Does the “meaning [among] people” determine authenticity? Does magisterial authority attach, depending on a particular person’s or persons’ understanding?
Not sure I follow your questions, but authenticity is meaningless people among authorities magisterium understanding teachings. Yes, authenticity is meaningless from the magestirium, unless there is understanding, which I sorely lack and fear the consequences of my belligerence.