Sspx

Incorrect on two points.

It is called the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom or just the Divine Liturgy for short, there is no such thing as a Byzantine Mass.

Also, it depends on where you attend the Divine Liturgy as to what you will here. There are many Byzantine (Ruthenian) Cahtolic parishes and many Ukrainian Greek Catholic parishes you will hear the filioque in the Creed.

But as with the pro multis issue. Both phrases are saying the same thing.

No dogma has changed.

[quote=ByzCath] There are many Byzantine (Ruthenian) Cahtolic parishes and many Ukrainian Greek Catholic parishes you will hear the filioque in the Creed.
[/quote]

But is this true in all Ruthenian Catholic Churches or in many Ruthenian Catholic Churches? Many Eastern Catholic Churches say the filioque, but not all Eastern Catholics say the filioque. Many and all do not mean the same thing. So in some Catholic Churches they beleive that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. But in other Catholic Churches, Catholics say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. There is no consistency as it varies from one Church to another.

[quote=ByzCath]But as with the pro multis issue. Both phrases are saying the same thing.
.
[/quote]

This may be what is taught now, but it was not the teaching at the time of the Council of Trent as the Catechism of the Council of Trent says differently. so it is another essential change in Catholic doctrine, according to the Roman Catholic theory of “development of doctrine” which is just another way of saying that Catholic teaching can change from one place or time to another.

[quote=Kirane]But is this true in all Ruthenian Catholic Churches or in many Ruthenian Catholic Churches? Many Eastern Catholic Churches say the filioque, but not all Eastern Catholics say the filioque. Many and all do not mean the same thing. So in some Catholic Churches they beleive that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. But in other Catholic Churches, Catholics say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. There is no consistency as it varies from one Church to another.
[/quote]

You are right, many and all are not the same thing but in your post you implied that all Byzantine Catholic Churches have removed the filioque from the Liturgy, I was informing you that this is not ture.

As for the meaning of it, in essence we are saying the same thing as the thought behind what is being said is the same.

I suggest that you read this document, : A Church-Dividing Issue?Filioque An Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation Saint Paul’s College, Washington, DC October 25, 2003.

Becuase, otherwise, you are saying that the Byzantine Churches are split in their beliefs.

[quote=Kirane]This may be what is taught now, but it was not the teaching at the time of the Council of Trent as the Catechism of the Council of Trent says differently. so it is another essential change in Catholic doctrine, according to the Roman Catholic theory of “development of doctrine” which is just another way of saying that Catholic teaching can change from one place or time to another.
[/quote]

Please provide the citiations from the Council of Trent and the Catechism of Trent so that I can go read it for myself in context.

Also, doctrine can change, it is dogma that can not change.

[quote=Kirane]I don;t see how anyone can say incorrect. According to the catechism of the Council of Trent, the correct wording should be that the Blood of Christ was shed for many.

[/quote]

Yes, but before the Tridentine formula was ever used by the Latin Rite, according to St. Hypollytus (3rd century), “pro multis” was omitted altogether. Thus, it is not an essensial element of the “form” of the Sacrament. So, even if it were omitted altogether, it would still be a valid Sacrament.

After Vatican II, in the USA the wording was essentially changed to use the phrase that the Blood of Christ was shed for all.

This English translation was approved by the Holy See.

The Roman Catechism is an Acta Apostolicae Sedis which has no more authority than the Acta Apostolicae Sedis which answered the “pro multis” question in 1974. Observe,

The Holy See examines the translation of a sacramental form into the vernacular and, when it judges that the translation rightly expresses the meaning intended by the Church, approves and confirms the translation. In so doing the Holy See is stipulating that the meaning of the translation is to be understood in accord with the mind of the Church as expressed by the original Latin text” (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Instauratio liturgica, 25 January 1974, in AAS 66 [1974], p. 661 - English translation in ICEL: Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979 [The Liturgical Press: Collegeville, Minnesota, 1982], p. 299).

I agree that “for many” ought to be the translation, for it better expresses the original Latin text. However, the Church can in no way accept your proposition, already condemned by Pius VI (Auctorem Fidei, 78 [1794]), that what she has officially established as approved ecclesiastical discipline is either harmful or dangerous to the faithful. You can disagree that such a translation is prudent. But when you claim that it renders the Mass invalid, you assert a condemned Jansenist proposition.

This is not a disciplinary change.

It is certainly not a doctrinal change. The Holy See asserts the English translation is to be understood in accord with the Latin editio typica, which says “pro multis.” It is to be understood in that sense. Those like you that erroneously understand it in a different sense do so contrary to the mind of the Church.

It has nothing to do with discipline. It has to do with whether the Blood of Christ was shed for many or for all.

The atonement of Christ was sufficient for all and efficacious for many. You erroneously read into the English translation a change in doctrine that does not exist according to the Divinely ordained authority responsible for Catholic doctrine.

Furthermore, the various liturgies present within the Eastern Rite are in accord with the most ancient creed in the Greek, but neither do they deny the doctrine as taught by the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Again, you make the ERROR of presuming to speak for the Church in what it intends by her own liturgy, yet you do not have that authority.

For a very thorough treatment of the arguments often employed contrary to the judgment of the authentic magisterium on this matter, see the following article:

THE SACRAMENTAL VALIDITY OF "FOR YOU AND FOR ALL"
by Fr. John F. McCarthy, J.C.D., S.T.D.
rtforum.org/lt/lt89.html

“Throughout the history of the Church, there have been at least 89 variations of the formula of consecration approved by the Church (see Likoudis and Whitehead, The Pope, the Council, and the Mass, 109). ***Many of these entirely exclude the phrase in question. ***For example, the canon of Hippolytus, which dates back to the beginning of the third century, gives the following as the words of consecration for the cup: “And likewise, taking the cup, he said: ‘This is my Blood, which is shed for you. When you do this, make memory of me.’” More to the point, ***St. Paul himself omits the phrase and gives the words of consecration as: “In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me’” (1 Cor. 11:25). ******” ***(Jason Evert, *Catholic Answers Q&A *
catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9812qq.asp)

If it were an essential part of the Mass, how come the formula used by the Church in the 3rd century excluded it? Are you trying to tell us that the Mass was invalid until the Tridentine formula was established? That’s absurd.

[quote=itsjustdave1988]If it were an essential part of the Mass, how come the formula used by the Church in the 3rd century excluded it? Are you trying to tell us that the Mass was invalid until the Tridentine formula was established? That’s absurd.
[/quote]

it shows that the Catholic Church changes its doctrines according to the theology of development of doctrine. I did not say anything one way or another about validity. What I said was that the Council of Trent in its catechism supports the doctrine that the Blood of Christ was shed for many. After the Vatican II Council, in the USA, in the Mass of Pope Paul in English, Catholics read that the Blood of Christ was shed for all. however, in some other Liturgies, for example of the Eastern rite, Catholics read that the Blood of Christ was shed for many. Many and all are not the same thing. For example, in many Ruthenian Catholic Churches the filioque is said, however, it is not true that in all Ruthenian Churches the filioque is said. This points to another essential difference in Catholic doctrine and teaching depending on which Catholic Church you find yourself in.

[quote=Kirane]it shows that the Catholic Church changes its doctrines according to the theology of development of doctrine. I did not say anything one way or another about validity. What I said was that the Council of Trent in its catechism supports the doctrine that the Blood of Christ was shed for many. After the Vatican II Council, in the USA, in the Mass of Pope Paul in English, Catholics read that the Blood of Christ was shed for all. however, in some other Liturgies, for example of the Eastern rite, Catholics read that the Blood of Christ was shed for many. Many and all are not the same thing. For example, in many Ruthenian Catholic Churches the filioque is said, however, it is not true that in all Ruthenian Churches the filioque is said. This points to another essential difference in Catholic doctrine and teaching depending on which Catholic Church you find yourself in.
[/quote]

Not so. I think it is your understanding that is off on this.

But then… you aren’t Catholic as you list yourself as “other” in your profile so I would not expect you to understand this nuance.

[quote=Kirane]…Council of Trent in its catechism supports the doctrine that the Blood of Christ was shed for many.

[/quote]

Because it was. For many, efficaciously.

After the Vatican II Council… the Blood of Christ was shed for all.

Because it was. For all, sufficiently.

The doctrine before Trent and after Vatican II remains the same: Christ died for many efficaciously and for all sufficiently.

You are comparing apples and oranges. However, it seems you aren’t even motivated enough to read more about it, as this is thoroughly explained in the links I’ve already provided to you.

If you choose ignorance, I can’t help you.

[quote=mike182d]A group that intentionally operates by means of deception to win supporters is clearly in heresy.
[/quote]

Equally helpful would be for Catholic churches “in” communion with Rome to indicate somewere that they are in fact Catholic so as not to be confused with some of the protestant churches.

sspx.org/

The REAL Traditional Roman Mass is the Greek Mass of the first three centuries as described by the Apostolic Constitutions and the Apology of St. Justin Martyr…

More here: Society of St. Pius I :smiley:

Some years ago, I had never been to a traditional Latin Mass. I remember my Mom sharing her memories of it very fondly. She really appreciated the Latin Mass when we lived in Germany and didn’t understand the language. When she attended the Mass, she felt at home since she finally understood what they were saying!!So I looked up on the internet for a place in Colorado Springs that offered a Latin Mass. To be clear, I believe the current editio typica of the Roman Missal is valid and it is the liturgy I grew up with and enjoy the most. However, I wanted to experience more of the beautiful Catholic tradition. So I found the following fraternal order in town that offered the Latin Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal:

Servants of the Holy Family
servi.org/

I wrote them an email asking which Roman Missal they use, so that I could obtain it and do some study before attending the Mass. I want to know what’s going on, so that I can better appreciate it. I also asked if they were part of the diocese of Colorado Springs.

Fr. Simons, S.S.F., wrote me back:Dear David,

We are not part of the diocese of Colorado Springs, but **we are in union with Rome. **You are welcome to attend our Mass. If you would like to call for details I would be happy to speak with you. [phone number given] [emphasis added]

We look forward to hearing from you.

Father Kevin D. Simons, S.S.F.
I was fully intending upon calling and finding out more details when a little voice inside thought they may actually be schismatic and yet telling me they are not. So, I wrote the Diocese of Colorado Springs to ask about this fraternal order and their status with Rome. This is what the diocese wrote to me:**The Servants of the Holy Family are not in communion with the Diocese of Colorado Springs (and the Roman Catholic Church at large), although they claim to be.
**
The Immaculate Conception Latin Mass Community IS, however, a community recognized as part of our diocese. It is led by a priest of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter [FSSP], Fr. Fritschen, and is dedicated to the Latin Mass of 1962 Roman Missal. They were given permission by the Holy See to say the Mass according to the 1962 Missal on a regular basis.

If you wish to contact Fr. Thoma Fritschen, his number is [provided] he will be happy to forward additional informtation to you upon request.

This disturbed me. So I went to the library and looked at the Official Catholic Directory (2003) to look up whether Fr. Simons was listed or whether the Servants of the Holy Family or S.S.F. were listed. They were not. I did, however, find that Fr. Fritschen and the F.S.S.P. were listed.I wrote back Fr. Simons and told him that two things disturbed me. The fact that they are not listed in the Official Catholic Directory and that the Diocese claimed they are NOT in communion with Rome. I assured him that I believed there are at least two sides to every argument, so I asked him why they believed they were in communion with Rome. I suggested that if they were truly in communion, they may want to provide a letter showing that fact to the Diocese of Colorado Springs and submit their fraternal order and names to be published in the Official Catholic Directory.

I told him that I would be contacting Fr. Fritschen and participating in the next Latin Mass with him. I invited Fr. Simons to join us if he wished.

continued…

continued…

Suffice it to say, Fr. Simons was not very pleased. He said:Dear David,

I did not know when I wrote to you that I would be asked to defend my status in the Church. The bishop’s office is lying to you, but of course, you believe them rather than us, or else you would not have written to them.

Fr. Simons
Now why would the Bishop’s office be lying? They certainly are not suppressing the Latin Mass, as it is offered daily in the diocese. It seemed quite clear to me that Fr. Simons is part of a schismatic movement and it was he that was lying to me about their status with Rome. Why would they need to lie to me to trick me into joining them?I wrote back to Fr. Simons:
Fr Simons,

I meant no offense. I merely want to attend a Latin Mass that is not in schism with the Holy See. I’m confident that Bishop Sheridan is in communion with Rome. Whether the Servants of the Holy Family are or not is none of my concern. You don’t have to defend yourself to me at all. I just wanted to let you know of my intentions and why. Whether or not you include your fraternal order and your name in the *Official Catholic Directory *is entirely up to you.

God bless,

Dave
For those wanting to attend a Latin Mass that is not in schism with the Catholic Church, I suggest you do a little research first. The *Official Catholic Directory *is very handy. By all means, contact your diocese. They may not be part of the diocese (eg. Franciscans), but they ought to be in communion with the diocese. If they are not in communion with the diocese then there’s something wrong.

Bottomline: Not all those who say they are in communion with Rome actually are.

[quote=itsjustdave1988]Because it was. For many, efficaciously
If you choose ignorance, I can’t help you.
[/quote]

If you are going to call names, instead of answering the question honestly, this would appear to be a violation of the rules at Catholic Answers. I don’t know why the Catholic Answers allows Catholics to break these rules of insulting people who are not Catholics, but not vice versa.
The fact is that the word efficaciously was not mentioned in the Catechism of the Council of Trent with reference to this question. This is something which you have added, and incredibly you accuse anyone of ignorance if they go along with the Catechism of the Council of Trent. It is a way of avoiding the question, by simply calling someone who refers to a document of the Council of Trent as ignorant. But it really does not answer the question. It is what is called an ad hominem argument. You simply attack my character, instead of answering the question. You also falsely accused me of questioning the validity of the Mass, which I did not. This was a completely false allegation on your part.
According to the catechism of the Council of Trent:
:When He added, " For many," He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles. With reason, therefore, were the words , “For all”, not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle ( Hebrews ix.28 ) when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many," and also of the words of our Lord in John: " I pray for them ; not for the world I pray, but for those whom thou hast given me, because they are thine"

( John x v ii . 9).
The Catholic Church has changed its teaching on this point since it now says that it is OK to use the words for all, whereas before it said it was with reason that the words for all were not used.

Please remember to review your posts for tone and content before hitting submit.

Thank you and God bless-

Rachel

Technically Latin Masses couldn’t have been forbiden, only the old rite of the mass could have possibly been forbiden. Even when the NO was enforced the priests still had the ability to say it in Latin if they chose, just not the Old Mass

I sing for a Latin mass almost every weekend, it’s just a NO mass and not a tridentine mass…though on occasion we also do the tridentine mass. I think people need to draw a distinction between language used and the rite itself. I remeber reading somewhere that even the tridentine mass was said in a language other than latin in on place in europe, while it was still the normal rite used. (of course this was a special circumstance)

[quote=StMarkEofE]Well I personally know for a fact that Latin Masses were forbidden in our diocese after VatII and that only the NO was to be celebrated. So at this time it was Illegitamate to attend or celebrate a Latin Mass. In fact even mentioning the Latin Mass would get your stares of puzzlement, and questions as to why do you want go back to something so anachronistic as the “old” Mass. It was ONLY after severe pressure was put upon the Vatican by a lot of traditionalists that the Vatican loosened their rules regarding the Latin Mass. If it wasnt for these groups the Latin Mass would only exist in history books.
[/quote]

[quote=Kirane]If you are going to call names…

[/quote]

What name did I call you?

The fact is that the word efficaciously was not mentioned in the Catechism of the Council of Trent with reference to this question. This is something which you have added, and incredibly you accuse anyone of ignorance if they go along with the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

You neglect the fact that the Roman Catechism is a post-councilar summary of doctrine, the nature of which is to teach the “rudiments of the faith.” (cf. Introduction, Roman Catechism). I did not add to the Catechism, but instead told you the doctrine taught by the Catholic Church both before Trent and after Vatican II, which shows that your “change in doctrine” thesis absurd.

If you read the link I provided, you’d know what the Roman Catechism says on the issue. From Fr. McCarthy’s article, the Roman Catechism states,

"…we must confess that the Redeemer shed his blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race.

Furthermore, from the same article, it shows that before the Council of Trent, St. Thomas Aquinas taught from his Commentary on the Four Books of Sentences of Peter the Lombard:

In addition, the expression pro vobis et pro multis effundetur is taken concerning the shedding as regards sufficiency or as regards efficacy. If, as regards sufficiency, thus it was shed for all, not only for many; but if as regards the efficacy which it has only in the elect”

It is a way of avoiding the question, by simply calling someone who refers to a document of the Council of Trent as ignorant.

In your post (#25) you didn’t ask a question, but made an accusation, erroneous as it was. Thus, I’m not avoiding a question but correcting your faulty accusation.

Nor, did I call you ignorant. I stated that if you choose ignorance I cannot help you. If you choose not to read the articles I provided, then you choose to remain in ignorance about what the Church even before Trent taught about the atonement’s sufficiency for all and efficacy for many. This doctrine has not changed after Vatican II as you erroneously state.

You also falsely accused me of questioning the validity of the Mass, which I did not.

You said it was an “essential part” of the Mass. I’ve showed that “pro multis” is not an essential part of the Mass, as many ancient formulas omitted it altogether. Whether you knew it or not, “essential part of the Mass” means that without this essential part, the Mass is invalid. That’s what “essential” means in Catholic theology. I recommend instead of thrusting out words you don’t completely understand in relation to the Catholic liturgy in an attempt to make accusations against Catholic teaching, you do some more reading about the religion.

The Catholic Church has changed its teaching on this point since it now says that it is OK to use the words for all, whereas before it said it was with reason that the words for all were not used.

The Catholic Church has affirmed that the English translation is to be understood to mean that which the Latin text means, in accord with the quote I’ve given above from the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith (1974). Thus, your thesis is absurd.

The Church herself in the Latin editio typica has “pro mutlis.” My Roman Missal, published in the USA still has “pro mutlis.” If this was some great USA conspiracy to change doctrine then they aren’t doing a very good job by printing the Latin as “pro multis” in my Roman Missal.

The Church herself explicitly says the approved translation is stipulating that the meaning of the translation is to be understood in accord with the mind of the Church as expressed by the original Latin text, which says “pro multis.” So, from a liturgical view, the english translation is imprecise, but affirmed to mean what the Latin states (pro multis). From a doctrinal view, Christ’s atonement remains sufficient for all and efficacisous for many which the doctrine has always been.

[quote=itsjustdave1988]You said it was an “essential part” of the Mass. I’ve showed that “pro multis” is not an essential part of the Mass, as many ancient formulas omitted it altogether. Whether you knew it or not, “essential part of the Mass” means that without this essential part, the Mass is invalid. That’s what “essential” means in Catholic theology. I recommend instead of thrusting out words you don’t completely understand in relation to the Catholic liturgy in an attempt to make accusations against Catholic teaching, you do some more reading about the religion…
[/quote]

I think I said that the Consecration is an essential part of the Mass. There has been a change in many (but not all) countries and in many (but not all) liturgies, in some of the words for this part of the Mass from “for many” to “for all” and that this was contrary to what was written in the Catechism of the Council of Trent. I am trying to study and make sense of the relevance of the statement of Pope Pius V as quoted as follows:Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5, Part 1:
"The words of Consecration, which are the FORM of this Sacrament, are these: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And: FOR 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 REMISSION OF SINS. Now if one were to remove, or change anything in the FORM of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the sacrament."
This would seem to emphasize what was written in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, On the Form of the Eucharist:
“The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His Blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore (our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews and Gentiles. WITH REASON, THEREFORE, WERE THE WORDS FOR ALL NOT USED, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation.” (The Catechism of the Council of Trent, TAN Books, 1982, p. 227.)
I don’t see how anyone can say that there has not been a change in teaching.
1.According to the above with reason were the words “for all” not used.
2. According to the present teaching with reason are the words “for all” used in some liturgies in some countries (but not all).

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.