Some traditionalists hold that the words of consecration in the Novus Ordo (or at least for the Novus Ordo in English) are “invalid” or something - and while I would prefer that they revised them I don’t subscribe to this view, therefore I was wondering…have there been eucharistic miracles in the past Forty Years where the accidents of the wine disappeared after consecration?
If this is the one I’m thinking about where the Species turned into literal flesh and blood in her mouth, this is a satanic counterfeit.
I say this because WEIRD and outlandish prodigies have been associated with her, such as hosts materializing and dropping from a crucifix in her house, and various revelations of questionable meaning and origin.
For the miracle of transubstantiation to take place, the words of consecration DO NOT HAVE TO BE IN LATIN. I am amazed over some of the threads which I read, and purposely do not respond to. The NOVUS ORDO is just as valid as the Latin Mass. Having lived in the pre-vatican II era for some time, I find the Novus Ordo refreshing as people, if they truly participate, know what is going on and receive the same, if not more benefits from the mass because of their ability to participate. Mass is more than listening to some language that most do not understand and saying “how beautiful this is” and being clueless as to what takes place. I say this for the majority, not for those Latin Scholars who like head trips. The Novus Ordo is equally valid and efficatious. Remember “the gates of hell shall not prevail”.
I know there will be a few if not many responses to this, so fire away.
Deacon Ed B
I have seen the Eucharistic miracle at Lanciano, the one at Los Teques, out of Caracas and others in Europe. Do I understand them. No I do not, other than if this is what God wants to give us as a means of strengthening our faith, it does a very good job. Witnessing these, gives us a greater understanding of the blessings we have received, the love God has for each of us and strengthens our love for him, who has done so much for us.
Deacon Ed B
QUOTE=Deacon Ed B;3227866]For the miracle of transubstantiation to take place, the words of consecration DO NOT HAVE TO BE IN LATIN. I am amazed over some of the threads which I read, and purposely do not respond to. The NOVUS ORDO is just as valid as the Latin Mass
Most of us that attend only the Traditional Mass would agree that the words of Consecration do not have to be in Latin. and that the Novus Ordo is valid. However we would like to see the words of Consecration translated correctly in the Novus Ordo. “Pro multis” does not translate as “for all”. The Vatican has recently admitted it has erred in the translation for over 40 years.
Having lived in the pre-vatican II era for some time, I find the Novus Ordo refreshing as people, if they truly participate, know what is going on and receive the same, if not more benefits from the mass because of their ability to participate. Mass is more than listening to some language that most do not understand and saying “how beautiful this is” and being clueless as to what takes place. I say this for the majority, not for those Latin Scholars who like head trips.
You obviously haven’t been to a Traditiona Mass since before Vaticn II. We all know what is going on at Mass . One doesn;t need to be a Latin scholar. Pope Paul VI called Latin the “language of the angels”. There is no need for you to denigrate it. No one at the Traditional Mass is “clueless”. While only 40 % of Catholic believe in the Real Presence I can guatantee you that 100% of those that go to the Traditional Masss believe in the Real Presence.
Remember “the gates of hell shall not prevail”.
I know there will be a few if not many responses to this, so fire away.
Deacon Ed B
But the “gates of hell” will try to prevail. This is why there is a priest shortage never before seen in the Church and only 25% of Catholics go to Church every Sunday
I keep hearing this mistake on this forum. The Vatican did not admit “it has erred in the translation for over 40 years.” The fact is that the Vatican never claimed that “pro multis” translates to “for all”. Rather, it permitted the words “for all” to be used, with the acknowledgement that the translation was not literal. Now, under the current pope, the Church is moving away from this use and insisting upon the literal translation.
The Rt. Rev. Mons. Chidwick would likely disagree with you. He might think someone “clueless” who held the views you express above.
From the Book, The Golden Jubilee of Saint Agnes’ Parish, 1923
The Splendor of External Worship
By The Right Rev. Mons. John P. Chidwick, D.D.
[quote=Right Rev. Mons. John P. Chidwick, D.D.] The use of liturgy in divine service was one of the most bitterly contested points of controversy between our Holy Church and the misnamed reformers of the Sixteenth Century. These revolutionists denied the dogmas of the Real Presence and of the sacrifice of the Mass, of devotion to the Blessed Virgin and the saints, and of the existence of Purgatory. Accordingly, they swept from their churches the altars and their adornments, the statuary and storied windows, the ceremonies of the sanctuary and the appealing and inspiring tones of the organ.
Their professed purpose in dealing this fatal stroke to the highest inspiration and noblest expressions of art, as it consecrated itself to God, was to bring back Christian worship to the simplicity of the Apostolic days. Their profession might be received to-day with greater sympathy for their fanaticism, if research had not revealed that the confiscated precious plate and rich embroideries of the altar, glowing canvasses and breathing marbles, that adorned the sanctuaries and walls of the churches. and the stolen lands, convents and monasteries. went to increase the wealth and to ornament the palaces of kings and nobles. They humiliated Christ to exalt themselves and robbed the House of God to embellish their own palaces. Greed for power and pelf was the force that abetted. maintained and gave success to the movement of the so-called reformers…
…The liturgy of Holy Church is not only monumental and inspirational, it is not only the outflowing and outpouring of her living soul, but it is also the fitting expression of her belief. Every ceremony or rite is the vesture proper to the truth it expresses. It is not a part of a drama seeking to impress by its beauty, its suggestiveness or its austerity. It expresses an underlying truth in an impressive manner. It is the language of the Church. By it she speaks to all the saving truths which have been entrusted to her keeping. By it, the-lettered and the unlettered, the child as well as the parent, the sinner as well as the just, the rude barbarian and the untutored savage are instructed, impressed and lifted up to God,- and by it they all, in unison of voice and action, profess the same faith with which they have been blessed.
The altar expresses the perpetual and all-saving sacrifice which is offered daily according to the command of Christ: “Do ye this in memory of me.” The lighted candles, the flowers and the incense speak of His presence in the tabernacle Whom we adore. The storied windows and the statuary tell us of the life beyond the grave and bring close to us the saintly company about the throne in Heaven who are our friends, our companions and our intercessors during our journey on earth. The church itself fills us with the beauty, the grandeur, the majesty, the power, the immensity of Him to Whom it is dedicated…
When we raise our eyes or clasp our hands, bow the head or bend the knee, sign ourselves with the sign of the cross or bless ourselves with Holy Water, the action brings to our minds and hearts dogmas of faith that profess our faith and love. For this reason the revealed truth, which cannot change, causes our liturgy to move with uniformity and harmony, everywhere essentially the same in all countries and all ages. Wherever he may be, a child of Holy Church is at home at the Catholic services of the land. He may be in distant Asia or Africa, among people whose habits of thought, language and customs of life are strange and un-intelligible to him, but in their churches, if they be of the household of faith, he is in a familiar House of God and can worship in the same manner as he does at home.
It is because they lack revealed and unchanging truth, that this privilege cannot be enjoyed by those outside the fold. “Lex orandi est lex credendi” is an old and true axiom. The law of worship is the law of belief. Where there is no true creed of belief there can be no true and fixed form of worship.
The words of consecration ‘for multis effundetur’ is translated in English as ‘for many’. Saying ‘for all’ is substantially the same, and the words of consecration are the same, mean the same, and do not compromise the consecration of the wine during the Eucharistic sacrifice.
The Catholic Church has made this change, and it is within her perview to make these changes, which she does not see as substantially different with what went on before.
It is just one of those hot botton for radically conservatives to push when they want to upset their side.
You say “substantially the same” which of course means “not” exactly the same
“for all” does not mean the same as “for many” and you know that. If all is well with “for all” why is the Church going to correct the translation to “for many”. Didn’t Christ say “for many?” The Catechism of Trent went into great detail of why “for many” should be used.
None of which admists to error. Christ did die for all that they might be saved; however, not all will be saved. He also died for those who will be saved - the many. Neither “all” nor “many” are theologically incorrect when understood as to what exactly they mean. Pro multis is accurately translated as “for the many”; but using “for all” is not theologically incorrect in regards to Christ’s death, but can be theologically inexact if not understood in its proper context.
Although mgrfin doesn’t say this specifically and it may not be truly representative of everything he says, his comments speak of liberalism. It does not look like he has accepted one bit of the Church’s teaching based on the infallibility of the Church but on his own analysis of theology and therefore his agreement with the Church. This is exactly the absolute independence of the individual which as at the heart of liberalism.
From Liberalism Is a Sin, Ch. 7:
[quote=Liberalism Is a Sin, Ch. 7]"Strange as may seem that anomaly called Liberal Catholicism, its reason is not far to seek. It takes its root in a false conception of the nature of the act of faith. The Liberal Catholic assumes as the formal motive of the act of faith, not the infallible authority of God revealing supernatural truth, but his own reason deigning to accept as true what appears rational to him according to the appreciation and measure of his own individual judgment. He subjects God’s authority to the scrutiny of his reason, and not his reason to God’s authority. He accepts Revelation, not on account of the infallible Revealer, but because of the “infallible” receiver. With him the individual judgment is the rule of faith. He believes in the independence of reason. It is true he accepts the Magisterium of the Church, yet he does not accept it as the sole authorized expounder of divine truth. He reserves, as a coefficient factor in the determination of that truth, his own private judgment. The true sense of revealed doctrine to him is not always certain, and human reason therefore has something to say in the matter, as for instance, the limits of the Church’s infallibility may be determined by human science.
The Liberal Catholic calls himself a Catholic because he firmly believes Catholicity to be the veritable revelation of the Son of God; he calls himself a Liberal Catholic because he believes that no one can impose upon him any belief which his individual judgment does not measure as perfectly rational. What is not rational he rejects; he is intellectually free to accept or reject. What appears good he assents to, but he is intellectually bound to no one. Thus, unwittingly, he falls an easy victim to the snare set by the devil for the intellectually proud. He has substituted the naturalistic principle of free examination for the supernatural principle of faith. As a consequence, he is really not Christian, but pagan. He has no real supernatural faith, but only a simple human conviction. In the acceptance of the principle that the individual reason is thus free to believe or not to believe, Liberal Catholics are deluded into the notion that incredulity is a virtue rather than a vice. They fail to see in it an infirmity of the understanding, a voluntary blindness of the heart, and a consequent weakness of will. On the other hand, they look upon the skeptical attitude as a legitimate condition wherein intellectual freedom is preserved, the skeptic remaining master of himself to believe or deny. They have a horror of any coercive element in matters of faith; any chastisement of error shocks their tender susceptibilities, and they detest any Catholic legislation in the direction of what they are pleased to call intolerance.
And from Scheeben, Concil, III, 232:
“[The Liberal] measures divine and Catholic faith with the standard of human faith; he regards it, consequently, as an act of free trust and sovereign approbation whereby one accepts and makes his own a truth that is seen to be sufficiently attested. The testimony of another appears to him as authority only insofar as he allows himself freely to be influenced and moved by it; but it is not authority in the sense that the testimony, as an imperious, absolutely binding judgment, necessitates him to an obedient acceptance of its content. According to, this theory, faith, insofar as it is referred formally to the word of God as to its source, is not an act of obedience and submissive homage, but the simple acknowledgment that God has spoken the truth.”
Why is it so hard for you guys to admit that this is a mistranslation? It’s like saying the new translation of “peace on earth good will to men” is the same as the correct translation. “peace on earth to men of good will”.They mean completely the opposite
Catechism of Trent
" 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"