"For many" versus "for all" is actually very significant. "Many are cold but few are frozen". "All" are the people of God. "Many" are those who respond to the invitation.----Incremental change is obvious. There will be a Mass where there will be Islamic and Catholic ministers. That is why the "Real Presence" is being denigrated. It is becoming very obvious through such as Vincenzo Paglia that the Argentinian does not have the moral character that was exhibited by the Polish occupant of the chair for almost 26 years.---Christ told the woman caught in adultery to "go and sin no more". For the current occupant, there is no sin. Therefore, there is no need for a Redeemer.---Who can doubt any longer of his lack of a moral backbone? He is no "Captains Courageous". "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free".
"Ecclesia supplet" applies only in the case of rites, laws, or regulations that are of human origin. Thus, even in the "old days" a priest could hear a confession outside his own diocese, even though, strictly speaking, he had faculties only within his own diocese. (Today, faculties are explicitly presumed unless explicitly revoked for some reason.)
A priest may make various errors or omissions in the celebration of the Mass without invalidating it, but the Epicletic Gesture (which Bergoglio, btw, never does) and the words of Consecration are essential. "Ecclesia supplet" is not operative. The question is: Are the recent changes invalidating or not? Obviously, the omission of the words "body" or "blood" would be invalidating. I don't think there is certainty--yet--concerning the phrase "pro multis," "for many" (or "for the many") vs. the deliberately inaccurate "for all."
"For all" is an inaccurate translation. It is offensive to God and man for that one reason alone. Those who are mandating its use, and publishing Missals containing it, are no doubt committing grave sin. Does it invalidate the Mass? I would say not, but it is gravely sinful to create REASON for doubt.
9 comments:
possibly
Ecclesia supplet?
We didn't have to wait for Benedict to die for this to happen?
Maria Divine Mercy has prophesied that and more in the "Book of Truth"!!!
Divine Mercy diary is a forgery.
-Andrew
"For many" versus "for all" is actually very significant. "Many are cold but few are frozen". "All" are the people of God. "Many" are those who respond to the invitation.----Incremental change is obvious. There will be a Mass where there will be Islamic and Catholic ministers. That is why the "Real Presence" is being denigrated. It is becoming very obvious through such as Vincenzo Paglia that the Argentinian does not have the moral character that was exhibited by the Polish occupant of the chair for almost 26 years.---Christ told the woman caught in adultery to "go and sin no more". For the current occupant, there is no sin. Therefore, there is no need for a Redeemer.---Who can doubt any longer of his lack of a moral backbone? He is no "Captains Courageous". "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free".
"the Argentinian does not have the moral character that was exhibited by the Polish occupant of the chair for almost 26 years."
Sure he does. They're cut from the same cloth.
"Many are cold but few are frozen." That's a good one. Thanks for the chuckle.
Stop Voris:
"Ecclesia supplet" applies only in the case of rites, laws, or regulations that are of human origin. Thus, even in the "old days" a priest could hear a confession outside his own diocese, even though, strictly speaking, he had faculties only within his own diocese. (Today, faculties are explicitly presumed unless explicitly revoked for some reason.)
A priest may make various errors or omissions in the celebration of the Mass without invalidating it, but the Epicletic Gesture (which Bergoglio, btw, never does) and the words of Consecration are essential. "Ecclesia supplet" is not operative. The question is: Are the recent changes invalidating or not? Obviously, the omission of the words "body" or "blood" would be invalidating. I don't think there is certainty--yet--concerning the phrase "pro multis," "for many" (or "for the many") vs. the deliberately inaccurate "for all."
"For all" is an inaccurate translation. It is offensive to God and man for that one reason alone. Those who are mandating its use, and publishing Missals containing it, are no doubt committing grave sin. Does it invalidate the Mass? I would say not, but it is gravely sinful to create REASON for doubt.
"A doubtful sacrament is to be treated invalid for the safer course."
Isn't this traditional Catholic teaching?
-Andrew
Post a Comment