WHY do neo-Catholics hate "no salvation outside the Church"?

[MarysChild]

Sweet, thanks! Unfortunately I can't post in that thread anymore because people fought about Jews and WWII too much so the mod asked people to stop posting in it. Oh well...

my Mother my Confidence,
Corinne

[Vanita]

Pax Christi !

 

< As far as the NO being invalid, I can't help you there.  As long as the words "this is my body" and "this is my blood" are in there, it is valid, according to St. Thomas.  But he also teaches that to change the other words is gravely sinful, and VII did that.>

 

" This is my Body" and This is my Blood" is not what is " said" in the novus ordo mass, so that particaul narrow quote from St. Thomas doesn't help us here. If the change in words, changes the meaning to something other then what Christ intended, then it is not '" valid", and no consecration occurs.

 

So in reality, the portion of the Summa so often quoted in the attempt to  give " validity" to the novus ordoe mass does not really apply.

 

 

In Christ and Our Lady,

 

[Montreal_Marisa]

Pax Christi !

<  As far as the NO being invalid, I can't help you there. As long as the  words "this is my body" and "this is my blood" are in there, it is  valid, according to St. Thomas. But he also teaches that to change the  other words is gravely sinful, and VII did that.>

"  This is my Body" and This is my Blood" is not what is " said" in the  novus ordo mass, so that particaul narrow quote from St. Thomas doesn't  help us here. If the change in words, changes the meaning to something  other then what Christ intended, then it is not '" valid", and no  consecration occurs.

So  in reality, the portion of the Summa so often quoted in the attempt to  give " validity" to the novus ordoe mass does not really apply.

In Christ and Our Lady,

 
  That is a blanket statment, Vanita.  I attended the NO for years,  and "This is my Body," and "This is My Blood" were always said.   My husband still attends the NO on occasion, in French, I've been  myself to it in the past, and they still say "This is My Body," and  "This is My Blood."  I'm sure there are many NO parish priests who  have changed the wording, but it doesn't exist everywhere.  The NO  I attended were in Ohio and Montreal, Quebec, respectively. 
 

[Vanita]

Pax Christi

 

 

Hi Marisa,

 

 

That is a blanket statment, Vanita.  I attended the NO for years, and "This is my Body," and "This is My Blood" were always said

 

Indeed that portion of the consecration is always said with the the rest of the words in the new form. Which is what makes it invalid. Because it changes  our Lord Jesus Christ's meaning and intention.

 

Not one New MASS stops with " This is my Body,this is my Blood"....... rather, it continues with the words  of the mutilated new form.

 

" The blood of the new  and everlasting covenant, which shall be shed for you and ALL MEN, for the forgiveness of sins, do this in memory of me" Note is is from memory.... hope it is exact, I no longer have a NO missal.

 

 One cannot argue that since some  minimum words, which are entangled with the rest of the new form, the sacrament  somehow is valid. 

 

If the new words, do not convey what is intended  by Christ, then the sacrament is  not confected.

 

In addition,  I do not concede the  minimum words " short" form is valid anyway.  St. Thomas explains :

 

   

I answer that, There is a twofold opinion regarding this form. Some have maintained that the words "This is the chalice of My blood" alone belong to the substance of this form, but not those words which follow. Now this seems incorrect, because the words which follow them are determinations of the predicate, that is, of Christ's blood. Consequently they belong to the integrity of the expression.  

   

And on this account others say more accurately that all the words which follow are of the substance of the form down to the words, "As often as ye shall do this," which belong to the use of this sacrament, and consequently do not belong to the substance of the form. Hence it is that the priest pronounces all these words, under the same rite and manner, namely, holding the chalice in his hands. Moreover, in Lk. 22:20, the words that follow are interposed with the preceding words: "This is the chalice, the new testament in My blood."  Summa III Q78,Art 3

 

 

   

Defect of Form, is what invalidates, not to mention, the New mass does not offer Calvary " re-presented". The obsessive emphasis of " table" and meal, instead of " Calvary" as in the Latin Mass.  

   

In Christ and Our Lady,  

   

   

   

   

   

 

 

[JubilateDeo]

To continue with what Vanita is saying...

 

The "Mystery of Faith" has been moved to right before the "acclamation": "Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again." This implies many things, which are, obviously, not Catholic. Make your own conclusions....

[Montreal_Marisa]

 

Indeed that  portion of the consecration is always said with the the rest of the  words in the new form. Which is what makes it invalid. Because it  changes our Lord Jesus Christ's meaning and intention.

Not  one New MASS stops with " This is my Body,this is my Blood".......  rather, it continues with the words of the mutilated new form.

"  The blood of the new and everlasting covenant, which shall be shed for  you and ALL MEN, for the forgiveness of sins, do this in memory of me"  Note is is from memory.... hope it is exact, I no longer have a NO  missal.

One  cannot argue that since some minimum words, which are entangled with  the rest of the new form, the sacrament somehow is valid.

If the new words, do not convey what is intended  by Christ, then the sacrament is  not confected.

In addition,  I do not concede the  minimum words " short" form is valid anyway.  St. Thomas explains :

 

I answer that,  There is a twofold opinion regarding this form. Some have maintained  that the words "This is the chalice of My blood" alone belong to the  substance of this form, but not those words which follow. Now this  seems incorrect, because the words which follow them are determinations  of the predicate, that is, of Christ's blood. Consequently they belong  to the integrity of the expression.

 

And  on this account others say more accurately that all the words which  follow are of the substance of the form down to the words, "As often as  ye shall do this," which belong to the use of this sacrament, and  consequently do not belong to the substance of the form. Hence it is  that the priest pronounces all these words, under the same rite and  manner, namely, holding the chalice in his hands. Moreover, in Lk.  22:20, the words that follow are interposed with the preceding words:  "This is the chalice, the new testament in My blood." Summa III Q78,Art  3

 

 

Defect  of Form, is what invalidates, not to mention, the New mass does not  offer Calvary " re-presented". The obsessive emphasis of " table" and  meal, instead of " Calvary" as in the Latin Mass.

 

In Christ and Our Lady,  

 

 

 

 

 

 
  That is not what you originally said.  You said, and I'm  paraphrasing here, was that the NO Mass is invalid because they no  longer say "This is My Body," and "This is My Blood."  Which is  not the truth in all cases, as I pointed out in my own  experience. 
 
  It's a matter of intent, and since we cannot know for certain a  priest's intent when consecrating the Host, unless he were to say so,  we can't know for certain its validity. 
 
  I personally won't attend an NO mass, not because I think it's invalid,  but because I refuse to go where Our Lord is manhandled by every Tom,  Jane, and Harry.
 

[aspergesme]

With no disrespect toward the Angelic Doctor, the Form of the Eucharist should be as follows:
 
  Form To Be Used In The Consecration Of The Bread
 
  We are then taught by the holy Evangelists, Matthew and Luke, and also by the Apostle, that the form consists of these words: This is my body;  for it is written: Whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and  blessed it, and brake, and gave to his disciples, and said: Take and eat, This is my body.
 
  This form of consecration having been observed by Christ the Lord has been always used by the Catholic Church. ...
 
  Not All The Words Used Are Essential
 
  Although in the Evangelist the words, Take and eat, precede the words (This is my body),...they are not necessary to the validity of the Sacrament,...
 
  Form To Be Used In The Consecration Of The Wine
 
  With regard to the consecration of the wine,...We are then firmly to believe that it consists in the following words: 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, to the  remission of sins. Of these words the greater part are taken from Scripture; but some have been preserved in the Church from Apostolic tradition.
 
  Thus the words, this is the chalice, are found in St. Luke and in the  Apostle; but the words that immediately follow, of my blood, or my  blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for you and for many to  the remission of sins, are found partly in St. Luke and partly in St.  Matthew. But the words, eternal, and the mystery of faith, have been  taught us by holy tradition, the interpreter and keeper of Catholic  truth.
 
  Concerning this form no one can doubt, if he here also attend to what  has been already said about the form used in the consecration of the  bread. The form to be used (in the consecration) of this element,  evidently consists of those words which signify that the substance of  the wine is changed into the blood of our Lord. since, therefore, the  words already cited clearly declare this, it is plain that no other  words constitute the form.
 
  They moreover express certain admirable fruits of the blood shed in the  Passion of our Lord, fruits which pertain in a most special manner to  this Sacrament. Of these, one is access to the eternal inheritance,  which has come to us by right of the new and everlasting testament.  Another is access to righteousness by the mystery of faith; for God  hath set forth Jesus to be a propitiator through faith in his blood,  that he himself may be just, and the justifier of him, who is of the  faith of Jesus. Christ. A third effect is the remission of sins.
 
  Explanation Of The Form Used In The Consecration Of The Wine
 
  Since these very words of consecration are replete with mysteries and  most appropriately suitable to the subject, they demand a more minute  consideration.
 
  The words: This is the chalice of my blood, are to be understood  to mean: This is my blood, which is contained in this chalice. The  mention of the chalice made at the consecration of the blood is right  and appropriate, inasmuch as the blood is the drink of the faithful,  and this would not be sufficiently signified if it were not contained  in some drinking vessel.
 
  Next follow the words: Of the new testament. These have been  added that we might understand the blood of Christ the Lord to be given  not under a figure, as was done in the Old Law, of which we read in the  Epistle to the Hebrews that without blood a testament is not dedicated;  but to be given to men in truth and in reality, as becomes the New  Testament. Hence the Apostle says: Christ therefore is the mediator of  the new testament, that by means of his death, they who are called may  receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
 
  The word eternal refers to the eternal inheritance, the right to which we acquire by the death of Christ the Lord, the eternal testator.
 
  The words mystery of faith, which are subjoined, do not exclude  the reality, but signify that what lies hidden and concealed and far  removed from the perception of the eye, is to be believed with firm  faith. In this passage, however, these words bear a meaning different  from that which they have when applied also to Baptism. Here the  mystery of faith consists in seeing by faith the blood of Christ veiled  under the species of wine; but Baptism is justly called by us the  Sacrament of faith, by the Greeks, the mystery of faith, because it  embraces the entire profession of the Christian faith.
 
  Another reason why we call the blood of the Lord the mystery of faith  is that human reason is particularly beset with difficulty and  embarrassment when faith proposes to our belief that Christ the Lord,  the true Son of God, at once God and man, suffered death for us, and  this death is designated by the Sacrament of His blood.
 
  Here, therefore, rather than at the consecration of His body, is  appropriately commemorated the Passion of our Lord, by the words. which shall be shed for the remission of sins.  For the blood, separately consecrated, serves to place before the eyes  of all, in a more forcible manner, the Passion of our Lord, His death,  and the nature of His sufferings.
 
  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 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 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; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me,  because they are thine.
 
  Beneath the words of this consecration lie hid many other mysteries,  which by frequent meditation and study of sacred things, pastors will  find it easy, with the divine assistance, to discover for themselves.
  Catechism of the Council of TRENT.
 
  :crucif:
 
 

[tradcatholicmom]

Although in the Evangelist the words, Take and eat, precede the words (This is my body),...they are not necessary to the validity of the Sacrament,...

 

This right here is the only point we're making; that (this is my body) and (this is my blood) is all that is necessary for validity; no one is saying that the form is supposed to be something else or that it's not gravely sinful to change the form. 

 

This is, of course, where the ambiguous intention of the NO comes into play. 

[aspergesme]

 

This right here is the only point we're making; that (this is my  body) and (this is my blood) is all that is necessary for validity; no  one is saying that the form is supposed to be something else or that  it's not gravely sinful to change the form. 

 
  And this is my point.
 

 Form To Be Used In The Consecration Of The Wine
 
  With regard to the consecration of the wine,...We are then firmly to  believe that it consists in the following words: 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, to the remission of sins. Of these  words the greater part are taken from Scripture; but some have been  preserved in the Church from Apostolic tradition.

 
  Notice according to TRENT "this is my body" alone does not suffice, the
 
  :crucif:
 

[Vanita]

Pax Christi !

 

 

Aspergesme stated :With no disrespect toward the Angelic Doctor, the Form of the Eucharist should be as follows:

 

Ok, but your citations proves that the ENTIRE wording of the wine consecration indeed makes up the " form" and thus the words ( in bold) are needed  for validity.

 

Form To Be Used In The Consecration Of The Wine

With regard to the consecration of the wine,...We are then firmly to believe that it consists in the following words: 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, to the remission of sins. Of these words the greater part are taken from Scripture; but some have been preserved in the Church from Apostolic tradition.

 

 " this is my Blood" is moot, since that is not what is done in the New mass anyway. But St. Thomas and your own citation, also teaches  only the words" this is my Blood"  do not make for a consecration.

 

Tradcathmom states:This right here is the only point we're making; that (this is my body) and (this is my blood) is all that is necessary for validity;

 

 

 

Who taught that (this is my body) and (this is my blood) only, makes a valid consecration?  It is in the very least disputed. However, as mentioned, given the added words of mutilation in the New Mass Wine consecration formula, it indeed " changes" the meaning to other then Christ intended.

 

And thus, it is held to be "invalid".

 

In Christ and Our Lady,