In Revelation 13 it says people wont be able to buy or sell unless they have the mark. It is a definitive statement. If the market is the spiritual economy as you suggest, those who take the mark have access to all of it, while those who don't have access to none of it. Adding to this is interpolation.
Why did you shift the discussion away from buying and selling PNF? You are now trying to get me to try to defend something I never brought up. Let's stick to the point at hand. As well, Churches had the practice of displaying pictures of the Pope and their local Bishop long before Vatican II. So there goes that theory.
The new Mass still is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Here is what the Cathecism officially teaches - this is what the Church believes about the Mass today! And the Church is indefectible. 1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit: [Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit. 1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner." I accept what the Church officially teaches in the latest Catechism about the Mass. None of the above teaching is sacrilege or blasphemy. I do admit there are many abuses and things that need to change in the rubrics (ad orientam, kneeling and receving host on the tongue and so forth). And by the way it is protestants who normally claim that the Mass is 'pure sacrilege and blasphemy'. I hear that often enough from bible thumping protestants on the streets of the north of Ireland to know.
The Second Vatican Council is not the cause of the Church's decline, but rather its consequence. The smoke of Satan had already penetrated the priestly seminaries. It was then that the apparition of Garabandal occurred. Pax
Well said. I think that when the Enemy can not entice a good Catholic by ordinary means then there are very subtle and terrible temptations that draw souls incrementally toward extremism in worship. I saw this happen with a good friend who kept moving toward toward " rad trad" until she and her husband moved out of the one true Church into sedevacantism. It can happen. It does happen. It is in its way Jansenism dressed up in new garments. Or worst of all they become ( blindly) like the original Protestants seeking purity of doctrine and rubrics to the exclusion of humility and charity. I was drawn that way a long time ago. I fervently prayed to Mother Mary to help me know the truth since I had fallen into terrible doubt about the NO. Immediately and amazingly she sent me an FSSP priest who gently set me straight. This same friend asked me what the priest said, convinced he would support her beliefs. When I told her all that he said regarding the NO she scoffed and wouldn't accept it. But for me it was a great light and a great answer to my prayers to Our Lady. As long as the proper words are said and the intention of the priest is to do what the Church intends and the material ( bread and wine) are proper it is valid. It is the Mass. Jesus is there!
Yes! The Holy Priest Pere Lamy in 1912 was shown by Our Lady the seminaries in France. How bad they were. How it grieved Our Lord.
"Just as water mixes with wine, allow us to partake of your divine nature." This phrase is used by many priests before consecration. So that whoever eats the Body of Christ in mortal sin incurs his own damnation. If there is no sacrament of penance, there is no communion, and without the Eucharist, there is no forgiveness. There is only Jihad to go to heaven (That is the tragedy of Islam or Judaism, etc.)
The doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice is mentioned at least five times in the Mass i go to. The priest’s secret offertory prayer, praying that our sacrifice will be pleasing to God. His invitation to the people, “Pray, brethren, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the Almighty Father.” The people’s response, “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands, for the praise and glory . . . In the Roman Canon and each of the new eucharistic prayers, the sacrificial character of the Mass is clearly expressed in the texts following the consecration. The very words of consecration of the bread in the Novus Ordo actually restore an explicit expression of the sacrificial purpose of what is being done: “This is my body, which will be given up for you.” The words italicized here (or equivalent expressions) were found in a number of ancient liturgies but are absent from the Tridentine formula. I am only defending the validity of the Mass I go to. It is far from perfect but Christ comes to poor old me every time I participate in the sacrifice of the Mass. To condemn a particular Eucharistic prayer as sacrilege and blasphemy is beyond the pale. Liturgy works primarily ex opere operato, by ‘the work of Christ’, in our souls by His grace, imperceptibly, quietly, inexorably - yes, some of our own effort – ex opere operantis – is required, and the more the better, but, contra Pelagius, we should rely more upon the former than the latter (John Paul Meenan). I respect people's rights to go to latin Mass, I would prefer it myself I believe it is superior but its not available that easily to me. Have pity on us who have but no choice like the dogs to feed off the crumbs of the table of the Lord. He is still present with us in the Eucharist. And he promised He would be with us until the end of times. And he promised where two or three are gathered in his name He would be present.
The phrase I wrote earlier is said by the priest at the offertory, and often only to himself. A person who does not use the sacrament of penance because he believes a priest who is not a priest does not meet the requirements or is in sin, or because he cannot consecrate because his Mass is not orthodox enough, etc. This person is rejecting Christ himself, since the sacraments are valid as long as a priest has not been excommunicated, regardless of his state of grace.
This is an interpolation on your part as it is you who have added to what is said in scripture. The statement of "could not buy and sell unless they had the mark" is a definitive statement. The fact that you have not provided any kind of evidence to prove this means what you think it means, while many have provided evidence to the contrary, followed by the need to "move on" means you have lost the debate. But more so, have completely undermined the entire structure of your theory which hinges on this fact. But more so, you have also failed to answer who the two witnesses are that have died, since you believe Pope Francis is the false prophet. Since we know that the false prophet gets thrown into the lake of fire after the two witnesses are murdered. It also means the whore of Babylon has already been vanquished as well, which obviously hasn't happened yet. The truth of why you want to move on is that your theory has too many holes and you cannot defend them. You like to attack but not defend. We see this kind of behavior with Muslims during debate.
Beauty of rubrics and depth of meaning of the prayers within the TLM are its enduring strength. They provide a climate of reverence. Admittedly for me, the Novus Ordo does not project that aura of solemnity. And there have been clergy that over the years since Vatican II have violated rubrics to introduce improper additions. I believe most on the Forum would agree with PNF in that regard. But those of us who regularly and reverently attend the NO don't question it's validity or its conveyance of grace. PNF obviously believes that the NO will be used as the instrument for the introduction of the Abomination of Desolation. Since he hasn't come out and stated that the Novus Ordo has an invalid Consecration, then he cannot claim we have arrived at that terrible juncture. His warnings, therefore, are sincere, but too heavy-handed for my taste. I love you, PNF, but...would prefer you to ease off a bit. O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!
Thanks Mario. On prior occasions, I have explained my position that the Novus Ordo is, first and foremost, invalid as a propitatory sacrifice of the altar, the Holy Sacrifice. The reason for this is that there must be a double consecration in order to accomplish the Holy Sacrifice. But one of the two required consecrations are not accomplished in the Novus Ordo. If we assume that a minister saying the Novus Ordo is validly-ordained using a traditional rite, then the Consecration of the Host (the first Consecration) will be accomplished during the Novus Ordo, as long as he uses the proper "matter, form, and intention." It is the Consecration of the Wine that presents the problem. The words of the traditional "form" of the consecration have been changed in the Novus Ordo. Words have been mistranslated in a way that do not represent the words that Our Lord used on Holy Thursday and have removed the words "mysterium fidei" which has been part of the required form for as long as the Church has records. If the words of the "form" substantially change, the Sacrament of the Precious Blood is not confected, not according to me, but according to Pope St. Pius V in the papal instruction De defectibus, a document which is found in every traditional Roman missal after Pius V wrote the Bull Quo Primum. (http://traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Pope/St_Pius_V/De_Defectibus.html). Since both consecrations are necessary to accomplish the Holy Sacrifice but one of the two consecrations is defective, the sacrifice, the renewal of Calvary on the Altar, is not accomplished. And even though one of the consecrations will be valid (if the priest is valid), it is a sacrilege according to Canon Law to consecrate one species without the other. Canon 927 It is absolutely forbidden [Latin=nefas], even in extreme urgent necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other or even both outside the eucharistic celebration. If a person does not realize, subjectively, that this sacrilege is happening, the ignorant person would not be committing a mortal sin. However, it doesn't change the fact that, objectively, the sacrilege is happening. The defective sacrifice, in and of itself, is displeasing to God. That is what happens when a Freemason (Bugnini) and a group of Protestants are given free reign to create a "new Mass."
The Eucharistic Miracles that have been studied have shown that it was heart muscle from a person who was under great duress and that the blood type was AB, the same AB type of blood found on the shroud of Turin. St. Carlo Acutis spent his life documenting these miracles and I don't think his short life was in vain. As Mario says this grows tiresome.
I am older now. There was a time years ago on the forum I would have tired to shut down Patrick (PNF) but not now. I disagree with what he says about the New Mass being invalid. Om the other hand I agree with him in what he says about much else. I would not personally get upset about what he says about the mass being invalid. I feel a little sorry for him thinking this. But whatever. I am happy to have him express his opinions on this matter and those who have another point of view to express theirs. I have no great urge to censor him. It was years and years ago when my father used to have the SSPX mass in the house I warned him he should stop doing this as he was turning into a Protestant. So he stopped it. I think this idea that the mass is not the mass is basically Protestant. But it does not really bother or upset me, I heard these argument years ago from when I was about 15.
To be honest I think PNF holds a gnostic position because his claims are based on his unique personal insights into sacred scripture, church teaching, and Canon law.
With all due respect, we have had this discussion before in July, 2023. And I initially hesitated when you presented your concern: _________________________________________________________________________________________ PNF said: ↑ Hi Mario. I will let Dr. Kwasniewski explain some background on the question. Let me know if, after reading what he has to say, you would like me to clarify what I said. https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2020/07/the-displacement-of-mysterium-fidei-and.html PNF continues: ↑ By removing that one word "Holy" from the baptismal "form," you would invalidate the Sacrament of Baptism. Similarly, by removing the phrase "the mystery of faith" from the traditional "form" of the Eucharist, you invalidate the consecration of the Precious Blood. Mario said: ↑ In the Novus Ordo Consecration of the Blood, the equivalent of MYSTERIUM FIDEI (The Mystery of Faith) is extracted from the consecration of the Blood and proclaimed aloud to the faithful present, immediately following. Since the words, MYSTERIUM FIDEI (The Mystery of Faith), were not spoken by Jesus Himself, why does their placement immediately following the words of Consecration instead, invalidate the Consecration of the wine? [InVeritatem interjects] I second Mario's question, PNF. As far as I can see, Dr. Kwasniewski does not say that this removal of the Mysterium Fidei invalidates the Consecration of the Wine - although he does below criticise the removal severely: 7. As Always, Tradition Is the Way Forward The mystery of our faith is intimately and intrinsically bound up with hunc praeclarum calicem, “this precious chalice.” The whispered words mysterium fidei stand at the heart of the consecration of the chalice. Their removal is emblematic of what was done to the liturgy as a whole, when the heart of so many rites was ripped out of them. Even if the words mysterium fidei are not necessary for signifying transubstantiation (and thus, the consecration can be “effective,” and the Mass “valid,” without them), the removal of the phrase from its age-old position exudes the attitude: nothing is sacred." [Mario finishes:] I read Peter's argument against the re-positioning of MYSTERIUM FIDEI. In keeping with Aquinas' insights, I conclude that the wisdom of shifting it to the form of an acclamation by Paul VI is both unfounded and sad. It would have been far better left untouched. However, I disagree that your conclusion of invalidity is necessarily true. Peter doesn't state that nor does Aquinas touch upon the issue of invalidity. Sad as the situation is, I think your claim of invalidity goes one step too far.
Yes and CCC 1377 tells us that the "Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration ...". CCC 1375 tells us when that moment is according to the Church Father, St. John Chrysostom: "This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered." [note the plural "things" also]
