Posted on 12/30/2003 10:43:12 AM PST by Catholicguy
No, not all. The Blessed Mother suffered a natural death, yet she was conceived without original sin.
Try again, Hermann.
Bzzzzzttt!
"Natural death" is an oxymoron. The most unnatural thing possible for a human is to have their soul ripped out of their body by death. This was not God's design for us.
The Blessed Mother, by a singular miracle was born full of grace, which exempted her from the spiritual effects of original sin. But her human flesh was subjected to the same rigors that we all have had from Adam, and that Christ had too - sickeness, injury, fatigue, hardship, and death.
After all, as you readily admit, she still died, and death came into the world because of Adam's sin.
So St. Paul's "many died" really does mean "all died".
"Again we offer to You this spiritual and unbloody sacrifice, and we implore and pray, and entreat You, send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here present. (Blessing the bread) And make this bread the precious body of Your Christ. (Blessing the chalice) And that which is in this chalice, the precious blood of your Christ. (Blessing both) Having changed them by Your Holy Spirit:"
That phrase in the Roman Canon is very Cranmerian and non-objective. The 3rd Canon drops the "ut nobis" and makes it clear that it is an objective becoming.
Bzzzzzt! ;-)
Welcome to the Newchurch; "everybody goes to Heaven because Christ died for all."
Why should a Catholic even assist at Holy Mass tomorrow? After all Christ has already shed His blood for us?
I had no idea you had such affinity for the theology of Calvin, Jansen and Quesnel! But why am I not surprised since you are such a strident SSPXer?
Condemned Jansenistic Proposition 5. "Semipelagianum est dicere Christum pro omnibus omnino hominibus mortuum esse aut sanguinem fudisse." - "It is Semipelagian to say that Christ died and shed his blood for all men." (Pope Innocent X, "Cum occasione", 1653, repeated by Pope Alexander VII, "Ad Sanctam Beati Petri Sedem", 16 October 1656)
Irish, You are a disgraceful embarassment to traditional Catholicism.
You don't even know the traditional Mass you claim to honor and love.
"Who, the day before He suffered for our salvation and that of all men, that is, on this day, took bread into His most sacred and venerable hands" (Proper "Qui pridie quam pateratur", Holy Thursday, Missal of St. Pius V)
Now, will you go to confession to cleanse yourself of this obvious heresy? Probably not. Too proud.
My Novus Ordo priest says the Sacrament of Confession is no longer necessary. He says his bishop will back him up on this.
Let's continue shall we?
In like manner, after He had supped, taking also this excellent chalice into His holy and venerable hands, and giving thanks to Thee, He blessed and gave it to his disciples, saying: Take and drink ye all of this, 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 MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS.
"All" are instructed to participate in Holy Communion, but the remission of sins is reserved for "many".
Go ahead, Hermann. Try to twist Christ's own words to fit your novus mold.
Yikes. In what hell does your dioscese reside? If you don't mind me asking.
No need to debate the topic of "all" and "many" in the consecration. The issue was definitively settled by the Council of Trent.
Catechism of the Council of Trent:
The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew [26: 28], some from Luke [22: 20], 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 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" [Heb. 9: 28]; 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"According to the Missale Romanum:
Wherefore the words of Consecration, which are the Form of this Sacrament, are these:Hoc est enim Corpus meum; and Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei: qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in Remissionem peccatorum [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] . . . If anyone removes or changes anything in the Form of Consecration of the Body and Blood, and by this change of words does not signify the same thing as these words do, he does not confect the Sacrament.
"He says ..." Have you actually asked the Bishop?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.