But can the Roman Pontiff juridically abrogate the Usus Antiquior? The fullness of power (plenitudo potestatis) of the Roman Pontiff is the power necessary to defend and promote the doctrine and discipline of the Church. It is not “absolute power” which would include the power to change doctrine or to eradicate a liturgical discipline which has been alive in the Church since the time of Pope Gregory the Great and even earlier. The correct interpretation of Article 1 [of Traditionis custodes] cannot be the denial that the Usus Antiquior is an ever-vital expression of “the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.” Our Lord Who gave the wonderful gift of the Usus Antiquior will not permit it to be eradicated from the life of the Church. It must be remembered that, from a theological point of view, every valid celebration of a sacrament, by the very fact that it is a sacrament, is also, beyond any ecclesiastical legislation, an act of worship and, therefore, also a profession of faith. In that sense, it is not possible to exclude the Roman Missal, according to the Usus Antiquior, as a valid expression of the lex orandi and, therefore, of the lex credendi of the Church. It is a question of an objective reality of divine grace which cannot be changed by a mere act of the will of even the highest ecclesiastical authority.
https://www.cardinalburke.com/presentations/traditionis-custodes
Laodicea 
July 27, 2021 at 2:58 pm
if the Pope commits a sin That Cries To Heaven For Vengeance, he isn’t Catholic. especially if it was before he even became a Priest.
we have a singular problem of cowardice. the wolves in sheep’s clothing (and wolves in shepherd’s clothing) are irrelevant no matter what.
Now why do you pretend to be Catholic, scottsman?
August 10, 2021 at 11:17 pm
Twenty-first session of Trent:
“It furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, it may ordain, or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circumstances, times, and places.”
The substance of the sacraments referrs to the form of the sacraments. But even extending this to other elements, this presupposes that the church has authority to determine that which constitutes the substance of the sacrament.
August 12, 2021 at 1:54 am
The Church certainly has authority to teach in the matter that does not mean the Roman Patriarch cannot act ultra vires in a disciplinary matter such as when he permitted mere presbyters to ordain others to the priesthood.
August 12, 2021 at 6:48 am
I’m not familiar with the historical instance you allude to. Regardless, the Pope wouldn’t be acting outside his authority in the case of the New Mass, or even abrogating the old one, since Trent clearly gives him that authority (see canon 5 of the 1917 CIC).
August 12, 2021 at 12:33 pm
He has the authority to alter whatever may be altered in the liturgy. This does not extend to the suppression of entire rites (in the sense used in CCEO 28). See: CCC1124-5 “The Church’s faith precedes the faith of the believer who is invited to adhere to it. When the Church celebrates the sacraments, she confesses the faith received from the apostles – whence the ancient saying: lex orandi, lex credendi (or: legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi, according to Prosper of Aquitaine [5th cent.]). The law of prayer is the law of faith: the Church believes as she prays. Liturgy is a constitutive element of the holy and living Tradition. For this reason no sacramental rite may be modified or manipulated at the will of the minister or the community. Even the supreme authority in the Church may not change the liturgy arbitrarily, but only in the obedience of faith and with religious respect for the mystery of the liturgy.”
August 13, 2021 at 1:37 am
(1) you forgot to cite the historical instance you alluded to.
(2) Canon 5 of the 1917 CIC says that the Church may abrogate universal and immemorial customs
(3) the 21st session of Trent clearly states that the Church has authority to change the liturgy in every element that does not pertain to the substance of the sacrament. the substance of the sacrament refers to the form of the sacraments. even extending this beyond the form, the Church has exclusive authority in determining what constitutes the “substance” of the sacraments. Not private individuals.
(4) Paul VI explicitly stated that he was retaining the UA in all its essential elements. He was not creating an entirely new liturgy in his mind. If you want proof of this, I’ll happily provide it.
August 13, 2021 at 2:04 am
“(2) Canon 5 of the 1917 CIC says that the Church may abrogate universal and immemorial customs”
the same 1917 when the devil’s century began and the infiltration of The Church was activated?
you just made his point for him!
August 13, 2021 at 2:36 am
the 1917 CIC is also called the Pio-Bendectine Code, promulgated by St. Pius X and Benedict XV. Are you calling a saint, and perhaps a future one, servants of the devil?
August 13, 2021 at 3:49 am
Pope Pius X? No.
The one who called Eucharistic Adoratiok as “abhorrent to the modern mind” and needing to be replaced back in the 1960’s and was instrumental in the antichurch prelude of V2? Sure.
If someone’s an agent of the devil, that’s the end of the conversation, I never mentioned that though. If the shoe fits.
August 14, 2021 at 1:09 am
Who called Eucharistic Adoration “abhorrent to the modern mind”? Can’t seem to find a reference.
Regardless, your comment was directed towards the 1917 CIC. Were either Pius X or Benedict XV servants of the devil?
August 14, 2021 at 2:38 am
Asking a question repeatedly hoping for a different answer doesn’t work when you are two years old and it doesn’t work now.
Asking a loaded question repeatedly to cover your own satanic views is something else.
this apparently is the start of the horrifying “canon law,” on which we have “lawyers” in The Church now pretending to justify everything from sins That Cry To Heaven For Vengeance or why bishops can and should spend donations on hot tubs (or in the case of “cardinal” spellman, Broadway chorus boys).
So Like I said:
the devil’s century began in 1917. this is not up for debate. this is the “fourth” seal (the horseman of “death”), promised by shod to St John The Apostle it would last 100 years and 25% of all Mankind would be slain from The Most Innocent (2-over two BILLION abortions occurred from 1970-2017 alone).
all while Bishops were as busy trying to (but not realizing that The Church is not a world body) take everything Catholic out of The Church, turning the mass into a satanic mockery of protestant schmaltz-music-and-heresy services, and kicking out any real Catholic man from the Seminaries.
Pray a Rosary? Can’t be a Priest.
Go to Adoration? Can’t be a Priest (and get called “abhorrent” in the “nouveau theologie”).
Show any signs of Masculinity or knowledge of The Church? Can’t be a Priest, and they checked relentlessly going by everyone I have heard from that tried to become a Priest during the horror days.
the worst story (though not by much) came from a Jesuit-hopeful. Was accepted into the Seminary but was immediately, summarily kicked out when they found out he refused an offer to s*domy from a fellow “seminarian.”
the second worse is that s*domites apparently used to view seminaries as “meat markets,” but only for the most depraved and “hardcore.” Can you believe that? I don’t know, but everyone began to call The Church as s*domitic once Seminaries started allowing Faithful again and kicking out s*domites again. Therefore demons clearly show through their dolls that a great loss occurred to the demons around that exact time.
1917-1920 is also when the infiltration of The Church officially began. the very same one that Bella Dodd exposed (because she was the one implementing it in the us). The very same Bella Dodd who gave Venerable Fulton Sheen a document with the list of names of all of the soviet infiltrators she put into The Church, us government, and every other industry of note you can think of.
That document was only given to Venerable Fulton Sheen for safe keeping because he explicitly demanded that she not make her ledgers public as it would tear the world apart. That document is still in Venerable Fulton Sheen’s archives, which is why he has yet to even be named “Blessed,” despite being A Living Saint his whole life and with many Confirmed Miracles, because when you are named Blessed your whole personal archives become public.
So like Lord Acton said in horror at the realization of what “vatican 1” allowed The Pope to do: “absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
And to your loaded question: go to hell.
August 13, 2021 at 6:22 am
On 1st February 1400 Boniface IX permitted the Augustinian abbot of Saint Osyth, in Essex, a presbyter, to ordain his canons to all three major orders “omnes minores necnon subdiaconatus, diaconatus, et presbiteratus ordines … conferre libere et licite” (DH1145–1146). Regardless of whether CIC 1917 implies what you say it does not touch matters of inspired apostolic institution such as the identity and existence of the Ritual Churches which “non manare e privilegiis ab Ecclesia Romana concessis, sed a lege ipsa, quam huiusmodi Ecclesiae a temporibus apostolicis tenent” (John Paul II). Acceptance of the Church’s Rites in their received and approved form as of the sixteenth century is a requirement of the faith: “Receptos quoque et approbatos Ecclesiae catholicae ritus in supradictorum omnium Sacramentorum solemni administratione recipio et admitto” (DH 1864). The pope cannot employ his disciplinary power in a manner contrary to defined matters of faith (as Boniface IX and Paul VI attempted inadvertently to do). To do so would be to seek to reform the liturgy in an arbitrary manner contrary to the obedience of faith and without religious respect for the mystery of the liturgy, which, as the CCC points out, the Pope may not do.
August 14, 2021 at 1:05 am
(1) There seems to be some debate on the meaning of the document you allude to.
(2) Canon 5 encompasses all disciplinary matters; including liturgical, although the 1917 CIC doesn’t deal primarily with liturgical matters.
(3) The 21st session of Trent clearly says that the Church may change the liturgy in all of the elements which do not pertain to the substance of the sacrament. The substance of the sacrament refers to the form of the Eucharist. Even extending this beyond the form, the Church has sole authority in determining the substance of the sacrament.
St. Alphonsus Liguori notes in his History on the Council of Trent,
There is no doubt whether the Church has the power to establish and change the rites or ceremonies applied in the administration of the Sacraments, as the Council of Trent itself teaches (Sess. 21, cap. 2). Nevertheless, this power belongs to the Church alone, which is why it forbids any other from changing the rites, otherwise, as St. Augustine says (Epist. 54, alias 118) new things constituted by the ministers would disturb the order and the common peace of the Church.
(4) Whether something is changed arbitrarily is not for you to determine.
August 14, 2021 at 1:20 am
to put the nail on top of the coffin. Pius XII, in Sacramentum Ordinis, definitely teaches the meaning of the phrase “substance of the sacraments” in session 21 as the matter and form.
“For these Sacraments instituted by Christ Our Lord, the Church in the course of the centuries never substituted other Sacraments, nor could she do so, since, as the Council of Trent teaches (Conc. Trid., Sess. VII, can. 1, De Sacram, in genere), the seven Sacraments of the New Law were all instituted by Jesus Christ Our Lord, and the Church has no power over “the substance of the Sacraments,” that is, over those things which, as is proved from the sources of divine revelation, Christ the Lord Himself established to be kept as sacramental signs.”
…
“
August 14, 2021 at 2:06 am
moreover the catechism of trent explicitly defines what constitutes the substance of the sacrament
In the first place, then, it should be explained that the sensible thing which enters into the definition of a Sacrament as already given, although constituting but one sign, is twofold. Every Sacrament consists of two things, matter, which is called the element, and form, which is commonly called the word.
This is the doctrine of the Fathers of the Church; and the testimony of St. Augustine on the subject is familiar to all. The word, he says, is joined to the element and it becomes a Sacrament. By the words sensible thing, therefore, the Fathers understand not only the matter or element, such as water in Baptism, chrism in confirmation, and oil in Extreme Unction, all of which fall under the eye; but also the words which constitute the form, and which are addressed to the ear.
Both are clearly pointed out by the Apostle, when he says: Christ loved the Church, and delivered himself up for it, that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life. Here both the matter and form of the Sacrament are expressly mentioned.
In order to make the meaning of the rite that is being performed easier and clearer, words had to be added to the matter. For of all signs words are evidently the most significant, and without them, what the matter for the Sacraments designates and declares would be utterly obscure. Water, for instance, has the quality of cooling as well as cleansing, and may be symbolic of either. In Baptism, therefore, unless the words were added, it would not be certain, but only conjectural, which signification was intended; but when the words are added, we immediately understand that the Sacrament possesses and signifies the power of cleansing.
104
In this the Sacraments of the New Law excel those of the Old that, as far as we know, there was no definite form of administering the latter, and hence they were very uncertain and obscure. In our Sacraments, on the contrary, the form is so definite that any, even a casual deviation from it renders the Sacrament null. Hence the form is expressed in the clearest terms, such as exclude the possibility of doubt.
These, then, are the parts which belong to the nature and substance of the Sacraments, and of which every Sacrament is necessarily composed.
August 14, 2021 at 10:26 am
[To August 14, 2021 at 2:06 am] You are shamelessly equivocating around the word ‘define’ and your ”some debate’ and ‘not for you to determine’ wheezes will not save you. It is quite clear that the ‘supreme authority’ can act and has acted ultra vires in regard to the Church’s rites and there is a very good case indeed that this is precisely what happened on the first Sunday of Advent 1969. It is certainly true that, as with Honorius, it will ultimately have to be an ecumenical council which formally defines that the Novus Ordo was illicit and makes reparation for the offence to Almighty God given by its attempted promulgation. I expect that by the time that Council is held the devastation inflicted on the Church by the Novus Ordo will have been so terrible, and so few people will still be using it, that its offensiveness will no longer be controversial. One only has to compare the moribund and doctrinally eviscerated congregations attached to the novel ‘forms’ and the youthful, faithful and ever expanding congregations loyal to the Roman Rite to realise that the only question still at issue is how long Modernism can hold on and how little of the sociological capital built up before 1962 will be left before unconditional surrender is achieved not whether it will be achieved. We are living in a period that combines the features of the Arian Crisis and the Avignon Papacy and the corruption that followed. Just as the Pope had no right to refuse to visit his own diocese for seventy years in the fourteenth century so he had no right to attempt the suppression of the Roman Rite in the twentieth. This does not mean it is not necessary to salvation to be in communion with him or to obey his legitimate commands but as with the fourteenth century the price paid by the Church militant in the coming centuries for the crime of 1969 will be terrible. The recent revelations about the scale of the depravity and unnatural vice taking place in the Vatican are inevitably just the the tip of the iceberg. The Roman curia is utterly corrupt and inflicting untold harm on the Church and a terrible reckoning is on its way. The apologists for and collaborators with these crimes will have a special place of infamy in the annals of ecclesiastical history.
August 14, 2021 at 12:44 pm
your comment doesn’t even address the 21st session of Trent. What does Trent mean by “substance of the sacrament”? The Catechism of Trent and sacramentum ordinis clearly state that it refers to the matter and form of the sacrament. If the Church can change or establish liturgical ceremonies/rites in regard to things that pertain not to the matter and form, then you have no basis for rejecting the reforms of VII.
August 14, 2021 at 1:49 pm
a, we know you by your fruits.
v2 documents contain rank heresy at best and blasphemy at worst.
August 14, 2021 at 9:55 pm
The Church has solemnly defined that we must receive and admit the received and approved rites for the administration of the sacraments as of 13th November 1565. No change to the liturgical rites can occur incompatible with this obligation. This alone is enough to establish Cardinal Burke’s point that the Suppression of the Usus Antiquior exceeds the power of the Roman Pontiff. As to the logically distinct point of whether the Novus Ordo is licit the question would be whether the substance of the sacraments extends to other elements of dominical or inspired apostolic institution beyond the bare matter, form and intention. Certainly it is the doctrine of the fathers that there are such elements and the dogma of Pius IV and Vatican I about the reception and acceptance of the rites implies that there are (else the existence of the obligation could not be defined) as does the acceptance by Cement VIII of the Union of Brest. Furthermore, procedurally, the doctrine of the Catechism is that “the supreme authority in the Church may not change the liturgy arbitrarily, but only in the obedience of faith and with religious respect for the mystery of the liturgy.” On all these ground the attempt to abolish the Roman Rite falls and on the last three the Novus Ordo is illicit.
August 14, 2021 at 11:33 pm
I also receive and admit the accepted and approved rites of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of all the aforesaid Sacraments.
//The Church has solemnly defined that we must receive and admit the received and approved rites for the administration of the sacraments as of 13th November 1565.//
You seem to be unaware that the word “rites” as you used by the 13th canon of Trent extends to all liturgical rites, not exclusively to the Mass.
//No change to the liturgical rites can occur incompatible with this obligation.//
Except the 21st session clearly grants the Church authority to establish and change liturgical rites, exempting the matter and form.
//As to the logically distinct point of whether the Novus Ordo is licit the question would be whether the substance of the sacraments extends to other elements of dominical or inspired apostolic institution beyond the bare matter, form and intention.//
Except the Catechism of Trent never alludes to other elements, despite going into detail regarding what the substance of the sacraments is.
//Certainly it is the doctrine of the fathers that there are such elements and the dogma of Pius IV and Vatican I about the reception and acceptance of the rites implies that there are (else the existence of the obligation could not be defined) as does the acceptance by Cement VIII of the Union of Brest.//
Supposing there are other elements, the Church has exclusively authority in determining what those elements are. The 21st session clearly implies that the Church has competence in that regard, despite your previous claim (in another article) that we don’t know what those elements are, hence why we aren’t permitted to create entirely new liturgical rites.
August 15, 2021 at 9:05 am
First of all there is no argument here that the missal of Pius V is entirely unchangable. The point made by Cardinal Burke is that the Roman Rite cannot be suppressed. Central to his argument is that the Roman Rite is a statement of belief that cannot be set aside in the same way as a credal statement cannot be set aside. His argument is confirmed by the Creed of Pius IV which requires as an article of faith the recognition and acceptance of the received and approved rites of the Church. Your argument rests on the denial that anything other than the matter, form and intention belongs to the substance of the sacrament. You have provided evidence only that they do pertain to the substance of the sacraments (which no one denies) not that they alone do so. Your claims would set up a contradiction between the the passage you cite in Trent and the Creed of Pius IV and the CCC both of which imply that a much broader acceptance of the Church’s rites is of faith and the CCC expressly asserts that the ‘supreme authority’ in the Church may attempt to change the liturgy in ways beyond its scope. You are also labouring under the misapprehension that the attempted promulgation of the Novus Ordo was an act of ‘the Church’ it was not. It was an act of the Roman Patriarch with exclusive application to the Roman Ritual Church (although in the event null and void). That the identification and condemnation of such assaults on the substance of her rites it ultimately a matter for the Church herself is certainly the case but that does not mean they cannot be pointed out in advance just as Athanasius and Cyril and Damascene and Fisher and Newman fought against errors contrary to the deposit of faith before those errors were condemned by the extraordinary magisterium.
August 15, 2021 at 10:05 am
I have the dogmatic definition of Trent which explicitly states that the Church may change and even establish entirely new liturgical rites, whereas you cite the CCC, which was produced by the same ecclesiastical authorities you accuse of being “utterly corrupt and inflicting untold harm on the Church.”
//The point made by Cardinal Burke is that the Roman Rite cannot be suppressed.//
The Roman Rite wasn’t suppressed. According to Paul VI, he was retaining the Tridentine Rite in all its essentials. In his correspondence with Jean Guitton, Paul VI wrote, “I have kept the canon of St. Pius V in the four canons of the new liturgy, where it holds the first place.” https://www.academia.edu/37099150/Paul_VI_and_Jean_Guitton_on_Archbishop_Marcel_Lefebvre
//His argument is confirmed by the Creed of Pius IV which requires as an article of faith the recognition and acceptance of the received and approved rites of the Church.//
The phrase applies to all liturgical rites, not merely the Mass. Your argument would seem to deny the very definition of Trent which says the Church may establish entirely new liturgical rites.
//Your claims would set up a contradiction between the passage you cite in Trent and the Creed of Pius IV and the CCC both of which imply that a much broader acceptance of the Church’s rites is of faith and the CCC expressly asserts that the ‘supreme authority’ in the Church may attempt to change the liturgy in ways beyond its scope.//
Which traditional authors post-Trent argue that the substance of the sacrament extends beyond the matter and form?
//You are also labouring under the misapprehension that the attempted promulgation of the Novus Ordo was an act of ‘the Church’ it was not. It was an act of the Roman Patriarch with exclusive application to the Roman Ritual Church (although in the event null and void).//
This is an arbitrary distinction because the Roman Rite is one of the rites of the Church. So the Pope is indeed acting in his capacity as universal pastor. As St. Alphonsus Liguori notes in his History on the Council of Trent,
There is no doubt whether the Church has the power to establish and change the rites or ceremonies applied in the administration of the Sacraments, as the Council of Trent itself teaches (Sess. 21, cap. 2). Nevertheless, this power belongs to the Church alone, which is why it forbids any other from changing the rites, otherwise, as St. Augustine says (Epist. 54, alias 118) new things constituted by the ministers would disturb the order and the common peace of the Church.
//That the identification and condemnation of such assaults on the substance of her rites it ultimately a matter for the Church herself//
You have not pin-pointed which aspect of the faith are inherent in the Roman Rite which were suppressed. In another article, you stated that since we don’t know what those elements are the Church isn’t permitted to create entirely new liturgical rites. Yet your assertion denies the very definition of Trent.
August 15, 2021 at 11:39 am
Certainly the Church can create new rites (such as solemn exposition) but not in order to replace those employed in the solemn administration of the sacraments. Belarmine held that a number of elements of the liturgy beyond merely the form, matter and intention were of Dominical institution. The catechism of Trent says something similar about Chrism. St Basil says the ad orientem posture and the glory be are inspired and apostolic. Your voluntaristic hypermontanism is completely uncatholic. John Paul II teaches that the ritual churches are immune from suppression by the See of Rome which means of course the rites that define them are likewise immune. No intellectually honest observer thinks the Novus Ordo is the Roman Rite without serious self-delusion. You are again ignoring the credal dogmatic obligation (which certainly extends to all the sacraments) to accept and receive all the Churches rites as of the pontificate of Pius IV.
August 14, 2021 at 1:49 pm
I suppose I mistook you for “thomascordatus,” aelianus. I didn’t know the blog had multiple writers.
August 15, 2021 at 10:23 am
Explain to me how you reconcile your previous statement:
“Some elements and not just form and matter of the great parent Rites of the Church are directly instituted by the Apostles. We don’t know which and this is one of many reasons why we may not presume to abrogate our liturgical traditions. ”
With the 21st session of Trent which implies that the Church has competence over the substance of the sacrament.
You clearly contradict the 21st session of Trent and the traditional authors that interpret it, in claiming that the Church cannot institute entirely new liturgical rites. According to Joseph Pohle:
1. That the Church has power to institute sacramental ceremonies or rites, is clear from the following declaration of the Tridentine Council: “If anyone saith that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the Sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed by every pastor of the churches into other new ones, let him be anathema.”
****a) In proof of this dogma the Holy Synod adduces the example of St. Paul, who concludes his remarks on the Eucharist with these words: “And the rest I will set in order, when I come.”**** There is abundant Patristic evidence for the antiquity of the sacramental ceremonies employed by the Church. Most of those now in use can be traced far beyond the ninth century, as a glance at the Sacramentary of Gregory the Great and the writings of Rhabanus Maurus, Alcuin, and Isidore shows. In the early days of Christianity different ceremonies were in vogue, as may be gathered from the works of Tertullian.
The theological argument for our thesis rests mainly on the fact that the Church possesses legislative power to ordain whatever she judges fit to beautify her services and promote the salvation of souls. The sacramental ceremonies serve both these purposes by giving visible expression to the ideas that underlie the sacred mysteries of religion, and by stimulating, nourishing, and augmenting the devotion of the faithful.
August 15, 2021 at 10:26 am
The actual fruits and billions of damned souls with even more dead souls caused by these changes, that people went to paganism for “nourishment” because The Church displayed even less of The Truth for decades than comic book fiction screams louder than your excuses speak.
you can’t refute this, which is why you ignore.
August 15, 2021 at 2:16 pm
//Certainly the Church can create new rites (such as solemn exposition) but not in order to replace those employed in the solemn administration of the sacraments.//
The term “rites” in the 13th canon is equivalent to the more generic term “sacramentals.” In his commentary on canon 1145, Fr. Charles Augustine notes,
The Apostolic See alone can institute Sacramentals, authentically interpret those in use, ***or abolish or change some of them.*** This is not a dogma, as the Council of Trent has not defined this power directly, but only negatively determined that the rites accompanying the administration of the Sacraments may not be arbitrarily condemned, omitted, or changed. Our text claims the exclusive power of instituting Sacramentals for the Holy See. This is not surprising if we remember the general saying: Lex orandi, lex credendi. ***The Sacramentals are the living expression of the faith and hope that is in the Church.*** However, this does not mean that no Sacramentals were instituted without the concurrence of the Apostolic See. For more than one of them, especially the rites surrounding the administration of Baptism, are undoubtedly of Apostolic origin. This explains why the Holy See has consistently refused to depart from such practices as anointings, spittle, breathing, even among nations who were opposed to these rites. The legislative and ministerial power of the Church alone can declare which rites by their external sign signify the blessing or favor that God wishes to bestow.
//Belarmine held that a number of elements of the liturgy beyond merely the form, matter and intention were of Dominical institution.//
I have his commentary on the 13th canon of Trent. Give me the quote where he supposedly says this.
//The catechism of Trent says something similar about Chrism.//
You’d have to cite it.
//St Basil says the ad orientem posture and the glory be are inspired and apostolic.//
I thought we already addressed this in another article? According to your fellow co-author, “In speaking of the unwritten traditions governing prayer he is talking therefore about liturgical rubrics.”
August 16, 2021 at 1:10 am
You are the one under an obligation to explain yourself as departing from an article of the Creed of Pius IV.
August 16, 2021 at 7:58 am
I already explained that the term “rites” used in the creed and canon 13 of Trent refers to sacramental in general. the 21st session clearly states the Church has power to establish and change sacramental rites, with the exception that the substance remains untouched, which we already discussed pertains exclusively to the matter and form. Also note that something may be of apostolic origin, but not be necessarily of Apostolic Tradition. this is the distinction between lower case and capital case Tradition.
August 16, 2021 at 8:03 am
You are the one under an obligation to explain yourself as departing from an article of the Creed of Pius IV.
August 16, 2021 at 8:26 am
I’m not departing. you are departing from the dogmatic definition of trent.
August 16, 2021 at 8:39 am
Again, a, we know you by your fruits.
is “I know you are but what am I” such a popular argument?
August 21, 2021 at 9:50 pm
Even if one were to interpret Trent as you wish to mean by ‘substance’ only form, matter and intention this would not impede Burke’s conclusion as it would remain the case that the Creed of Pius IV requires de fide that the faithful receive and admit the received and approved rites for the administration of the sacraments as of 13th November 1565. Any attempt by any hierarch to prohibit the received and approved rites would therefore remain ultra vires.
August 21, 2021 at 11:42 pm
Except your interpretation of the Creed is mistaken since it never prohibits the Church from changing the rites. It’s “received and approved” by the Apostolic See. So if the Apostolic See chooses to no longer “receive and approve” then it no longer applies.
August 22, 2021 at 12:53 am
Your hypermontanism gets more extreme and absurd the more you are boxed in. I suppose you think the ‘fathers’ whose unanimous interpretation of scripture cannot be contradicted according to the Creed of Pius IV are just whoever the reigning pope chooses to nominate as ‘fathers’ from one moment to the next?
August 22, 2021 at 12:53 am
The Church cannot supersede God, and The Sacraments are The Graces Of God.
you cannot present what is non-Catholic as of God And His Church.
August 22, 2021 at 5:49 am
“Liturgical law of divine origin is small in content under the New Dispensation. There is little beyond the “Do this in commemoration of me” of the Last Supper,” or the substantial requirements for the sacrament of Baptism.” Over and above this, outside of the substance of the Mass and the sacraments, the ordering of divine worship belongs to the Church alone. Such law comes within the scope of the Church’s power to rule, a power which includes the legislative, judicial, and executive functions of the ecclesiastical society.”
Frederick McManus, The Congregation of Sacred Rites, Canon Law Stuides No. 352, (Wshington: CUA, 1954), 6.
…
“The ordering of the sacred liturgy belongs exclusively to the Church. Next there must be discussed: Where in the Church does the authority over the liturgy repose? Again, the question of this jurisdiction is part of the larger matter of the Church’s constitution. To give a brief answer, the Roman Pontiff possesses a power over the liturgy that is supreme and, in modern times, exclusive. To phrase it differently, the jurisdiction of the Pontiff is complete and absolute, but the exercise of that power may or may not be exclusive; since the sixteenth century it has been exclusive in all liturgical matters of importance.
This doctrine has been challenged, and that even in the modern period. Among the errors of the Synod of Pistoia, for example, there were ritual aberrations that had to be condemned by Pius VI.” And in the nineteenth century, nearly three hundred years after the unification of the Roman liturgy, a group of confusing neo-Gallican rites existed in France. These, initiated under the authority of local Ordinaries, formed a theoretical and a practical opposition to papal rights over sacred worship.
The matter of liturgical law based on custom may be put aside in discussing the identity of the ecclesiastical legislator. In the Church custom derives its force as law from the consent of the competent superior, whoever that may be.” Theoretically, then, the liturgical law might come from the Roman Pontiff (or from an Ecumenical Council approved by him), from the Bishop ruling his diocese, or from the other members of the Church, clerical or lay.
The last alternative has barely to be mentioned. It is a Protestant theory of ritual law, contrary to the hierarchical constitution of the Church. The words of Christ are clear enough: “All that you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and all that you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. In the case of the liturgy as with other ecclesiastical law the Church is a sheepfold ruled by shepherds whose authority is from God.
Again, the Bishop in his diocese or any body of bishops acting independently of the Roman Pontiff have no power over the law of liturgy. In other words, their jurisdiction is exercised subject to the successor of Peter. To suggest that the local Bishop has power limited only by the territory of his diocese is, in fact, to limit the supreme power of the Sovereign Pontiff. Moreover, because of the necessary connection between doctrine and worship, the independent exercise of liturgical authority by inferior prelates infringes upon the teaching office of the chief pastor.
The supreme authority of the Roman Pontiffs in matters liturgical is included in their power to rule the Church, defined by the Council of Florence as a “full power of feeding, ruling, and governing the Church universal.” The doctrine is amplified in the teaching of the Vatican Council:
…. This power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate: pastors and faithful of whatever rite and dignity, taken individually and all together, are bound by the duty of hierarchical sub- ordination and true obedience to it, not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in what pertains to the discipline and rule of the Church spread through the whole world.
This general authority of the Apostolic See has been repeatedly referred to the regulation of the sacred liturgy. So Clement VI asserted the fullest power of jurisdiction in this matter and Benedict XIV explained that changes of ritual belong not to private, but to public authority, namely, to the head of the Church universal.87 Similarly, Pius VII required of Ordinaries that they should enforce liturgical law rather than make it. And Pius IX declared that it is insufficient to be united to the Holy See in faith and dogma, but that Catholics must be subject to the Roman Pontiff with regard to “rites and discipline.”
In 1947 Pope Pius XII insisted upon papal authority over liturgical worship in his encyclical letter on the Catholic liturgy. He argued especially that the potestas ordinis requires the hierarchical government of the worship of God by His Church, to the exclusion of private authority, clerical or lay.80 And his teaching agreed exactly with the fundamental norm of present law: “To the Apostolic See alone belongs the right to order the sacred liturgy and to approve the liturgical books.”
ibid., 9-11.
…
The right to enforce the existing liturgical law is the first of the Bishop’s powers over sacred worship. There are repeated in- stances which uphold the Bishop’s right to compel the observance of the rubrics and of decrees issued by the Holy See.78 Pius XII, paraphrasing the two principal canons determining this matter,™ sums up the doctrine on the relation of the bishops to the Roman Pontiff in the regulation of the holy liturgy:
It follows that the Sovereign Pontiff alone has the right to permit or establish any liturgical practice, to introduce or approve new rites, or to make any changes in them he considers necessary. It is the right and duty of bishops, in their turn, to enforce vigilantly the observance of the canonical rules on divine worship.80
ibid., 13-14.
August 22, 2021 at 1:35 pm
What do you think God will do to you for trying to starve His people?
August 23, 2021 at 4:20 pm
Your entire argument rests on the claim that there is nothing of divine law in the sacred liturgy beyond the form, matter and intention of the sacraments and this is also your conclusion. It is therefore invalid as an argument. Your position is that the Pope could abolish any Rite of the Church and compel the Byzantines to adopt the Novus Ordo or all Latins to adopt the Byzantine Rite, is that correct?
August 23, 2021 at 11:03 pm
My argument is that Trent says explicitly that the pope has authority over the liturgy, except that which pertains to the substance. The substance pertains exclusively to the matter and form. I cited an approved pre-Vatican II canonist to that effect. I can cite others.
As for your latter question, the pope could do so.
August 24, 2021 at 12:35 am
Clearly such hypermontanist views were prevalent before Vatican II otherwise the catastrophe of the Novus Ordo could not have happened but the claim is false. All Catholics are required to accept the Church’s Rites in their received and approved form as of the sixteenth century those who refuse to do so materially depart from the faith. This is asserted by the Creed of Pius IV and implied by the Union of Brest and John Paul II’s teaching in Euntes In Mundum §10 as well as a number of assertions of Benedict XVI. As the assertion that the Novus Ordo is illicit implies Paul VI erred in this matter quoting a “an approved pre-Vatican II canonist” is hardly a significant contribution to the discussion!
August 24, 2021 at 12:31 pm
I guess Benedict XIV was a “hypermontanist”
https://archive.org/details/sacraments01pohluoft/page/n117/mode/2up?q=substance
//John Paul II’s teaching in Euntes In Mundum §10 as well as a number of assertions of Benedict XVI.//
It’s ironic that you cite them when you accuse them of imposing an illicit liturgy.
August 24, 2021 at 4:32 pm
Popes have special protections in regard to doctrine less so when it comes to discipline. From the the fact that altering the form, matter or intention touches upon the substance it does not follow that only altering the form, matter or intention touches upon substance. It is interesting that you raise Benedict XIV as he teaches in Ex Quo that the elements of the Old Law whose main function was to foreshadow the coming Messiah may not be restored by merely ecclesiastical law. The use of unleavened bread whose main function was very much to foreshadow the coming Messiah is either therefore contrary to Divine Law because abrogated by the New Law (as indeed the eastern schismatics argue) or it is not merely of ecclesiastical law but of inspired apostolic institution. And yet, it is distinctive to the Roman Rite and pertains neither to the matter, form or intention of the sacrament. Perhaps you should embrace Greek Orthodoxy! The ritual imperialism of the See of Constantinople certainly is much closer to the spirit of your remarks than the historic practice of the See of Rome.
August 24, 2021 at 11:35 pm
the question is why shouldn’t they be restored. Using unleavened bread doesn’t imply any heretical beliefs.
August 24, 2021 at 4:36 pm
a, you are paid Eternally for this and temporally.
Now, what is it with you blaspheming over and over, what do you think you get out of this?
you already commit sins That Cry To Heaven For Vengeance, already make yourself guilty by failing Just War and by breaking Natural Rights.
What do you and all of the other demon possessed monsters like on twitter get out of this? We know you by your fruits, the devil cannot change so the tactics are the same of evil throughout all history.
I don’t think you know, you just obey orders.
August 24, 2021 at 11:29 pm
Joseph Wilhelm:
The diversity of practice at different times, and indeed at the present time, in the Eastern and Western portions of the Church, is sufficient proof that He left much undetermined. “This power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, it may ordain or change what things soever it may judge most expedient for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said Sacraments” (Council of Trent, sess. xxi. ch. 2). There are, of course, over and above the matter and form, numerous rites and ceremonies used in the administration of the sacraments, e.g. in Baptism, the anointings, the giving of blessed salt, etc. These are not necessarily of Divine origin, but are not lightly to be omitted or changed (Council of Trent, viii. can. 13; see also St. Thom. 3, q. 64, a. 2).
Find for me an approved latin theological manual that argues for the inclusion of anything beyond the matter and form of the eucharist as the “substance of the sacrament,” or essential to the rite of the Church.
August 25, 2021 at 4:12 am
Benedict XIV teaches that no element of the Old Law whose main function was to foreshadow the coming Messiah may be observed in the Christian Liturgy in virtue of merely ecclesiastical law. The use of unleavened bread in the Roman Liturgy must therefore be of inspired apostolic institution or it must be a corruption. This in itself destroys your position because it means either the Holy See has allowed a liturgical violation of Divine Law for a millennium or the Roman Rite contains inspired apostolic elements other than the form, matter and intention.
August 25, 2021 at 6:41 am
how again does either circumcision or unleavened bread foreshadow Christ?
August 25, 2021 at 6:47 am
I will assume even you have heard of The Eucharist and Isaac who is one of the Preformed Christs.
August 25, 2021 at 12:57 pm
The argument is absurd because different types of bread pre-figure Christ (e.g., the bread that rained down from heaven; the shewbread). Even leavened bread is offered as a sacrifice (see Leviticus 7:13).
Regarding Isaac, I don’t know what that has to do with circumcision.
The reason why circumcision and animal sacrifices can’t be re-instituted is because (1) baptism replaces circumcision as the sign of the new covenant, and (2) because the re-institutuion of animal sacrifices would imply that Christ’s sacrifice isn’t sufficient enough. .
August 25, 2021 at 3:16 pm
I don’t think you understand. The Eucharist is the antitype of the Passover. The Passover (and unleavened bread specifically) foreshadows the Messiah and unleavened bread is specifically mandated for the Passover in the OT. Benedict XIV teaches that nothing which a) is mandated in the Old Law and b) which foreshadows the Messiah may be reinstituted as a ritual element of the liturgy of the Church by merely ecclesiastical law. The Roman Rite is unusual in employing unleavened bread for the Eucharist. Most rites use leavened bread. So specifically unleavened bread cannot be the matter of the Sacrament without the Eucharist in most Catholic rites being invalid. Therefore, as unleavened bread is a) mandated in the Old Law and b) foreshadows the Messiah its use in the Roman Rite is either a) an abuse invalidly imposed by the Holy See against divine law for more than a millennium or b) an inspired apostolic provision of the Roman Rite only. There is no third option and either way your position is destroyed.
August 25, 2021 at 6:33 pm
Actually, the Lord’s supper has more to do with the offering of Melchizedek than it does the Passover: hence the bread and wine. According to your logic, leavened bread shouldn’t be used either.
August 25, 2021 at 7:13 pm
So the Eucharist has nothing to do with the Passover? That is the claim on which your position now rests?
August 25, 2021 at 4:12 pm
I was never talking about animal Sacrifice or circumscision.
I am talking about how the Preformed leads to what is Perfected.
you cannot regress, and especially not into paganism as v2 did *ping protestantism.
August 25, 2021 at 8:05 pm
My position is that you are taking figurative interpretation of Scripture to stupid extremes.
The bread from heaven prefigured the Eucharist, the offering of Melchizedek; the Passover meal, etc. can’t take any of these exclusively to support your a word position.
Second, Joseph Pohle explicitly argues regarding the instruments that there can’t be two distinct matter; one for the east and one for the west. Go read up.
August 25, 2021 at 8:41 pm
won’t let me reply to a directly.
there is nothing Figurative in Scripiture.
What is Real Is Real.
August 25, 2021 at 8:43 pm
and another thing, “a,” you have a severe problem with understanding Universal and Eternal.
Apparently you think Reality began and ended with the devil’s century and that The Universe is narrowly defined to wherever you think you can “control” evil and destroy Goodness.
August 25, 2021 at 6:38 pm
Bread is used because of The Last Supper. you really don’t know much, do you?
August 25, 2021 at 10:37 pm
Reply to: August 25, 2021 at 8:05 pm. None of the OT passages you mention are precepts of the Old Law so they are entirely irrelevant. I was not suggesting specifically unleavened bread is the matter of the Eucharist. That is rather the point! It is you not I who maintains that only the matter, form and intention are of divine law. You should direct your criticisms of the dogma concerning the prohibition of the Old Ceremonial Law to Benedict XIV and the Council of Florence not me. You are clutching at straws now your position is entirely exploded.
August 25, 2021 at 11:46 pm
The use of unleavened bread is not principally intended to foreshadow Christ anymore than leavened bread is. As I demonstrated from the example of the bread from heaven and the offering of Melchizedek. It is the paschal sacrifice which foreshadows the sacrifice of Christ. btw, how does circumcision foreshadow Christ?
Benedict XIV also explicitly states that certain precepts of the Old Law may be re-instituted which are principally not intended to foreshadow Christ. He writes, “Precepts regarding external discipline and cleanliness of body, the kind which contain the precepts on clean and unclean foods, may be restored.” The use of unleavened vs. leavened bread would fall into this category.
Furthermore, according to Joseph Pohle, there can’t be two matter(s) of the Eucharist; one for the East and one for the West.
“De Lugo maintained that both rites — the imposition of hands and the giving of the instruments — constitute the matter of the Sacrament, the one for the East, the other for the West. This view was approved by Cardinal Franzelin and recommended by Msgr. Gutberlet.
But it seems to us incompatible with the Catholic doctrine of the unity and immutability of the Sacraments. The Church has never claimed the right to change either the matter or the form of any Sacrament.”
Although the Church cannot change the substance of the sacrament, it does not follow that the Church, within certain limits, cannot change the parameters of validity, because it is contained within the substance of the rite. Fr. Lennerz explains it here,
“from the fact the Church cannot change the substance of the sacraments, it does not follow that Christ himself fixed immutably the matter and form of all sacramental rites.’ He distinguishes the substance of the rite from the substance of the sacrament. The substance of the right is composed of what theologians generally call the matter and form; but the substance of the sacrament is composed of the rite as a material element and a signification of the formal.
Thus, for instance, in marriage the essential is the do manifestation of consent; but the manner of this man of the station may be very different: either through words, a nod of the head, living together myth matrimonial intent, or a contract made by proxy. The manner in which the marriage is made does not affect the substantial meaning; and the ceremony might consist in the giving and the acceptance of gifts. In all these cases the significance is the same, whatever be the material manner of its expression, just as the same meaning may be expressed in Latin, French, or English. https://archive.org/details/principlesofsacr0000leem/page/416/mode/2up?q=Substance)
August 26, 2021 at 12:11 am
Abraham offers his son, God offers His.
you are complicit in the heresy and damnation of all lead astray since v2 by support, so don’t do it.
August 26, 2021 at 12:12 am
i have no idea what your random comments have to do with the conversation
August 26, 2021 at 2:34 am
Isaac is a Preformed Christ. Circumcision references Isaac and points to The Cross And Eucharist.
you must have heard of at least Isaac and The Eucharist before, “a.”
August 26, 2021 at 1:13 am
Your observations about matter, form etc. are irrelevant because your contention that only these elements are of divine institution is false and is what you are vainly tying to prove. Circumcision signifies that the bloodline of Abraham was set aside for the Messiah. Leaven symbolises the presumption of the Pharisees and the hypocrisy of the Herodians and the Sadducees. It’s all explained in a book called the New Testament. Florence expressly states that Circumcision is one of those rites which due to their signification of the coming of Christ cannot be observed since the Passion and Promulgation of the Gospel without forfeiture of eternal salvation. Again, you are rejecting more and more of Catholic doctrine to hold on to your hypermontanism.
August 26, 2021 at 1:34 am
You conveniently ignore the fact that you are contradicting the “unity and immutability of the Sacraments” by postulating two distinct matter(s) of the Eucharist, one for the West and one for the East.
//Leaven symbolises the presumption of the Pharisees and the hypocrisy of the Herodians and the Sadducees.//
Except leaven is also used in a positive sense in the NT (Luke 13:21). Jesus refers to Himself as the bread that came down from heaven, which was leavened.
//Circumcision signifies that the bloodline of Abraham was set aside for the Messiah.//
Circumcision was also used by the Egyptians. according to rabbanic interpretations, circumcision represents cutting off desires of the flesh.
//Again, you are rejecting more and more of Catholic doctrine to hold on to your hypermontanism.//
No one is denying the dogmatic statements of Florence.
August 26, 2021 at 3:49 am
Groan… you are the one who thinks that only the matter, form and intention are divinely instituted. That is the very point at issue you can’t assume it as a premise. Yes, leaven has a number of symbolisms but its meaning in the Rite of Passover is as described. Elements of the Mosaic Law that symbolise the Messiah cannot be revived by merely ecclesiastical law. The unleavened bread of the Passover symbolises the Messiah. Thus its use in the Eucharistic liturgy of the Roman Ritual Church is either of inspired apostolic origin (refuting your claim that only the matter, form and intention are divinely instituted) or it is an egregious abuse stretching over a millennium of the Church’s history (refuting your claim that the popes are incapable of such liturgical abuses) there is no third option within Catholic orthodoxy. You have chosen to avoid accepting your error by straying outside Catholic orthodoxy and rejecting the doctrine of Florence and Benedict XIV concerning the Old Law. Hopefully, on tranquil reflection you will be able to overcome your vanity and abandon your errors about the imagined prudential and disciplinary infallibility of the popes.
August 26, 2021 at 6:33 am
(1) You conveniently ignore the fact that you are contradicting the “unity and immutability of the Sacraments” by postulating two distinct matter(s) of the Eucharist, one for the West and one for the East.
(2) I can simply deny that unleavened bread symbolizes or foreshadows Christ. There is no explicit biblical text that supports this view. In fact, we have a contrary image of living bread being used in reference to the Incarnation. I don’t put too much value on allegorical interpretations of bread (whether leavened or unleavened) unless explicitly mandated by Scripture.
August 26, 2021 at 7:51 am
(1) Oh dear…. let’s try again. It is you who thinks that anything of divine institution must pertain to the matter, form or intention. That is the point under dispute. I DON”T THINK THAT. THAT IS THE QUESTION UNDER DISPUTE.
(2) You can deny what you like but you are just embarrassing yourself. I appreciate these sorts of details do not impinge upon the little world of a manualist hypermonatist ritual nominalist such as yourself for whom the Fathers and the other ritual churches are a threat and a vexation but this is not an obscure question. The Azymite controversy was the proximate cause of the Great Schism but no one on either side of Adriatic was so stupid as to suggest that the unleavened bread of the Passover did not symbolise Christ. “Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new paste, as you are unleavened. For Christ our pasch is sacrificed.Therefore let us feast, not with the old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.”
You do not appear to care about the truth of the matter here you are just an apologist for current curial policy. I suppose this is what Pius X meant when he said “I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense”. You are uninterested in theological truth just a sort of institutional comfort. It’s not just that you identify the Church with the Roman Patriarchate, you identify the Church with the clergy and with the ‘present administration’. If you lived in the tenth century you would dedicating poems to the Theophylacti family.
August 26, 2021 at 3:05 pm
According to Ex quo, things that specifically belong to the Old Law are not supposed to required of people on the force of authority of the Old Law, which no longer has force for Christians. We certainly shouldn’t use unleavened bread if our only reason is that it was required for the Passover under the Mosaic Law. But Ex quo allows people to observe elements of the Old Law (except those that were done only to foreshadow the Messiah e.g. animal sacrifice) for personal reason or out of the custom of a particular church. I think the reasoning in the comment you sent shows that leavened bread can’t belong per se to the matter of the Sacrament (i.e., leavened bread is fine), but I don’t think this reasoning can be used to show that it is an abuse, or that it’s only for the Roman Rite (i.e., another particular church could perfectly well decide to use unleavened bread).
August 26, 2021 at 3:16 pm
The reason for unleavened bread in the Passover is specified in scripture and it’s not primarily or solely intended to foreshadow the messiah. Hence your appeal to Ex Quo is irrelevant.
August 26, 2021 at 3:16 pm
The reason for unleavened bread in the Passover is specified in scripture as and it’s not primarily or solely intended to foreshadow the messiah. Hence your appeal to Ex Quo is irrelevant.
August 26, 2021 at 3:42 pm
No the unleavened bread of the Passover prefigures the Messiah and indeed that is why its use was so contentious in 1054. In the course of the polemics on this subject the Latins quite rightly never advance the preposterous argument that its main function was not to foreshadow the coming Messiah. St Thomas explicitly states both that “It is not necessary for the sacrament that the bread be unleavened or leavened, since it can be celebrated in either” and that the use of unleavened bread is “Christ’s institution”.
August 26, 2021 at 3:46 pm
It cant possibly be intended to allude to the messiah because the Christ Himself uses the manna as a figure for the incarnation!
The use of leavened vs unleavened bread falls in the second category mentioned by Benedict.
You can hold onto your heresy all you like. You’re certainly not going to convince me of your nonsense.
August 26, 2021 at 4:37 pm
St Thomas explains that the leaven has a twofold signification representing in one sense corruption (and the absence of it in “Christ’s body, which was conceived without corruption”) and in another sense Charity. The Roman usage (derived from “Christ’s institution”) refers to the first signification and the Greek usage to the second. Nevertheless, St Thomas explains, “a Greek priest celebrating with unfermented bread in a church of the Greeks would sin, as perverting the rite of his Church”. But of course you know better than the Angelic Doctor that it is only the form, matter and intention that are of divine institution and the unbroken teaching of the Fathers and St Thomas to the contrary must give way to your greater wisdom in order to facilitate your hypermontanist paradise in which perversions (liturgical and otherwise) flourish and abound.
August 26, 2021 at 5:11 pm
The fact that both leavened and unoeveaned bread can be used as foreshadowing the Messiah indicates that their primary purpose is not to foreshadow the Messiah.
The only biblical text which explicitly uses bread as a prefigurement of the incarnation is the manna: see John 6, which was clearly leavened.
To extend the scholastic terminology, we could say that each sacrament has propria, proper accidents that necessarily accompany the essence (form and matter) of the sacrament. Neither leavened nor unleavened bread pertain to the essential accidents that accompany the sacrament.
August 26, 2021 at 6:40 pm
St Thomas makes no claim that the leaven in leavened bread foreshadows the Messiah he says it symbolizes charity.
August 26, 2021 at 11:43 pm
S. Thomas might not, but the Church Fathers certainly do:
Lay aside, therefore, the evil, the old, the sour leaven, and be ye changed into the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ.
-St. Ignatius, Magnesians 10
Leviticus 7: 13 Besides the cakes, he shall offer for his offering leavened bread with the sacrifice of thanksgiving of his peace offerings.
And that the Savior received first-fruits of those whom He was to save, Paul declared when he said, “And if the first-fruits be holy, the lump is also holy,” teaching that the expression “first-fruits” denoted that which is spiritual, but that “the lump” meant us, that is, the animal Church, the lump of which they say He assumed, and blended it with Himself, inasmuch as He is “the leaven.”
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies , Book 1, ch. 8, para. 3
August 26, 2021 at 11:54 pm
St. Ambrose also calls Christ the leaven of the Church
https://books.google.com/books?id=rxwdDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA228&dq=jesus+is+the+leaven+of+the+church&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjNmaLT48_yAhX_MlkFHX5tCoAQ6AEwBHoECAcQAg#v=onepage&q=jesus%20is%20the%20leaven%20of%20the%20church&f=false
August 27, 2021 at 1:05 am
This is exegesis based on the NT sense of leaven from Luke 13:20-21 therefore it is not a signification contained in the Old Law. This is indeed the basis of the Byzantine practice. It is precisely because it reverses the signification of the Old Law that the Byzantines accused the Latins of ‘Judaising’. It is not exceptional to leaven bread therefore it is not open to the charge of ‘Judaising’ therefore it does not (as the use of unleavened bread does) require divine institution to justify it. Benedict XIV’s teaching about the necessity of divine institution to justify retention of elements of the Old Law is precisely directed against the Orthodox charge of ‘Judaising’ because of the Latin use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist. If the unleavened bread did not signify Christ in the Old Law Benedict XIV’s teaching would be pointless. I note you are ignoring the fact that St Thomas expressly says the use of unleavened bread in the Roman Rite is of divine institution and yet is not part of the matter, form or intention required for the sacrament and does not apply to the Byzantine Rite.
August 27, 2021 at 2:32 am
except the interpretation of Luke 13 is rooted in Leviticus 23:17 and Romans 11:16.
btw, thanks for citing St. Thomas. In the relevant section, St. Thomas quotes Pope Gregory as saying: “The Roman Church offers unleavened bread, because our Lord took flesh without union of sexes: but the Greek Churches offer leavened bread, because the Word of the Father was clothed with flesh; as leaven is mixed with the flour.”
August 27, 2021 at 2:34 am
according to your logic, neither leavened or unleavened bread can be used in the liturgy.
August 27, 2021 at 2:53 am
Even if it were the case that specifically leavened bread was also symbolic of the coming Messiah in the Old Law (and I deny this, the symbolism is retrospective and based on the NT) it would only mean that the Byzantine usage also needed to be instituted by an apostle under inspiration. This is not a problem except for your position. Either way it is clear that St Thomas and Benedict XVI teach that elements specific to one rite and not another (so neither form, not matter nor intention) are of divine institution.
August 27, 2021 at 3:23 am
You are ignoring that St. Thomas himself agrees with the view that leavened bread foreshadows the incarnation. “The Roman Church offers unleavened bread, because our Lord took flesh without union of sexes: but the Greek Churches offer leavened bread, because the Word of the Father was clothed with flesh; as leaven is mixed with the flour.”
It’s not a problem for my view because I don’t believe that either leavened or unleavened bread are primarily or exclusively intended to foreshadow the Messiah; given that both can be interpreted as alluding to the Messiah. It belongs in the second category mentioned by Benedict XIV which can be re-instituted.
Game over for you, buddy.
August 27, 2021 at 3:32 am
But Benedict XIV precisely introduced the distinction to deal with unleavened bread! And you are still ignoring the fact that St Thomas expressly says the use of unleavened bread in the Roman Rite is of divine institution and yet is not part of the matter, form or intention required for the sacrament and does not apply to the Byzantine Rite.
August 27, 2021 at 4:06 am
You continue to prove my point. Unleavened bread falls in the second category, because it isn’t primarily intended to foreshadow Christ. This is clearly implied by Ex Quo:
“Certain schismatics have tried to calumniate the Latin church by saying that it judaizes by consecrating unleavened bread, observing the Sabbath, and retaining the anointing of kings among the sacred rites. But Leo Allatius counters their rash claim in his splendid work de perpetua consensione Ecclesiae Occidentalis et Orientalis, bk. 3, chap. 4. He refutes them particularly by arguing as follows: “Since Jews observe Sabbaths, a man who observes Sabbaths acts in Jewish fashion: therefore the man who does not eat the flesh of strangled animals acts in Jewish fashion since the Jews are forbidden by the Law to eat such food: but the Greeks do not eat such food: therefore, the Greek judaize” (loc. cit. n. 4). Then to Our purpose he concludes (n. 9) that it cannot be absolutely asserted that that man judaizes who does something in the Church which corresponds to the ceremonies of the old Law. “If a man should perform acts for a different end and purpose (even with the intention of worship and as religious ceremonies), not in the spirit of that Law nor on the basis of it, but either from personal decision, from human custom, or on the instruction of the Church, he would not sin, nor could he be said to judaize. So when a man does something in the Church which resembles the ceremonies of the old Law, he must not always be said to judaize.”
Regarding St. Thomas, he says that Christ utilized unleavened bread in instituting the Eucharist; not that it pertains to divine law. According to St. Thomas:
Objection 2. Further, legal observances ought not to be continued in the time of grace. But the use of unleavened bread was a ceremony of the Law, as is clear from Exodus 12. Therefore we ought not to use unfermented bread in this sacrament of grace.
Reply to Objection 2. Those who celebrate the sacrament with unleavened bread do not intend to follow the ceremonial of the Law, but to conform to Christ’s institution; so they are not Judaizing; otherwise those celebrating in fermented bread would be Judaizing, because the Jews offered up fermented bread for the first-fruits.
In other words, St. Thomas refutes you.
August 27, 2021 at 4:27 am
Benedict XIV says nothing about unleavened bread not principally foreshadowing Christ. Thomas expressly says we use unleaved bread “to conform to Christ’s institution”.
August 27, 2021 at 4:30 am
According to Ex quo, things that specifically belong to the Old Law are not supposed to required of people on the force of authority of the Old Law, which no longer has force for Christians. We certainly shouldn’t use unleavened bread if our only reason is that it was required for the Passover under the Mosaic Law. But Ex quo allows people to observe elements of the Old Law (except those that were done only to foreshadow the Messiah e.g. animal sacrifice) for personal reason or out of the custom of a particular church. In fact, Benedict XIV explicitly places unleavened bread in this category:
“Certain schismatics have tried to calumniate the Latin church by saying that it judaizes by consecrating unleavened bread, observing the Sabbath, and retaining the anointing of kings among the sacred rites…“If a man should perform acts for a different end and purpose (even with the intention of worship and as religious ceremonies), not in the spirit of that Law nor on the basis of it, but either from personal decision, from human custom, or on the instruction of the Church, he would not sin, nor could he be said to judaize. So when a man does something in the Church which resembles the ceremonies of the old Law, he must not always be said to judaize.”
btw, in eternity, you will have to account for wasting my time with your stupid arguments.
August 27, 2021 at 6:07 am
Be assured, as we have blocked you many times from this site we were not seeking to detain you! I assume you know that and that is why you use bogus email addresses to get back on? Regardless, if we have distracted you from spreading your errors elsewhere for a spell, then all to the good. It is also pleasing to see you have finally taken the trouble to actually read Ex Quo. Certainly the use of unleavened bread from a desire to observe the Law of Moses would be sinful regardless of its legitimacy otherwise. Conversely, an entirely inadvertent material observance of some precept would be of no moral significance. Ex Quo is of course entirely in accord with the dogmatic definition of Florence which prohibits any use of the ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments of the old law whether or not we place our hope in them “because they were instituted to signify something in the future”. The observations Benedict XIV makes in the passage you just quoted establish that in various scenarios a man “must not always be said to judaize” but Benedict XIV has still to establish when he would and when he would not be said to judaize. This is where the distinction occurs between the elements of the Old Law that did not exist primarily to signify the coming Messiah (which may be employed in virtue of merely ecclesiastical law) and those elements of the Old Law that did exist primarily to signify the coming Messiah (which may be employed only in virtue of divine institution). St Thomas, Florence and Benedict XIV would all have thought risible the idea that the precept to employ unleavened bread and to purge out the leaven before Passover was not principally instituted to signify the Messiah and His saving death. The fact that you could be so ignorant as to assert this shows how utterly deracinated such hypermontanism is.
August 27, 2021 at 12:15 pm
Except Benedict XIV places unleavened bread in the same category as keeping the sabbath and anointing kings, which are “either from personal decision, from human custom, or on the instruction of the Church.”
The use of unleavened bread is not mandated by divine law for the West anymore than leavened bread is mandated by Apostolic Tradition in the East. This is clear from the case of the Armenians. Furthermore, there are liturgical scholars who argue that unleavened bread was a later adoption in the West.
Tell me, how can unleavened bread principally foreshadow the Messiah, when leavened bread is said to do the same? See the quote by Pope Gregory, as cited by Aquinas. “The Roman Church offers unleavened bread, because our Lord took flesh without union of sexes: but the Greek Churches offer leavened bread, because the Word of the Father was clothed with flesh; as leaven is mixed with the flour.”
August 27, 2021 at 1:44 pm
There is no problem with them both being of Apostolic institution. Certainly, as St Thomas implies, the Latin practice must be otherwise it would be Judaizing. An ordinary believer follows the practice in this case from ‘the instruction of the Church’ just as he observes the Sabbath on the Lord’s Day. But the Pope has no more authority to introduce leavened bread into the Roman Rite than he does to move the sabbath from Sunday. The instruction of the Church in both cases is of divine institution one for the Roman Rite only the other for the whole Church. Presumably you think the Pope has the authority to abolish the sabbath or move it to Tuesday or set himself up in the temple of God demanding to be worshipped as God and that’s all just fine.
August 27, 2021 at 3:01 pm
You’re not answering a simple question: how can unleavened bread be principally intended to foreshadow Christ when leavened bread as a ceremonial precept (see the offering of first fruits) can also foreshadow the Messiah as Aquinas notes.
August 27, 2021 at 3:25 pm
Leaven represents an element which pervades and transforms the whole deriving from corruption. Under the Old Covenant this represented sin from which the chosen people were to strive to preserve themselves through the law. This drew their attention to the impossibility of fulfilling the law by their own efforts and the necessity of turning to the future sinless Redeemer symbolized by the unleavened bread broken on Passover. In the New Covenant the leaven represents the presence of the Holy Spirit and (the effect of His presence – charity) permeating the Church and flowing from Christ’s death on the Cross. This is why the Byzantines see the Latin practice as Judaizing, because it relates to the symbolism of the unfulfilled law of the Old Covenant rather than the New Law of love flowing from the Passion forward. The Byzantines not unreasonably see the use of unleavened bread as akin to circumcising infants at their baptism. This is why it can only be justified by divine institution. The sacrifice of the first fruits is an Adamic rite that goes back beyond the law of Moses to before the Flood and presumably would have occurred even in Eden had our first parents remained there long enough. It is offered by Cain and Abel but Cain’s offering is not accepted as it does not involve the shedding of blood for “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” and after the Fall there must always be a propitiatory element to sacrifice. Hence the offering of leavened loaves in the first fruits. This was already symbolized in the Garden by the fact that the coats of fig leaves (which required no shedding for blood and which they made for themselves) did not take away the shame of our first parents but the coats of skins (which required the shedding of blood and were provided by God) did.
August 27, 2021 at 4:04 pm
Except Aquinas quotes Gregory to that effect that it symbolizes the incarnation.
The church fathers (eg Ignatius, Ambrose, etc), clearly say that Christ is our leaven, and they attach to the ceremonial precept of the first fruits.
So if both can be used to foreshadow the Messiah, neither are of divine law or apostolic tradition. That was Aquinas’ point
August 27, 2021 at 4:17 pm
That was very much not Aquinas’s point! Read it again! You might also want to read what I wrote again as obviously leaven does represent charity flowing from the Holy Spirit flowing from the side of Christ on the Cross but in the context of the New Testament. This symbolism is not evident in the Old Testament rites before the Passion. A useful parallel would be the fleece of Gideon which both when dry and when wet symbolizes the Immaculate Conception. When wet it symbolizes that Our lady alone of all human persons was conceived with sanctifying grace and when dry it symbolizes that Our lady alone of all human persons was conceived without original sin.
August 27, 2021 at 4:48 pm
I’ll be honest; I’m not much of allegorist, and I don’t see much value in reading into texts.
But Aquinas himself agrees with Pope Gregory that leavened bread symbolizes the assumption of human nature.
You cannot resolve the dilemma you’ve presented yourself. If both leavened and unleavened bread can be used to signify the Messiah, then neither are principally intended to do so.
August 27, 2021 at 6:12 pm
Reply to: August 27, 2021 at 4:48 pm This claim: “If both leavened and unleavened bread can be used to signify the Messiah, then neither are principally intended to do so” is completely random. It doesn’t follow at all. The water in baptism symbolizes both death and life and God intended both when He created water.
August 27, 2021 at 7:07 pm
Your argument was that leavened bread didn’t symbolize the Messiah. Clearly that was false as proven from the quote from Gregory. The use of leavened bread was a ceremonial precept so your argument from Ex Quo holds no water (pun intended).
The point was the neither leavened or unleavened bread strictly or solely foreshadows the Messiah like circumcision or animal sacrifices.
August 27, 2021 at 7:39 pm
I said that leavened bread did not symbolize the Messiah under the Old Covenant the signification changed on the Cross just as the waters under the Temple mount symbolized death under the Old Covenant (Isaiah 28:15-18) and life once the Messiah had come (Rev 22:1). But this point is not essential. The unleavened bread of the Passover most certainly does symbolize the Messiah and is very much principally intended to do so. To deny this is bewilderingly biblically illiterate. The fact that in other circumstances leavened bread also symbolizes Him in no way weakens this fact and it is hard to see on what logic you think it does.
August 27, 2021 at 11:59 pm
How does the signification change on the cross when leavened bread, as noted by Pope Gregory, symbolizes the hypostatic union?
August 28, 2021 at 12:10 am
In fact, Christ alludes to the manna in the desert, which was leavened, as a symbol of the incarnation; not unleavened bread. Of course, unleavened bread might also signify his incorrupt nature.
August 28, 2021 at 1:45 am
Leaven represents an element which pervades and transforms the whole deriving from corruption. Before the Passion it was not evident that the death of the Messiah would be the source of life to the world.
August 28, 2021 at 2:43 am
The quote from pope Gregory says it symbolizes the incarnation. He takes the leaven to be a symbol of human nature. The incarnation precedes the crucifixion
August 28, 2021 at 3:23 am
I don’t know why you are obsessed with this irrelevant point. Olive oil symbolizes strengthening in Confirmation and healing in Extreme Unction. There are many mysteries contained in the Old Testament which cannot be perceived without the NT.
August 28, 2021 at 8:01 am
I’m not aware of any rabbinic literature that interprets the unleavened bread as foreshadowing the Messiah; or even the paschal sacrifice for that matter. These are only perceived through the lens of the NT.
August 28, 2021 at 8:27 pm
“But after sin, man believed explicitly in Christ, not only as to the Incarnation, but also as to the Passion and Resurrection, whereby the human race is delivered from sin and death: for they would not, else, have foreshadowed Christ’s Passion by certain sacrifices both before and after the Law, the meaning of which sacrifices was known by the learned explicitly, while the simple folk, under the veil of those sacrifices, believed them to be ordained by God in reference to Christ’s coming, and thus their knowledge was covered with a veil, so to speak. And, as stated above (II-II:1:7), the nearer they were to Christ, the more distinct was their knowledge of Christ’s mysteries.”
August 28, 2021 at 10:54 pm
How ironic, earlier you said: “Before the Passion it was not evident that the death of the Messiah would be the source of life to the world.”
Now you say it was explicitly known by the learned.
“But after sin, man believed explicitly in Christ, not only as to the Incarnation, but also as to the Passion and Resurrection, whereby the human race is delivered from sin and death”
Can’t seem to make up your mind, can you?
August 28, 2021 at 11:23 pm
I said it was not evident. Many things which are not evident are known by the learned. The Passover, as the other rites of the Old Law, was instituted by God. All its elements are symbolic. The lamb and the bread symbolize Christ whose true Passover would eventually liberate the elect from sin, death and the dominion of the fallen angels. The injunction to consume the meal in a hurry attired for departure signifies that the end for which we were redeemed surpasses the created order. The bread is unleavened because we are in a hurry to leave we cannot wait for it to rise. But more deeply because the yeast symbolic of corruption symbolizes the death and sin which due to Adam’s fall pervades the human race. We must be free of this if we are to pass over. Ultimately however we are unable to be free of it by are own power thus the spotless lamb becomes the unleavened bread. He is undefiled for us. We partake in His Passover because we cannot purge the leaven by our own powers. So now there is a new lump leavened by a new death: not the death of Adam but the death of Christ. The power of this death permeates the mystical body and enlivens it. But God did not institute leavened bread as an element of the Passover so Byzantine Christians don’t need divine permission permission to continue its use in the Sacrament of the New Law which corresponds to the Passover – the Eucharist. The Latins do need to rely on a specific provision of divine law to do this because all was accomplished on the Cross and nothing can be carried over to the New Covenant which belongs essentially to the Old unless by divine authority. This is why St Thomas expressly asserts that it is by divine institution that the Latins use unleavened bread even though it is not necessary for validity and it would be a sin for the Greeks to use it.
August 29, 2021 at 12:23 am
Your statement:
“Before the Passion it was not evident that the death of the Messiah would be the source of life to the world.”
Was clearly universal in scope and was made in reference to the first fruits and Luke 13. Since you now admit that it was known by the learned, your argument that we need a divine provision to use unleavened bread no longer holds any water, since we can appeal to the argument made by St. Thomas when he says:
“otherwise those celebrating in fermented bread would be Judaizing, because the Jews offered up fermented bread for the first-fruits.”
August 29, 2021 at 12:32 am
It was universal. It was not evident. It required learning. Are you denying the unleavened bread represented Christ or denying that it was instituted by God?
August 29, 2021 at 12:43 am
How is it universal when you just made an exception? I’m denying neither. I’m simply denying that any Jews interpreted unleavened bread or leavened bread as foreshadowing the Messiah.
August 29, 2021 at 12:56 am
Is English your first language?
August 29, 2021 at 12:48 am
But this line of argument is completely irrelevant anyway because even if the leaven in the bread offered as first fruits did principally represent Christ all that would mean is that St Andrew or St John or whoever it is that instituted the liturgical tradition from which the Byzantine Rite is descended must have instituted unleavened bread for the Eucharistic liturgy there under divine inspiration.
August 29, 2021 at 12:59 am
So I’m confused why the East can’t use unleavened bread in your worldview if it was divinely instituted; or why the West can’t use leavened bread if it was instituted by the Apostles?
Both require some divine provision in your system.
August 29, 2021 at 1:14 am
It’s not my system its the teaching of Vatican II and the Angelic Doctor. Your question is staggering. It suggests you haven’t followed a word of the discussion. The entire point is that the Ritual Churches are part of the original structure of the Catholic Church created by the Apostles under inspiration and are not subject to abolition by ecclesiastical positive law. As the Ritual Churches are defined not merely by geography but also by the Rites themselves this means the Rites are not subject to abolition by ecclesiastical positive law (although they are subject to a degree of change somewhere short of abolition). Thus there must be (among other things) elements in them of Dominical or inspired Apostolic institution which escape ecclesiastical positive law and which are specific to the Rites rather than just necessary for validity and common to all Rites. Thus St Thomas says that the use of unleavened bread in the Roman Rite was instituted by Christ that it is not necessary for validity that it doesn’t apply to the Byzantine Rite and that, indeed, it would be sinful to use unleavened bread in the Byzantine Rite. Thus John Paul II says the “disciplinary autonomy, which the Eastern Churches enjoy … is not the result of privileges granted by the Church of Rome, but of the law itself which those Churches have possessed since Apostolic times” and the CCEO says the Ritual Churches belong to “the most ancient tradition of the Church” and Vatican II says: “The Holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government and who, combining together into various groups which are held together by a hierarchy, form separate Churches or Rites.”
August 29, 2021 at 1:23 am
Your distorted view of reality seems to have gone unnoticed during the Council of Florence regarding the usage of unleavened bread among the Armenians.
August 29, 2021 at 1:27 am
you still haven’t answered a simple request:
cite for me rabbinic literature which interprets leavened or unleavened bread as foreshadowing the messiah?
August 29, 2021 at 1:31 am
I gave you the Angelic Doctor. I would of thought it was a heresy to deny that the unleavened bread of the Passover foreshadows Christ in that it is taught as divinely revealed by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium and it is more than a little absurd to suppose the Passover was not among those “ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments” which Florence defines “were instituted to signify something in the future”.
August 29, 2021 at 1:28 am
“Also, the body of Christ is truly confected in both unleavened and leavened wheat bread, and priests should confect the body of Christ in either, that is, each priest according to the custom of his western or eastern church.” Council of Florence, Laetentur Caeli (1439).
August 29, 2021 at 1:31 am
But the Armenians used leavened bread prior to transitioning to using unleavened bread.
August 29, 2021 at 1:33 am
Perhaps St Jude didn’t specify.
August 29, 2021 at 1:40 am
Both leavened and unleavened bread can foreshadow the Messiah but this is only perceived through the NT. However, they are not primarily intended to do so as in the case of circumcision or the sacrifice of animals. That is the key difference.
//Perhaps St Jude didn’t specify.//
So if the Byzantine rites choose to change to unleavened bread tomorrow, perhaps leavened bread wasn’t originally of apostolic institution, and your entire conversation becomes absurd?
August 29, 2021 at 1:41 am
since you cited St. Thomas to the effect that it was clearly perceived by the learned, cite for me rabbinic literature which interprets unleavened bread as foreshadowing the Messiah?
August 29, 2021 at 1:43 am
So you reject St Thomas’s doctrine? As I said, I would of thought it was a heresy to deny that the unleavened bread of the Passover foreshadows Christ in that it is taught as divinely revealed by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium and it is more than a little absurd to suppose the Passover was not among those “ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments” which Florence defines “were instituted to signify something in the future”.
August 29, 2021 at 1:43 am
since you cited St. Thomas to the effect that the learned Jews saw Christ in the unleavened bread, cite for me any rabbinical literature that interprets in that sense.
August 29, 2021 at 1:45 am
The Byzantines have clearly maintained over many centuries that their use of leavened bread is apostolic in origin. Were they to attempt to change it it would be ultra vires like the Novus Ordo.
August 29, 2021 at 2:06 am
Or maybe the Byzantines are acting ultra vires by using leavened bread? Btw, there is good reason to believe the west used leave early bread in the early centuries.
August 29, 2021 at 2:16 am
You are now rejecting the defined teaching of Florence on several counts.
August 29, 2021 at 2:31 am
Which teachings are you referring to? Btw, I don’t believe the Byzantines are acting ultra vires, I’m just being sarcastic.
August 29, 2021 at 2:40 am
You seem to be denying that the Rite of Passover objectively signified the Messiah (as defined by Cantate Domino) and you seem to be denying that Roman Rite priests must use unleaved and Byzantine Rite priests must use leavened bread (as defined by Laetentur Caeli).
August 29, 2021 at 10:02 am
I’m not denying that the Passover sacrifice signified the death of Christ, or that the Eucharist is the new Passover meal. What I am denying is that unleavened bread pertains to the proper accidents that necessarily accompany the essence (form and matter) of the sacrament. This is proven by the fact that leavened bread was historically used in the East, and most likely in the West as well.
I’m also not aware of any rabbinic literature that interprets the pasch, or more specifically, unleavened bread as foreshadowing the death of the Messiah.
//seem to be denying that Roman Rite priests must use unleaved and Byzantine Rite priests must use leavened bread//
Theologians usually say that this is an ecclesiastical impediment to validity. They usually appeal to the example of marriage, in which the West imposes an ecclesiastical impediment when the priest does not give his blessing.
August 29, 2021 at 3:17 pm
You really are missing the point. No one is arguing that unleavened bread belongs to the matter of the sacrament. The question is whether there are elements of the rite required by divine law that do not pertain to the matter, form or intention and are not required in all rites.
August 29, 2021 at 4:30 pm
I understand your point very well. This gets back to the meaning of substance of the sacrament. If we extend this beyond the matter and form, then it must pertain to the proper accidents which accompany the essence (matter and form) which accompany the sacrament.
Here the question is whether unleavened bread belongs properly the signification or integrity of the sacrament. That can’t be the case if leavened bread was historically in use both in east and west.
August 29, 2021 at 4:48 pm
No it might simply be an element of ritual law of divine origin which it is sinful to omit but which does not affect validity and is proper to each rite singly.
August 29, 2021 at 5:04 pm
Your last comment implicitly concedes that it doesn’t pertain to the substance of the sacrament. According to Trent, the church may change whatsoever does not belong to the substance of the sacrament.
August 29, 2021 at 5:16 pm
Reply to: August 29, 2021 at 5:04 pm That would only follow if you were correct that the ‘substance’ pertains only to the requirements for validity. You’ve got to stop assuming your conclusion as a premise.