It is currently Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:08 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ] 
 De Defectibus "vs" St. Alphonsus 
Author Message

Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:04 pm
Posts: 38
Location: Australia
New post De Defectibus "vs" St. Alphonsus
How does one reconcile the teaching of De Defectibus with the teaching of St. Alphonsus Liguori who taught, “What is the form of the consecration of the Eucharist? ... Although the truer and more common opinion is that of St. Bonaventure, Suarez, Bellarmine, and others that the essential (words) are only these: This is the chalice of my Blood (or) This is my Blood (or words equivalent to these); nevertheless, whoever left out or changed any of the remaining words would sin gravely.” (Theologia Moralis, bk. 6, tract. 3, ch. 1, nos. 220-221), bearing in mind that Alphonsus is one of the great Doctors of the Church and a post-de Defectibus Doctor and to which Pope Gregory XVI said in his Bull of the Canonisation of St. Alphonsus Liguori, “But what deserves to be particularly noticed is, that after a careful examination of his works, it has been ascertained that they all, not withstanding their number and extent, may be perused by the faithful with the most perfect safety (inoffenso prorsus pede percurri a fidelibus posse)?

DJSP


Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:34 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 176
New post 
Dear DJSP,

1. It is open to question whether the translation of St Alphonsus's words which you quote is entirely accurate. The Latin is "etsi verior et communior sit sententia S. Bonaventurae...", where the subjunctive verb to my mind invites rather the reading "even if the opinion of St Bonaventure...is truer and commoner" which leaves some doubt as to the fact.

2. St Alphonsus states his view more fully in paragraph 223 where he quotes the principal authors for both sides of this question at greater length. Here he states that the opinion that the shorter form is sufficient for validity was (in his day) "commoner", but he does not say that it was "truer" or add any indication that he himself prefers it.

3. He specifically states (n. 223) that both views are theologically "probable" (i.e. in ordinary English "tenable"), but he adds the following words: "In practice it is certain that the priest would sin gravely if he did not pronounce all the words of the consecration of the chalice. And if by chance he had said only the first words ["hic est enim calix sanguinis mei"] he would certainly be bound to repeat the entire form conditionally, as is pointed out by Natalis Alexander [reff.]. Indeed all must agree with this in the light of Rubrics title. 10 which says, ‘Should the priest die having pronounced only a part of the form of the Blood, another priest continues the Mass and repeats over the same chalice the entire form (i.e. conditionally if the first priest had already said 'hic est calix sanguinis mei').’” This final parenthesis is added by St Alphonsus.

4. It is thus clear that St Alphonsus does not consider that the statement made in the rubrics constitutes a definitive doctrinal judgment that the words "This is my Blood" do not suffice for validity. He holds that Catholics may hold the opposing view. But they may not act on that opposing view except in the limited sense that, if the remainder of the form has been omitted, they may give conditional adoration and have the chalice re-consecrated conditionally. Clearly the Roman approval of St Alphonsus's teaching means that anyone is free to follow this view of St Alphonsus.

5. St Alphonsus does not himself state any preference for the view that the short form is sufficient for validity and he expressly insists that those who hold that view cannot act on it by treating as valid a chalice so consecrated as this would be contrary to the Rubrics, to which he shows full deference.

6. Those who invoke St Alphonsus in favour of the validity of the mistranslated form of the verncaular Novus Ordo therefore misrepresent him. They also omit to refer to the importance he attaches to the preceding context "qui pridie..." and to the manner of recitation which he insists must be both a recitation of a past event and an application to a present one.

7. On the question of the state of the theological debate it is imperative to note that theological debate has not been static since the time of St Alphonsus. The early twentieth century saw the publication of one of the most serious and influential works on the Eucharist in the history of the Church: Fr Maurice de la Taille's Mysterium Fidei. This work totally reversed the current of theological opinion favouring the validity of the shorter form. It is not possible to debate the current state of theological debate about this disputed issue without reference to de la Taille's masterpiece. It is doubtful whether St Alphonsus would have called the opinion favouring the short form "communior" after the publication of de la Taillle's work.

I hope these few notes are helpful.

JSD


Last edited by John Daly on Sat Nov 04, 2006 3:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sat Nov 04, 2006 2:16 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 282
New post 
Dear DJSP,

Oddly enough, during John Lane's recent visit to my house we briefly discussed this issue. I tried to find the quote which I believe proved that Saint Alphonsus held that the long form is the correct one. I could not find the reference at the time. Shortly after he left, I found it. However, I think that after John Daly's excellent post it may not be necessary.

JMJ,

Lance Tardugno

Page 52 and 53: Saint Alphonsus “The Holy Mass”

The form of the consecration is taken from St. Matthew: Hoc est corpus meum (“ This is my body”).
These words need no explanation, since they themselves declare what mystery is accomplished, namely, the
change of the bread into the body of Jesus Christ.

The form of the consecration of the chalice is as follows: 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 the chalice of my blood of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you, and for many, to the remission of sins”). These words the Church has taken from different texts of the Gospel, partly from St. Luke, partly from St. Matthew. St. Luke says: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you. St. Matthew: For this is the blood of the new testament which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. The word aeterni, "everlasting," is found in St. Paul: In the blood of the everlasting testament. The other words, Mystery of faith, the Roman catechism declares are taught by sacred tradition, which is the guardian of Catholic truths. This divine mystery is called Mystery of faith, not to exclude the reality of the blood of Jesus Christ, but to show that in it the faith shines forth in a wonder-ful manner, and triumphs over all the difficulties that may be raised by human reason, since it is here, says Innocent III, that we see one thing and believe another. We believe, he adds, that the form that we read in the Canon was received from Jesus Christ by the Apostles, and that they transmitted it to their successors. The Roman catechism, moreover, says, that the words of consecration should be thus understood: It is my blood that is contained in the chalice of the New Testament. This signifies that men receive no longer the figure of the blood of Jesus Christ, as was the case in the Old Law; but they really receive the true blood of the New Testament. The words Pro vobis et pro multis (" For you and for many") are used to distinguish the virtue of the blood of Christ from its fruits; for the blood of Our Saviour is of sufficient value to save all men, but its fruits are applicable only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault. Or, as the theologians say, this precious blood is (in itself) sufficiently (sufficienter) able to save all men, but (on our part) effectually (efficaciter) it does not save all-it saves only those who cooperate with grace. This is the explanation of St. Thomas, as quoted by Benedict XIV.


PS: It is interesting that when you quoted St. Alphonsus from his Theologia Moralis you left out the part "against Saint Thomas and the Thomists." Please don't take offence, as none is meant, I just feel that it is relevant since , from my quote above he says "This is the explanation of St. Thomas, as quoted by Benedict XIV."


Sat Nov 04, 2006 2:48 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 4:15 pm
Posts: 128
New post 
Thank you, John D and Lance for your posts... I continue to learn with gratefulness! I tend to consider motives/queries that lie behind questions and responses, and have contemplated long and hard why someone would seek to defend a calculated and ambiguous change to the form of consecration, as rendered by the freemason Bugnini and his colleagues... the modernists/apostates who have caused such great confusion and scandal, lo these many years. The seemingly subtle change, and its aftermath, speak volumes. Bugnini's machinations indicate either a willful ignorance, or ignorance itself, or a most malicious defiance of the Church's clear and binding pronouncements heretofore. This discussion bears witness to the latter. Why is it not saliently clear to all who have had the nauseating experience of having a well orchestrated commercial thrown at them from the false Vatican for decades... "new,new,new,new,new and improved".. caused just a bit of need in some, if not many, to consider and querie this malicious, modernist facade, against the backdrop of That which is Immutable... The Truth as deposited by Christ Jesus' in One Depository... The Church... divinely founded and nurtured to this very day. The very essence of "modernist" thought is rooted in the need to feel connected to a world which "lies in the lap of Satan" (loosely quoted from St. John's epistle)... a world which worships progress and change, despite a clear indictment from the past, that such baseless "hope" is foolishness.

A bit of "venting", among friends. Thank you for bearing with me :wink:

Pax Christi,

BarJonas

_________________
St. John 14:18; St. John 14:27


Sat Nov 04, 2006 4:49 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi !

Regarding the conservative argument for the " short form" of consecration " This is my Blood" one must note, this does not help those using this argument to state the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass. They state " many and all" really do not matter, since " This is my Blood" is all that is needed.

Well, the fact is, the novus ordo priests does not stop with " This is my Blood" he continues with the mutilated form of consecration , thus, as the teachings of the church appear to indicate,this is changing the Res Sacramenti, from that of the words and intention of Jesus Christ.

It really seems a non-sequitur, since the short form is not used in the new mass.

But, I of course may be missing something...

In Xto,
Vincent


Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:10 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:05 pm
Posts: 42
New post 
.


Last edited by Brian Kenny on Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:25 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 176
New post 
Vince,

You have raised a good point, but I think it is not quite that simple.

A person can validly confect a sacrament by using the due form in its due context without knowing exactly which bit is essential form, which bit is due context and which bit is just "frills".

Granted if you try to baptise saying "I baptise thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary" this is invalid. But as a general rule a sacrament is validly effected at the instant that the essential form is pronounced unless the minister is immediately in the act of adding something which conflicts with and annuls the essential form just pronounced.

St Alphonsus thinks that on the "short-form" opinion, if the priest dies having said "This is the chalice of my blood", the transubstantiation is already accomplished. But he thinks that, as this is at best only an opinion, no one could be sure whether it was or wasn't.

I grant that if the priest had been going to add "but I mean those words only symbolically, with no intention of effecting transubstantiation" this is hardly comptaible with validity. But if the short form is valid in itself, does the subsequent addition of the false and heretical statement that Our Lord's Precious Blood is shed [efficiaciously] for all men unsay what has already been said? I am inclined to doubt it, on the hypothesis (which I don't in fact accept) that the short form is valid in itself.

John


Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:35 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 4:15 pm
Posts: 128
New post 
One thing is for certain... the intentional ambiguity of the Novus Ordo "craftsmen" and their followers, leaves no solid footing for anything but endless argumentation and confusion... Luther's legacy.

BarJonas

_________________
St. John 14:18; St. John 14:27


Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:45 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 4:15 pm
Posts: 128
New post 
Brian,

Your question: "I have a question and I apologize if it appears to be overly simple. How does a non-Catholic promulgate a new Missal that was written by non-Catholics?"

My answer: in the same way that a disciple of Luther and Hegel appears on the balcony in Rome and waves to the cheering throngs below as though he were a Pope. It's referred to in Sacred Scripture as "the mystery of iniquity". But, I assume your question was rhetorical ;>)

Pax Christi,

BarJonas

_________________
St. John 14:18; St. John 14:27


Sat Nov 04, 2006 9:06 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi !

Dear John,

Many thanks for your keen insights. But it appears we are speaking of " apples and oranges", so please correct me if I am wrong, for it seems St. Alphonsus is using the example of a priest whose intent is to follow the rubrics, proper form and intention as outlined in De Defectibus. Then, IF, he died following the words" This is my Blood" with this proper intent to perform the correct " Words of Consecration" he might ( as some theologians argue have confected the sacrament) .

Is the novus ordo priest following the correct words of consecration? And if so, does saying " for you and for ALL men" invalidate said consecration? On this point, I agree with Patrick Omlor writings on this subject. So it would follow ( in my limited understanding) that the new mass when reaching the words “ this is my Blood” , with the known intention of proceeding to “ for all men” would indeed still cause “ doubt” as to if the Blessed Sacrament had been confected.

Dear brother in Christ- I look forward to your correction or confirmation of these thoughts.

In Xto,

Vincent


Sat Nov 04, 2006 9:09 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 4:15 pm
Posts: 128
New post 
Vince,

I understand the construct you use in your question to John... that of the Novus Ordo priest and the words he uses. If that "priest" were to confect, then we come full circle to the question of invalid or doubtful ordinations in the New religion... and that, I'm sure, has been thoroughly addressed previously. When both the consecration and the ordination of the priest are in such serious question... we know by faith and obedience that Holy Mother Church has not led us down the path of "doubt and ambiguity" (the "bass and treble" of the "stranger's voice"). I only offer this as I see demonstrated the seamless nature of The Truth... where one problem leads inevitably to another when The Divine Deposit is tampered with.

Pax Christi,

BarJonas

_________________
St. John 14:18; St. John 14:27


Sat Nov 04, 2006 9:35 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4337
New post 
BarJonas wrote:
A bit of "venting", among friends. Thank you for bearing with me :wink:


No problem. Actually, I think you have an art for putting into words some of the more subtle thoughts and feelings we all have. This post was certainly a bit of a purple patch, as we say down here. Thank you.

All,

I didn't bother noting Mr. Sungenis's reference to the Council of Trent (especially since he referred constantly throughout the night to the Catechism of Trent and then switched to the Decrees of Trent at the end) so I can't look up his claim. Did anybody do so, and what was the fruit?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sat Nov 04, 2006 10:11 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:05 pm
Posts: 42
New post 
.


Last edited by Brian Kenny on Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sat Nov 04, 2006 10:26 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 4:15 pm
Posts: 128
New post 
Hello again, Brian...

Your thoughts and questions are, as some would say, right on point. Were "knowledge" Faith's "master" in this life, we would all be in a connundrum... as, evidently, "Faith, Hope and Charity remain" (1 Cor. 13), and now we know only "in part". I think the seeds of your answer are quite apparent in your questions and statements, believing as I do that they come from an honest heart that seeks Christ above all else. That said, having gone public on this forum as an "unlearned" (in most respects), I will defer to my friends here (who put up with me so graciously), to reply... and we can both learn much from them. I am heartened by your sincere questions and hunger... truly!

BarJonas ("Johnson" in Aramaic, I'm told)

God Bless you, Brian!

_________________
St. John 14:18; St. John 14:27


Sat Nov 04, 2006 10:46 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:04 pm
Posts: 38
Location: Australia
New post 
Dear John,

Thank you for your most informative reply, which has made things clearer to me.

However, there still seems to me to be a difficulty even if it is not clear whether St. Alphonsus held the short form “communior” to be the truer opinion or, indeed, even if, for arguments sake, it were clear he did not. The difficulty I see is that on the one hand De Defectibus teaches that the long form “communior” is necessary for consecration to take place, whereas on the other hand St. Alphonsus puts forward the short form as, at the very least, a permissible opinion.

So the question is, are the faithful permitted to hold the short form “communior” in opposition to the teaching of De Defectibus (a position which I don’t believe the faithful are at liberty) and if not, how is it that St. Alphonsus, who must have been familiar with the teaching, ‘believed otherwise’?

Dom Pook[/u][/i]


Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:42 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 176
New post Reply to Vince
Dear Vince,

The issue as I understand it is this: Catholics may tentatively hold the opinion that the words "This is my Blood" suffice for the validity of the consecration of the chalice. They may also reject this view and in rejecting it they would have better support from higher authorities, but those who hold that the short form suffices are within their rights.

Now on the hypothesis that the short form is sufficient for validity on its own, clearly a priest who simply stops at "This is the chalice of my Blood", omitting the rest of the consecration formula has validly consecrated.

You are pointing out that Novus Ordo priests (even if validly ordained) do not stop there. They go on to add other words, falsely attributed to Our Lord, and which, given the clear Catholic tradition that these words refer to the efficacious redemption, are heretical by implying that all men will be saved. You object that the opinion favouring the validity of the short form on its own is therefore irrelevant. The Novus Ordo vernacular consecration is something that no theologian had previously envisaged or commented on and everything therefore points to the conclusion of its invalidity.

I have correctly understood you?

Now to this I answer that in the case of other sacramental formulae, for instance that of baptism, the theologians generally hold that once the essential form has been pronounced, the sacrament is valid and nothing added subsequently could render it invalid unless the minister continued "in the same breath" to add words which directly modify the sense of the essential form already pronounced.

To my mind this same principle should be applied to the eucharistic formula. Hence if the short form is truly sufficient in itself, the words immediately following will only invalidate it if they actually change the sense of what has already been said. Is this the case? Some would say "yes" because the "Blood" is immediately defined in terms which do not in fact apply to Our Lord's Precious Blood. Others would say "no", arguing that this is merely a subsequent error of fact: they would observe that if a minister of baptism adds immediately after the correct form of baptism that the sacrament does not efface original sin, his statement does not render the baptism invalid.


I am arguing that the second view here is tenable (though not certain) and therefore that for those Catholics who are convinced that the short form is sufficient, the Novus Ordo may be valid. But you are quite right that even for those who hold the short form to be sufficient, the NO may not be valid (on the opinion that the subsequent words effectively unsay what has been said before the sentence was complete).

But of course I myself hold that the long form is absolutely necessary and therefore that the vernacular Novus Ordo is invalid in any case.

God bless you too!

John


Mon Nov 06, 2006 9:22 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 176
New post Reply to DJSP
Dear Dom,

Nice to be back in touch!

I locate two relevant statements in the rubrics of the missal. The first is "de defectibus, X" which states that if the minister dies having pronounced part of the formula of consecration of the Precious Blood, but not all, a second priest must continue the Mass and must repeat the whole form of consecration of the chalice, starting from "Simili modo". St Alphonsus argues that, in view of the theological tenability of the opinion that the short form is valid, the chalice in this case may already be validly consecrated, but may not be, and he therefore says that the form should be pronounced conditionally by the second priest. This to my mind is not a contradiction of the rubrics but an interpretation of them. Moreover, in practice, who would know exactly how far the first priest had got in pronouncing the form of consecration before he collapsed? He might in fact already have finished it. In which case St Alphonsus's idea that the second priest should only consecrate conditionally seems obligatory even for those of us who hold the long form to be essential.

The second statement of the rubrics is in "de defectibus V" where the long form is given as the form of consecration and it is stated that if this form is diminished or changed so as no longer to have the same meaning, the sacrament is not confected ("non conficeret sacramentum").

There can surely be no denying that the opinion in favour of the sufficiency of the short form alone is in direct conflict with this passage. If St Alphonsus holds that Catholics may hold the opinion that the short form is valid, it follows that he considers that this pasage of the rubrics does not contain a binding doctrinal teaching, and that Catholics sufficiently respect the rubrics by obeying them as practical rules even if they differ on a theological point. By approving St Alphonsus's writings Rome has tolerated this view. It also has in its favour the obvious fact that, since the theological debate as to which words are essential goes back long before the rubrics, it would be unusual for the Holy See to choose the rubrics of the Missal as an appropriate kind of text whereby to define a disputed issue of doctrine. Hence the rubrics may be cited as favouring, even from a doctrinal point of view, the necessity of the long form, but they do not seem to constitute an unanswerable argument on the point.

Does this explanation solve your difficulty?

In Domino et Domina,

John


Mon Nov 06, 2006 9:42 am
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post Mr. Daly What Do You Think
John,

What do you think of the following theological presentation concerning NO validity?

http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt89.html

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Mon Nov 06, 2006 3:30 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 176
New post 
Dear Teresa,

1. Hasn't Patrick Omlor already answered this?

2. Have you read yourself the texts of St Thomas which McCarthy is commenting on? To my mind it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that St Thomas considers the long form necessary for validity and would consider invalid any form which substantially altered the sense of the long form as the vernacular Novus Ordo form manifestly does.

3. The Novus Ordo form is a novelty - no Catholic rite known to history says in the words of consecration that Our Lord's Precious Blood was offered for all. That being the case, the opinion in favour of validity could only become certain if confirmed by the magisterium. But the "authority" that gave us this form - the post-conciliar "magisterium" - is clearly not protected from error. It has destroyed the faith of millions. It has encouraged every sort of heresy and sacrilege. Its guarantee is worthless.

4. I have already alluded to de la Taille's Mysterium Fidei on what is necessary for the validity of Mass. This book is one of the most important books on the Eucharist in the history of the Church. I believe an English translation exists. To my mind it destroys in advance any attempt to consider the Novus Ordo as valid. It also sheds great light on many other controversies among traditionalists including the thorny question of the "una cum" Mass. It is one example of why I think we should read more books and fewer articles :)

5. The late Fr Baker said that the invalidity of the Novus Ordo was not only theologically very probable but was also "our anguished hope". God forbid that it should truly be the thrice-sacred Body and Blood of our Saviour those soul-murderers are clowning with.

God bless.

John


Mon Nov 06, 2006 4:49 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post 
Hi John,

Thank you John for your reply. A NO critic of sedevacantism brought this to my attention; intending thereby to disprove my statement that the NO was probably invalid. I did not at all agree with the conclusion of this article (in point of fact, the article was way out of anything I could handle). I agree Patrick Henry Omlor certainly proved St. Thomas' mind on this. I was just wondering about this historical 'allusion' to prior consecration rites to prove validity of the NO. Was their any credibility in the author's assertion of a rite used by St. Ambrose?

You couldn't be more correct when saying that Holy Mother Church could not give us such a thing as the NO which has been catastrophically dangerous and harmful to souls. What things (NO and its incumbent evil) to attribute to the spotless Bride of Christ.

You're absolutely right about reading the texts and not articles. Just wanted your opinion on this 'historical' aspect. I thought it sounded like the assertion that Aramaic didn't have a word for many.

Lest there by any misunderstanding, I hold the sedevacantist position, but I'm leaning more towards the home-alone position than not because of a whole host of issues.

Thanks so much, John for even taking the time to look at this NO theological sophistry (?) to claim validity for the monstrous NO.

God Bless

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Mon Nov 06, 2006 5:03 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi !

Dear John Daly- many thanks for the added insight and clarity.

Dear Teresa,

You stated :
Quote:
but I'm leaning more towards the home-alone position than not because of a whole host of issues.


How does the home alone position offer a better explanation to your concerns regarding "visibility" of the clergy i.e. Apostolic succession as regards jurisdiction?

In Xto,
Vincent


Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:07 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 4:15 pm
Posts: 128
New post home-aloneness....
Hi Teresa,

Not knowing your location and what is available to you, I offer this verse for contemplation, and forgive me if I do so wrongly: "And let us consider one another, to provoke unto charity and good works: Not forsaking our assembly, as some are accustomed; but comforting one another, and so much the more as you see the day approaching." (Hebrews 10:24,25) Hunters isolate their prey... sheep huddle together by instinct... and these days wait patiently for the shepherd's voice, once again. I appreciate your posts and your zeal for Truth... more than you know.

Bahhhhh...

BarJonas

_________________
St. John 14:18; St. John 14:27


Tue Nov 07, 2006 5:13 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 176
New post 
Dear Teresa,

Don't worry - I'm not imagining that you are on the point of going off to the NO.

I hope to find a few minutes to add some remarks on "Mgr" McCarthy's argument based on his misunderstanding of St Ambrose and St Thomas, but I haven't got them at the moment!

I also appreciate that the home-alonist tendency you mention may possibly be due not so much to theoretical conviction that Catholics shouldn't go to Mass (we all know they should, don't we?), but to specific difficulties of conscience associated with chapels in your area - difficulties which you might not have if Catholic clergy would kindly refrain from imposing as conditions of receiving the sacraments agreement, theoretical or practical, with various conclusions which they consider to be obviously true, or the avoidance of various other groups they consider to be obviously Very Naughty People.

God bless and guide you in your reflections.

John


Tue Nov 07, 2006 7:45 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi !



Quote:
Quote:
but I'm leaning more towards the home-alone position than not because of a whole host of issues.


How does the home alone position offer a better explanation to your concerns regarding "visibility" of the clergy i.e. Apostolic succession as regards jurisdiction?


Dear Teresa,

I hope my question does not appear aggressive, given your concerns with the handling jurisdiction and visibility of the Church in the sede position, when you mentioned your leaning towards the Home Alone view. I was interested in your thoughts regarding that positions handling of the concerns you have. But again this was not meant to put you " on the spot".

In Xto,
Vincent


Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:35 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 4:15 pm
Posts: 128
New post 
Hi Vince... hope your day was a good one. I think you asked rightly out of true charity when you posed your question. I simply respect Teresa's willingness to accept an empty Chair, and continue to show her love of the Papacy and the Church by asking the truly hard questions. As we all know, such an acceptance is wrought with difficulty and unrelenting emotion. Thus, we need one another more than ever as the discussion... painful though it be... continues. I'm so very grateful to all on this forum who provide spiritual solace and instruction along the way.

John Daly... my thanks as well for your watchfulness and concern. many and sincere thanks...


Littler than the least of the littlest who think they're the "least"... (I do blather on, don't I)...

Someone laugh... fully at my expense ;>)

BarJonas

_________________
St. John 14:18; St. John 14:27


Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:00 am
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:05 pm
Posts: 42
New post 
.


Last edited by Brian Kenny on Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:35 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post 
Thank you all for your kind and generous remarks. JSD you seem to have hit the nail on the head. We certainly all want to attend the Holy Sacrifice as often as we can. Difficulties with conscience certainly do present themselves in our suffering condition, and sometimes give one pause for genuine concern as to what path to take. The McCarthy essay doesn't really need your precious time, but it would help if you did de-bunk this essay by pointing out his 'misunderstanding' of St. Thomas, (you'd think he'd understand it by now, what with Mr. Omlor's essays). I simply wanted to know about that reference to an 'ancient Ambrosian' rite. Just too convenient, wouldn't you say? By the by, off to the NO ... that's a title to a new song, right? :lol:

Vincent, I would like to give you an answer about visibility, jurisdiction, etc. I have no answers. That's why I was pestering the forum about the issue. One of the greatest sufferings is to walk on blindly in the Faith not having the answers or surety of our steps. :cry: We must always reach back to go forward. The home alone position is as fraught with difficulties as any other; the only solace in it, I think, is the lack of 'contention' sometimes present at the chapels.

BarJonas, you continue to have a way with words! Today, I was just thinking about the passage in Sacred Scripture on the Good Shepherd: " ... I know mine, and mine know Me." " ... they shall hear my voice". I was reflecting on this sheep hearing the Shepherd's call. Thank you for reflective, poetic posts. "Not forsaking our assembly, as some are accustomed ...", good food for thought.

One further thought, I think that there is no better treatise on the necessity of the entire (or long) form of consecration for validity than Patrick Henry Omlor's series of essays now found in his book The Robber Church. Mr. Omlor seems to 'read' St. Thomas' mind on this subject. Long before anyone else was standing on the front lines in defense of our Faith, Mr. Omlor was there ... alone. He had to bear the scoffs, opprobrium, and isolation of 'standing tall in the Faith' before many of us were born. Well educated in scholastic philosophy and theology, Mr. Omlor's essays, imho, leave absolutely no doubt about the necessity of the entire form for validity of consecration.

When you read Fr. Fahey, Dom Gueranger, of course the wonderful pre-VII papal encyclicals et. al., you hear the shepherd so clearly. You just bask in the wonderful peace and joy of 'being home' (sensus Catholicus). You hold Our Holy Mother's hand, you're sitting in her lap, so-to-speak. In a similar way, Mr. Omlor's essays convey that same surety: that same 'sensus Catholicus'. For those who want to understand this issue, The Robber Church is an important work for understanding the necessity of the entire (long) form for validity. :!:

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Wed Nov 08, 2006 1:37 am
Profile

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 4:15 pm
Posts: 128
New post 
Brian,

Thank you for your laughter... one-a-day, at least, is helpful. God Bless and strengthen you, and Teresa... a most intrepid soul! If any on this forum are interested, I've written a piece of music recently (the culmination of years) that I'd like to share... I think it can be emailed and downloaded to a CD. It's called "Tertius Dies"... The Third Day (if I got the Latin right). Some have found it quite uplifting. Happy to share it....

Past bedtime...

BarJonas

_________________
St. John 14:18; St. John 14:27


Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:02 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi !

Dear Teresa,

Thanks for sharing, your no doubt feeling the wounds that the mystical body suffers, as the Church goes through this crucifixion . When we recall the great majesty of the Catholic Church prior to the revolution with all the splendid cathedrals where the August Sacrifice of the Altar was offered in abundance one is drawn to Psalm 136;

“ Upon the rivers of Babylon, there we sat and wept: when we remembered Sion”

But alas, the Mystical Body in this dark night of Holy Saturday , the resurrection will come !

Rejoice, in the remnant Church, for in God;s mercy we do have valid Priests, Bishops, August Sacrifice of the Altar, and true Sacraments. All is in God's hands.

John Daly stated in the early days of the BF something that I found as profound as it is comforting;

“ Once we get firmly into our heads that we do not have to save the Church, we have to be saved by the Church, the mystery ceases to perturb. This crisis will end, and God will end it, by men who will either be regularly commissioned by His Church or else will do miracles to bear witness to their extraordinary mission. “

Teresa- let us rejoice in what we have, for with these gifts “ Our cup doth overflow” :)

And the valid traditional bishops, in a mysterious way ( at least in my humble view) do have a " mission" per say in the Church, Our Savior called them to the priesthood, and then to the Episcopate, granted, they do not have legal jurisdiction, but, they do dispense the Sacraments, and offer prudence and guidance to the remnant.


In Xto,
Vincent


Last edited by Vince Sheridan on Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:05 am
Profile

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 4:15 pm
Posts: 128
New post 
Beautifully put, from a soul well-tested, Vince. Thank you...

BarJonas

PS> I really want some of you guys to hear this piece of music... someone tell me how to email it correctly.

_________________
St. John 14:18; St. John 14:27


Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:15 am
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 5:22 am
Posts: 161
New post 
Quote:
One thing is for certain... the intentional ambiguity of the Novus Ordo "craftsmen" and their followers, leaves no solid footing for anything but endless argumentation and confusion... Luther's legacy.

BarJonas


Sounds much like Lucifer's as well.


Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:31 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 4:15 pm
Posts: 128
New post 
It was, after all, through "subtilty" that the serpent enticed our first parents, according to the flesh, to sin and fall in the garden.... subtilty. Questioning what God had said CLEARLY... and inviting the thought that He was holding out on us. Novus Ordo (r)evolutionary, progressivist thought belies a serpent's hiss that is nauseatingly familiar...

BarJonas

_________________
St. John 14:18; St. John 14:27


Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:50 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 5:22 am
Posts: 161
New post 
It all depends on what God meant by 'don't'.

Did He mean don't eat now or later? Ripe or not ripe? The one on the top or the bottom!

Thank you Prez Clinton! (patron saint of NO)


Wed Nov 08, 2006 11:20 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 4:15 pm
Posts: 128
New post 
Not sure I understand your thought here, in some ways. But remember, it had not only to do with eating.... but with "touching". Revisit the passage carefully and see where Satan sought to strike a tangential advantage... and think about that in the context of what lies at our door, each morning as we awake. 2 Cor. 6:16-18 ) +

BarJonas

_________________
St. John 14:18; St. John 14:27


Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:04 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 176
New post 
Dear Teresa,

I can now come back to you having researched the article by Mgr McCarthy to which you drew my attention in defence of the validity of the vernacular Novus Ordo. What follows has in fact turned into a little article. Here goes…

CREDIBILITY OF MGR McCARTHY ON THE VALIDITY OF THE NOVUS ORDO http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt89.html

As we know, one main objection to the validity of the vernacular Novus Ordo is that it falsifies the words “pro multis” by translating them “for all” or “for all men”.

If you try to save the orthodoxy of “for all” by understanding these words as relating to the sufficiency of the sacrifice, you have made a substantial change of meaning, and thereby rendered the sacrament invalid. If you understand “for all” as referring to the efficacy of the sacrifice, you have actual heresy in your form of consecration (universal salvation), which few will consider compatible with validity. If you maintain that the words “many” and “all” are interchangeable in one or more of the relevant languages, you merely make a fool of yourself in public without altering anything. Hence it is not surprising that those who wish to defend the validity of the Novus Ordo have generally resorted to the simple solution of saying that the words “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood” suffice for validity and that the other words printed in the missal and spoken by the priest as belonging to the form of consecration are not really necessary and can be ignored in any assessment of the validity of the Novus Ordo.

One very powerful argument against this defence is that St Thomas Aquinas very carefully addresses in his Summa Theologiae the question of which words are necessary for valid consecration of the Precious Blood and concludes without the slightest ambiguity that the whole formula from “Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei” right through to “in remissionem peccatorum” is needed.

The task McCarthy has set himself is to re-interpret St Thomas so that he doesn’t mean what he says, or at least may not mean what he says.

An important part of McCarthy’s case is based on the fact that St Thomas, in his treatment of which words effect the consecration at Mass (S.T. III, q.78 ), quotes with approval a passage from St Ambrose which gives as the formula of consecration of the chalice, “For this is My Blood.”

McCarthy: “In fact, the very authority which he [St Thomas] quotes for the sed contra of article 1 is precisely the De Sacramentis of St. Ambrose, according to which document the form for the consecration over [sic] the bread in the late fourth century was "For this is my Body, which will be broken for many," and the form for the consecration over [sic] the wine was simply "For this is my Blood." And this long form for the consecration over the bread corresponded to similar forms in all of the Eastern Rites. Thus a question that St. Thomas faced, even though he does not refer explicitly to it, was whether the short form of the then current Latin Rite was even valid, seeing that it omits all reference to the sacrificial character of the act.”

Having assured us that St Thomas “faced” a “question” which he nowhere mentions, on the basis of an alleged fact of palaeo-liturgy which St Thomas was allegedly aware of, McCarthy goes on to draw the following conclusion:

“It seems likely (although not obvious) to me that, in these three articles of question 78, St. Thomas has first defended the validity of the short form of consecration over the bread and then shown the fittingness of expressing the mystery of the Passion in the form for the consecration of the wine, while, at the same time, allowing that the sacrificial character and the fruits of the Passion could be expressed rather in a long form for the consecration of the bread, and thus not excluding the validity of the short form of consecration of the wine reported in his initial authority, the De Sacramentis of St. Ambrose.”

It is understandable that this might be found convincing by the reader relying on McCarthy for his information instead of actually consulting any of these texts and the views of solid Catholic scholars on them. But the reality is very different. On consultation of the sources, one doesn’t know whether to laugh or to cry. The only honest remark McCarthy makes is that his solution is “not obvious”. It sure ain’t!

Very simply, St Thomas enquires which words are necessary and decides that the whole form is necessary, giving abundant proofs of this fact. The few who have tried to call this into question in the past have recurred to the argument that St Thomas in fact uses the words “belong to the substance of the form” which, they suggest, may mean something different from “are essential to validity”.

But this argument does not succeed for a reason stated by McCarthy himself, on the authority of Doronzo: “it does not help to object that, for St. Thomas, the following words are not of the essence of the form, but only of the substance of the form…" because, in III, q. 60, art. 8, corp., St. Thomas, speaking about the sacraments in general, says: "It is clear that, if anything is subtracted of those things which are of the substance of the sacramental form (de substantia formae sacramentalis), the required sense of the words is taken away and, consequently, the sacrament is not accomplished."

No serious and unprejudiced reader of St Thomas can be left in any doubt that the Angelic Doctor believes the whole form to be necessary for validity. The whole of Question 78 article 3 is devoted to demonstrating that this is so.

But McCarthy decides to read things backwards. St Thomas in his treatment quotes a text of St Ambrose. Thus he implies his intention to agree with St Ambrose. But St Ambrose, in quoting the words of consecration does not give the whole form of the consecration of the chalice as we now have it. So St Thomas perhaps (McCarthy is careful not to overplay his hand) may have intended to mean that the only words really necessary were those quoted by St Ambrose. St Thomas actually says the exact opposite of this, but of course if a possible indirect implication might mean (in McCarthy’s innovative opinion) the contrary of what he says, we should carefully consider rejecting the undoubted fact in favour of the far-fetched hypothesis…

From now on, McCarthy’s technique is one of subtle dishonesty by implication. Here are some examples:

1. Wherever St Thomas uses the Latin verb “oportere”, which normally means “must” or “to be necessary”, McCarthy coyly adopts the ambiguous archaism “behoove” to weaken the natural sense.
2. In a scriptural commentary, St Thomas says that it is not fitting to pretend that “This is the chalice of My Blood” is sufficient. Aha, cries McCarthy: it is not fitting to think that the N.O. is valid, but it may yet be valid if we could just overcome our repugnance for the unfittingness! Thus we first distort the meaning of St Thomas’s Scripture commentary and then use it to outweigh the entirely unambiguous Summa Theologiae.
3. “St.Thomas does not deny that there can be variant liturgical expressions of this form.” Er, well, no, he doesn’t. But he would expect that for variant forms to be valid they would contain, at least as to substantial meaning, the words he thinks are necessary for validity, wouldn’t he? If McCarthy had consulted Archdale King’s collection of over one hundred variant forms of consecration from all nations and times, he would have been struck that “pro multis” appears in every form ever recognised as valid by the Catholic Church.
4. “…the main point that St. Thomas seems to be making here is that the power of the Passion of Our Lord is more properly expressed in the transubstantiation of the wine”. So as long as we retain what McCarthy thinks is “the main point” we can cheerfully discard the rest.

Also noteworthy is the extraordinary role that the text of St Ambrose plays in McCarthy’s thinking.

He is so overjoyed by the discovery that this text does not contain “pro multis” that he manages in one unproved leap to decide that St Ambrose is quoting “the short form of the then current Latin Rite”. Thus he completely overlooks the distinction between the Roman Rite (the most ancient extant) and the Ambrosian Rite of Milan (the second most ancient in the West) and pretends to believe that the words of consecration of the Roman Canon as we now have them were not yet fixed even at Rome itself at the end of the fourth century (whereas the list of martyrs invoked, much more likely to be varied than the consecration, was clearly fixed over a century earlier). It would require the pen of a Dom Guéranger to give adequate expression to the outrage any Catholic will feel at the suggestion that the Church of Rome had not yet determined her words of consecration at the end of the fourth century and that in order to discover the words she was using we must consult the Church of Milan.

But above all what McCarthy overlooks is that the text of St Ambrose also furnishes no basis for thinking that St Ambrose was using a “short form” for the consecration of the chalice. The text in question is taken from St Ambrose’s De Sacramentis, Book 5. It is true that the saint quotes the text of the Milanese Canon, almost identical to our Roman Canon, and that the Milanese words of consecration which he quotes diverge somewhat, but to conclude that at Milan the words “pro multis” were omitted is impossible for the following reasons:

1. The words “pro multis” are expressly included by St Ambrose in the form for the consecration of the Host, so we have no parallel either with their complete omission or with their being replaced by a heretical alternative as in the Novus Ordo.
2. The text of St Ambrose was delivered orally and was taken down in note form by an unknown listener. There is therefore every possibility that it may contain omissions or errors.
3. The passage in question actually quotes twice the context and words for the consecration of the Host. The first time it is, “Accipite et edite ex hoc omnes: Hoc enim est corpus meum.” The second time it is: “Accipite et edite ex eo omnes: Hoc enim est corpus meum.” Now it is impossible that these should both be accurate. It therefore follows either that St Ambrose was approximating and paraphrasing or else that he has been mis-transcribed.
4. St. Ambrose stops, in quoting the consecration of the chalice, at, “Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes: Hic est enim sanguis meus.” He then intersperses his commentary. He nowhere states that he has quoted the entire form. The observation he makes is that the words which effect the consecration are Christ’s words; that the chalice contains wine and water until the words of Christ are pronounced, whereupon it contains the Precious Blood, as is proved by the words: “This is My Blood.” He has no need to quote any further to make his point.5. It is common for the Fathers, when referring to the words of consecration, to quote them as: “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood” simply as a convenient abridgement. St Thomas himself does this at Q. 78, a. 1, whereas in a. 3, when discussing exactly which words are needed he of course quotes them in full. Hence de la Taille, referring to the patristic evidence as to which words are essential, says: “I omit the objection made on the authority of the Fathers as though when the Fathers say, as they often do, that the consecration takes place at the words ‘Hoc est corpus meum, Hic est sanguis meus,’ we should think that they intend to determine exactly which series of formal words are required. In reality their sole meaning is that the action [consecration] announced takes place when the announcement takes place of the action. (…) In the same way St Thomas himself declares (Q. 78 a. 1, ad 4um), in brief summary, that a priest would consecrate validly if he used just the words ‘Hoc est corpus meum, Hic est calix sanguinis mei’ without any previous narrative text. But in article 3 he states, in his specific examination of the question, that the words ‘Hic est calix sanguinis mei,’ do not suffice without the following words.” (Mysterium Fidei, Eluc. xxxv, n. 2)
6. Thomas was familiar with the words of St Ambrose, as he refers to them and quotes part of them, yet he obviously saw in them not even the shadow of an argument against his conviction that the long form is essential for validity. He is probably a safer guide to the interpretation of St Ambrose than is Mgr McCarthy.
7. The Milanese church is notoriously attached to the Ambrosian liturgy and convinced of its apostolic antiquity. Its canon is substantially the same as the Roman Canon, but contains numerous minor variations, yet its words of consecration as found in its approved liturgical books are exactly the same as in the Roman Rite.

J. S. DALY

Bibliography

Divi Ambrosii Episcopi Mediolanensis Opera, Paris MDLXIX, p. 1149
S. Thomae Aquinatis, Summa Theologiae, pars III, ed. Marietti, Italy, 1956
Abbot Prosper Guéranger: Les Institutions Liturgiques, vol. 1, Paris, 1878
P. Mauritius de la Taille, S.J., Mysterium Fidei, Eluc. xxxv, Paris, 1924


Thu Nov 09, 2006 4:28 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 4:15 pm
Posts: 128
New post 
Thank you, John. This is a most instructive treatment of the Monsignor's attempt at defending the indefensible. How very difficult it must be for him (or perhaps not) to stand in a rotting vineyard, seemingly oblivious to scent of rotting grapes all around, and hawk the wine of the "harlot" (Apolcalypse 17:2). Don't mean to appear harsh, but these NO chaps really tick me off... with their delirious subtilty. especially when touching on the words of consecration.

Pax Christi!

BarJonas

_________________
St. John 14:18; St. John 14:27


Thu Nov 09, 2006 4:58 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:46 pm
Posts: 269
New post 
Dear John,

Thank you so much for your article de-bunking Msgr. McCarthy's sleight of hand which the Italians call 'ecclesialese'. It certainly answered the question about St. Ambrose and the Ambrosian rite. About Msgr. McCarthy, the old maxim is definitely true, "o, what a tangled web we weave, when first we set out to deceive". Thanks again for your time. By the by, can these men really be called 'theologians'? :lol:

God Bless You,

Teresa

_________________
In the Holy Family,
Teresa


Thu Nov 09, 2006 7:28 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4337
New post 
Wonderful work, John. It's amazing what an intelligent mind is capable of missing, or of misinterpreting, once a pre-conceived notion is lodged therein. The defence of "for all" is so obviously wrong that only the most creative solutions will serve.

I sent a link to Mgr. McCarthy, in case he is still interested.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Nov 10, 2006 12:14 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:04 pm
Posts: 38
Location: Australia
New post 
Dear John,

Yes, nice to be back in touch.

Your explanation does solve the difficulty for me. Thank you.

Just out of interest, to your knowledge is De Defectibus in its present form identical to that found in the original Pius V Missal? In other words, do you know whether any additions could possibly have been made to De Defectibus under Pope Pius X, for example?

In Christo,
Dom Pook


Sat Nov 11, 2006 9:43 am
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 176
New post 
I'm afraid I don't really know, Dom, as I haven't got any pre-Pius X altar missal here to compare with, but the relevant extracts from the De Defectibus quoted by authors such as St Alphonsus seem to be identical. I am inclined to think that the rubrics have been left severely alone since St Pius V. If any pope had intended to update them he would probably have adjusted the references to the obligation to light a third candle at the consecration, the missal being placed on a cushion, etc. Even John XXIII made only one or two slight changes - one of them being to suppress the statement that the laity should follow the choir as to the bodily attitude to adopt at Mass.

In Domino et Domina,

John


Sat Nov 11, 2006 8:06 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:04 pm
Posts: 38
Location: Australia
New post 
Dear John,

Re "This book [de la Taille's, "Mysterium Fidei"] is one of the most important books on the Eucharist in the history of the Church. I believe an English translation exists."

Volumes 1 & 2 of De la Taille's 3 volume work, "Mysterium Fidei" has definitely been translated into English (published by Sheed & Ward). Not sure about volume 3.

In Christo,
Dom


Sun Nov 12, 2006 10:52 am
Profile

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 4:15 pm
Posts: 128
New post 
Dom,

Any pointers on I where I might begin a search for these volumes?

Pax Christi!

BarJonas

_________________
St. John 14:18; St. John 14:27


Sun Nov 12, 2006 4:34 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:04 pm
Posts: 38
Location: Australia
New post 
BarJonas,

If you go to the following email address, http://www.abebooks.com/, you will come to Abebooks website. There you will find a search engine for locating books. If you type in 'de la Taille S.J.' where it has "Title" and hit the search button you should get a list of books come up by de la Taille, including "The Mystery of Faith" Volumes 1 & 2, with details of the book as well as the booksellers. If you have any problems let me know.

God Bless,
Dom


Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:13 am
Profile

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 4:15 pm
Posts: 128
New post 
Thanks, very much, Dom. I'm looking forward to getting those volumes and learning all they contain.

God Bless and keep you!

BarJonas

_________________
St. John 14:18; St. John 14:27


Mon Nov 13, 2006 3:33 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.