Abp. Lefebvre and Vatican II

[Timothysis]

So according to the teaching of the Church, by translating pro multis as “for all” teaches universal salvation, since the words in question do not refer to those for whom our Lord died, by only for those who will actually be saved: the fruit of His Passion - the elect. Thus, the words “for all” are not only wrong, they are heretical because they express a false teaching that is rampant in the Church today - the teaching of universal salvation.

A little research turned this up from the Council of Trent:

Whereby it came to pass that the heavenly Father, “the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort” [2 Cor. 1:3], when that “blessed fullness of time” was come [Eph. 1:10; Gal. 4:4] sent to men Christ Jesus [can. 1], his Son, who had been announced and promised [cf. Gen. 49:10, 18], both before the Law and at the time of the Law to many holy Fathers, that He might both redeem the Jews, who were under the Law, and the “gentiles, who did not follow after justice, might attain to justice” [Rom. 9:30], and that all men “might receive the adoption of sons” [Gal. 4:5]. “Him God has proposed as a propitiator through faith in his BLOOD, for our sins” [Rom. 3:25], and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world [1 John 2:2]]

 

[Dauphin]

So, are you implying that the tens of millions of Catholics in the English speaking world who attend and have attended the Mass of PaulVI over the years have actually been assisting at an invalid Mass and therefore have not received any of the sanctifying graces inherent in the Mass? Wow, what a cruel joke on us!

Sorry? Where did I say that?

 

[Timothysis]

The Missal of Paul VI contains the words “for many”. When the words “for all” are used, this missal is not being adhered to.

I seem to remember reading, though I can’t place my mouse on the source at this moment, that the Vatican issued in the early 1970’s a statement that said the translation of “for all” for the latin “pro multis” was “acceptable.”

In any event, the english translation of Pope Paul’s missal, though sadly deficient, is approved by the bishops and, I assume, the Holy See, too. To say that it is not being adhered to is to go a bit too far, in my opinion.

 

[Frosty]

Sorry? Where did I say that?

The Mass commonly celebrated in English today is not according to the Missal of Paul VI.

If I misunderstood the meaning of your words, I apologize. Perhaps you can explain exactly how I ought to understand your meaning?

 

[Dauphin]

I seem to remember reading, though I can’t place my mouse on the source at this moment, that the Vatican issued in the early 1970’s a statement that said the translation of “for all” for the latin “pro multis” was “acceptable.”

Except that “for all” isn’t a translation of “pro multis” any more than “for my buddies” or “for Canadians only” is.

The only problem is that the “translation” means something entirely different from what was being translated. Maybe they should translate “Angus Dei” as “Mutton of God”? It’s close, after all.

 

[Dauphin]

If I misunderstood the meaning of your words, I apologize. Perhaps you can explain exactly how I ought to understand your meaning?

I’m saying that the Missal of Paul VI doesn’t contain the words “for all” in the consecration. Any Mass that uses these words isn’t according to the Missal of Paul VI.

 

[Frosty]

In any event, the english translation of Pope Paul’s missal, though sadly deficient, is approved by the bishops and, I assume, the Holy See, too. To say that it is not being adhered to is to go a bit too far, in my opinion.

Since Pope Benedict XVI has used the words “for all” in every Mass he has celebrated in English during his pontificate one could assume that he knows what he is doing. That is, following the translation that we have at this point in time. I would imagine that once the new translation is approved, he will follow that.

 

[Timothysis]

Except that “for all” isn’t a translation of “pro multis” any more than “for my buddies” or “for Canadians only” is.

But surely you are simply playing a game of semantics now, aren’t you? After all, it sometimes isn’t just the word you are using but also the meaning behind it, too.

The only problem is that the “translation” means something entirely different from what was being translated. Maybe they should translate “Angus Dei” as “Mutton of God”? It’s close, after all.

I understand your point though I can’t say I agree with it.

 

[Timothysis]

Since Pope Benedict XVI has used the words “for all” in every Mass he has celebrated in English during his pontificate one could assume that he knows what he is doing. That is, following the translation that we have at this point in time. I would imagine that once the new translation is approved, he will follow that.

A good point. It would seem that Yours Truly would declare the pope to be involved in heresy since he uses “for all” in his english Masses, not a good position to take.

 

[Timothysis]

So according to the teaching of the Church, by translating pro multis as “for all” teaches universal salvation, since the words in question do not refer to those for whom our Lord died, by only for those who will actually be saved: the fruit of His Passion - the elect. Thus, the words “for all” are not only wrong, they are heretical because they express a false teaching that is rampant in the Church today - the teaching of universal salvation.

Finally,

*"The Council of Trent recognized that the words “For you and for many” are not found in that form in the New Testament. Those words were “joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God.” (Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. 226). The Council of Trent Catechism thus recognizes that it is the Church who determines what the proper form of a sacrament must be (Whitehead, 106). There is no hint that the Catechism was mandating that those precise words “For you and for many” be used for all time. In fact, during the institution of the original Eucharist itself, when Jesus consecrated the first Eucharist, we have different formulas in scripture. Although the gospels of Mark and Matthew have Jesus using the formula “for many” (although not “For you and for many” as the Tridentine rite has it), Luke and Paul do not use the phrase ‘for many’ at all. Paul probably wrote the first consecration in scripture, 1 Cor. 11:23-26:

“For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes”

St. Paul reports receiving this consecratory formula from the Lord himself (by apostolic tradition)(v. 23). Notice, however, that he did not use the words “for many” or “for all”. The same with St. Luke (Lk. 22:14-20). What so-called Traditionalist would have the nerve to say that his consecrations were not valid because Paul does not use the phrase ‘for many’!"*

matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html#IV.%20Is%20%E2%80%9CFor%20All%E2%80%9D%20an%20invalid%20translation%20of%20%E2%80%9CPro%20Vobis%20et%20Pro%20Multis%E2%80%9D?

 

[maurin]

I seem to remember reading, though I can’t place my mouse on the source at this moment, that the Vatican issued in the early 1970’s a statement that said the translation of “for all” for the latin “pro multis” was “acceptable.”

In any event, the english translation of Pope Paul’s missal, though sadly deficient, is approved by the bishops and, I assume, the Holy See, too. To say that it is not being adhered to is to go a bit too far, in my opinion.

Does that tell you something about the Bishops who approved the mistranslation, and the Bishops who continue to approve it? I don’t write this question argumentively, so please don’t receive it that way. It’s only a question.

 

[Yours_Truly]

I take it you maintain that Mass as celebrated according to the Missal of Pope Paul VI is invalid, then?

Thank you for your time.

I don’t know if it’s valid or not; the only thing I do know with certainty is that John Paul II’s approving it means absolutely NOTHING. Here’s why I say that: Both John Paul II and Cardinal Ratziner approved, as valid, a “mass” that has absolutely no words of ocnsecration at all. Every single one of them is missing, yet they claim that the so called “mass” is valid none-the-less.

If that is true, the Catholic Church has lied to us for 2000 years, because it has been very specific in explaning that the proper FORM, MATTER, and INTENT, are required for validity, and has further explained what the proper FORM (words) are. Yet the so called “mass” approved by John Paul II the great and Cardinal Ratzinger included NONE of them. That issue will again rise to the surface and be dealt with by the Church. It is too serious of an error.

But my point is, those whose argument is “but the Pope approved it so it must be valid” is proven erroneous by the fact that John Paul II also approved a Mass that is as obviously invalid as it can get. It contains NO WORDS OF CONSECRATION. Let us pray hard for our current Pope. I think he is a good man trying his best, but unfortunately his being surrounded by modernists most of his life has not been without negative effects on his intellect. That, coupled with the attacks he must endure from the devil, we really need to pray hard for him. But given the almost unbelievable situation that we a laymen find ourselves in, we need to give a little more effort to learning the faith very well, lest we too be misled during this great trial that is shaking the Churhc. God ill reward our good efforts.

The solution is simple: We can argue about the validity or lack thereof of the new mass (and I saw your other posts to me and do have a reply), but the solution is to avoid that mess and find a Traditional Mass where there is no question of it being valid. Dubious Sacramentum, non sacramentum is the priniciple to keep in mind. “A doubtfull sacrament is no sacrament”, meaning if it is in question, take no chances - and trust me, it is in question. Again, I am not saying I am sure it is invalid, I sometimes even lean toward thinking it may be valid, but to do so I have to somewhat ignore what the Church has officially stated at an infallible council.

Regarding some of your posts to me. Read what the Catechism of Trent says about “for all” carefully. Notice who the words “for many” (erroneously translated as “for all”) refer to, and who they do not refer to. Who they refer to is the elect - the fruit of His passion - those who will actually be saved. It is not “all”, but only many" who will be saved. To say “all” will be saved is to teach universal salvation.

 

[Timothysis]

I don’t know if it’s valid or not; the only thing I do know with certainty is that John Paul II’s approving it means absolutely NOTHING. Here’s why I say that: Both John Paul II and Cardinal Ratziner approved, as valid, a “mass” that has absolutely no words of ocnsecration at all. Every single one of them is missing, yet they claim that the so called “mass” is valid none-the-less.

I assume you mean the Anaphora of Addai & Mari? Perhaps this will clear things up a bit:

"The doctrinal question before the Pontifical Council is whether the incoherent verbal form of the anaphora’s Institution Narrative retains the substance of the sacrament. The Council decides that the “the words of the Institution are not absent in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, but explicitly mentioned in a dispersed way, from the beginning to the end, in the most important passages of the Anaphora.” [Emphasis added.] Thus the Council upholds the traditional requirement that the words of Institution must be explicitly present in a valid Eucharistic Prayer. The oddity of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is that these words are dispersed throughout the liturgy, but are nonetheless explicitly present. "

"In the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, the Institution Narrative is dispersed throughout the Liturgy, rather than concentrated in one place. However, we will find that it contains the same essential verbal elements of the valid rite of Pope Sixtus. One of the anaphora’s central prayers opens:

O my Lord, in thy manifold and ineffable mercies, make a good and gracious remembrance for all the upright and just fathers who were pleasing before thee, in the commemoration of the body and blood of thy Christ, which we offer to thee upon the pure and holy altar, as thou hast taught us.

This explicitly indicates that the Body and Blood of Christ are being offered to the Lord as an altar sacrifice. The phrase “as thou hast taught us” can only refer to the Last Supper discourse. Although the words of Jesus’ discourse are not recited, they are expressly referenced in this prayer, which claims to act in accordance with our Lord’s command to commemorate His sacrifice. Elsewhere, the anaphora removes any doubt as to the meaning of this sacrificial offering:

Glory to you, my Lord, for you have called me, even feeble me, in your grace, and have brought me near unto you in your compassion, and have established me as a designated member in the great body of your holy catholic church, to offer before you this living, holy, and acceptable sacrifice, which is the memorial of the passion, death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, - through whom you were well-pleased and reconciled to forgive the sins of all men.

And as another example:
*
"…as in the Anaphora of St. Xystus (Pope Sixtus II)…This ancient Eastern Orthodox liturgy, attributed to a Pope(!), omits all of the words of Christ at the Last Supper, save His admonition to do these things in remembrance of Him. Nonetheless, this Institution Narrative retains what is essential, explicitly declaring that the blessed bread is now “His propitiatory Body for life eternal”, and the content of the cup is now “His propitiatory Blood for life eternal.” These words, in the context of a liturgy that clearly intends to consecrate the bread and wine as the Body and Blood of Christ as a sacrifice for our sins, constitute a valid Institution Narrative. The priest acts in persona Christi not by reciting Christ’s words in the first person, but by performing the same act of consecration that Christ performed at the Last Supper. *

Apparently, the validity of any rite is not solely based upon any one particular set of words. Consider this comment carefully, "The priest acts in persona Christi not by reciting Christ’s words in the first person, but by performing the same act of consecration that Christ performed at the Last Supper." A valid consecration is not based upon saying the “magic words” but by "performing the same act of consecration that Christ performed at the Last Supper."

Finally, here is another interesting fact that deserves consideration: "A study done by Dom Leclerq finds that there have been no fewer than 89 variations in the formulas for consecration in the history of the Church. (Whitehead, 109, Dom Leclerq, Dictionnaire d’Archeologie Chretienne et de Liturgie (Col. 730-750).

Would you suggest that these variations in consecration formulas render any Mass invalid because they don’t explicitly use “for many?” In any event, it is very dangerous ground to suppose that a pope’s approval of a Eucharistic liturgy “means absolutely NOTHING.” As the Vicar of Christ he holds a unique position where things he "holds bound on earth are bound also in heaven, or loosed on earth are loosed in heaven." Are you going to presume to judge the authority of the pope?

 

[Yours_Truly]

I assume you mean the Anaphora of Addai & Mari? Perhaps this will clear things up a bit:

It didn’t. It was merely a lot of words used in an attempt to confuse an issue that is very clear. The FORM is necessary for the validity of a sacrament, and the FORM of consecration at Mass is well known.

I might respond to your points in detail using infallible documents from the Church, but I might not. It is probably a waste of time because you will reject the *clear, infallible, and consistent teachings of the Church *in favor of the obvious error. I have little doubt that most Catholics today would deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ if John Paul II the great would have denied it.

With respect to the invalidity of a Mass that has no words of consecration, it is so obvious that it is inavlid that it really needs no explanation. I think even the new Catechism gives the FORM of the consecration.

So, keep your eyes on the thread and maybe I’ll post some of the infallible teachings of the Church on this point, but I am pretty certain that you will reject them. Why? Because John Paul the great did not believe them, and you prefer to follow the errors of John Paul the Great rather than the infallible and consistent teachings of the Church.

Speaking of blindly following the errors of John Paul the Great, it reminds me of an old issue of the Wanderer. Someone wrote in to the Q&A section and said “what’s all this non-sense I am hearing about universal salvation”. The questioner proceeded to quote all of the passages from the Bible that expose this error.

What was the reply of the Wanderer? Being good blind followers of the blind, they said “well, let’s see what John Paul II thinks about the subject”, and then proceeded to quote John Paul II implying that all men are saved.

BTW, it is a formally condemned error to even say that all Christians (meaning Catholics) are saved. This was condemned by Pope Pius II and can be found in Denzingers. Therefore to say that all men are saved is that much more erroneous, yet that didn’t stop the Wanderer from quoting John Paul II who publicly expressed doubt that all men are not saved - and he did this in two places: in a Wednesday General Audience and in one of his books.

The point is, when a Pope deviates into error, most Catholics will follow him - especially in a day such as ours when most Catholics are completely ignorant of the faith. Therefore, I don’t expect you to adhere to a truth that John Paul II denied, which is why I might not even bother providing you with the evidence from the the document De defectibus from the Council of Florence (AD 1441) that explains exactly what is necessary for the validity of the Mass, and what will cause it to be invalid.

 

[Timothysis]

It didn’t. It was merely a lot of words used in an attempt to confuse an issue that is very clear. The FORM is necessary for the validity of a sacrament, and the FORM of consecration at Mass is well known.

Fine, so you are smarter and more holy that the pope. Good for you. Go team go.

 

[daughteroftruth]

Fine, so you are smarter and more holy that the pope. Good for you. Go team go.

So now the Church teaches that the Pope is not only perfect in his practice of Catholicism, but that he’s the smartest man too I feel so cheated, we never went over this in CCD. How about backing up that implication?

 

[daughteroftruth]

I have little doubt that most Catholics today would deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ if John Paul II the great would have denied it.

Sad isn’t it? But how true.

I think some of us should refresh our memories with the Acts of the Apostles. Chapter 1, beginning with verse 10.

 

[malphono]

Yours Truly:

It didn’t. It was merely a lot of words used in an attempt to confuse an issue that is very clear. The FORM is necessary for the validity of a sacrament, and the FORM of consecration at Mass is well known.

Fine, so you are smarter and more holy that the pope. Good for you. Go team go.

It doesn’t happen often, but for this one I’m on your side, Tim. I really wish people who are obviously totally ignorant of Eastern and Oriental liturgy and theology would refrain from passing judgment.

And I can’t stand it, so I have to add: what does a discussion of the Anaphora of Addai & Mari and/or anything else Eastern and/or Oriental, have to do with the OP?

 

[DavidPalm]

And I can’t stand it, so I have to add: what does a discussion of the Anaphora of Addai & Mari and/or anything else Eastern and/or Oriental, have to do with the OP?

Ah! I was just sitting here thinking how it might be possible to salvage this thread. I think perhaps it’s not.

My original point was that Abp. Lefebvre did sign all the documents of Vatican II with his own hand, even Dignitatis Humanae despite some very weak protests to the contrary (his signature is on the document in the Vatican archives). I can totally understand that he had certain serious reservations. I can totally understand him coming to believe that the whole council was imprudent, due to the council documents’ very unfortunate ambiguity. Remember, it was Msgr. George Kelly, not known as any sort of traditionalist, who stated in his book Battle for the American Church that: “The documents of the Council contain enough basic ambiguities to make the postconciliar difficulties understandable” (p. 20).

What I reject is Yours_Truly’s contention that the documents are obviously heretical and that there really isn’t any other way to take them. Again, it was stated that:

it teaches explicitly what has been condemned by the Church - and I am ready and willing to back up that statement. The only way to not arrive at a heretical interpretation of Vatican II is by twisting its words to make them fit with what the Church has always taught, and this task is either impossible, or almost impossible.

And yet, Abp. Lefebvre signed each of these documents. And the whole point of ambiguity is that it’s, well, ambiguous which means that they admit of multiple interpretations, not just one obviously heretical one.

My own view is that we desperately need clarification from the Holy See on some number of key points, declaring how in fact the wording of the Vatican II documents on those points can be harmonized with the Church’s perennial teaching. I believe that is what Abp. Lefebvre called for and it is what Bishop Fellay is calling for. But there is a more radical element in the SSPX which calls for the outright condemnation of the Second Vatican Council. It is my view that this will never happen and that those who hang their hopes on this outcome will ultimately be disappointed and will, eventually, place themselves outside of the Church if they have not already done so. I believe that traditionalists need to hang tough on insisting that we receive unambiguous and official clarifications on disputed points, but that the call for the outright rejection of the Council is naive at best and totally destructive at worst.

 

[malphono]

malphono:

And I can’t stand it, so I have to add: what does a discussion of the Anaphora of Addai & Mari and/or anything else Eastern and/or Oriental, have to do with the OP?

Ah! I was just sitting here thinking how it might be possible to salvage this thread. I think perhaps it’s not. …