Changes to Words of Consecration

[CollegeKid]

I admit I’ve been kind of worried lately about Gerry Matatics’ charge that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid because the term “mystery of faith” was removed from the canon of the mass and “for you and for many” was changed to “for you and for all.” Are the traditional words of consecration found in the gospel narratives? If not, where did they come from? In any event, does anyone have any idea why there were altered, and how to refute Matatics’ claim that these changes have rendered the Mass invalid? Thanks and God bless.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, first, right after the consecration of the wine, doesn’t the priest say, “Let us proclaim the mystery of faith” to which we respond with 4 different responses (probably the most familiar to you being, “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again”). So there went that red herring.

But finally, Mr. Matatics has some 'splaining to do if he considers the translation of “pro multis” (now for all–and quite soon to be changed back to for many, as a BTW) to invalidate the Mass. Jesus did, after all, die for every one of us–the all–but only some–the many–will accept His sacrifice.

But the Traditional Mass is neither the first, nor the only Mass, to be considered canonically valid. IOW, the traditional Mass that is said now under indult is a Mass that was itself ‘changed’ back in the 16th century or so–from a Mass that was itself changed in centuries back, etc. And if I’m not mistaken there is a valid rite which does not even use the traditional words of consecration.

 

[johnnycatholic]

What about when the priest changes the words “He took bread, gave it to His disciples . . .” to “He took bread, gave it to His friends . . .”?
Does this affect the validity of the sacrament?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, there is at least one Eucharistic prayer (possibly more than one) in the Masses for Children which use those terms, esp. “friends”.

You will find the occasional priest (I know one–not my priest though) who does ‘mix it up’ by using those prayers even if it’s not specifically the Mass for Children.

Which makes those Masses I believe illicit–but not invalid.

And the really most important words are from “Take this and eat–this is my body. . .this is my blood. . .”

So as long as he isn’t adlibbing those, it’ll be illicit, but not invalid.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Are the traditional words of consecration found in the gospel narratives? If not, where did they come from?

While there do occur institution narratives in the synoptic gospels (but not in John), I believe the traditional words of consecration are taken from Paul’s recounting in 1Corinthians 11.

tee

 

[m134e5]

I admit I’ve been kind of worried lately about Gerry Matatics’ charge that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid because the term “mystery of faith” was removed from the canon of the mass

Jesus didn’t say those words, does that mean the Last Supper was invalid?

and “for you and for many” was changed to “for you and for all.”

That is a matter of translation- the text in question, in the Latin version of the Novus Ordo, is unchanged. The English translation will be corrected soon. Just because you don’t say what the blood is for doesn’t mean it isn’t there. If the priest says “This is my body” “This is my blood”, it’s there.

Are the traditional words of consecration found in the gospel narratives?

pretty much only “This is my Body”, and “This is my Blood”.

If not, where did they come from?

They crept in there as other parts of the liturgy did- after 2000 years, things evolve.

In any event, does anyone have any idea why there were altered,

“For many” to “for all”- probably just the political correctness that was rampant in the 1970’s.

dropping of “mystery of faith” from the consecration- probably because Jesus didn’t say it and they were trying to simplify the liturgy, and it seemed appropriate to simplify it in that way at the time.

how to refute Matatics’ claim that these changes have rendered the Mass invalid?

You don’t. People like him cannot be reasoned with. They are protestant fundamentalists who were drawn to the art and music and architecture and traditions of the Catholic Church, came to believe in the Sacraments and devotions, but reject the papacy (unless it is a pope they have formed). In that sense, they remain just as protestant as they ever were.

 

[CollegeKid]

Thank you, you’ve all been very helpful. Merry Christmas!

 

[puzzleannie]

I admit I’ve been kind of worried lately about Gerry Matatics’ charge that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid because …

last I heard the Vatican was in charge of approving translations of the order of the Mass and establishing that order, not Gerry Matatics.

 

[Karl_Keating]

Matatics is not a reliable guide, on the Mass or anything else.

He believes that Benedict XVI is not only not the pope but isn’t even a bishop. To Matatics, he’s only “Fr. Ratzinger” (because he was ordained a priest, but not a bishop, under the old rite of ordination).

Matatics also holds that the religious organization headed by “Fr. Ratzinger” is not the real Catholic Church and that the roughly 4,000 bishops around the world who think they are part of the magisterium are not, in fact, part of it (besides, they aren’t real bishops anyway).

Matatics says he rejects the religious organization that you and I know to be, in fact, the Catholic Church. This means he no longer is a Catholic. He has become a Protestant again.

 

[CollegeKid]

Karl, I’m honored that you felt my humble post worth responding to.

 

[The_Augustinian]

I’m not sure what Mr Matatics thinks of the Eastern churches in schism, but the Divine Liturgy they use has no mention of the words “mystery of faith” in the words of consecration. This liturgy of St. John Chrysostom predates the Tridentine by centuries.

 

[AJV]

I’m not sure what Mr Matatics thinks of the Eastern churches in schism, but the Divine Liturgy they use has no mention of the words “mystery of faith” in the words of consecration. This liturgy of St. John Chrysostom predates the Tridentine by centuries.

But actually parts of the Mass especially the Canon are older than it. Though the first recorded example of the words of Consecration as currently is from the 6-7th century. But it is, as you said, silly to argue that the lack of “mysterium fidei” invalidates the Consecration since the Roman liturgy (and those it has influenced) are the only ones with it.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I admit I’ve been kind of worried lately about Gerry Matatics’ charge that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid because the term “mystery of faith” was removed from the canon of the mass and “for you and for many” was changed to “for you and for all.” Are the traditional words of consecration found in the gospel narratives? If not, where did they come from? In any event, does anyone have any idea why there were altered, and how to refute Matatics’ claim that these changes have rendered the Mass invalid? Thanks and God bless.

++ “Mysterium Fidei” is itself an addition - & it used to be said by the deacon, not by the priest. ++