Consecration of the Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter makin503
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

makin503

Guest
Why is it that the Catholic Church is the only church that has changed the words of the Consecration to say: …which will be shed for you and for all. Unfortunately I spent a few years going to non-Catholic churches and they all still say: …which will be shed for you and for many. Why has the Catholic Church changed the wording?
 
A couple of points. First, the Catholic Church is the only Church that has a valid consecration.

Second, the words of the consecration have not changed. In the official Latin translation, the words of the translation is still “pro multis”. It is in the English translation that the argument over many/all erupts. I am not an expert, but I have read good arguments for both translations. To me, it is just a tempest in a tea pot.
 
“A couple of points. First, the Catholic Church is the only Church that has a valid consecration.”

The consecrations (and all the sacraments) of the various Orthodox churches are valid as well.
 
Actually, from what I can see, the pope changed the Gospel to match the new English and several other languages of the consecration:
Here is the Pope’s own Encyclical: ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA
Click to expand...
The Latin Text Original is:
Deinde calicem in manus vini sustulit eisque dixit: “Accipite et bibite omnes: hic calix novum aeternumque testamentum est in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis funditur et pro omnibus in remissionem peccatorum” (cfr* Mc *14, 24; Lc 22, 20; 1 Cor 11, 25). Grati erga Dominum Iesum sumus Nobis qui permisit eodem loco ut repeteremus, mandato illius oboedientes: “Hoc facite in meam commemorationem” (Lc 22, 21), voces eas ab Eo duobus annorum abhinc milibus pronuntiatas.

See: vatican.va/edocs/LAT0762/__P1.HTM
Lk 22;20:
In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.
Matt 26;28 :
For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. DRV

I have no idea why he references Matt 14;24.​

From the Catechism of the Council of Trent:
Click to expand...

From Part II: The Sacraments, under the Explanation of the Form to be Used for the Consecration of the Wine:
The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God.
They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore (Our Lord) said: “For you”, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.
With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, . . .​

It may be that the New Mass and the Encyclical quote of the Gospel is a preamble to universalism.
In any case he is bent on making the bible and the consecration say ALL. No one, especially protestants and orthodox, will follow that any more than the faithful follow the extra illuminated mysteries of the rosary.

The fact is, it was done, and he does not like following the Council of Trent. The question is, What’s he up to? He won’t comment on it and he won’t change his mind about correcting it, and no one of the Faithful ever had this as a contention, so it wasn’t to confim the faith. Actually, it has inserted a confusion and consequent discord of major proportions, as if on purpose. At least that’s what an unbiased investigator would conclude.
My signature may also provide a clue.
 
40.png
BrianDay:
A couple of points. First, the Catholic Church is the only Church that has a valid consecration.

Second, the words of the consecration have not changed. In the official Latin translation, the words of the translation is still “pro multis”. It is in the English translation that the argument over many/all erupts. I am not an expert, but I have read good arguments for both translations. To me, it is just a tempest in a tea pot.
Click to expand...
UMMMM “for many” does not mean “for all.” smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/26/26_17_3.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/26/26_17_3.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/26/26_28_1.gif smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/26/26_28_1.gif
 
40.png
TNT:
Actually, from what I can see, the pope changed the Gospel to match the new English and several other languages of the consecration:

The Latin Text Original is:
Deinde calicem in manus vini sustulit eisque dixit: “Accipite et bibite omnes: hic calix novum aeternumque testamentum est in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis funditur et pro omnibus in remissionem peccatorum” (cfr* Mc *14, 24; Lc 22, 20; 1 Cor 11, 25). Grati erga Dominum Iesum sumus Nobis qui permisit eodem loco ut repeteremus, mandato illius oboedientes: “Hoc facite in meam commemorationem” (Lc 22, 21), voces eas ab Eo duobus annorum abhinc milibus pronuntiatas.

See: vatican.va/edocs/LAT0762/__P1.HTM
Lk 22;20:
In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.
Matt 26;28 :
For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. DRV

I have no idea why he references Matt 14;24.​

The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God.
They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore (Our Lord) said: “For you”, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.
With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, . . .​

It may be that the New Mass and the Encyclical quote of the Gospel is a preamble to universalism.
In any case he is bent on making the bible and the consecration say ALL. No one, especially protestants and orthodox, will follow that any more than they follow the extra illuminated mysteries of the rosary.

The fact is, it was done, and he does not like following the Council of Trent. The question is, What’s he up to? He won’t comment on it and he won’t change his mind about correcting it, and no one of the Faithful ever had this as a contention, so it wasn’t to confim the faith. Actually, it has inserted a confusion and consequent discord of major proportions, as if on purpose. At least that’s what an unbiased investigator would conclude.
My signature may also provide a clue.
Click to expand...
I AGREE!!!
 
40.png
BrianDay:
To me, it is just a tempest in a tea pot.
Click to expand...
Termites do not eat the foundation in one day. Volcanoes start with little tempest-in-a-teapot rumbles, then swelling, then…
 
My correction to my Post #4:

It was actually MARK 14:24 : Not Matthew, in the Encyclical reference

He said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many.
 
“First, the Catholic Church is the only Church that has a valid consecration.”

“Churches” do not have the ability to consecrate. Individual priests do. And so far as a priest is ordained in APostolic succession, he validly consecrates the Eucharist, whether he be Catholic or not.

Liceity is a whole other question . . .
 
40.png
misericordie:
UMMMM “for many” does not mean “for all.” %between% %between% %between% %between%
Click to expand...
Yes, sweetheat. And if you knew your Latin you would know that “pro multis” does not mean “for many”.

The most exact translation might be “for the masses”. However, that has a little Marxist tinge, doesn’t it?
 
"for all" can be exegetically equivalent to “for many”, depending upon the context of its usage
"Mark 10:45 = Matthew 20:28 has Jesus’ words: ‘the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.’ That ‘for many’ ambiguous in itself, in fact is to be understood as ‘for all,’ proven by what we read in 1 Timothy 2:6: ‘Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all.’
Click to expand...
cited from this article:

Why “for all” in the words of consecration?
ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur46.htm
 
Catholic teaching insists upon the universality of Christ’s atonement as sufficient for ALL, but efficacious for many. Thus, so long as one understands the words as they are intended, there is no error in saying “for all” in the words of consecration.
 
A rationale can be made based on I Tim 2:1-4 and other Scriptural warrants:
First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of **God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved **and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Click to expand...
The idea is that Christ died for all but not all will receive the promise of his death. The new English translations, I understand, will return to the words “for many.”

And “pro multis” does not essentially mean “the masses.” It can mean simply “many.”
 
From James Akin,
Calvinists believe the atonement is limited, that Christ offered it for some men but not for all. …

The Bible maintains that there is a sense in which Christ died for all men. John 4:42 describes Christ as “the Savior of the world,” and 1 John 2:2 states that Christ “is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.” 1 Timothy 4:10 describes God as “the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.” These passages, as well as the official teaching of the Church [20], require the Catholic to affirm that Christ died to atone for all men.
Click to expand...
  1. See [Ludwig] Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,] 188f. 21. Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas], III:48:2.
Click to expand...
 
atsheeran said:
“A couple of points. First, the Catholic Church is the only Church that has a valid consecration.”

The consecrations (and all the sacraments) of the various Orthodox churches are valid as well.
Click to expand...

True enough. But then again, they ARE Catholic also.
 
If anyone can find an approved bible that uses “for all” in the Last Supper consecration passages, where the DRV, NAB, RSV Hadock, etc. says “for many” please let us know.

multis prosecutionibus : pursuing the matter many times.
multi : many, numerous / the common herd. (all of these have a restraining aspect).
omnis : all, every.(these had an unrestrained aspect.)
Therefore:
Pro multis = For many, in those passages just as the Church has taught forever, and the Council of Trent confirmed. Either that part of the Magisterium is valid, or we can waste it because it was wrong, since it fully explains its reasoning, which is 100% more than the Vatican has done in changing it.

Pro omnibus is only this pope’s Latin of the same verses in his encyclical. There is NO precedent in the history of the Church.
He speaks as a theologian on this section, not an infallible defintion of a new bible. Therefore we can (and should) object to it.
Did he change St Jerome’s Vulgate or did he not?

Will anyone comment on the Encyclical in Post#4 and straighten me out here??

I’ll stick my neck out and say that it will be a cold morning in gehenna when the ICEL changes it back. If they did, they would be admitting to error, and being untrustworty from then on.
Love you all’
WMI
 
The word “all” and “many” are used as synonums through out our english scripture translations.

For example: Mark 1:5 says
And there went out to him** all** the country of Judea, and** all** the people of Jerusalem; and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.
I am sure that not everyone (global sense of the word all) in the coutry of Judea or the city of Jerusalem went out to see John the Baptist.

Another example would be Romans 3:23
since** all** have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
We know that not everyone has sinned: Jesus didn’t sin, Mary didn’t sin, all infants have never sinned, people who are a vegetative, severly mentally-retarded and babies in the womb.

In secular newspapers cross word puzzles use “many” and “all” as synonms.

So I wouldn’t get too hung up on the wording “all” or “many” We all know what it means.

tkvoice
 
My concern has always been: you change a word here, a phrase there; who knows how far it will go? There are those who don’t know what is really meant. It should be clear. It should be Scriptural. I just don’t believe there should be any ambiguity when it comes to our faith. Thanks for all your thoughts.
 
True enough. But then again, they ARE Catholic also.
Click to expand...
Um . . . no. They’re Orthodox. To be Catholic is to be in communion with the Pope of Rome. Having a beautiful liturgy, practicing some ancient customs, and holding to some or most of the true Faith does not cut it.
 
TNT,
Either that part of the Magisterium is valid, or we can waste it because it was wrong, since it fully explains its reasoning, which is 100% more than the Vatican has done in changing it.
Click to expand...
You certainly are an argumentative pope wannabe, aren’t you. :rolleyes:

The Vatican has explained that either “for all” or “for many” is correct, as it means exegetically the same thing. Christ died for many (according to Scripture). And Christ died “for all” (according to Scripture).

The Council of Trent was correct, and so is the Vatican, and so was St. Hippolytus, whose consecration formula simply said, “… he died for you.” You may not like that the Church has had and will continue to have some variation within the consecration formula, but that’s a problem you need to deal with, not the Church. The Church’s decision is exegetically and theologically correct, as it was at the Council of Trent. Either formula is valid, but it seems some people don’t have the humility to accept being among the governed, and think they could do a better job of it. When you are pope, your opinion on this will matter to me. Until then, my obedience is to THE CURRENT pope.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top