Consecration Words: Novus Ordo vs TLM

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

FORM OF CONSECRATION IN THE NEW MASS:

“For this is my body. For this is the chalice of my blood, of the
new and eternal testament. It shall be shed for you and FOR
ALL SO THAT SINS MAY BE FORGIVEN.”

Contrast with FORM OF CONSECRATION IN THE TLM:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441: “…the holy Roman Church, relying on the teaching and authority of the apostles Peter and Paul… uses this form of words in the consecration of the Lord’s Body:

FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And of His blood:
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 UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS."

Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5, Part 1:
"The words of Consecration, which are the FORM of this Sacrament, are these:

FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And: 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 UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS.
Now if one were to remove, or change anything in the FORM of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the sacrament."

The TLM missals have had this up until 1962. One not need to be a Catholic or even a Christian to visualize that these Consecrations (i.e. the Novus Ordo service vs TLM) are definitely not the same.

Discuss.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

From what I have heard, the ICEL for the ordinary rite is going to restore “for many” to the consecration.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

From what I have heard, the ICEL for the ordinary rite is going to restore “for many” to the consecration.

If that is true that shall prove once and for all that the Novus Ordo service contains err. If not then why make this restoration/correction? Furthermore, this may set precedent for other parts of the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council.

GOD Bless us all

 

[Caesar]

If that is true that shall prove once and for all that the Novus Ordo service contains err. If not then why make this restoration/correction? Furthermore, this may set precedent for other parts of the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council.

GOD Bless us all

Actually, that error exists in certain vernacular translations of the NO. The official Latin text says “pro multis” which is of course “for many”.

 

[LilyM]

If that is true that shall prove once and for all that the Novus Ordo service contains err. If not then why make this restoration/correction? Furthermore, this may set precedent for other parts of the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council.

GOD Bless us all

For greater clarity and continuity with the pre-NO rites, not because ‘for all’ was especially erroneous.

The Vatican has made it clear, all consecrations using ‘for all’ are indeed perfectly valid. You trust the Church Christ founded, and promised the gates of hell would not prevail against, or not?

 

[Caesar]

For greater clarity and continuity with the pre-NO rites, not because ‘for all’ was especially erroneous.

The Vatican has made it clear, all consecrations using ‘for all’ are indeed perfectly valid. You trust the Church Christ founded, and promised the gates of hell would not prevail against, or not?

Its not that the words “for all” invalidate the Mass, it is that they are an inaccurate translation of the official texts, and theologicaly erroneous.

 

[LilyM]

Its not that the words “for all” invalidate the Mass, it is that they are an inaccurate translation of the official texts, and theologicaly erroneous.

Well, if they were theologically*** erroneous*** it almost certainly WOULD invalidate the Mass. The Mass couldn’t, if valid, teach or promote error in any way, I should think.

Not nearly as good theologically or translationally as ‘for many’, absolutely. Probably no actual error theologically speaking.

 

[cam100]

One not need to be a Catholic or even a Christian to visualize that these Consecrations (i.e. the Novus Ordo service vs TLM) are definitely not the same.

First, remember that the pope has the final word on whether a certain form is valid for a sacrement. So if Pope Paul VI promulgates a certain form for the consecration (i.e., the Novus Ordo), it IS VALID.

Second, the pope also has complete control over those aspects beyond strict matter and form, as well. For example, the church requires that in order to be validly married, a Catholic couple must use a priest who has jurisdiction in that area to officiate at the ceremony. Even though the correct matter and form are present, the couple is not married if they fail to follow this rule. Thus, Pope Pius V was within his authority to decalare that only certain words be used to consecrate at mass. Likewise, Pope Paul VI was within his authority to allow a somewhat different set of words to be used.

Now, some may say that Pope Paul VI’s change in wording constitutes a change in the form, but he teaches otherwise. Since he alone has the authority to make this determination, that’s the decision we need to follow.

 

[Caesar]

Well, if they were theologically*** erroneous*** it almost certainly WOULD invalidate the Mass. The Mass couldn’t, if valid, teach or promote error in any way.

Not nearly as good theologically or translationally as ‘for many’, I’d agree. Probably no actual error theologically speaking.

Read carefully, I did not say the official Latin text of the Novus Ordo Mass is in error, but that certain translations are. All that the Mass really needs to be valid is the words “This is my Body” and “This is my Blood” (being said by a valid priest, over bread and wine).

There is some debate over whether or not the official Latin text of the Novus Ordo contains error (the first draft had the Arian heresy somewhere). There are errors in the ICEL english translation, both in the Ordinary and the Propers. Some of these errors are purely translation errors (such as translating “et cum spirito tuo” as “and also with you”), some can be considered theologically wrong (like “pro multis” as “for all”).

If there were no errors in the english translation, there would be no need for the new translation.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

For greater clarity and continuity with the pre-NO rites, not because ‘for all’ was especially erroneous.

The Vatican has made it clear, all consecrations using ‘for all’ are indeed perfectly valid. You trust the Church Christ founded, and promised the gates of hell would not prevail against, or not?

First of all there is an error, because those are not the words of Yeshua who is God. Secondly, if it is corrected to ‘many’ what say you then? Lastly, I trust the truly Universal Church of Yeshua founded by GOD(i.e. The Catholic Church). But Yeshua did not say ‘all’ he said ‘many’.
You are free to Look it up.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

For greater clarity and continuity with the pre-NO rites, not because ‘for all’ was especially erroneous.

The Vatican has made it clear, all consecrations using ‘for all’ are indeed perfectly valid. You trust the Church Christ founded, and promised the gates of hell would not prevail against, or not?

The problem is, the Vatican also said that “nothing less than perfect had crept in” through the translation to “for all”. In other words, the Vatican has completely reversed its position. Those who blindly followed what Rome said in the 70’s - and who defended it - had egg on their face earlier this year when Rome said the exact contrary.

Back before Rome admitted that pro multis should actually be translated as “for many”, not “for all”, I used to always have the following statement from Rome thrown at me…

Q: A very conservative friend of mine says she cannot attend Mass in English because the translation of the consecration renders the words “pro multis” (for many) as “for all.” She says this is a heresy. Is she right? — J.S., Washington, D.C.

A: Here I will supply the answer which the Holy See gave to a similar question 34 years ago. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments first gave a brief official reply in January 1970 and later commissioned a brief but dense article on the subject by noted Jesuit scholar M. Zerwick, published in the May 1970 edition of Notitiae, the congregation’s official organ (pages 138-140). …

"The following is asked:

"a) Is there a good reason, and if there is, what is it, for deciding on such a variation?

"b) Whether the doctrine regarding this matter handed down through the ‘Roman Catechism ordered by Decree of the Council of Trent and edited by St. Pius V’ is to be held outdated?

"c) Whether the versions of the above-mentioned biblical text are to be held less appropriate?

"d) Whether in the approval given to this vernacular variation in the liturgical text something less correct crept in, and which now requires correction or amending?

"Response: The above variation is fully justified:

"a) According to exegetes, the Aramaic word which in Latin is translated ‘pro multis,’ means ‘pro omnibus’: the multitude for whom Christ died is unbounded, which is the same as saying: Christ died for all…

"b) In no way is the doctrine of the ‘Roman Catechism’ to be held outdated: the distinction that the death of Christ was sufficient for all, efficacious only for many, still holds its value.

“c) In the approval given to this vernacular variation in the liturgical text, nothing less than correct has crept in, which would require correction or amendment.” ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur46.htm

.

We now know that something less than perfect did creep in, and is now being corrected. See the problem?
LillyM:

The Vatican has made it clear, all consecrations using ‘for all’ are indeed perfectly valid. You trust the Church Christ founded, and promised the gates of hell would not prevail against, or not

First Rome said that “for all” was perfectly fine and there was nothing to correct in the translation. Now they admit that that translation was indeed wrong and needs to be corrected. I wonder if Rome will come out in a few years and say “well, actually, the “for all” did invalidate the Mass… but it has been corrected now so all’s well”?

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Well, if they were theologically*** erroneous*** it almost certainly WOULD invalidate the Mass.

I agree.

The Mass couldn’t, if valid, teach or promote error in any way, I should think.

The Novus Ordo service should not have error, but as it can be seen it clearly does.
The Words of Yeshua who is God are clear, He said ’many’ not ‘all’.

 

[LilyM]

Read carefully, I did not say the official Latin text of the Novus Ordo Mass is in error, but that certain translations are. All that the Mass really needs to be valid is the words “This is my Body” and “This is my Blood” (being said by a valid priest, over bread and wine).

There is some debate over whether or not the official Latin text of the Novus Ordo contains error (the first draft had the Arian heresy somewhere). There are errors in the ICEL english translation, both in the Ordinary and the Propers. Some of these errors are purely translation errors (such as translating “et cum spirito tuo” as “and also with you”), some can be considered theologically wrong (like “pro multis” as “for all”).

If there were no errors in the english translation, there would be no need for the new translation.

Translations of a Mass that was always intended to be said, at least sometimes, in the vernacular, are every bit as important as the Latin original. A priest who in English or any other language uses words of the Mass that promote doctrinal error isn’t any the less wrong because the Latin original is correct.

The wording of the NO changes frequently - it has lots of options as far as the prayers go. And people make their own changes. Many today omit the word ‘for us MEN’ from the Creed. A change in wording doesn’t imply error. Neither does a change back to a former style of wording!

First of all there is an error, because those are not the words of Yeshua who is God. Secondly, if it is corrected to ‘many’ what say you then? Lastly, I trust the truly Universal Church of Yeshua founded by GOD(i.e. The Catholic Church). But Yeshua did not say ‘all’ he said ‘many’.
You are free to Look it up.

You’re referring to the Greek and Latin translation of His words which would have been in Aramaic - that translation could be wrong. What does the Aramaic say?

Christ certainly desired the salvation of all, and intended that the fruits of His sacrifice on Calvary be made available to all, whether or not we make good use of those fruits. So yes, it is actually correct to say that His sacrifice is for all, since He intended it to be so.

It is equally correct to say that His sacrifice is NOT for all, since He also knew that many would in fact not be saved, not have their sins forgiven.

 

[Johndigger]

Ok, “Thereisonlyone” is right and the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church is wrong.

Righto.

Is anyone in any sensible state of mind actually going to think they know more than the Pope who is, as the Vicar of Christ, along with the Magisterium is the proper interpreters of Church Documents?

It all seems a bit silly really.

Of course, Popes have made mistakes in the past, but forcing the Church into a universally invalid Mass is not one of them. The Church is protected.

JD

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Translations of a Mass that was always intended to be said, at least sometimes, in the vernacular, are every bit as important as the Latin original. A priest who in English or any other language uses words of the Mass that promote doctrinal error isn’t any the less wrong because the Latin original is correct.

The wording of the NO changes frequently - it has lots of options as far as the prayers go. And people make their own changes. Many today omit the word ‘for us MEN’ from the Creed. A change in wording doesn’t imply error. Neither does a change back to a former style of wording!

You’re referring to the Greek and Latin translation of His words which would have been in Aramaic - that translation could be wrong. What does the Aramaic say?

Christ certainly desired the salvation of all, and intended that the fruits of His sacrifice on Calvary be made available to all, whether or not we make good use of those fruits. So yes, it is actually correct to say that His sacrifice is for all, since He intended it to be so.

It is equally correct to say that His sacrifice is NOT for all, since He also knew that many would in fact not be saved, not have their sins forgiven.

From the Latin Vulgate Translated by St Jerome:

St.Matthew 26:28 hic est enim sanguis meus novi testamenti qui pro multis effunditur in remissionem peccatorum

St.Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

St Mark 14 :24 et ait illis hic est sanguis meus novi testamenti qui pro multis effunditur

St Mark 14 :24 And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.

Unless now you will claim that the Latin Vulgate is in question? That will have to wait for another thread.

 

[Sure]

Ok, “Thereisonlyone” is right and the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church is wrong.

Righto.

Is anyone in any sensible state of mind actually going to think they know more than the Pope who is, as the Vicar of Christ, along with the Magisterium is the proper interpreters of Church Documents?

It all seems a bit silly really.

Of course, Popes have made mistakes in the past, but forcing the Church into a universally invalid Mass is not one of them. The Church is protected.

JD

Uh…oh that’s where you’re wrong and I can prove it.

See, freemasons PaulVI heretics for many for all kissing koran Bugnini third secret Gruner Quo Primum Bugnini not-in-schism Fellay beauty contest clown mass Haugen in hand orans standing girls Bugnini sign of peace cranmer davies jews veils Fellay dancing ottoviani siri fatima run hide akita circle the wagons wanderer latin martians therefore remnant Pope in mom’s basement conclaves secret.

Hope that helps to clear things up for you!

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Ok, “Thereisonlyone” is right and the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church is wrong.

Righto.

Is anyone in any sensible state of mind actually going to think they know more than the Pope who is, as the Vicar of Christ, along with the Magisterium is the proper interpreters of Church Documents?

It all seems a bit silly really.

Of course, Popes have made mistakes in the past, but forcing the Church into a universally invalid Mass is not one of them. The Church is protected.

JD

Johndigger, neato!

That is not what is being discussed, I think you missed the original post or are in the wrong thread. In any event, have you anything to say that is relevant to the Words of Consecration?

BTW, when '‘all’ is changed back to ‘many’, I am sure you will be on that bandwagon too.

Righto, neato, Now you have me doing that.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Uh…oh that’s where you’re wrong and I can prove it.

See, freemasons PaulVI heretics for many for all kissing koran Bugnini third secret Gruner Quo Primum Bugnini not-in-schism Fellay beauty contest clown mass Haugen in hand orans standing girls Bugnini sign of peace cranmer davies jews veils Fellay dancing ottoviani siri fatima run hide akita circle the wagons wanderer latin martians therefore remnant Pope in mom’s basement conclaves secret.

Hope that helps to clear things up for you!

This is quite a proof!!

 

[Sure]

This is quite a proof!!

Thanks, I’m glad you liked it!

 

[forrester]

My understanding of this matter is that God changes the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus. If the priest intends to perform the rite God will take care of the rest, regardless of translation.