Consecration Words: Novus Ordo vs TLM

[Windmill]

I think we are making a huge deal out of nothing, here. The Novus Ordo has “pro multis” in the consecratory formula, therefore it is valid. The translations of that original document were approved by the same authority. I don’t think that it is something that deserves so much spilt ink.

None of the translations are word-for-word - they all attempt to convey the same meaning. In ten years, no one will even care about this.

Not only that, but to say that all these Masses have been invalid is to make a very serious charge of idolatry, sacrelige, and deception. This type of accusation should not be made against the Holy See (which approved the translation) lightly, and should only be done in theological forums where scholars can debate issues where the implications strike to the core of the Church’s identity as guardian of revealed truth and shepherd of souls. I find that many laymen are very quick to make rash judgements, attribute false motives, and air dirty laundry in the Church without giving any credit to the scholars who arrived at a certain viewpoint, translation, or theological understanding.

I wouldn’t put myself in the place of Judge when it comes to the Holy See. Let God do that. Besides, I don’t see what good can possibly come from this conversation since the translation is being re-aligned more closely with the Latin.

 

[cam100]

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!

I’m not sure what you mean here… This is proof of what?

 

[Windmill]

This is proof of what?

a troubled mind

 

[Sure]

I’m not sure what you mean here… This is proof of what?

It’s just a joke:thumbsup:

 

[St_Isidore]

The wording of the NO changes frequently

I agree and this is a problem.

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!

I agree, and this is an even Greater dilemma! This an example of what is occurring in the Pauline Rite (new mass).

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.

I am sure Christ did intend for ‘many’ and not ‘all’.

So yes, it is actually correct to say that His sacrifice is for all, since He intended it to be so.

No it is incorrect to say ‘all’ since those are not his words.

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.

Jesus said ‘many’.

 

[AJV]

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.

Theologically erroneous only if the words are taken to mean efficacy. Not if they are taken as sufficiency (which as far as I can see form the documents from the Vatican so far, it is)

I’ve never fully understood though, why if “for all” was entirely wrong, the Summa Theologica (in III, LXXVIII, A.III, viii)

Further, as was already observed Christ’s Passion sufficed for all; while as to its efficacy it was profitable for many. Therefore it ought to be said: “Which shall be shed for all,” or else “for many,” without adding, “for you.”"

seems to imply it was acceptable?

 

[Ad_Deum]

Biblically speaking Jesus Christ died for all, but not all will be saved, 1 St. John 2:2 reveals that “He is the propitiation for our sins: and not ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world,” St. Paul’s 2nd epistle to the Corinthians 5:15, “And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.” 1 Timothy 2:4-6 also reveals that, “Who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time.”
1 Timothy 4:10 also states, “For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.”
2 St. Peter 3:9, “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all sholud come to repentance.” St. John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” The inerrant Word of God clearly reveals that the Lord Jesus Christ died for all: Jews and Gentiles, man and woman, young and old. Jesus Christ died for all but not all will be saved. Who Jesus died for? He died for the elect and to all. Who are those elect and all? The “elect” are those predestined by God to salvation, and “all” are we here on earth. How to know if all will be saved? Those who understand and lives by the truths of the Gospel, those who repented and were baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity will inherit the Kingdom of God, and will received salvation that comes from Jesus Christ. All will be saved if they truly accept and believe the Lord Jesus Christ, yet not all will be saved.

Now this is my question to anyone:
What is the difference between “For All” and “For Many”?
What did the Church-Fathers said about this word/s in the consecration (Pre-Vatican II teachings)?

Pax
Laudater Jesus Christus
Instaurare omnia in Christo

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Biblically speaking Jesus Christ died for all, but not all will be saved, 1 St. John 2:2 reveals that “He is the propitiation for our sins: and not ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world,” St. Paul’s 2nd epistle to the Corinthians 5:15, “And he died for all, that those who live might live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.” 1 Timothy 2:4-6 also reveals that, “Who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time.”
1 Timothy 4:10 also states, “For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.”
2 St. Peter 3:9, “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all sholud come to repentance.” St. John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” The inerrant Word of God clearly reveals that the Lord Jesus Christ died for all: Jews and Gentiles, man and woman, young and old. Jesus Christ died for all but not all will be saved. Who Jesus died for? He died for the elect and to all. Who are those elect and all? The “elect” are those predestined by God to salvation, and “all” are we here on earth. How to know if all will be saved? Those who understand and lives by the truths of the Gospel, those who repented and were baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity will inherit the Kingdom of God, and will received salvation that comes from Jesus Christ. All will be saved if they truly accept and believe the Lord Jesus Christ, yet not all will be saved.

Now this is my question to anyone:
What is the difference between “For All” and “For Many”?
What did the Church-Fathers said about this word/s in the consecration (Pre-Vatican II teachings)?

Pax
Laudater Jesus Christus
Instaurare omnia in Christo

Please see Posts #1 & 15 for the words of Christ, not what you or I think what the difference is, but what He actually said( this of course is Important). This logic partly explains why there are so many translations of the most Holy Bible. (King James has a version, Revised version, new revised version, new new revised edition, new American Bible, The Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition, The Jerusalem Bible ,
The New American Bible (1970-1983), The New Jerusalem Bible (1985), The Inclusive New Testament. etc., ec., etc., there are thousands)

Thank you and GOD Bless.

 

[Ad_Deum]

Please see Posts #1 & 15 for the words of Christ, not what you or I think what the difference is, but what He actually said( this of course is Important). This logic partly explains why there are so many translations of the most Holy Bible. (King James has a version, Revised version, new revised version, new new revised edition, new American Bible, The Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition, The Jerusalem Bible ,
The New American Bible (1970-1983), The New Jerusalem Bible (1985), The Inclusive New Testament. etc., ec., etc., there are thousands)

Thank you and GOD Bless.

I completely agree with the words of our Lord Jesus Christ on the Gospels:

*St. Matthew 26:28 “For this is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remisson of sins.”

St. Mark 14:24 “And He said to them: This is My blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.”*

No doubt those are inerrant words, the only difference is, in the KJV and others it is “covenant” while in the DRV or Latin Vulgate it is “testament,” but the same for the word “For Many.”

I absolutely agree that the words of the consecration should be in accordance to the traditional rite of Mass, there sholud not have anymore arguments on that because it is true that the Lord Jesus Christ on the night before He suffered really said those words (For Many).

My point about quoting from the Bible is that it reveals Jesus Christ died for all; though not all will be saved but only many. The only difference in Bible translations is the approach of the Protestant Church regarding the teaching, but in terms of the word “For Many” they are the same. In fact, when I study the scriptures I used many translations and commentaries (for comparison), but two main and authoritative translations for me are the Douay-Rheims version and the King James version because they only have minor differences compare to other translations.

I am not against the traditional words of consecration; in fact, I absolutely agree that the Traditional Latin Mass should be reintroduced to the faithful and be widely celebrated by our priests. In addition, I believe that the traditional Mass is Biblical in prayers, and its gestures are in accordance with the church traditions, and it originated from the ancient church.

Pax
Laudater Jesus Christus
Instaurare omnia in Christo

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

I completely agree with the words of our Lord Jesus Christ on the Gospels:

*St. Matthew 26:28 “For this is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remisson of sins.”

St. Mark 14:24 “And He said to them: This is My blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.”*

No doubt those are inerrant words, the only difference is, in the KJV and others it is “covenant” while in the DRV or Latin Vulgate it is “testament,” but the same for the word “For Many.”

I absolutely agree that the words of the consecration should be in accordance to the traditional rite of Mass, there sholud not have anymore arguments on that because it is true that the Lord Jesus Christ on the night before He suffered really said those words (For Many).

My point about quoting from the Bible is that it reveals Jesus Christ died for all; though not all will be saved but only many. The only difference in Bible translations is the approach of the Protestant Church regarding the teaching, but in terms of the word “For Many” they are the same. In fact, when I study the scriptures I used many translations and commentaries (for comparison), but two main and authoritative translations for me are the Douay-Rheims version and the King James version because they only have minor differences compare to other translations.

I am not against the traditional words of consecration; in fact, I absolutely agree that the Traditional Latin Mass should be reintroduced to the faithful and be widely celebrated by our priests. In addition, I believe that the traditional Mass is Biblical in prayers, and its gestures are in accordance with the church traditions, and it originated from the ancient church.

Pax
Laudater Jesus Christus
Instaurare omnia in Christo

I understand what it is you are saying, but first I would like to note that a nobody especially a Catholic should use the KJV (since King James cannot have a version of GOD’s word for one reason - but that is an argument that is for another thread so please let us leave it at that). Also there are differences that are not so slight. Why would you need KJV book, when you have the Vulgate translated by St Jerome? Hence, you are safest using the Vulgate or DR where you have 'Many’ and ‘Testament’ (please see Posts #1 &#15).

Again, we are not really at odds here. One thing is for certain we must adhere to His words especially when in doubt, and in this case some are, But you and I know He said ‘Many’. His words shall never be altered.

We must leave the Words ‘Many’ and ‘Testament’ because that is what Yeshua said. How people misinterpret it is not my concern because to me ALL does ‘NOT’ in any way equal to MANY.

GOD Bless.

 

[Ad_Deum]

I understand what it is you are saying, but first I would like to note that a nobody especially a Catholic should use the KJV (since King James cannot have a version of GOD’s word for one reason - but that is an argument that is for another thread so please let us leave it at that). Also there are differences that are not so slight. Why would you need KJV book, when you have the Vulgate translated by St Jerome? Hence, you are safest using the Vulgate or DR where you have 'Many’ and ‘Testament’ (please see Posts #1 &#15).

Again, we are not really at odds here. One thing is for certain we must adhere to His words especially when in doubt, and in this case some are, But you and I know He said ‘Many’. His words shall never be altered.

We must leave the Words ‘Many’ and ‘Testament’ because that is what Yeshua said. How people misinterpret it is not my concern because to me ALL does ‘NOT’ in any way equal to MANY.

GOD Bless.

I absolutely agree that the word “many” is different from “all.”

The words of Jesus Christ are inerrant, and I have no doubt about it.

Pax
Laudater Jesus Christus
Instaurare omnia in Christo

 

[jj2011]

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).

Actually canon III’s unus es Deus was translated-- until the eighties, I think-- as “Father… you alone are God”, so it got to be called the “Arian canon.” The Latin wasn’t in error.

 

[LilyM]

I absolutely agree that the word “many” is different from “all.”

The words of Jesus Christ are inerrant, and I have no doubt about it.

Pax
Laudater Jesus Christus
Instaurare omnia in Christo

Yes, it’s so vital to restate the exact words (or what you assume to be the exact words) of Jesus at the Consecration that the TLM inserts the phrase ‘mystery of faith’ in the middle of it, which Our Lord DEFINITELY didn’t say OR mean at the Last Supper!

 

[stmaria]

LilyM;2816159]Yes, it’s so vital to restate the exact words (or what you assume to be the exact words) of Jesus at the Consecration that ]the TLM inserts the phrase ‘mystery of faith’ in the middle of it, which Our Lord DEFINITELY didn’t say OR mean at the Last Supper!

Do you know more than the Lateran Council and the Council of Trent??

LATERAN COUNCIL III 1179

414-415 “You have asked (indeed) who has added to the form of the words which Christ Himself expressed when He changed the bread and wine into the body and blood, that in the Canon of the Mass which the general Church uses, which none of the Evangelists is read to have expressed. . . . In the Canon of the Mass that expression, "mysterium fidei,"is found interposed among His words. . From the expression, moreover, concerning which your brotherhood raised the question, namely “mysterium fidei,” certain people have thought to draw a protection against error… Yet “mysterium fidei” is mentioned, since something is believed there other than what is perceived; and something is perceived other than is believed… Therefore, we believe that the form of words, as is found in, the Canon,** the Apostles received from Christ, and their successors from them. . . **.​

catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma5.php

Catechism Council of Trent
Form To Be Used In The Consecration Of The Wine
With regard lo the consecration of the wine, which is the other element of this Sacrament, the priest, for the reason we have already assigned, ought of necessity to be well acquainted with, and well understand its form. We are then firmly to believe that it consists in the following words: 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. Of these words the greater part are taken from Scripture; but some have been preserved in the Church from Apostolic tradition.
Thus the words, this is the chalice, are found in St. Luke and in the Apostle; but the words that immediately follow, of my blood, or my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for you and for many to the remission of sins, are found partly in St. Luke and partly in St. Matthew. But the words, eternal, and the mystery of faith, have been taught us by holy tradition, the interpreter and keeper of Catholic truth.
catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Eucharist.shtml

 

[AJV]

Do you know more than the Lateran Council and the Council of Trent??

LATERAN COUNCIL III 1179

414-415 “You have asked (indeed) who has added to the form of …​

This was not said at Lateran III at all. It was the view of Innocent III, who lived some time after. Now, he may well be correct, but then what about his other stuff like saying that Christ consecrated without saying “This is my Body”? Or that the priest acts as God the Father when he blesses the Host after the Consecration?

 

[AJV]

Do you know more than the Lateran Council and the Council of Trent??

LATERAN COUNCIL III 1179

414-415 “You have asked (indeed) who has added to the form of …​

This was not said at Lateran III at all. It was the view of Innocent III,. Now, he may well be correct, but then what about his other stuff like saying that Christ consecrated without saying “This is my Body”? Or that the priest acts as God the Father when he blesses the Host after the Consecration?

The Catechism of Trent is authoritative on doctrine and of course, recommended, but I do not think it has the authority of a definition of the Council? And is not infallible except where it reiterates infallible dogma?

 

[Catholic2008]

So there appears to be something seriously wrong with the Catholic Church. I draw this conclusion from the fact that people are discussing here the validity of the mass.

*Christ promised to be with His church even till the consumation of the world.

*He said that the gates of Hell, (heretics) would not prevail against it.

*St Athanasius said that even if the church was reduced to a handful of people and one valid priest, they would be the true church.

*Jesus said, that when he returned would He even find think you, faith on earth.

If these “popes” were true popes we wouldn’t have this problem.

I suggest you begin by reading through the MHFM website, watch their videos and listen to their audios. If you investigate the issues properly, you will see that they present the truth.

www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/

best of luck

 

[AJV]

I suggest you begin by reading through the MHFM website, watch their videos and listen to their audios. If you investigate the issues properly, you will see that they present the truth.

No offense to you, personally, but puh-leese! Some of the documents have factual errors. And a lot of their stuff concerns VERY one sided stuff.

I’m just looking at their pdf and I see that they say a prayer as been removed when it there. And make a really impressive statement with no argument by saying that the “important” word of “consecration” has been omitted form the commingling prayer. Why it is important is anybody’s guess.

 

[Catholic2008]

“Some of the documents have factual errors. And a lot of their stuff concerns VERY one sided stuff.”

Could you give an example please?

 

[AJV]

“Some of the documents have factual errors. And a lot of their stuff concerns VERY one sided stuff.”

Could you give an example please?

For example see the ablution prayer in the NO and see what they say about it. The fact that those were included in the 1970 Missal appears to have escaped their attention. Which kind of makes one wonder as to the validity of other arguments if they apparently have glossed over the text they are critiquing. Or for example, the idea that prayers for the departed have been erased. Anyone who picks up a NO missal can judge the validity of that.

Then small little things like “mysterium fidei” being removed because of the denial of the Real Presence. Would love to see some hard evidence because AFAIK, its pure conjecture. If you actually go and look at one of the ‘reformers’, John Foxe book, where he spits all over the Canon, he takes these words as proof that they aren’t, and the the Popish sytem has convicted itself out of it’s own mouth . “These words mysterium fidei ye have added declaring the cup to be but a mystical representation of the blood.”

And the errors are not only in that document but in others also. I note for example that, for the ordination, they have no qualms about happily translating “offere” and “offer sacrifice” in the Traditional liturgy and accepting that as a sacrificial mention, but when the New Rite speaks of “offer sacrifice to God” (“sacrificium Deo offerendum”) - obligatory prayer, BTW - they refuse to accept that.

Or casting doubt on the absence of “ut” when the Leonine Sacramentary, the oldest source of the prayer omits it. If “ut” is crucial, then I venture to say that its doubtful whether we’ve had priests for the last 1200 years or so.