Does "For All" Invalidate The Eucharist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dauphin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dauphin

Guest
Here are the TLM and Novus Ordo english translations of the words of consecration of the Precious Blood:
Extraordinary Form:

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.

Ordinary Form:

Take This all of you and drink from it: this is the cup of My Blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.
I was recently told that the mis-translation of “pro multis” as “for all” (instead of “for many”) renders the Eucharist invalid because it changes the words of Christ Himself.

I’ve tried to put this argument out of my mind, but I have lingering doubts every time I attend Mass. It’s clearly a blatant change to the words of consecration used by Christ. I’m not opening this thread to “bash” the new Mass. I just want to be absolutely certain that I’m receiving the Body and Blood of Christ - not just bread and wine.

Does “For all” render the Eucharist invalid?
 
No, it does not invalidate the Eucharist. Either translation is acceptable, although “for many” or “for the many” is a more accurate rendering of the Latin. (Jesus did not, presumably, speak either Latin or English at the institution of the Eucharist.)
 
“The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.”

Do you think the Holy Spirit would allow the Church to make an error that would deprive the faithful of the Holy Eucharist?

Betsy
 
JimG said:
No, it does not invalidate the Eucharist. Either translation is acceptable, although “for many” or “for the many” is a more accurate rendering of the Latin. (Jesus did not, presumably, speak either Latin or English at the institution of the Eucharist.)
Click to expand...
Thanks for your response. Could you elaborate? Why is either translation acceptable? Is the original language ambiguous?
 
baltobetsy said:
“The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.”

Do you think the Holy Spirit would allow the Church to make an error that would deprive the faithful of the Holy Eucharist?

Betsy
Click to expand...
I think it’s entirely possible. If the Church deprived the vast majority of its followers of the Eucharist, I don’t think that it necessarily follows that the gates of Hell have prevailed. The Church would still exist and the Eucharist would still be valid under the Extraordinary form, which millions of Catholics attend. It would just be a much smaller church.
 
Dauphin said:
Does “For all” render the Eucharist invalid?
Click to expand...
No.
There is no doubt whatsoever regarding the validity of Masses celebrated with the use of a duly approved formula containing a formula equivalent to “for all”, as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already declared (cf. Sacra Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Declaratio de sensu tribuendo adprobationi versionum formularum sacramentalium, 25 Ianuarii 1974, AAS 66 [1974], 661). Indeed, the formula “for all” would undoubtedly correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord’s intention expressed in the text. It is a dogma of faith that Christ died on the Cross for all men and women (cf. John 11:52; 2 Corinthians 5,14-15; Titus 2,11; 1 John 2,2).
Click to expand...
adoremus.org/Arinze_ProMultis.html

tee
 
tee_eff_em said:
No.

adoremus.org/Arinze_ProMultis.html

tee
Click to expand...
Thanks! I’m relieved, but I’m still a bit confused. Aren’t the words of the consecration supposed to be the words of Christ? Even if “for all” is doctrinally correct, how can we be certain of its validity given that these are not the words of Christ, and it’s Christ who consecrates the Eucharist?

Does the church have the authority to change the words of Christ?
 
I find it strange that you pick on “for all”, but not on “the mystery of faith” which cannot be found in any of the four biblical accounts of the institution, or in any other Rite in the Church.
But the point really is moot, as the only words that have to be said are: “This is my Body, This is my Blood.” There is some speculation that a priest could confect the Eucharist just by saying those words outside of a mass over valid matter with the intent to do what the Church does. He would excommunicate himself, but there is speculation that it would be a valid consecration.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday
 
What you are looking at is variant translations of the Greek. The same word is used for both “many” and “all.”

Matthew
 
I understand that when the English text is next revised, it will include the “for many” translation. (As well as the “and with your spirit” translation of “et cum spiritu tuo.”)

That’s fine. The only danger is that some may get the impression that the previous translation made the Mass “invalid.” It does not.

The words of institution need not be the exact words of Jesus. How could it, unless we required that it be in Aramic? In any case, all the institution narratives have minor variations.
 
There are only four requirements for a Mass to be valid (meaning the elements are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ). There are tons of small things that could make a Mass illicit but this does not mean that Christ is not truly present. The conditions are:

1.) A validly ordained priest. It would be redundant to say male but I guess I’ll throw that in there too.

2.) Intent- The priest must have the intent of doing what the Church does, that being the intent to make Jesus physically present via the miracle of transubstantiation at the consecration.

3.) Matter- you need bread and wine (not grape juice, grape soda, crackers, etc.)

4.) Form- the final condition for validity and the one that is basically being questioned in this thread. The only words necessary for valid consecration are “This is my Body” and “This is my … Blood”

In summary, you could have a perfectly valid Mass that would take less than 10 seconds with a validly ordained priest who intends on celebrating the Mass with bread and wine who simply says “This is my Body” and “This is my Blood.” Bam! You are done. What the priest did would have been highly irreverent (not to mention sinful), but the appearences of bread and wine are the Body and Blood of Christ the same way they would be if the full liturgy were celebrated.

While we can argue about the translations about introductory and preparatory prayers (some are pretty bad!), we cannot argue about the validity of the Mass if these four conditions are met.

I got all of this information from:

ourladyswarriors.org/articles/badliturgy.htm

Although I’ve heard the same thing many times before.

Peace.
 
I think “for many” was used because not all will be saved eventhough He died “for all”… who truly believe in Him.

Pax
Laudater Jesus Christo
Instaurare omnia in Christo
 
Thank you Ad Deum that is what I wanted to say. Or something close to it
 
It might not be a proper translation but how would it invalidate the Eucharist?

At that point hasn’t it already happened?

This is My Body, what happens at that point? Transubstantiation.

Unless Jesus then hears the next words wrong then says, “oops time to leave”

Once it is the Body and Blood of Christ it stays until it is consumed or rendered invalid matter. Even if the Priest jiggles around and does the herky jerky dance after the consecration, it would be improper but still Jesus remains.

An improper translation after transubstantiation just is that, a translation that could be rendered more accurate.

Just because a nun takes of her habit and acts like a lesbian doesn’t make her not a nun. Just because Father so and so acts like a goofball doesn’t make him not a Priest. Even if they don’t respect themselves we should respect them.

Even the most horribly done Mass with proper words is still the Holy Mass, and has the beauty of Jesus being present, this is what we respect the presence of Jesus. Once He is there, He is there.

Am I wrong on this?

In Christ
Scylla
 
scylla said:
It might not be a proper translation but how would it invalidate the Eucharist?

At that point hasn’t it already happened?

This is My Body, what happens at that point? Transubstantiation.

Unless Jesus then hears the next words wrong then says, “oops time to leave”

Once it is the Body and Blood of Christ it stays until it is consumed or rendered invalid matter. Even if the Priest jiggles around and does the herky jerky dance after the consecration, it would be improper but still Jesus remains.

Am I wrong on this?

In Christ
Scylla
Click to expand...
Yes, you are wrong. Let’s say the priest decides to say Mass with bread and wine, i.e valid matter. He could say the first part properly, and the bread would change to the body of Christ. Then he changes the words of consecration to “this is not my blood.” That does not affect a change in the wine, but retroactively invalidates the host. From that point on it never was the Body of Christ. There is no sacrifice if the Body and Blood are not separated, so there is no Mass. It all relies on looking at the Mass through eternity, so that there is no progression through time. You cannot look at the words of consecration as happening in time, they are Christ’s eternal words. So it is not so much that Jesus says “oops time to leave,” but that Jesus sees the eternal nature of the consecration and never shows up.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday
 
There is NO such thing as “retroactive invalidation”. If a priest validly confects the Eucharist, it’s confected, period…no matter what sacrilege he commits afterward.
 
AlexV said:
There is NO such thing as “retroactive invalidation”. If a priest validly confects the Eucharist, it’s confected, period…no matter what sacrilege he commits afterward.
Click to expand...
What I’m saying is that if he says the valid words of consecration for the host, but not for the wine, neither is valid. Both are part of the the consecration.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday
 
Dauphin said:
I think it’s entirely possible. If the Church deprived the vast majority of its followers of the Eucharist, I don’t think that it necessarily follows that the gates of Hell have prevailed. The Church would still exist and the Eucharist would still be valid under the Extraordinary form, which millions of Catholics attend. It would just be a much smaller church.
Click to expand...
Well Jesus said it an Aramaic so perhaps or hasn’t been a valid Eucharist since Aramaic went out of use.? I sincerely doubt if Jesus was too concerned about the exact translation of his words as long as the meaning was there-that is that the bread became his physical body.
 
The Church does not teach that both the bread and the wine must be consecrated for validity. Liceity, of course. But not validity. The Eucharist is whole and entire under EITHER form.
 
“Can. 927 It is absolutely wrong, even in urgent and extreme necessity, to consecrate one element without the other, or even to consecrate both outside the eucharistic celebration.”

This clearly implies that it is VALID, but not licit. It speaks of a consecration…a gravely illicit one, but a consecration nonetheless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top