EFvsNO: For many/for all question [edited]

[benedictgal]

The Pro Multis (terminology) has been inserted into the new translation of the ordinary of the Mass. Vox Clara, which came about to clarify some of the major ICEL issues, worked to correct a lot of the problems. Here is the new translation (which we should be using come Advent 2010):

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT,
FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD,
THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT,
WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY
FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.
DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.

I hope this will help answer some of the questions.

 

[snshn3800]

The Pro Multis (terminology) has been inserted into the new translation of the ordinary of the Mass. Vox Clara, which came about to clarify some of the major ICEL issues, worked to correct a lot of the problems. Here is the new translation (which we should be using come Advent 2010):

I hope this will help answer some of the questions.

Thank You

 

[pickguard1]

Originally posted by pickguard1

I have never seen an authoritative place where the specific words of consecration are listed so that the “form” of the sacrament can be easily recognized by the faithful. (I feel this is a major shortcoming of the teaching authority of the Church) Are the words following “This is the cup/chalice of my blood” a part of the consecration? Or are they just modifiers? If they are modifiers, they are irrelevant insofar as the confection of the sacrament is concerned. If they ARE apart of the form, then caution has to be taken as to whether they can be legitimately changed and still fulfill the form(especially since the major change from “many” to “all” (multis/omnes) has us changing the ACTUAL words of Christ.

I have done some more searching on the forums and found references to papal documents that define the words of consecration, but there still seems to be a debate regarding the omission or movement of the words “the mystery of faith.” I have also seen references to a phrase “essential form” which apparently is different than just “form” and signifies just the words “This is my Body, This is My Blood”. But the writer later went on to state that there haven’t been any ex cathedra or dogmatic pronouncements about this “short form”.

(I didn’t mean to seem flippant when I said that the modifiers would be irrelevant, just that IF the above mentioned “essential form” is all that is necessary, we don’t have to worry whether changing other words around it nullifies the sacrament.)
Any comments or clarification on this issue would be appreciated.

 

[benedictgal]

Here is what the Mexican Episcopal Conference said regarding the “pro multis” matter:

En cuanto a las palabras de consagración del vino, nuestra tercera edición del Misal Romano traerá una variante. La Santa Sede ha establecido que la frase “pro multis” del
texto latino debe ser traducida como “por muchos” en todas las nuevas traducciones de las
plegarias eucarísticas.

Aunque “por muchos” es la traducción literal de la frase latina, la traducción utilizada en México después del Concilio Vaticano II, es la frase “por todos”.

The rough translation is that they will be using “por muchos”, which means, “for the many” for their translation of the third edition of the Roman Missal. Thus, the “pro multis” issue, as another poster noted, isn’t confined to ICEL alone. Furthermore, it also shows that Liturgiam Authenticam is not just aimed at ICEL.

 

[Dauphin]

“Extraordinary” means “outside of the ordinary.” There are many extraordinary forms besides the Tridentine. For example, a local Dominican Church here in Portland sometimes celebrates Mass according to the Dominican Rite (which is actually much older than the Tridentine).

This is false on two counts.

1. The Dominican Rite is not more ancient than the the Traditional Latin Mass (Roman Rite). The TLM was first codified by Pope St. Gregory the Great, while the Dominican Rite emerged during the middle ages.
2. The Dominican Rite and other liturgical rites do not have the same status as the Traditional Latin Mass. Additional faculties must be received in order to celebrate these other rites, while the Traditional Latin Mass may be celebrated by any priest without any permission whatsoever. The Pope has given it a privileged position.

 

[pnewton]

This is false on two counts.

1. The Dominican Rite is not more ancient than the the Traditional Latin Mass (Roman Rite). The TLM was first codified by Pope St. Gregory the Great, while the Dominican Rite emerged during the middle ages.

Unfair to call something false that is a matter of opinion. Dating the Tridentine Mass specifically from the Mass that bore its name (it is not the Gregorian Mass, after all) is legitimate, as well as the earlier date. I just think “false” is a little harsh for a differing opinion.

 

[pickguard1]

Here is what the Mexican Episcopal Conference said regarding the “pro multis” matter:

En cuanto a las palabras de consagración del vino, nuestra tercera edición del Misal Romano traerá una variante. La Santa Sede ha establecido que la frase “pro multis” del
texto latino debe ser traducida como “por muchos” en todas las nuevas traducciones de las
plegarias eucarísticas.

Aunque “por muchos” es la traducción literal de la frase latina, la traducción utilizada en México después del Concilio Vaticano II, es la frase “por todos”.

The rough translation is that they will be using “por muchos”, which means, “for the many” for their translation of the third edition of the Roman Missal. Thus, the “pro multis” issue, as another poster noted, isn’t confined to ICEL alone. Furthermore, it also shows that Liturgiam Authenticam is not just aimed at ICEL.

Hasn’t been much activity on this thread in a bit, so I started looking at it again. I don’t think you have the right translation of this passage benedictgal. I think the Enlish translation runs more like this:

"Regarding the words of consecration of the wine, our Third Edition of the Roman Missal will bring a variant. The Holy See has esablished the the phrase ‘pro multis’ from the Latin text should be translated as ‘for many’ in all the new translations of the Eucharistic prayers. Even though “for many” is the literal translation of the Latin phrase, the translation utilized in Mexico after the Second Vatican Council is the phrase ‘for all.’ "

So I don’t necessarily think this means that the Mexican Episcopal conference is going to change their usage, rather this implies that they will continue to use the Spanish equivalent of “for all” (por todos) even though the Holy See is requesting the change to “for many.”

If there is more to this segment from teh Mexican Episcopal Conference that clears this up, that would be helpful. My Spanish is a bit rusty, but I still have a pretty good grip on it.