Has the substance changed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LennyFL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LennyFL

Guest
I have a friend that claims the substance of the new mass changed when the words of consecration changed saying “this is for the salvation of all” and not “this is for the salvation for many.” Obviously not all will be saved. My friend is a traditionalist catholic who believes only the traditional Latin rite should be said.
Is there any refutes to the claim that the substance of the mass has changed?
 
Good morning, Lenny.

I will once again point to one of my favorite traditional apologists, John Salza. He shows arguments for both the short form and the long form, but he writes that the short form suffices for transubstantiation. Bear in mind that Pope Benedict XVI mandated the use of “for many”, so that should remove any doubt.
scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Catholic%20Tradition/Feature%20-%20The%20validity%20of%20the%20New%20Mass%27%20vernacular%20consecration.pdf

Now, regarding your friend’s claim, please have a look at another of Salza’s articles:
scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Catholic%20Tradition/Feature%20-%20The%20Implications%20of%20the%20Novus%20Ordo%20as%20a%20New%20Rite%20of%20Mass.pdf
 
LennyFL said:
I have a friend that claims the substance of the new mass changed when the words of consecration changed saying “this is for the salvation of all” and not “this is for the salvation for many.” Obviously not all will be saved. My friend is a traditionalist catholic who believes only the traditional Latin rite should be said.
Is there any refutes to the claim that the substance of the mass has changed?
Click to expand...
Well, he’s a Catholic (at least by baptism); it’s his opinion versus an Ecumenical Council. You could tell him that he isn’t given the option to disagree, but that wouldn’t work. Just explain to him what an "Ecumenical Council’ means, and if he still objects, you pray for him and then patiently break things down one piece at a time while the Holy Spirit does His work. Conversions don’t happen solely hrough intellectual arguments, and we aren’t the ones that convert anybody.

The modern Catholic Church doesn’t officially teach that all people are saved, or most, or few, or any other projection. It teaches that there is a Heaven and a hell. The 2nd Lateran Council, as well as every canonized mystic or Marian apparition that I have learned about thus far does teach that there are damned in hell at this moment. He shouldn’t be so worried about those that believe all are saved: it is an emotional opinion that is (in my opinion) divorced from the cardinal virtue of prudence, and the amount of material on his side eclipses the opposition. As far as the angels are concerned, there isn’t an option at all here: it is doctrine that devils exist, they have free will (just like humans) and that they are irrevocably damned.
 
LennyFL said:
I have a friend that claims the substance of the new mass changed when the words of consecration changed saying “this is for the salvation of all” and not “this is for the salvation for many.” Obviously not all will be saved. My friend is a traditionalist catholic who believes only the traditional Latin rite should be said.
Is there any refutes to the claim that the substance of the mass has changed?
Click to expand...
The Mass is more than just the words, although the words are important. The words of Mass are technically those in Latin which have been “pro multis” both before and after the implementation of the “new” missal. Pro multis means “for many” but it also means “for the many” which can include “all”. It’s a semantic conversation that, at worst, points to a sloppy translation rather than a queston of the efficacy of the Consecration.
 
Corki said:
The Mass is more than just the words, although the words are important. The words of Mass are technically those in Latin which have been “pro multis” both before and after the implementation of the “new” missal. Pro multis means “for many” but it also means “for the many” which can include “all”. ** It’s a semantic conversation** that, at worst, points to a sloppy translation rather than a queston of the efficacy of the Consecration.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Pluribus (as in* e pluribus unum*) also translates to “many” but a distinction isn’t made in the English, altough as you say, it could also mean “all.”

Inexact quantities, such as few, many, most, some, little, rare, are vague enough in the English, much less having to translate them accurately into other languages.
 
LennyFL said:
I have a friend that claims the substance of the new mass changed when the words of consecration changed saying “this is for the salvation of all” and not “this is for the salvation for many.” Obviously not all will be saved. **My friend is a traditionalist catholic who believes only the traditional Latin rite should be said. **Is there any refutes to the claim that the substance of the mass has changed?
Click to expand...
Your statement, which I bolded, is the crux of the conversation. The bottom line is that he believes that nothing but the Mass in Latin will be sufficient. Nothing you say will change his mind. Pray for him.

Sorry to sound so blunt and cynical, but seen and heard too many of these statements in the past.
 
It’s a moot point anyway. The official English translation of the Mass says “for many.”
 
If these are the words your friends are referring to (from Eucharistic Prayer II), then he is mistaken, because the official rubrics still call for the part I bolded:

“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.”

May God bless you all abundantly and forever! 🙂
 
Richard_White said:
If these are the words your friends are referring to (from Eucharistic Prayer II), then he is mistaken, because the official rubrics still call for the part I bolded:

“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.”
Click to expand...
Right. The entire part you bolded replaced the older English translation back in 2011 in all EPs. There were other translations which I’m told still need to be fixed.
 
ProVobis said:
Let’s be fair here. Matt1618 is defending something the Church has since corrected. Just sayin…
Click to expand...
But sayin’ unnecessarily. The point of the quotes is that the translation did not invalidate the Mass, contrary to those who held that the OF was an invalid Mass.

It (for all) was not a correct translation; “for many” is correct as to the Latin. But “for all” does not invalidate the Mass or the consecration; and eliminating both “for all” and “for many” would not invalidate it.
 
TK421 said:
Well, he’s a Catholic (at least by baptism); it’s his opinion versus an Ecumenical Council. You could tell him that he isn’t given the option to disagree, but that wouldn’t work. Just explain to him what an "Ecumenical Council’ means, and if he still objects, you pray for him and then patiently break things down one piece at a time while the Holy Spirit does His work. Conversions don’t happen solely hrough intellectual arguments, and we aren’t the ones that convert anybody.

The modern Catholic Church doesn’t officially teach that all people are saved, or most, or few, or any other projection. It teaches that there is a Heaven and a hell. The 2nd Lateran Council, as well as every canonized mystic or Marian apparition that I have learned about thus far does teach that there are damned in hell at this moment. He shouldn’t be so worried about those that believe all are saved: it is an emotional opinion that is (in my opinion) divorced from the cardinal virtue of prudence, and the amount of material on his side eclipses the opposition. As far as the angels are concerned, there isn’t an option at all here: it is doctrine that devils exist, they have free will (just like humans) and that they are irrevocably damned.
Click to expand...
The Second Vatican Council was not ecumenical by any stretch of the imagination… nor infallible.
 
otjm said:
But sayin’ unnecessarily. The point of the quotes is that the translation did not invalidate the Mass, contrary to those who held that the OF was an invalid Mass.
Click to expand...
In retrospect, I think what he missed was the standard by which validation was measured, which had been De Defectibus. Where is that standard now?

And for clarification, it wasn’t so much the OF consecration which was questioned and corrected; it was the English translation. The ICEL translation was made prior to the OF. The wording in the Latin wasn’t changed except for the Mysterium Fidei, although if one wants to argue some extremists thought this invalidated the Mass, I would say they had no basis as this didn’t significantly change the meaning or change the meaning at all.

As to why the Vatican thought it was top priority to retranslate the English, I think much of it had to do with English being the basis for translating into remote vernaculars such as the 240 of them in Nigeria alone. The “for all” clause may not have invalidated the Mass but it was a different theology than what the Church had taught.

Personally, I think they would have the same issues if the EF were ever allowed to be said in the vernacular so I wish they’d quit with the OF being invalid stuff.
 
smead2942 said:
The Second Vatican Council was not ecumenical by any stretch of the imagination… nor infallible.
Click to expand...
This is kind of irrelevant, since the Council was not involved in the translation at issue. That being said, I’m not sure how the Council could not be considered ecumenical–if anything, it was more representative of the world episcopate than any Council in history, it was convened by the Pope, and its acts were approved and promulgated by the Pope. It doesn’t get more ecumenical than that!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top