Help!

[user1234]

I know I have posted a lot of threads like this lately, but I was recently talking with a very Catholic person, and was told that the “for all” part of the consecration in the English translation of the Mass before the new translation turned it “for many” affected the validity of the ordinary form. I’m not sure what to think. Please help.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

No, such trivial differences in translation certainly do not affect the validity of the Mass.

 

[Mary_Ellen]

“For many” is a more accurate translation of the Latin. As the PP said, this does not affect the validity of the Sacrament.

Why would your “very Catholic” acquaintance question the Magisterial authority of the Church in this matter? Are they a trained scholar in canonical Latin and English translation who knows better than the ICEL, the International Commission on English in the Liturgy?

 

[Beryllos]

This recent thread may be helpful:
Ask An Apologist: What is an invalid or illicit Mass?
Here is the relevant part of the answer:
Assuming there’s a validly ordained priest with faculties and the proper matter of bread and wine, the only way that a Mass could be invalid is if the words [of] consecration were so greatly changed as to change the plain meaning of the words. Even a small change in the [wording] (e.g. a priest says for all instead of for many) would not invalidate the Eucharist since the essential meaning is the same.

 

[pianistclare]

“For many” is a more accurate translation of the Latin. As the PP said, this does not affect the validity of the Sacrament.

Why would your “very Catholic” acquaintance question the Magisterial authority of the Church in this matter? Are they a trained scholar in canonical Latin and English translation who knows better than the ICEL, the International Commission on English in the Liturgy?

+1

People love to think they are liturgy experts, when in nearly all cases, they are not.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

One can know Latin and English and theology even if it is not judged to affect validity. Sometimes we just have to heave a sigh.

 

[Evan]

Cardinal Ratzinger, before being elected pope, wrote in his book Jesus of Nazareth that the Latin “pro multus” could not be adequately rendered in English and that “for all” and “for many” both reflected part of what was contained in the Latin. Neither is correct, and that is always a difficulty in translating between languages.

 

[kdbueno]

The mass assures you that the divine ecclesia of the Trinity is correct. The mass is always preserved according to divine historical truth. With the divine phenomena, the rationale of the mass is conceptually understood. To tell straighly the mass is not enclosed, rather ecumenical in its savory dynamic.

 

[thistle]

The mass assures you that the divine ecclesia of the Trinity is correct. The mass is always preserved according to divine historical truth. With the divine phenomena, the rationale of the mass is conceptually understood. To tell straighly the mass is not enclosed, rather ecumenical in its savory dynamic.

I assume that English is not your mother tongue. I’m British but don’t have a clue what you are saying in your post. It would be helpful if you tried to talk simply. That way we could have a good debate with you.

 

[MorEphrem]

No, such trivial differences in translation certainly do not affect the validity of the Mass.

While I agree with you, it becomes problematic when there seems to be a history of “magic word syndrome.” If one looks at an old Maronite, there is a very obvious Latinization: the institution narrative goes from being ft. 12 to 90 for the second half (and the recordings one can find have the priest stop and annunciate every single syllable individually). I’m sure there are many that would argue any word variation affects validity. Each individual word, in this mentality, is necessary for proper form.

I wonder what they would say then if they saw the 80 or some odd different Syriac institution narratives.

In any case, I think “for many,” while a limited translation, is closer in connotation than “for all.” For one it agrees with the general English rendering of Matt. 26 and Mark 14. Secondly, while the Evangelists could have said “for each man,” “everyone,” etc., they chose not to (I’ve heard grammatical arguments Christ could not have said all in Aramaic - absolutely unfounded). The very fact that not everyone accepts the covenant makes it an exclusive agreement. This doesn’t affect the intent of the priest, nor does it affect the validity, but it does have theological implications.