If someone says the Eucharist is not valid in the NO

[ProVobis]

In the case of “for all” the translation was approved by the proper ecclesial authorities. It’s not being changed back to “for the many” because “for all” makes the consecration invalid. It’s being changed back to the ancient wording to make it consistent with the words of Scripture. The wording that is currently in use does not render the consecration invalid. No bishop has the authority to say that it does so.

Br Jr, I understand all that. I was merely pointing out that the “for all” argument isn’t/wasn’t specific to the “NO,” that it also affected the transitional Mass said during the 60’s. In fact, it also affects the Anglican Use Mass. And perhaps some Protestant liturgies as well, though we do know that they are already invalid.

 

[JReducation]

Br Jr, I understand all that. I was merely pointing out that the “for all” argument isn’t/wasn’t specific to the “NO,” that it also affected the transitional Mass said during the 60’s. In fact, it also affects the Anglican Use Mass. And perhaps some Protestant liturgies as well, though we do know that they are already invalid.

I could tell that you were not saying this. It seemed as if some people want to make their decision based on what Archbishop Lefebvre said. The point is that neither Archbishop Lefebvre not any other bishop has the authority to deny what the Church says is so.

In this case, if the Church says that the consecration is valid, then what any bishop thinks is irrelevant.

I tried to show how the Church is not stuck on the words, but on tradition. She wants the translation to be consistent with the traditional wording, just as she approved the anaphora of Addai and Mari, because it is traditional. Tradition is the opeative word here.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

I tried to show how the Church is not stuck on the words, but on tradition. She wants the translation to be consistent with the traditional wording, just as she approved the anaphora of Addai and Mari, because it is traditional. Tradition is the opeative word here.

Br Jr, okay, but I don’t see using any English translations to replace the Latin Mass itself as being very traditional from a Catholic viewpoint, but that’s me. Going through a translation and retranslation and bishop/Vatican-approval process to establish validity is still a new thing for the Roman Rite Church; I won’t say or I won’t believe that the consensus translations used in an actual Mass are invalid though.

And that is all I’m going to say on this thread.