My husband wants to know: Why were the words of consecration changed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter baylee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The words were changed in that “quod pro vobis tradetur” was appended to “Hoc est enim Corpus Meum” and “Mysterium Fidei” was removed from the formula for the chalice.

As to why, there were several to give a few: (with regard to the first formula) one was parallelism with the formula for the chalice (“which ill be poured out for you”) , the fact that all the other liturgies had an expanded text at this point, and that it expressed a sacrificial meaning within the Words themselves, among other reasons. “Mysterium Fidei” was axed since it was felt to be an interpolation, “of difficult origin”, and not unequivocal in interpretation.
 
I thought the big change people argued about was " will be shed for you and for MANY" being changed to: “shed for you and for ALL”.

Didn’t Paul VI say the smoke of satan had entered the church? Well, the people who made the changes couldn’t see where they were going, got lost, and you know how men hate to ask for directions.
 
I’m sorry for not giving more info in my OP…I thought the topic was pretty well known here on this specific forum. I am referring to the “for many” vs “for all”.

However, I just heard about this website…and it looks like there will be a new English translation that changes it back to “for many”! I personally do not believe that the mistranslation invalidated those consecrations, but I am very happy to see that it looks like this change will be made by 2010.

In addition to the words of consecration, there are a number of changes to be made…and I think this is great.

usccb.org/romanmissal/examples.shtml
 
Is your husband still considering becoming a sede vacanist or has he become one already? And why doesn’t he come on caf?
First question: He isn’t looking to become one, but he still reads and listens to the Dimond Brothers.

Second question: I suggested this, but hanging out on a forum isn’t his thing (but it is mine…lol).

I just showed him the forthcoming changes and I think he’s real happy about it. I’m hoping that this will put a lot of his (and many other folks’) concerns to bed…
 
Ask your husband what he is talking about. The essential words of consecration are ‘this is my body’ and ‘this is my blood’. Before the changes they were said in Latin. Now they can be said in the language of the country.
After the “changes,” Masses were still said in Latin, albeit much fewer, and the New Mass was promulgated in Latin. The Latin words of consecration never changed. The translators, however, replaced the scriptural English meaning “for many” with the words “for all” for reasons that ten thousand theologians and websites disagree on.

Whether you agree with the words or not, the Vatican says the Masses are valid.
 
This is an interesting comment:

“”*The word which we translate as ‘many’ stresses the sense of a great number and does not exclude anyone. . .Jesus certainly makes this fullness of salvation his own and it is the whole of mankind to the end of space and time that he includes in the ‘many’ for whom he was going to give his life as a ‘ransom’ *(Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45). (Benoit, Pierre, O.P. “The Accounts of the Institution and What they Imply,” in “The Eucharist in the New Testament: A symposium”, Helicon Press, Baltimore and Dublin, 1964, page 80.) This is right in line with the great Doctors of the Church, as St. Thomas referencing the other great Doctor, St. Augustine on the issue: "St. Augustine explains ‘multi’ to mean ‘all men’; and this manner of speaking is frequently found in sacred scripture. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Question 75, Reply to Objection 2). "

Emphasis mine.
 
John 17:9. I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

Enough said.
 
John 17:9. I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

Enough said.
Not sure I’m following what your meaning is here. Are you suggesting that Jesus only prays for the salvation of some? When he says that he does not pray for the world he was not referring to their salvation. He was referring to how the world will treat those who have already accepted Him at the time of His prayer.
 
This is more than counterbalanced by those who think Vatican 2 was the beginning of the Church.
I could not have said this better myself. So many Catholics today assume everything prior was wrong, somehow. GREAT point!
 
John 17:9. I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

Enough said.
Are you suggesting that Christ’s sacrifice was not for all of the world but only those who would achieve salvation?
 
Are you suggesting that Christ’s sacrifice was not for all of the world but only those who would achieve salvation?
I’m not St. John. You’ll have to ask him. 🙂

I wouldn’t want to correct Christ. Would you?
 
I thought the big change people argued about was " will be shed for you and for MANY" being changed to: “shed for you and for ALL”.
Yes, that’s what people generally refer to when they say the words were changed.

Whether you agree “many” should have been changed to “all” or not, you must agree “for you and for all” is very poor rhetoric and shouldn’t be used for that reason if nothing else. Why not just “for all” instead of “for you and for all”?
 
Yes, that’s what people generally refer to when they say the words were changed.

Whether you agree “many” should have been changed to “all” or not, you must agree “for you and for all” is very poor rhetoric and shouldn’t be used for that reason if nothing else. Why not just “for all” instead of “for you and for all”?
If I’m not mistaken, “for you and for the many” is the translation that was on the table. They were trying to get both gospels in. Theologically, we know that “the many” means for all. Greek does not have a word “many” that means the same “many” as we do in English. Their “many” is closer to our “multitude”. What I’m trying to say is that the word “many” as it was used in the ancient Greek scriptures has a broader meaning that includes all.

The reason that the Church wants to use “many” is to say the words as they appear in scripture, not because the Church believes that Christ’s sacrifice was exclusive. Theololgically, that’s not the case. The issue here is not theology, it’s the preservation of the scriptural wording.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Keeping in mind that the Church has ruled that the new consecration is valid and there are numerous opinions on the matter:
By John Salza, Esq.
(Posted 10/15/09 www.RemnantNewspaper.com) In his ongoing effort to restore the Church to her infallible, ecclesiastical traditions, His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI at the end of 2006 ordered the world’s episcopal conferences to remedy erroneous vernacular translations of the Novus Ordo Mass. Chief among the plethora of errors was the ICEL’s deplorable translation of the Latin pro multis (literally, “for many”) as “for all” (which, incidentally, is pro omnibus) in the consecration formula for the wine.
Finally, the U.S. bishops have voted to approve a revised translation of the Novus Ordo Mass which correctly translates pro multis as “for many.” In other words, the revised English translation will finally use the words that Jesus used when He instituted the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: “for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many (Greek, polus) for the forgiveness of sins” (Mt 26:28); “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many” (Greek, polus)(Mk 14:24).
Based on the plain words of our Savior, the Church has used “for many” in consecrating the wine throughout her entire history. It has been used in all the liturgies from the East to the West, including the Alexandrine liturgy, the canons of Hippolytus, De Sacramentis of Pseudo-Ambrose, the Gallican and Mozarabic rites, and all the rest. At no point in her history did the Church ever use “for all” in the consecration formula until the liturgical revolution of the 1960s. While the ICEL is guilty of many translation errors in the Novus Ordo, the “for all” error is the most egregious, and appears to have been promoted by powers within the Vatican itself (perhaps a prominent member of the Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship). This is because the “for all” error has not been limited to English translations, but is also used in other vernacular translations, particularly throughout Europe. For example, in Italy the usage is “per tutti” (for all), and not “per molti” (for many).
Some apologists for the vernacular translation argue that “for many” and “for all” are interchangeable in the Scriptures. This is true in certain cases. For example, in Matthew 20:28, Jesus says that He came “to give his life as a ransom for many” (Greek, polus). In 1Tim 2:6, St. Paul says that Jesus “gave himself as a ransom for all” (Greek, pas). The problem with this argument is that Jesus did not use “for all” (pas) when He instituted the Eucharist. He used “for many” (polus). While it is true that, scripturally speaking, “for all” may mean the same thing as “for many” in certain cases, it does not mean that “for all” means “for many” in every case, and particularly in the case at hand, where Jesus at the Last Supper was referring to the efficacy of His sacrifice (which would benefit “many”), and not the sufficiency of His sacrifice (which would be given to “all”).
(more at website)
angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=28412&sid=ea9b3f9353c7e865de01f8772058a463
 
I’m not St. John. You’ll have to ask him. 🙂

I wouldn’t want to correct Christ. Would you?
So if you are not St John and there’s no way to know what he meant, why did you quote this particular Scripture passage in this thread?
 
Keeping in mind that the Church has ruled that the new consecration is valid and there are numerous opinions on the matter:

angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=28412&sid=ea9b3f9353c7e865de01f8772058a463
I’m glad they are changing it to say “for many”…at the very least just to put the issue to bed, but if “for many” MUST be included then what does that say about the words the Lord gave to St Paul regarding the consecration? Those words do not include “for many” at all…were Paul’s consecrations invalid because of that fact? It seems to me that it is disengenuous (at best) for anyone to say that these were ALWAYS the words of consecration throughout the Church since the beginning of the Church.
 
I’m glad they are changing it to say “for many”…at the very least just to put the issue to bed, but if “for many” MUST be included then what does that say about the words the Lord gave to St Paul regarding the consecration? Those words do not include “for many” at all…were Paul’s consecrations invalid because of that fact? It seems to me that it is disengenuous (at best) for anyone to say that these were ALWAYS the words of consecration throughout the Church since the beginning of the Church.
There is another Eucharistic prayer in the East that is still used by very few in the Syrian Churches. It does not use the same formula, but it is a valid formula. The Holy Father already spoke on this. It does date back to the Apostolic era.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
With all due respect, but your post is very confusing. I cannot tell if it’s anti-Catholic or anti-Protestant. In either case, it’s not a very constructive response.

I have no idea how old you are, but I do agree with other people. It does get old to hear people want to blame Vatican II on all the problems of the world. Vatican II achieved many wonderful things too. It would be nice to hear about those.

I was around before Vatican II. Not everything was as perfect as some people want to make it out to be. And not everything is as it appears to be. Please allow me to point out a few things.
  1. Benches and kneelers: Did you know that the Protestants introduced benches into Church buildings, not Catholics? When the Protestant Reformation took place, the sermons got longer and longer. People go tired and began to bring benches to church. As the Protestants spread, they began to design churches with benches. American Catholics copied it and they introduced kneelers. Churches in Europe did not have benches. People stood during the liturgy, as they do in the East.
  2. Tabernacle front and center: Did you know that the tabernacle was not always front and center? The practice was introduced by St. Francis of Assisi around 1212. Tabernacles were on the side altar or in a side chapel. When Francis began to rebuild abandoned chapels around Assisi, they were very small. There was no room for a side altar. Francis has the tabernacle placed on the main altar so that it could be housed in the chapel. As his friars migrated through Europe, they took this model with them. As they built churches they put the tabernacle on the main altar. Other religous who ran parishes followed suit.
  3. Communion rails: Did you know that communion rails were originally erected for political purposes. In Medieval times people often took refuge in churches when invaders came. If you were standing in the sanctuary you could not be arrested. That’s where the word sanctuary was introduced into civil law. The rails had nothing to do with communion per se. People went to communion at a kneeler that was setup in the front of the church, before there were communion rails. In addition, many churches were attached to monasteries. Gradually, people began to kneel at the railing instead of at the kneeler. It made communion faster if the priest would just walk from side to side.
  4. Statues in churches: Did you know that statues in churches were not introduced until the Renaissance? The usual church had a crucifix over the center altar. As architecture became more elaborate and there was more money for it, the altars got bigger with all kinds of nitches for statues. Until the 1200s, the altars were very simple.
  5. Confessionals: Did you know that there were no such things as confessionals until after the 1500s. Even today, many European churches do not have a booth as we know it in the USA. Confessionals were a partition with the priest sitting on one side and a kneeler on the other, but they were open for all to see the confessor and the penitent. People did not go to confession every week until after the Middle Ages. So confessionals were not frequently used.
  6. Protestants at Vatican II: Did you know that they were invited by Bl. Pope John XXIII. He invited them to participate on some committees. But they did not have free reign of the liturgy as some want to say. They did participate in the discussions. There was a proposal for a mass that came out of the discussions. However, that proposal never made it into practice. Bl. John XXIII did not like it and sent it back. The reform that was finally approved by Pope Paul VI was not written by Protestants and it was authorized by a canonically elected pope.
  7. Simple churches: The first big churches in Christendom were part of monasteries. They were called the moanstic church. They were built and designed according to the Benedictine tradition in the West and the Basilian tradition in the East. The Churches in the East were very colorful with many painting and iconography. In the Benedictine tradition, the churches were white-washed and very asutere. Later stained glass was introduced, but the white walls remained and are still part of the Benedictine and Franciscan traditions. Religious art developed, many bishops and popes commissioned artists to paint the great churches. We don’t have too many Giotto’s, Raphael’s and Michelangelo’s around anymore. Which is sad, because they did create beautiful worship spaces.
There are many things that we take as a given, because we were born in the 20th century. But when we speak of them, we have to put them in proper context so that people can see where they came from and not feel as though someone changed the faith of the Church. Should we preserve them? Of course. They are a product of faith. Even if they are not present in a particular church or diocese, the faith does not change, because the faith pre-dates these things.

Finally, the words of consecration were mistranslated in the English. However, the mistranslation does not invallidate the consecration, because the essential words are still there. Be patient. The corrected translation is coming.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Thanks very much for this bit of history – very interesting 🙂
 
I think they’re turning it back to “for many” 🙂

but in any case, we shoudln’t believe that the Consecration was invalidated at VII… because the Church is lead by the Holy Spirit, and God wouldn’t let the Eucharist disappear.
 
Are you suggesting that Christ’s sacrifice was not for all of the world but only those who would achieve salvation?
The “achieving salvation” is only through the merit of Christ, unwarranted by anything but acceptance. Some will not accept.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top