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.
4EverHis said:
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.
Click to expand...
Excellent point 👍

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
puzzleannie said:
if OP is not going to supply link with quotes for words of consecration “before and after V2” thread should be closed
Click to expand...
LOL!!! I totally agree annie - it is always amazing to see how much folks will spin their wheels, get all bent out of shape, and spend enormous amounts of time writing HUGE posts - when they really don’t even know what the OP is even asking!!! :rolleyes:

Too funny. 🍿

~Liza
 
baylee said:
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?
Click to expand...
Why should I comment on something if it speaks for itself and already best counters some previous attempt to justify “for you and for all”?

In any event, Roma locutus est, the current Mass is valid, they’re changing to the right words, and that’s that. Is there still a problem?
 
ProVobis said:
Why should I comment on something if it speaks for itself and already best counters some previous attempt to justify “for you and for all”?

In any event, Roma locutus est, the current Mass is valid, they’re changing to the right words, and that’s that. Is there still a problem?
Click to expand...
Actually, there is still a problem. You’re taking a single scripture verse and stating what it means out of context. Are you sure you’re not Protestant?
 
baylee said:
Actually, there is still a problem. You’re taking a single scripture verse and stating what it means out of context. Are you sure you’re not Protestant?
Click to expand...
Actually those weren’t any scripture verse. Those are the words of Christ. I didn’t state what they mean at all. I take it Christ’s words and Protestants bother you?
 
ProVobis said:
Actually those weren’t any scripture verse. Those are the words of Christ. I didn’t state what they mean at all. I take it Christ’s words and Protestants bother you?
Click to expand...
Ok, so now I’m thinking you’re being obtuse on purpose.

What you wrote is a Scripture verse which happens to also be the words of Christ. Regardless, you are taking one Scripture verse (in this case one thing Christ says) and taking it out of context to fit your point of view. That is what Protestants do. And yes, Protestants bother me when they do this…just as it bothers me that this is what you are doing here.

Originally Posted by ProVobis forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*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.*
 
baylee said:
Ok, so now I’m thinking you’re being obtuse on purpose.

What you wrote is a Scripture verse which happens to also be the words of Christ. Regardless, you are taking one Scripture verse (in this case one thing Christ says) and taking it out of context to fit your point of view. That is what Protestants do. And yes, Protestants bother me when they do this…just as it bothers me that this is what you are doing here.
Click to expand...
So much for ecumenism then. Okay, what is your point of view?
 
ProVobis said:
So much for ecumenism then. Okay, what is your point of view?
Click to expand...
I think her point of view, which you are trying very hard to subvert, is (as reflected in the Catechism of the Church) that "the existence in Christ of the divine person of the Son, who at once surpasses and embraces all human persons, and constitutes himself as the Head of all mankind, makes possible his redemptive sacrifice for all" as opposed to your attempt to use scripture and Christ’s own words to suggest that His sacrifice was not “for all,” but “for many,” suggesting (as I perceive) a Calvinist influence that Christ’s sacrifice was only for those who would achieve salvation, not those of the whole world.
 
Maybe I’m misreading the poss and if I am, someone correct me. The reason that the Church wants to return to the use of “for the many” is not becasue Jesus did not die for all. It has to do with exegesis, not salvation itself. The Church wants to be faithful to the words used in scripture.

“The many” and “all” are not easily distinguished in Greek. Because in Greek, “for the many” is not a quantitative term. It has nothing to do with numbers. It’s qualitative. It refers to those who accept the salvation that is procured by Christ for all.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
Maybe I’m misreading the poss and if I am, someone correct me. The reason that the Church wants to return to the use of “for the many” is not becasue Jesus did not die for all. It has to do with exegesis, not salvation itself. The Church wants to be faithful to the words used in scripture.

“The many” and “all” are not easily distinguished in Greek. Because in Greek, “for the many” is not a quantitative term. It has nothing to do with numbers. It’s qualitative. It refers to those who accept the salvation that is procured by Christ for all.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
That is exactly what I was thinking as well.
 
Timothysis said:
I think
Click to expand...
You could be right if you define Christ’s universe properly. In other words, who comprises the “all” here?
John 17 (not from the Calvinist Bible but from the New Catholic Edition of the Holy Bible, Confraternity Edition, Imprimatur Francis Cardinal Spellman, 1951)
Click to expand...
These things Jesus spoke; and raising his eyes to heaven, he said, "Father, the hour has come! Glorify thy Son, that thy Son may glorify thee, even as thou hast given him power over all flesh, in order that to all thou hast given him power over all flesh, in order that to all thou hast given him he may give everlasting life. Now this is everlasting life, that they may know thee, the only true God, and him whom thou has sent, Jesus Christ. I have glorified thee on earth; I have accomplished the work that thou hast given me to do. And now do thou, Father, glorify me with thyself, with the glory that I had with thee before the world existed.
Click to expand...
"I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou hast given me out of the world. They were thine, and thou hast given them to me, and they have kept they word. Now they have learnt that whatever thou hast given me is from thee; because the words that thou hast given me I have given to them. And they have received them, and have known of a truth that I came forth from thee, and they have believed that thou didst sent me.
Click to expand...
"I pray for them; not for the world do I pray, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine; and all things that are mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. And I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I am coming to thee. Holy Father, keep in thy name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one even as we are. While I was with them, I kept them in thy name. Those whom thou hast given me I guarded; and not one of them perished except the son of perdition, in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled. But now I am coming to thee; and these things I speak in the world, in order that they may have my joy made full in themselves. I have given them thy word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I do not tray that thou take them out of the world, but that thou keep them from evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth. Thy word is truth. Even as thou hast sent me into the world, so I also have sent them into the world. And for them into the world. And for them I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.
Click to expand...
"Yet not for these only do I pray, but for those also who through their word are to believe in me, that all may be one, even as thou, Father, in me and I in thee; that they also may be one in us, that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory that thou hast given me, I have given to them, that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them and thou in me; that they may be perfected in unity, and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and that thou hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.
Click to expand...
“Father, I will that where I am, they also whom thou hast given me may be with me; in order that they may behold my glory, which thou hast loved me before the creation of the world. Just Father, the world has not known thee, but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. And I have made known to them thy name, and will make it known, in order that the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.”
Click to expand...
 
ProVobis said:
You could be right if you define Christ’s universe properly. In other words, who comprises the “all” here?
Click to expand...
This prayer that you cite here, which disappeared when I tried to answer ( :D) is not the Eucharistic prayer. This has often been expained as Jesus’ prayer for the apostles, who will now take up this mission as the bishops of the new Church.

Many people confuse the wording in this prayer to mean that Jesus did not die for all, but for some or for many. This is not the case here. This prayer was actually added to the scriptures by the disciples of the apostles to explain the succession from Jesus to the apostles and to show the union between Jesus and the apostles. No one really knows exactly what words Jesus prayed in the Garden. Tradition has it that these words were taught by the apostles to the early Church, inspired by the revelaton of their union with Christ’s priesthood.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
This prayer that you cite here, which disappeared when I tried to answer ( :D) is not the Eucharistic prayer. This has often been expained as Jesus’ prayer for the apostles, who will now take up this mission as the bishops of the new Church.
Click to expand...
That’ll work. Thanks, JR.
 
Timothysis said:
I think her point of view, which you are trying very hard to subvert, is (as reflected in the Catechism of the Church) that “the existence in Christ of the divine person of the Son, who at once surpasses and embraces all human persons, and constitutes himself as the Head of all mankind, makes possible his redemptive sacrifice for all” as opposed to your attempt to use scripture and Christ’s own words to suggest that His sacrifice was not “for all,” but “for many,” suggesting (as I perceive) a Calvinist influence that Christ’s sacrifice was only for those who would achieve salvation, not those of the whole world.
Click to expand...
Bingo right back atcha…but I think he knew the answer to his own question.
 
ProVobis said:
That’ll work. Thanks, JR.
Click to expand...
Fascinating. What JR wrote wasn’t very different from what I wrote posts ago, but I’m glad to see that I was on the right track with the purpose and meaning of Jesus’ prayer in John 17.
 
baylee said:
Fascinating. What JR wrote wasn’t very different from what I wrote posts ago, but I’m glad to see that I was on the right track with the purpose and meaning of Jesus’ prayer in John 17.
Click to expand...
We have to remember that the Johanine writers were mystics. They were John’s disciples. John himself was a mystic. They wrote revelation using poetic structures. We find them in John’s Prologue, which was later added to the Gospel written by John, in this prayer which scholars often call “The priestly prayer of Jesus” as it is a prayer for his priests, and in the Book of Revelations where there are several canticles. They all have to be peeled like an onion because there are layers of beautiful revealed truths in them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Hold on, there. Let’s not pat ourselves on the back just yet.

So that we’re on the same wavelength here, “all” means every man and woman since the caveman days, right? The pagans, the atheists, Christ’s betrayers, Christ deniers, the Muslims, the unrepentents, the Buddhists, Hitler, the abortionists, the aborted, the miscarriaged, the terrorists, the moneychangers, Siamese twins, the transsexuals, future aliens, etc. Do we agree on this universe?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top