New translation of the Mass coming your way!

[countrylily]

rcn:

So you’re saying that in the present mass, Christ is not even on the altar?

I feel sorry for you. You’re new here; I think you’ll quickly find that you’ll be in the extreme minority.

I realize I am new here and it really saddens me to here the liberal remarks or be considered a minority.
Rcn: What I mean by putting Christ back on the alter is this. When I walk into any church I should not have to go looking for Christ in some hidden room He should be on his Throne upon the Alter. The new mass has put Him away, and in His place the churches have put man. We are not at Mass to glorify man we are there to Glorify Almighty God alone. If you were to go to a Kings Palace or home you would be expected to see him upon his throne in all his majesty and you would be expected to be reverent and bow before him. If we do this before an earthly king then how much more do we owe Our HeavenlyKing? We are not at Mass to watch a play or because it feels good as so many people think. We are there to Glorify Almighty God. There is no greater Gift then Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.
The new mass was well thought out before it was implemented by the modernist.

It really doesn’t matter what the Modernists did to the Council or even in the name of the “spirit of Vatican II” because we must always interpret any official document from the Church from the vantage point of Tradition and through the eyes of previously defined dogmas. If a document appears to contradict a defined dogma then it is being misinterpreted.

Something that is important and necessary to state is a principle that seemes to be lost after the Second Vatican Council. The principle is this: Every decision, every official statement of every Pope, every official decree by any Council must adhere first and foremost to the constant Magisterium of the Church which preceded it. In other words, no Pope, no Council, no official decree can contradict the constant teaching of the Church and the Popes that came before. If a Popes or a bishop or a Council contradicts the constant teachings of the Magisterium that have been handed down to them then they are at least guilty of disobedience and at most guilty of heresy.
Saint Paul’s words:** “'But though we, 'or an angel from heaven preach to you a gospel besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathe****ma”**
All for the Greater Glory of God

 

[chadwilliams]

4 marks:

Also avoids obsessive Mariolatry positioning her as pointing to Christ and not to herself.

Where in the current Missal do we have “obsessive Mariolatry positioning her as pointing to herself?”

 

[chadwilliams]

Dr. Bombay:

I don’t trust our bishops as far as I can throw them. They’ll find some way to dumb it down and make it even more insipid than the current translation.

We must pray especially hard for our Bishops, not bad-mouth them.

 

[chadwilliams]

TNT:

GEE!
How fast a Neo can become a “trad” when it’s THEIR tradition that’s being gored!

Boy, TNT, you hit the nail on the head right there!

 

[countrylily]

gelsbern:

Glad you asked.

In both thanslations the one word that won’t change is the word ALL

The latin is “pro multis” and it translates into “for many” however ICEL has translated it as “for all” and that has been the basis of the wedge driven between many traditionalist and the conciliarists.

Too bad that it didn’t get translated back to “for many” It might have settled a lot of disputes.

And just so everyone gets a little education, the discrepancy isn’t so much about the all or many in the meaning. EVERYONE knows that Jesus died for all. BUT and I don’t have time to look it up at the moment, a pope infallibly declared that the words of consecration were the only words of consecration. BUT he never specified language. So there is no problem of translating it to english, BUT the english must be a complete, total and literal translation of the latin. and “for all” doesn’t adhere to that. hence the contraversy.

You are mostly correct except that Our Lord said: “All are called and few are chosen.” So the “pro multis” is the only way it should be said and this is because Our Lord intended to remind us that even though he died for all of us and he wants all of us in heaven with him unfortunately not everyone goes to heaven. I hate to be so negative about this but souls fall into hell like snow flakes falling to the ground. Why? Because people have lost there faith and don’t realize that is only takes 1 mortal sin to send us to hell.

All for the Greater Glory of God!

 

[Dr.Bombay]

chadwilliams:

We must pray especially hard for our Bishops, not bad-mouth them.

Excuse me. I pray every day for my bishops, thank you very much.

The current puerile, insipid English translation of the Mass was approved by the bishops. That’s a fact.

If they approve a more worthy translation, I’ll be the first to tip my hat to them. :tiphat:

 

[Podo2004]

Dr. Bombay:

That’s a peculiar attitude. I’ve been to many a Mass, new and old, where I didn’t say word one to another person from the time I entered the church to the time I got back in my car to go home. I assure you, however, that I was actively participating in Mass and communing with my God.

And there’s nothing “lovable” about you sliding your sweaty palm into mine as if we’re lovers while I’m trying to pray. Keep your hands to yourself, princess, and stop violating my personal space. :tsktsk:

Wow what a wonderful catholic way to respond, I’m just spectating mass, i don’t want anything to do with it, I just want to look holy and as though communing silently with God is the best way…You were not actively participating! Look up Vatican II documents, they specify that you participate in mass( and that doesn’t mean silently) And we are a church, a community, so holding hands would enforce that thought. But if you would rather be alone while we celebrate with God, fine just don’t be insulted if God tryed to hold your hand…
I’ve come to realise something, we do we call ourselves the catholic CHURCH? Doesn’t mean anything if you don’t want to be involved in the church. You might as well call it the catholic religion without the word church in it.
Podo(sigh)

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Podo2004:

Wow what a wonderful catholic way to respond, I’m just spectating mass, i don’t want anything to do with it, I just want to look holy and as though communing silently with God is the best way…You were not actively participating! Look up Vatican II documents, they specify that you participate in mass( and that doesn’t mean silently) And we are a church, a community, so holding hands would enforce that thought. But if you would rather be alone while we celebrate with God, fine just don’t be insulted if God tryed to hold your hand…
I’ve come to realise something, we do we call ourselves the catholic CHURCH? Doesn’t mean anything if you don’t want to be involved in the church. You might as well call it the catholic religion without the word church in it.
Podo(sigh)

So judgemental. I guess in your holier-than-thou world, a person with brain damage who is unable to articulate speech isn’t really “participating” in the Mass and shouldn’t even be there. A paralyzed person who is unable to extend their hand is not really “participating” in the Mass. I suppose the great desert Fathers who isolated themselves from all human contact so they could be alone with God were poor examples of Christianity.

I respond at Mass at the appropriate times. I just don’t try to add my own version of what constitutes “active” participation. And I never stick around afterwards to back slap and scarf donuts. Donut scarfing, in case you aren’t aware, is not part of Mass. Also please quote the Vatican II document that orders people to not stay silent if they so choose or hold hands during the Our Father.

You people amaze me. You love spouting your vapid cliches like “we are church” and “we are a faith community” until someone disagrees with your narrow, doctrinaire view of what that means. Then you dismiss us with a condescending sneer and automatic excommunication from your new church.

Thankfully, my good standing in the Church is not determined by rage-filled rants from internet posters, misguided diocesan liturgists or bitter parish council members.

 

[rcn]

countrylily:

When I walk into any church I should not have to go looking for Christ in some hidden room He should be on his Throne upon the Alter. The new mass has put Him away, and in His place the churches have put man.

That’s all quite melodramatic, but it’s also an exaggeration. Many if not most churches still have the tabernacle in its traditional place in the sanctuary (note: not on the altar), and the “new mass” had absolutely nothing to do with those churches that have moved it.

The new mass was well thought out before it was implemented by the modernist.Again, a misrepresentation, if not an outright untruth. The Church itself created the new mass.

If a Popes or a bishop or a Council contradicts the constant teachings of the Magisterium

Again, you will find yourself in an extreme minority here if you insist on pursuing the “Vatican II was an invalid council” line of argument.

 

[Hesychios]

UKcatholicGuy:

you guys heard? there is a NEW translation of the English Mass coming to America! It’s much more reverent in its language and follows the original latin more closely. not sure when it’s due to be implemented, but you can view it, side-by-side with the current translation here:

Too bad it still includes the filioque, this would be a good time to pull it out!
+T+
Michael

 

[netmilsmom]

Dr. Bombay:

So judgemental. I guess in your holier-than-thou world, a person with brain damage who is unable to articulate speech isn’t really “participating” in the Mass and shouldn’t even be there. A paralyzed person who is unable to extend their hand is not really “participating” in the Mass. I suppose the great desert Fathers who isolated themselves from all human contact so they could be alone with God were poor examples of Christianity.

I respond at Mass at the appropriate times. I just don’t try to add my own version of what constitutes “active” participation. And I never stick around afterwards to back slap and scarf donuts. Donut scarfing, in case you aren’t aware, is not part of Mass. Also please quote the Vatican II document that orders people to not stay silent if they so choose or hold hands during the Our Father.

You people amaze me. You love spouting your vapid cliches like “we are church” and “we are a faith community” until someone disagrees with your narrow, doctrinaire view of what that means. Then you dismiss us with a condescending sneer and automatic excommunication from your new church.

Thankfully, my good standing in the Church is not determined by rage-filled rants from internet posters, misguided diocesan liturgists or bitter parish council members.

SmackDown!!
I agree with you totally!

 

[Prometheum_x]

I’m involved with the liturgical music at my parish, so at first glance, I can see that changes will mean lots of time spent adapting our current melodies to the new version or writing new melodies!

And yes, everyone gets attached to their own traditions, even the tradition of not having any traditions. . .

 

[Fogny]

WanderAimlessly:

Hmmm…

More changes in the translation than I thought there would be, but not the one I thought there would be. Certain people will not be happy since one word hs not been changed.

PF

Well I think Mel Gibson would object to this change.

To Shed is to say, like blood and is acompanied by violence.

Poured sounds so nuetered and non-violent.

It will be shed for you and for all

it will be poured out for you and for all

maybe after some thought it sounds so Protestant,
Ok let’s get Pope Benedict on this one.

Fogny

 

[boppysbud]

Perhaps my catechisis was faulty but I really do not understand using “for many” instead of “for all”.

Has the Catholic church really been Calvinistic, teaching predestination, forordination, and election all along and I was just ignorant of it?

I never knew I was a member of a Reformed/Presbyterian church, all this time I thought I was Catholic.

 

[FrRobSST]

boppysbud:

Perhaps my catechisis was faulty but I really do not understand using “for many” instead of “for all”.

Has the Catholic church really been Calvinistic, teaching predestination, forordination, and election all along and I was just ignorant of it?

I never knew I was a member of a Reformed/Presbyterian church, all this time I thought I was Catholic.

I think that a part of the problem is that in this day and age where many people try to emphasize that no-one is going to Hell, that the phrase “for all” is linked to the universal complete redemption that many people associate with such modern thinking.

The classical reasoning of the Eastern and Western Church goes like this: Jesus came and died, shed his blood that all who are marked with that blood through baptism, repentance, and ongoing conversion of life are delivered from the bonds of death and enter into the kingdom of God. The problem is that while Jesus said that he came to die for all, the sacrifice only benefits a specific number in reality (the many) - those who will be saved. Thus, taking the literal translation of the Greek “for the many”, there has been a wide preference by those who are traditionally minded to maintain that particular phrase in order to rule out the possibility of someone teaching ‘universal salvation with no hell’ that some began to teach in the 1960’s.

Rob+

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

boppysbud:

Perhaps my catechisis was faulty but I really do not understand using “for many” instead of “for all”.

I think it is a matter of being obedient to Jesus Christ.

When He created the Eucharist at the Last Supper He said: “Do this in memory of Me.” Do THIS is what He says. Do what I am doing.

And so we take bread and wine and not crackers and coke because HE took bread and wine. So we do what He did.

Similarly we take His words and repeat them, and what he says, if you look at His sacred words in Matthew and Mark, is: " This is My Blood which is shed for many."

Matthew 26: 27,28: "Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed *for many * for the forgiveness of sins.

Mark 14:24: "This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many…”

Now I don’t think that the Lord was a Calvinist or anything like a Reformed Presbyterian because He used these words. I don’t think that you seriously think so either.

The “tradition” of using “for many” is only 40 years old. I remember the furore it caused when it was first used in place of “for all.” It seems a small thing but it marked, at that time in the late 1960s, a perceived change in teaching and had some wide implications which some priests and laity found it difficult to accept.

And now it is strange that the phrase “for many” is so embedded in the minds of the young that they now see a return to the older phrase as a change in doctrine!!!

 

[gelsbern]

Fr Ambrose:

I think it is a matter of being obedient to Jesus Christ.

When He created the Eucharist at the Last Supper He said: “Do this in memory of Me.” Do THIS is what He says. Do what I am doing.

And so we take bread and wine and not crackers and coke because HE took bread and wine. So we do what He did.

Similarly we take His words and repeat them, and what he says, if you look at His sacred words in Matthew and Mark, is: " This is My Blood which is shed for many."

Matthew 26: 27,28: "Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed *for many * for the forgiveness of sins.

Mark 14:24: "This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many…”

Now I don’t think that the Lord was a Calvinist or anything like a Reformed Presbyterian because He used these words. I don’t think that you seriously think so either.

The “tradition” of using “for many” is only 40 years old. I remember the furore it caused when it was first used in place of “for all.” It seems a small thing but it marked, at that time in the late 1960s, a perceived change in teaching and had some wide implications which some priests and laity found it difficult to accept.

And now it is strange that the phrase “for many” is so embedded in the minds of the young that they now see a return to the older phrase as a change in doctrine!!!

I think you have it backwards…

The “tradition” of using “for all” is only 40 years old. I remember the furor it caused when it was first used in place of “for many.” It seems a small thing but it marked, at that time in the late 1960s, a perceived change in teaching and had some wide implications which some priests and laity found it difficult to accept.

And now it is strange that the phrase “for all” is so embedded in the minds of the young that they now see a return to the older phrase as a change in doctrine!!! /

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

gelsbern:

I think you have it backwards…

The “tradition” of using “for all” is only 40 years old. I remember the furor it caused when it was first used in place of “for many.” It seems a small thing but it marked, at that time in the late 1960s, a perceived change in teaching and had some wide implications which some priests and laity found it difficult to accept.

And now it is strange that the phrase “for all” is so embedded in the minds of the young that they now see a return to the older phrase as a change in doctrine!!! /

Did I mess up? For all its liturgical life from the first centuries until the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Mass in 1970 the Church of Rome always said “pro multis” - for many:

“HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: MYSTERIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS **ET PRO MULTIS ** EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM.”

You can check this in any pre-1970s Missale Romanum.

Here is the Internet text of the Mass as it was in 1962
fordham.edu/halsall/basis/latinmass2.html

 

[gelsbern]

Fr Ambrose:

Did I mess up? For all its liturgical life from the first centuries until the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Mass in 1970 the Church of Rome always said “pro multis” - for many:

“HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: MYSTERIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS **ET PRO MULTIS ** EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM.”

You can check this in any pre-1970s Missale Romanum.

Here is the Internet text of the Mass as it was in 1962
fordham.edu/halsall/basis/latinmass2.html

Pro Multis = For Many which came from the vulgate Bible which was the work of the tranlsation of St. Jerome from way back in the latter part of the 300’s AD.

For All as is currently used since 1969, would come from the Latin of Pro Omnibus which is not found in any of the gospels where the narrative or words of consecration come from.

So you kind of got it backwards. For ALL is the recent innovation, For MANY is the tradition.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

gelsbern:

So you kind of got it backwards. For ALL is the recent innovation, For MANY is the tradition.

Yes, that is of course what I meant. Sorry for putting the words back to front.

Btw, I am intrigued by your signature line.

Apostolic Succession + Eucharist = True Particular Church (Ratzinger/Benedict XVI - Dominus Iesus, Par. 17)

Are you saying that Pope Benedict is constrained by the teaching of Dominus Iesus to recognise not just your Orders and Eucharist but even your Church as a True Particular Church? Why, he won’t even recognise the Anglicans as a True Church!!