Priest saying "For you and for ALL"

[martininthefiel]

For many priests, this was the most controversial change in the Mass. It would not surprise me if he was doing it intentionally, but I would give him the benefit of the doubt, unless it continues.

I have heard from several people who know considerably more Latin than I that “for the many,” or “for the multitude” would have been a better translation of the Latin rite, but, for what it’s worth, in the Episcopal Church, the older Consecration rite also translated the word as “for many”.

In any event, while illicit, it does not invalidate the Mass.

 

[Brendan]

I would say that you should first politely ask Fr. about it.

His response should let you know if it is intentional or not.

If it’s not intentional, don’t worry anout it. As others have noted, the Sacrament is certainly valid

If it IS intentional, that is something that would need to be corrected.

First, remind Fr. (politely) that you as a Catholic, have a right to attend Mass said according to the prescribed rubrics of the Church. Let him know that his actions violate your rights as a member of the Body Of Christ and could he please respect that.

If an intentional violation persists, contact the bishop.

Record dates and times of what you heard, what you discussed with the priest and his response.

Include your own contact information. Bishops generally do not care for anonymous letters.

 

[ProVobis]

In the Papal Bull of St. Pius V, De defectibus, it is specified that, “if the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood,** so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing**, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin.”

Okay but there is more than just the “for many” vs “for all” that’s involved here.

OLD: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.

NEW: for this is the chalice of my Blood, the Blood of the new and eternal covenant, which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.

So the subjunctive can make the old formula still work though it is illicit at this point. But if you mix them up and say “will be poured out …for all” that may introduce a lot of doubt, even if one claims that the meaning doesn’t change. Just saying.

 

[FrDavid96]

Hmmm. Did the Church say it was valid after Nov 26th?

Definitely have to notify the Bishop on this one. They painstakingly retranslated the English Mass, especially pro multis, for a reason. FWIW, there were papers written in the 60’s (before the New Mass) questioning the validity of the all-English canon with the “for all men” verbiage. Just saying.

Yes. It’s still valid.

Words of consecration are either valid or they are not. The timing doesn’t matter. If they were valid 2 months ago (which they were, without any doubt), they are still valid today, and will still be valid 1,000 years from now. Licit? No, with the exception of a blind priest, who can still licitly use the old Sacramentary.

Yes, there were people who questioned the validity of those words. Keep in mind however, that the Church said quite clearly that the words “for all men” or “for all” were valid words despite certain individuals’ claims to the contrary.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Okay but there is more than just the “for many” vs “for all” that’s involved here.

OLD: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.

NEW: for this is the chalice of my Blood, the Blood of the new and eternal covenant, which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.

So the subjunctive can make the old formula still work though it is illicit at this point. But if you mix them up and say “will be poured out …for all” that may introduce a lot of doubt, even if one claims that the meaning doesn’t change. Just saying.

The words of consecration should not be changed, its a very serious (grave) issue. One of the reasons its grave is what you pointed out: it confuses people. However, more is need to invalidate the consecration than simple word substitution.

 

[ProVobis]

Words of consecration are either valid or they are not. The timing doesn’t matter. If they were valid 2 months ago (which they were, without any doubt), they are still valid today, and will still be valid 1,000 years from now.

Since the English language changes meanings often, I have a problem with that statement. If it were true, why the need to retranslate every 40 years.

 

[promethius]

Definitely have to notify the Bishop on this one. They painstakingly retranslated the English Mass, especially pro multis, for a reason. FWIW, there were papers written in the 60’s (before the New Mass) questioning the validity of the all-English canon with the “for all men” verbiage. Just saying.

Straight to the bishop with what could very well be a slip of the tongue on the part of the priest? I can think of no better way to display an utter lack of charity, an abundance of rash judgement, and a desire for egg on the face of anyone who behaved in such a manner.

Let’s suppose, for a moment, that this person goes to the bishop with this issue, and is utterly wrong in doing so. Do you think the bishop will be as inclined to listen to the little boy who cried wolf the next time he brings up an issue?

 

[w_s_s]

Considering that Aramaic doesn’t have a word that strictly means “all,” and therefore there is no distinction between “many” and “all,” I really don’t see why people make such a big deal about this.

Considering that the texts of the Mass are translated from Latin, and not from Aramaic, I don’t see why anyone cares at all what words exist in Aramaic. Aramaic is not a source language for any liturgical text in the Latin Church, and is also not a source language for Holy Scripture which, by the way, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, also reports the words of Christ as being “for many” and not “for all”.

So let’s just put aside the ridiculous discussion of what Jesus Christ may or may have said speaking in Aramaic (if indeed He did speak Aramaic when he spoke those words).

 

[promethius]

The Mass ‘contains’ the sacrament of the Eucharist. He said those words during the Eucharistic prayer. It’s a sacrament to me.

A Mass can be invalid too, for example, if the priest does not receive Communion under both Species, even if the Consecration was valid (the Sacrifice is not complete).

Wrong on both counts.

Porthos, if a priest failed to receive Communion this would be gravely illicit, but it would not invalidate the mass.

If a priest fails to consecrate the host validly, then there simply is NO mass whatsoever. No matter how many illicit practices are made, if there is valid consecration then there is a mass, if there is not, then there is no mass.

As a case in point, if either of you believe that there can be such a thing as an “invalid mass”, please find me the church teaching which instructs what defects will cause a particular mass to be invalid (not just illicit).

 

[promethius]

Considering that the texts of the Mass are translated from Latin, and not from Aramaic, I don’t see why anyone cares at all what words exist in Aramaic. Aramaic is not a source language for any liturgical text in the Latin Church, and is also not a source language for Holy Scripture which, by the way, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, also reports the words of Christ as being “for many” and not “for all”.

So let’s just put aside the ridiculous discussion of what Jesus Christ may or may have said speaking in Aramaic (if indeed He did speak Aramaic when he spoke those words).

Aaaaactually… the scripture records Christ as saying “for all” in some places, and “for many” in others.

And while, yes, aramaic isn’t the source text for the latin rite and I agree that latin text should be the consideration for the latin rite, it is still not inaccurate to note that Christ most likely spoke a mix of Greek and Aramaic, and probably didn’t actually speak much (if any) latin at all.

 

[w_s_s]

Aaaaactually… the scripture records Christ as saying “for all” in some places, and “for many” in others.

Evidence? All I can find is:

Matt 26:28 - For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
Mark 14:24 - And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.
Luke 22:20 - In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.
1 Cor 11:24 - In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

The first two say “many”. The last two say “you”. Where is “all”?

Bonus: Mark 10:45 - For the Son of man also is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for many.

And while, yes, aramaic isn’t the source text for the latin rite and I agree that latin text should be the consideration for the latin rite, it is still not inaccurate to note that Christ most likely spoke a mix of Greek and Aramaic, and probably didn’t actually speak much (if any) latin at all.

Whether or not Christ spoke Latin is irrelevant to this thread and no one has even brought it up until you just did.

 

[porthos11]

Wrong on both counts.

Porthos, if a priest failed to receive Communion this would be gravely illicit, but it would not invalidate the mass.

If a priest fails to consecrate the host validly, then there simply is NO mass whatsoever. No matter how many illicit practices are made, if there is valid consecration then there is a mass, if there is not, then there is no mass.

As a case in point, if either of you believe that there can be such a thing as an “invalid mass”, please find me the church teaching which instructs what defects will cause a particular mass to be invalid (not just illicit).

Okay, so maybe valid/invalid should be better limited to sacramental validity. For the Mass, perhaps complete/incomplete are more appropriate terms.

Falling back on the old catechesis, three parts were needed for the complete Sacrifice: the Offertory, the Consecration, and the Communion of the priest. I don’t have a document but any traditional priest will tell you this; it was just general knowledge of the past. If you missed any of these then you have not attended Mass.

If the priest therefore skips the Offertory or does not receive Communion, then the Sacrifice is not complete and you are not deemed to have attended Mass, even with a valid Consecration.

So I don’t know if you can use valid/invalid for the Mass, but one can definitely say whether or not a Mass has been offered despite a valid Consecration.

 

[thistle]

Went to Mass this Sunday. Priest said “For you and for ALL” during the consecration. This is the second time he has done this, so I am starting to think that it is deliberate. I thought that the first time too, but the second time confirmed it.

Was this a valid Mass?

The only thing required for a Mass to be valid is that the words of consecration must not be changed.
Other things may be abuses or illicit but that does not affect the validity of the Mass.

 

[FrDavid96]

Since the English language changes meanings often, I have a problem with that statement. If it were true, why the need to retranslate every 40 years.

You’re missing the point of re-translating. The re-translating is not done because something occurs to cause the valid words of consecration to somehow become invalid words.

New translations are done for a variety of reasons, but that’s not one of them.

Once the Holy See has determined that a given set of words causes a valid consecration, those words are always and everywhere sufficient for a valid consecration. They might not be licit words any longer (as indeed the old translation is no longer licit), but if it was valid “then” it’s still valid “now” and it will be at any time in the near or even distant future.

 

[FrDavid96]

The only thing required for a Mass to be valid is that the words of consecration must not be changed.
Other things may be abuses or illicit but that does not affect the validity of the Mass.

There are other factors.

It must be celebrated by a validly ordained priest, who has the intention to “do as the Church does.”
He must use valid matter (bread and wine).

The issue here is that when talking about a “valid Mass” or an “invalid Mass” we are talking in circles. If what happens is the Mass, then it’s always valid. If something essential is missing to cause it to be invalid, then there is no Mass to begin with. In other words the very words “an invalid Mass” are just impossible. We can speak of an “invalid attempt at Mass.”

 

[thistle]

There are other factors.

It must be celebrated by a validly ordained priest, who has the intention to "do as the Church does."
He must use valid matter (bread and wine).

The issue here is that when talking about a “valid Mass” or an “invalid Mass” we are talking in circles. If what happens is the Mass, then it’s always valid. If something essential is missing to cause it to be invalid, then there is no Mass to begin with. In other words the very words “an invalid Mass” are just impossible. We can speak of an “invalid attempt at Mass.”

The intention part confuses me. How would anyone at Mass know if the priest did not intend to do as the Church does? Does this mean the people could be participating in an invalid Mass without knowing it. How would that affect their Sunday obligation?

 

[ProVobis]

Once the Holy See has determined that a given set of words causes a valid consecration, those words are always and everywhere sufficient for a valid consecration.

Fr, but is this the case here? Though “for all” was quite controversial back in the 60’s and a case was made that it differed substantially from “for many” to make it at least a doubtful consecration, we had to accept that it was a valid consecration because the Church said it was valid effective xx/xx/xx. (sometime in ‘68 I believe). (This would have been true if the Church had said “for you and for the Irish” was valid.) If a priest had said “for all” prior to that, it would not have been a valid Mass in most observers’ eyes. So if the Church says from Nov 27, 2011 on in the US only this formula must be used, a priest shouldn’t be free to say “for all” or “for the Irish” or whatever he feels like it. IMO there shouldn’t be a general “it’s valid” without some warning because at some point it could be retroactively invalidated. And Pope Leo XIII showed that it was possible to invalidate Masses retroactively.

 

[FrDavid96]

The intention part confuses me. How would anyone at Mass know if the priest did not intend to do as the Church does?

Simply put, they don’t.

This is a matter of trusting that the priest does have such an intention.

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr, but is this the case here? Though “for all” was quite controversial back in the 60’s and a case was made that it differed substantially from “for many” to make it at least a doubtful consecration, we had to accept that it was a valid consecration because the Church said it was valid effective xx/xx/xx. (sometime in ‘68 I believe). (This would have been true if the Church had said “for you and for the Irish” was valid.) If a priest had said “for all” prior to that, it would not have been a valid Mass in most observers’ eyes. So if the Church says from Nov 27, 2011 on in the US only this formula must be used, a priest shouldn’t be free to say “for all” or “for the Irish” or whatever he feels like it. IMO there shouldn’t be a general “it’s valid” without some warning because at some point it could be reactively invalidated. And Pope Leo XIII showed that it was possible to invalidate Masses retroactively.

No. It was not at all “at least a doubtful consecration.” Absolutely not. Please, please put that out of your mind. There is not now, nor was there ever any legitimate doubt as to the words of Consecration ending “…for all men” or “…for all” being valid words. No legitimate doubt at all.

Using the words “…for all” after Nov. 27 is illicit but still valid. Any priest who uses the words of the old Sacramentary is absolutely in the wrong (unless he’s blind)–let me be clear on that–I am not in any way defending a priest who uses the old translation. Using it is absolutely wrong and illicit.

The Church cannot reverse Herself when She says that certain words of consecration are valid words. If they were valid once (meaning that a pope declared them to be valid words, which is something that only he has the authority to do) then they will always remain valid words.

 

[Thankfulness]

Whatever is right, it remains that I very much resent being called a man.
It grates every time. We women are not men, do not desire to be and never will be.
We do not deserve to be overlooked in this way.

Man is not a generic term…or is it!!! To call women “men” in the Mass is to degrade what it is to be a man. It leaves women as something special, man and men as something generic.

Yes we women are very special but we don’t deserve to be overlooked and ignored in the Mass translation. I will always be grateful to those priests who respect that even if the earns the ire of all those to whom the letter of the law is more important than the Spirit, which is not the Jesus of the Gospel!

However, the law always wins if there is a conflict between the spirit and law!!! However much Jesus demonstrated His love for the spirit of the law and reprimanded those who failed to in favor of the letter of the law at the expense of the spirit of the law

So like you men we women are men, but the real truth is we are something more because not being generic, we are women.