Pro multis means "for many," Vatican rules

[palmas85]

At least 22. There is the Roman, the Rutherian, the Chaldean, the Melkite, Maronite etc…

Each of those is a *sui juris *CHURCH.

Catholic ecclesiology has always refered to a distinct patriarchate with a valid apostolic sucession as a CHURCH.

I think he is referring to those churches not in communion with Rome.

 

[Brendan]

I think he is referring to those churches not in communion with Rome.

Tomster seemed a bit confused about John Paul II’s reference to the Orthodox Churches as Churches.

Catholic Eccelesiology has always referred to *sui juris *Churches as Churches.

 

[genotob]

I’m glad to see this happen, we sure have been waiting for it for a while!

I was gratified, also, to see this section:

which I would hope would persuade the “non-validity” camp. . . but I have to wonder will even the phrase “there is no doubt whatsoever” be enough to persuade those who are entrenched?

Although I could see how one could argue that the question of validity is now a moot point (given the implementation of the above directive), I would suggest that it is still something to be concerned about, practically. Why? Because it seems to me that just as insidious as the “spirit of Vatican II” is the “spirit of dissent”. . . and those who held that the Vatican promulgated an invalid consecration seem to be heading down that road, and my heart goes out to them.

Anyone have any thoughts on that concern?
VC

Why does eveyone ingore the Council of Florence, which in 1442, declared that the following words must be used for a valid Consecration: "wherefore the words of Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these: “For this is MY Body: For this is the Chalice of My Blood, of the new and eternal testament, the Mystery of Faith: which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins”
Why does everyone ignore Pope Pius V { a cannonized saint} He says in "De Defectibus Ch 5, Part 1:“If anyone removes or changes anything in the form of the Consecration of the Body and Blood, and by this change of words, does not signify the same thing as these words do, he does not confect the Sacrament”

 

[Formosus]

Why does eveyone ingore the Council of Florence, which in 1442, declared that the following words must be used for a valid Consecration: "wherefore the words of Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these: “For this is MY Body: For this is the Chalice of My Blood, of the new and eternal testament, the Mystery of Faith: which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins”
Why does everyone ignore Pope Pius V { a cannonized saint} He says in "De Defectibus Ch 5, Part 1:“If anyone removes or changes anything in the form of the Consecration of the Body and Blood, and by this change of words, does not signify the same thing as these words do, he does not confect the Sacrament”

As the new Mass is promulgated by a valid Pope, any liturgy he approves of is a valid liturgy.So therefore the fact the he approves of the poor translation means it is still a valid Mass and the sacrament is confected. Popes can over ride previous Popes in some matters just like Pius X did when he over rided Pius V’s breviary

 

[AlexV]

Pius X’s breviary manipulated Pius V rubrics to take account of the tremendous increase in the sanctoral cycle. It’s hardly an analogous situation.

Popes aren’t gods. They aren’t omnipotent.

 

[Tomster]

I think he is referring to those churches not in communion with Rome.

Thank you.

 

[Formosus]

Pius X’s breviary manipulated Pius V rubrics to take account of the tremendous increase in the sanctoral cycle. It’s hardly an analogous situation.

Popes aren’t gods. They aren’t omnipotent.

So you are suggesting the Pope can approve of an invalid liturgy?

 

[AJV]

Pius X’s breviary manipulated Pius V rubrics to take account of the tremendous increase in the sanctoral cycle. It’s hardly an analogous situation.

Popes aren’t gods. They aren’t omnipotent.

You know full well what Pope St. Pius X did to the breviary and how it was not merely a manipulation of rubrics.

 

[genotob]

As the new Mass is promulgated by a valid Pope, any liturgy he approves of is a valid liturgy.So therefore the fact the he approves of the poor translation means it is still a valid Mass and the sacrament is confected. Popes can over ride previous Popes in some matters just like Pius X did when he over rided Pius V’s breviary

The Council of Trent which “codified” or set in stone the Tridentine Mass was an infallible council. Vatican II was not.A “pastoral council” cannot over ride an infallible council.
Here is Pope PIus V infallible decree at the council "It shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by us…“this present Council can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain vaild and have the force of law…and if ,nevertheless, anyone would ever dare attempt any action contary to this Order of ours, handed down for all times, let him know that he has incurred the wrath of Almighty God, and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul” {Quo Primum Tempore July 14,`570}

 

[Formosus]

The Council of Trent which “codified” or set in stone the Tridentine Mass was an infallible council. Vatican II was not.A “pastoral council” cannot over ride an infallible council.
Here is Pope PIus V infallible decree at the council "It shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by us…“this present Council can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain vaild and have the force of law…and if ,nevertheless, anyone would ever dare attempt any action contary to this Order of ours, handed down for all times, let him know that he has incurred the wrath of Almighty God, and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul” {Quo Primum Tempore July 14,`570}

Which is the exact same thing the Pius V breviary said, YET Pius X replaced his breviary. So that argument is moot. Qou Primum was post-Trent anyways. Look, The point is, the horrible english tranlsation of pro mutlis has to be valid if you accept Benedict XVI or any of the “post conciliar” Popes as valid. I am just as traditional as anyone ,but there is no distinction between a "Dogmatic " Council and a “pastoral” one. There has never been a distinction ever made between the two. All ecumenical council’s are of EQUAL weight.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The Council of Trent which “codified” or set in stone the Tridentine Mass was an infallible council. Vatican II was not.A “pastoral council” cannot over ride an infallible council.
Here is Pope PIus V infallible decree at the council "It shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by us…“this present Council can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain vaild and have the force of law…and if ,nevertheless, anyone would ever dare attempt any action contary to this Order of ours, handed down for all times, let him know that he has incurred the wrath of Almighty God, and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul” {Quo Primum Tempore July 14,`570}

No pope can bind a future pope on matters of discipline (only on matters of faith and morals, ie, dogma). The liturgy falls into the category of discipline and always has (the liturgy has been modified and tweaked all through the centuries). Saint Pius V and Quo Prium did not have the competance to forbid any future pope from modifying the Mass or promulgating changes and if you’re going to indict Paul VI, you have to indict a lot of other popes as well.

 

[genotob]

Just for the record:

1. The fact that this came out just after recent discussions with the SSPX and
2. The fact that the SSPX has made this a vigorous objection over the decades and
3. That fact that the Vatican accepted the importance of this in Catholic Scriptural history , especially Jerome’s Vulgate deemed correct by many Church documents and
4. The fact that it is Objectively a misquote of God the Son’s words, in favor of novel interpretation, ie translate the intent (of the USCCB) not the actual words

** To me implies that this was an Olive Branch to the SSPX and by inference all the Traditionalist Catholics.
**

Thank God for your belief in Sacred Tradition
Since there is nothing more hated by most of the bishops than Pre-Vatican II Tradtional Catholics even more than Islamic Nazism, they will drag their leaded feet on this forever without a mass movement by ALL the Faithful to their bishops. In other words, collection money talks, theology walks in the USCCB.

 

[genotob]

Which is the exact same thing the Pius V breviary said, YET Pius X replaced his breviary. So that argument is moot. Qou Primum was post-Trent anyways. Look, The point is, the horrible english tranlsation of pro mutlis has to be valid if you accept Benedict XVI or any of the “post conciliar” Popes as valid. I am just as traditional as anyone ,but there is no distinction between a "Dogmatic " Council and a “pastoral” one. There has never been a distinction ever made between the two. All ecumenical council’s are of EQUAL weight.

You are standing on a foundation of sand if you think they are of equal weight. An infallible council or an infallible decree is guided by and protected from error by The Holy Spirit. A pastoral council is not protected from error.

 

[demerzel85]

A pastoral council is not protected from error.

Which still however has not bearing on Dogmatic Constitutions emerging from it. The Second Vatican Coucil was a pastoral council, but Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum emerged from the Council. They still are Dogmatic Constitutions.

 

[Formosus]

You are standing on a foundation of sand if you think they are of equal weight. An infallible council or an infallible decree is guided by and protected from error by The Holy Spirit. A pastoral council is not protected from error.

There is no such thing as a pastoral council. This distinction has never existed before and still does not. An ecumenical council is an ecumenical council. Just admit you are a sedevacantist because if you say that a Mass approved and promulgated by a Pope is invalid, then you are indeed saying he is not a True Pope. And as someone said a above,a previous Pope can not bind a future Pope on disciplinary measures, which the Liturgy would fall under.

 

[AJV]

The Council of Trent which “codified” or set in stone the Tridentine Mass was an infallible council. Vatican II was not.A “pastoral council” cannot over ride an infallible council.
Here is Pope PIus V infallible decree at the council "It shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by us…“this present Council can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain vaild and have the force of law…and if ,nevertheless, anyone would ever dare attempt any action contary to this Order of ours, handed down for all times, let him know that he has incurred the wrath of Almighty God, and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul” {Quo Primum Tempore July 14,`570}

I was under the impression that Trent ended in 1563?

Quod a Nobis, 25 July 1568:

Omni itaque alio usu quibuslibet, ut dictum est, interdicto, hoc Nostrum Breviarium, ac precandi psallendique formulam in omnibus universi orbis Ecclesiis, Monasteriis, Ordinibus, et locis etiam exemptis, in quibus Officium ex more et ritu dictae Romanae Ecclesiae dici debet, aut consuevit, salva praedicta institutione, vel consuetudine praedictos ducentos annos superante, praecipimus observari: Statuentes Breviarium ipsum nullo umquam tempore vel totum, vel ex parte mutandum, vel ei aliquid addendum, vel omnino detrahendum esse; ac quoscumque, qui Horas Canonicas ex more et ritu ipsius Romanae Ecclesiae, iure vel consuetudine dicere vel psallere debent, propositis pœnis per Canonicas sanctiones constitutis in eos, qui divinum Officium quotidie non dixerint, ad dicendum et psallendum posthac in perpetuum Horas ipsas diurnas et nocturnas, ex huius Romani Breviarii praescripto et ratione omnino teneri: neminemque ex iis, quibus hoc dicendi psallendique munus necessario impositum est, nisi hac sola formula satisfacere posse…………………………… Nulli ergo omnino hominum liceat hanc paginaem Nostrae ablationis, abolitionis, permissionis, revocationis, iussionis, praecepti, statuti, indulti, mandati, decreti, relaxationis, cohortationis, prohibitionis, innodationis, et voluntatis infringere, vel ei ausu temerario contraire. Si quis autem hoc attentare praesumpserit, indignationem omnipotentis Dei, ac beatorum Petri et Pauli Apostolorum eius se noverit incursurum.

Quo Primum ends almost identically- the Latin from the ending part you quoted

Nulli ergo omnio hominum liceat hanc paginam nostrae permissionis, statuti, ordinationis, mandati, praecepti, concessionis, indulti, declarationis, voluntatis, decreti et inhibitionis infringere, vel ei ausu temeratio contraire.
Si quis autem hoc attentare praesumpserit, indignationem omnipotentis Dei, ac beatorum Patri et Pauli Apostolorum eius se noverit incursurum.

---

And all other use whatsoever, as was said, having been forbidden, We instruct this Our Breviary, and the formula of praying and singing the Psalms, to be observed in all the Churches, Monasteries, Orders, and places of the entire world even exempt, in which the Office must be said from the custom and rite of said Roman Church, or is accustomed to be, saving the aforesaid institution or custom of the aforesaid two hundred years survival: At no time may this Breviary be changed whether in whole or in part, or anything whatsoever added, or altogether removed; and those establishing it impose penalties, through constituted Canonical sanctions, on whomever, who ought to say the Canonical Hours or sing the Psalms by the manner and rite of the same Roman Church, by law or custom, does not say the divine Office daily, prescribed from this Roman Breviary, and whomever must say and sing the Psalms hereafter in perpetuity these diurnal and nocturnal Hours, must entirely keep it by this manner: no one among them, to whom the duty of saying and singing the Psalms is imposed, satisfies it except by this formula alone……………………… Therefore it is permitted for no man at all to infringe, or to rashly oppose this notice of our removal, abolition, permission, revocation, command, precept, statute, indult, mandate, decree, relaxation, exhortation, prohibition, imposition, and will. And if anyone shall presume to attack this, let him know he will incur the anger of almighty God, and of blessed Peter and Paul His Apostles.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

As the new Mass is promulgated by a valid Pope, any liturgy he approves of is a valid liturgy.So therefore the fact the he approves of the poor translation means it is still a valid Mass and the sacrament is confected. Popes can over ride previous Popes in some matters just like Pius X did when he over rided Pius V’s breviary

There is no such thing as a pastoral council. This distinction has never existed before and still does not. An ecumenical council is an ecumenical council. Just admit you are a sedevacantist because if you say that a Mass approved and promulgated by a Pope is invalid, then you are indeed saying he is not a True Pope. And as someone said a above,a previous Pope can not bind a future Pope on disciplinary measures, which the Liturgy would fall under.

You are mixing apples and oranges and avacodos here.

1. Yes, the “new Mass” is valid as promulgated (and by extention through reasonably correct translations) because it was promulgated by a valid pope.
2. However, as the promulgation of the “new Mass” was in its official Latin form, that protection of validity does not automatically extend to the various translations not directly promulgated.
3. A pope’s authority to override previous popes on legislative matters does not mean that a lack of action to correct translation errors can be presumed as approval and “binding” endorsement of said translations.
4. Regarding the references to Vatican II as “pastoral”: both of the popes who oversaw that council declared as part of the council proceedings that it was releasing no new teachings, so the dogmatic constitutions originating from that council should be carefully interpreted as clarifications and not expansions on prior teaching on the subjects involved.
5. Finally, the promulgation of the “new Mass” is not affected at all by the status of Vatican II - it was the promulgation by a valid pope that matters, especially since the 1965 missal is the best candidate for the title of being the mass of Vatican II. Yes, the expanded lectionary it contained was requested by the council, but a great many of the other changes in it (and its implementation) were not (and some Vatican II recommended against).

In summary: having questions about the legitimacy of the current English translation of the “new Mass” and the wisdom of essentially abandoning the historical norms for liturgical development does not make one a sedevecantist, nor does it justify others in make that accusation in order to distract from the glaring logical flaws of their own arguments in defense of the implementation of the “new Mass”. Though I recognize that you may be viewing these questions of the “new Mass” as an attack on the Church, there is a wide gulf betweeen raising those questions out of concern (even frustration) and being guilty of the type of heresy you have insinuated is held by those who are not agreeing with your reasoning on these issues

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Those participating in this thread may be interested in a thread that I’ve started for discussing a much more serious mistake:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=124114

Now that the Vatican has corrected the translation error in the words for consecrating the wine at Mass, I hope and pray that it will reverse its 2001 approval of a “Mass” that has no words of consecration at all. Please see the above thread.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Ray,

That was a well-reasoned post. You make some excellent points.

I’d like further (name removed by moderator)ut on this part of your post specifically:

1. However, as the promulgation of the “new Mass” was in its official Latin form, that protection of validity does not automatically extend to the various translations not directly promulgated.

What do you think about Cardinal Arinze and the CDW letter which seems to indicate that the incorrect translation of pro multis into “for all” does not invalidate the consecration?

In other words, your point #2 seems like it could be valid as a general rule, but the concern might not now apply.?

I think it is crucial for us to figure out if the english “for all” translation is valid or not and put that to bed. (Can you imagine, if it was invalid, the number of Catholics 30 years old or so and younger who would then, quite possibly, NEVER have received communion? The mind boggles.)

What are your thoughts on this?
Thanks!
VC

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Ray,

That was a well-reasoned post. You make some excellent points.

I’d like further (name removed by moderator)ut on this part of your post specifically:

What do you think about Cardinal Arinze and the CDW letter which seems to indicate that the incorrect translation of pro multis into “for all” does not invalidate the consecration?

In other words, your point #2 seems like it could be valid as a general rule, but the concern might not now apply.?

I think it is crucial for us to figure out if the english “for all” translation is valid or not and put that to bed. (Can you imagine, if it was invalid, the number of Catholics 30 years old or so and younger who would then, quite possibly, NEVER have received communion? The mind boggles.)

What are your thoughts on this?
Thanks!
VC

If you want to figure it out and put it to bed, then it would be best to heed the Cardinal’s letter, which said that the consecrations that took place using “for all” were not invalid. You can’t do better than a Vatican congregation issuing a letter with the pope’s consent and authority.