Pro Multis

[Joseph]

The Catholic News Agency recently reported that the Holy See is instructing that the words of consecration over the chalice be “…will be shed for you and for MANY…” instead of “…for all” (pro omnibus) to accurately render the meaning of the original Latin (“pro multis”). ()

I have two questions:

1. The article indicated that Cardinal Arinze instructed countries that use the formula “for many” to “…undertake the necessary catechesis…in the next one or two years to prepare them…”

Why do you think it’s necessary to extend such a long period of time for bishops to “undertake the necessary catechesis”? What kind of preparation really needs to be done? Or are they anticipating resistance and foot dragging?

I would think that catechesis and the language change could start within a short period of time. I seem to recall that there was little or no delay in switching from “communion on the tongue” to “communion in the hand”–and that entailed both a theological and a behavioral change on the part of the priest AND the communicant. A change in the words of consecration doesn’t require us to do anything, except to live our faith more mindfully.

1. How would one justify the validity of prior consecrations that occurred under the forumula “for all” (pro omnibus). It was known to be an incorrect translation and not according to the traditional understanding of the Church (all the debate notwithstanding), yet nothing was done to correct it…and still won’t be for at least another two years in many locales.

Thanks!

 

[mercygate]

The Catholic News Agency recently reported that the Holy See is instructing that the words of consecration over the chalice be “…will be shed for you and for MANY…” instead of “…for all” (pro omnibus) to accurately render the meaning of the original Latin (“pro multis”). ()

I have two questions:

1. The article indicated that Cardinal Arinze instructed countries that use the formula “for many” to “…undertake the necessary catechesis…in the next one or two years to prepare them…”

Why do you think it’s necessary to extend such a long period of time for bishops to “undertake the necessary catechesis”? What kind of preparation really needs to be done? Or are they anticipating resistance and foot dragging?

I would think that catechesis and the language change could start within a short period of time. I seem to recall that there was little or no delay in switching from “communion on the tongue” to “communion in the hand”–and that entailed both a theological and a behavioral change on the part of the priest AND the communicant. A change in the words of consecration doesn’t require us to do anything, except to live our faith more mindfully.

1. How would one justify the validity of prior consecrations that occurred under the forumula “for all” (pro omnibus). It was known to be an incorrect translation and not according to the traditional understanding of the Church (all the debate notwithstanding), yet nothing was done to correct it…and still won’t be for at least another two years in many locales.

Thanks!

You hit the nail on the head.

The two years of catechesis is to explain why it was changed to “for all” in the first place, which was to demonstrate the divine will that all be saved as stated in the epistle of James, and then to remind people that Jesus’ actual words were “for many” – meaning that some would choose to reject that salvation.

The idea that the words “for all” invalidate the Mass (which they do not) has been a main harping point of the schismatic groups (like the SSPX). That is why the USCCB rejected the proposed reversal to “pro multis” – in order not to give them the idea that the Church had acknowledged their claim that the Mass of Paul VI is invalid.

I say: nuts to the schismatics. Jesus said “pro multis.” Go with it and let the chips fall where they may. The Mass has not been invalild as it has stood in English (the Latin official text NEVER said “pro omnibus”). All the change to “for many” would do is making the English match the Latin.

 

[netmilsmom]

mercygate:

I say: nuts to the schismatics. Jesus said “pro multis.” Go with it and let the chips fall where they may. The Mass has not been invalild as it has stood in English (the Latin official text NEVER said “pro omnibus”). All the change to “for many” would do is making the English match the Latin.

I don’t think Jesus spoke Latin.

 

[mercygate]

I don’t think Jesus spoke Latin.

Right. He spoke Stuart English – I mean, he wrote the King James Bible, didn’t he? But I know for a fact that he talks Latin when he says Mass.

 

[netmilsmom]

Right. He spoke Stuart English – I mean, he wrote the King James Bible, didn’t he? But I know for a fact that he talks Latin when he says Mass.

Oh that’s right, I forgot!
And I did miss the in the last post.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

A) It shouldn’t take two years. One brief email/letter/call/smoke signal/carrier pigeon to every priest in the diocese by the bishop or the chancellor, etc., should be sufficinent. “Pencil it into the sacramentary, there’s a good lad.”

B) Regarding validity, that was never a serious question. Trent anathematized anyone who said that any form or outward sign the Church proposed in her liturgies could lead the faithful into impiety. “Impiety” would certainly stem from “invalidity.” The Church cannot promulgate an invalid liturgy. And the Holy See explained how the Mass was still valid.

 

[Irish_High_King]

The idea that the words “for all” invalidate the Mass (which they do not) has been a main harping point of the schismatic groups (like the SSPX). That is why the USCCB rejected the proposed reversal to “pro multis” – in order not to give them the idea that the Church had acknowledged their claim that the Mass of Paul VI is invalid.

I say: nuts to the schismatics. Jesus said “pro multis.” Go with it and let the chips fall where they may. The Mass has not been invalild as it has stood in English (the Latin official text NEVER said “pro omnibus”). All the change to “for many” would do is making the English match the Latin.

Mercygate,

What do you know about the SSPX? Precious little, it seems. For, if you did, you would know that the SSPX have never insisted that the Pauline Mass/Novus Ordo/New Mass is invalidated by the mistranslation of Pro Multis.

‘For All’ has never invalidated the New Mass. It takes a lot more than that to invalidate a Mass or the Consecration.

What has been said, by the SSPX, is that it is possible that some Masses are invalidated by liturgical abuses and other shenanigans.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Mercygate,

What do you know about the SSPX? Precious little, it seems. For, if you did, you would know that the SSPX have never insisted that the Pauline Mass/Novus Ordo/New Mass is invalidated by the mistranslation of Pro Multis.

‘For All’ has never invalidated the New Mass. It takes a lot more than that to invalidate a Mass or the Consecration.

What has been said, by the SSPX, is that it is possible that some Masses are invalidated by liturgical abuses and other shenanigans.

“Never INSISTED” is apparently code for “CONSTANTLY INSINUATED.”

 

[Irish_High_King]

Ok. The SSPX have NEVER SAID ( or constantly insinuated) that the use of ‘For All’ invalidates the New Mass.

Is that any clearer? Please do not twist my words to suit yourself.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Ok. The SSPX have NEVER SAID that the use of ‘For All’ invalidates the New Mass.

Is that any clearer? Please do not twist my words to suit yourself.

If the SSPX don’t want to be confused with schismatic groups that DO harp on the “pro multis” point, maybe they should just come out of schism. Then they wouldn’t be confused with ANY schismatics.

 

[Irish_High_King]

If the SSPX don’t want to be confused with schismatic groups that DO harp on the “pro multis” point, maybe they should just come out of schism. Then they wouldn’t be confused with ANY schismatics.

Surely you know the difference between the SSPX (apparently not in schism but imperfect communion), and the sedevacantists?

Please, this thread is going off at a tangent - yet another thread descending into SSPX bashing. There’s no need.

De Profundis!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Surely you know the difference between the SSPX (apparently not in schism but imperfect communion), and the sedevacantists?

Please, this thread is going off at a tangent - yet another thread descending into SSPX bashing. There’s no need.

De Profundis!

Not bashing, merely stating facts. But I’ll accomodate the quibble:

If the SSPX don’t want to be confused with schismatic groups that DO harp on the “pro multis” point, maybe they should just stop following excommunicated bishops and priests who are suspended ad divinis and utterly without faculties and stop behaving in such a way that the late Holy Father of happy memory felt compelled to warn others of the danger of their company (the grave sin of schism), then they wouldn’t be confused with ANY schismatics.

Better?

 

[Irish_High_King]

Not bashing, merely stating facts. But I’ll accomodate the quibble:

If you’re going to do that, you should at least attempt to get the facts completely right:

If the SSPX don’t want to be confused with schismatic groups that DO harp on the “pro multis” point, maybe they should just stop following excommunicated bishops and priests who are suspended ad divinis and utterly without faculties and stop behaving in such a way that the late Holy Father of happy memory felt compelled to warn others of the danger of their company (the grave sin of schism), then they wouldn’t be confused with ANY schismatics.

Without faculties? Are you absolutely certain about that? I’m sure that the President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, HE Dario Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos stated that it was ok for layfolk to assist at SSPX Masses in order to fulfil their Sunday Obligation? That at least, implies they have the faculty to offer Holy Mass.

Better?

Not really. I’m sure you could do better. However, this is not the thread to be discussing the SSPX is it? ‘Pro Multis’ has been argued about over the last forty years by the majority of Traditionalists. Not every Traditionalist is an SSPXer. You should know that.

 

[Joseph]

Interesting initial points, Group! And then we lost the thread.

To refocus with a follow-up question on the “valid/invalid” point:

If it were true, as mentioned earlier, that the Church kept “pro omnibus” so as not to acknowledge that the change was invalid, then was it not done for political reasons? In other words, it would seem to me that for political reasons the Church intended something that was contrary to what the Church in its Tradition intended.

And if “we believe, as we pray”, and we’ve been praying wrongly (“pro omnibus”), then how can it be said that the Eucharist celebrated under the “pro omnibus” rubric has been valid?

Just trying to figure this out. Thanks!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Without faculties? Are you absolutely certain about that? I’m sure that the President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, HE Dario Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos stated that it was ok for layfolk to assist at SSPX Masses in order to fulfil their Sunday Obligation? That at least, implies they have the faculty to offer Holy Mass.

.

One pope trumps a whole college of Cardinals. If they’re not in schism, then there would be no effort to bring them out of schism.

Returning you to your regularly scheduled thread.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Interesting initial points, Group! And then we lost the thread.

To refocus with a follow-up question on the “valid/invalid” point:

If it were true, as mentioned earlier, that the Church kept “pro omnibus” so as not to acknowledge that the change was invalid, then was it not done for political reasons? In other words, it would seem to me that for political reasons the Church intended something that was contrary to what the Church in its Tradition intended.

And if “we believe, as we pray”, and we’ve been praying wrongly (“pro omnibus”), then how can it be said that the Eucharist celebrated under the “pro omnibus” rubric has been valid?

Just trying to figure this out. Thanks!

The Holy See stated that the Masses were valid. You can search this cite or you can search EWTN to find the relevant documents. Also, the letter where HE Cardinal Arinze gave the instruction on “pro multis” also states the same thing. Finally, as I stated earlier, the Church cannot propose to the faithful a defective liturgy. So you shouldn’t be troubled about it.

 

[jbuck919]

If you read the blather of some of the independent ultra-tradtionalists, who have to look to the left to see the SSPX (and I’m not talking about sede-vacantists, though they probably qualify too, but about the kinds of people who sponsor traditio.com), they do in fact consider the sacrament invalid and in part because of the “for all.” (That is not correct, before anybody misreads another one of my posts.)

On the other hand, to respond to another post, I don’t think it is literally true that the Church can call anything it wants valid. If the rubric were for the priest to say over the chalice “this is a cup of coca-cola,” we’d have a problem.

 

[atsheeran]

On the other hand, to respond to another post, I don’t think it is literally true that the Church can call anything it wants valid. If the rubric were for the priest to say over the chalice “this is a cup of coca-cola,” we’d have a problem.

No one said that the Church could call anything that it wants valid. What JKirkLVNV said was, “The Church cannot promulgate an invalid liturgy.” There’s a difference there. An analogy can be made to papal infallibility with regard to morals. Papal infallibility wouldn’t operate to transform an objective immoral act to an objective morally good one simply because the pope says the act is good. Rather, papal infallibility prevents the pope from saying that the bad act is good in the first place.

 

[mercygate]

Mercygate,

What do you know about the SSPX? Precious little, it seems. For, if you did, you would know that the SSPX have never insisted that the Pauline Mass/Novus Ordo/New Mass is invalidated by the mistranslation of Pro Multis.

‘For All’ has never invalidated the New Mass. It takes a lot more than that to invalidate a Mass or the Consecration.

What has been said, by the SSPX, is that it is possible that some Masses are invalidated by liturgical abuses and other shenanigans.

Then I gladly stand corrected. We used to subscribe to the SSPX publications and “pro multis” was a continual rant – perhaps a decade ago. So you are right: I am not current with the SSPX.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

If you read the blather of some of the independent ultra-tradtionalists, who have to look to the left to see the SSPX (and I’m not talking about sede-vacantists, though they probably qualify too, but about the kinds of people who sponsor traditio.com), they do in fact consider the sacrament invalid and in part because of the “for all.” (That is not correct, before anybody misreads another one of my posts.)

On the other hand, to respond to another post, I don’t think it is literally true that the Church can call anything it wants valid. If the rubric were for the priest to say over the chalice “this is a cup of coca-cola,” we’d have a problem.

No, that’s not what I’m saying.

For any sacrament to be valid, you have to have correct form, matter, and intent. For the Mass, for example, a priest has to use the correct form (the words of consecration), the correct matter (bread and wine), and have the correct intent (to confect the Holy Sacrifice). The “pro multis” is a part of the form. The Church has not only said that the essential, immutable part of the form is “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood,” but also specifically that the use of “for all” did not invalidate the Mass. It’s a part of the Church’s impeccability that she cannot propose to the faithful a liturgy that will lead them to impiety.