Kirane:
I don;t see how anyone can say incorrect. According to the catechism of the Council of Trent, the correct wording should be that the Blood of Christ was shed for many.
Yes, but before the Tridentine formula was ever used by the Latin Rite, according to St. Hypollytus (3rd century), “
pro multis” was omitted altogether. Thus, it is not an essensial element of the “form” of the Sacrament. So, even if it were omitted altogether, it would still be a valid Sacrament.
After Vatican II, in the USA the wording was essentially changed to use the phrase that the Blood of Christ was shed for all.
This English translation was approved by the Holy See.
The
Roman Catechism is an
Acta Apostolicae Sedis which has no more authority than the
Acta Apostolicae Sedis which answered the “pro multis” question in 1974. Observe,
“
The Holy See examines the translation of a sacramental form into the vernacular and, when it judges that the translation rightly expresses the meaning intended by the Church, approves and confirms the translation. In so doing the Holy See is stipulating that the meaning of the translation is to be understood in accord with the mind of the Church as expressed by the original Latin text” (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration
Instauratio liturgica, 25 January 1974, in
AAS 66 [1974], p. 661 - English translation in ICEL:
Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979 [The Liturgical Press: Collegeville, Minnesota, 1982], p. 299).
I agree that “for many” ought to be the translation, for it
better expresses the original Latin text. However, the Church can in no way accept your proposition, already
condemned by Pius VI (Auctorem Fidei, 78 [1794]), that what she has officially established as approved ecclesiastical discipline is either harmful or dangerous to the faithful. You can disagree that such a translation is prudent. But when you claim that it renders the Mass invalid, you assert a condemned Jansenist proposition.
This is not a disciplinary change.
It is certainly not a doctrinal change. The Holy See asserts the English translation is to be understood in accord with the Latin
editio typica, which says “pro multis.” It is to be understood in that sense. Those like you that erroneously understand it in a different sense do so contrary to the mind of the Church.
It has nothing to do with discipline. It has to do with whether the Blood of Christ was shed for many or for all.
The atonement of Christ was
sufficient for all and
efficacious for many. You erroneously read into the English translation a change in doctrine that does not exist according to the Divinely ordained authority responsible for Catholic doctrine.
Furthermore, the various liturgies present within the Eastern Rite are in accord with the most ancient creed in the Greek, but
neither do they deny the doctrine as taught by the
Catechism of the Catholic Church. Again, you make the ERROR of presuming to speak for the Church in what it intends by her own liturgy, yet you do not have that authority.
For a very thorough treatment of the arguments often employed contrary to the judgment of the authentic magisterium on this matter, see the following article:
THE SACRAMENTAL VALIDITY OF "FOR YOU AND FOR ALL"
by Fr. John F. McCarthy, J.C.D., S.T.D.
rtforum.org/lt/lt89.html
As it was I just held my tounge and walked out as calmly as I could muster at the first chance I got. I then sat in the car and cried because I was so shocked, angry, confused and sad that anyone who could spew such anti-catholic hatred could dare advertise that they were Catholic. After the initial shock I prayed for them all and of course I went to a real Mass for Christmas. At a regular Bonafide Roman Catholic Church. Later on when I told one of my friends about it they said, “Oh yeah, that church- they’ve been excommunicated.” There aren’t any sanctioned Latin Masses within 100 miles of where I am so I probably won’t be attending one anytime soon. Although I still think a real Latin Mass might be nice to participatein, I have no desire to ever go to a fake mass again.
