What were the reasons for changing the Mass?

[ThomasMore1535]

MikeDunphy:

My argument is that the phrases “for many” and “for all” are not interchangeable. It is explicitly stated in the Roman catechism that our Lord deliberately said “for many” and not “for all”, so I don’t think I’m going against Catholic teaching here. Moreover, both the new Mass and the traditional Mass say that our Lord shed His blood “pro multis”, not “pro omnibus” or “pro universis”, so I don’t think that Catholic teaching about what our Lord said at the Last Supper has changed, it is just a matter of a bad translation.

Yes, you are going against Catholic teaching, because Paul VI specifically ruled on it. Your statement that “My argument is that the phrases…are not interchangeable” perfectly illustrates your problem: it doesn’t matter what your opinion on the matter is. ROME HAS SETTLED THE ISSUE. What more do you want? You complain that everyone disobeys the Church in Her teaching authority today, and yet you seem to be doing that exact same thing by refusing to acknowledge that “for all” is a valid translation. The Holy See has definitively said that it is, and that’s all there is to it.

 

[ThomasMore1535]

Here’s more to ponder:

The words in the way they are used by Paul are interchangeable. As Kenneth Whithead and James Likoudis relate:

Orthodox Biblical scholars have explained the apparent discrepancy, by pointing out that Hebrew and Aramaic words for “many,” familiar to the Apostles, had a common meaning of “the all who are many” or an “undefined multitude.” In other words the Bible on occasion uses the words many and all interchangeably. That is to say, the expression “for man” has a Semitic meaning that is equivalent in some cases to “for all men.” The original Hebrew or Aramaic words came into the Greek New Testament simply as polloi, which in turn was perhaps somewhat simplistically translated into the Latin “multis” rather than “omnibus.” In our day, there has been a greater awareness of the various meanings of all the words involved - and of the Semitic nuances underlying them. The Church has accordingly found no contradiction in doctrine in approving “for all men” in English - or “per tutti” in Italian - as a valid translation of the Latin “pro multis.” Some scripture scholars believe “for all men” might even be a more faithful translation of the Holy Scriptures. [5]

Whitehead continues by quoting a renowned Biblical scholar Pierre Benoit, O.P., who writes as follows of the meaning of the word “many” in Scriptures:

The word which we translate as ‘many’ stresses the sense of a great number and does not exclude anyone…Jesus certainly makes this fullness of salvation his own and it is the whole of mankind of the end of space and time that he includes in this ‘many’ for whom he was going to give his life as a ‘ransom’” (Mt. 20:28; Mk. 10:45). [6]
Next, we have yet another scholar, Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J. who independently finds that:
The Semitic phrase ‘for many’ stands for a totality and not for a multitude in contrast to the whole. Hence it indicates the universality of Christ’s redemptive work. [7]
Thus, the translation “For All” is indeed a valid translation. Our opponents throwing a big hullabaloo about it being a horrid translation to have “For All” instead of “For Many” amounts to absolutely nothing. Another argument down the tube.

In fact, our opponents have someone (Mike Malone) who has written articles that they have linked to from their own web-pages, and is a ‘real’ Catholic according to them, i.e., Feeneyite, (unlike Pope John Paul II, Pope John Paul II, Pope Pius XII, etc. who are heretic ‘Catholics’), in an email that John Loughnan received, when writing of the issue ‘for all’:

In fact, this translation, although Scripturally inaccurate, may well be considered an approximation of the actual words of Consecration as given to us by the Evangelist St. Luke: “This is the chalice, the new testament in My blood, which shall be shed for you” (22:20). The final word of this formula (you) is in the plural, and might more accurately be translated “for you all” (especially if you are from San Antonio, Texas!) ~ precisely as St. Jerome rendered it in his Vulgate, the solitary translation of Holy Writ ever authorized by the Catholic Church in her entire history. Nevertheless, the best codices of Scripture demonstrate that it is not the formulary Our Lord Jesus Christ actually recited at the Last Supper, despite the fact that it clearly suffices for a valid confection of the Sacrament according to the most common and traditional theology, including that of St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica III, Q.78, Art 2, 4). The prolific St. Alphonsus Maria observes that there was once even a Consecration of the Host in the ancient Catholic Coptic Mass ~ brought by the Evangelist St. Mark to Egypt ~ which rendered the words of the transubstantiation of the host: “This is the Body”(!) It seems, therefore, that the Catholic Church has always supplied the proper understanding of the various thoughts expressed in our poor human idiom, even in her most sacrosanct ceremony. As the ancient dictum puts it: “Ecclesia Supplicet” ~ The Church supplies. Not even the venerable Tridentine Rite, codified by Pope St. Pius V in 1570, is capable of escaping this judgment, considering that its own Catechism was called upon to explain, at length and in detail, why its Mass continues to call “bread” what has already been transubstantiated into the Body of Jesus Christ. In the liturgies of virtually every Rite, therefore, a genuinely Catholic understanding must necessarily be supplied in certain instances, in order that misconstructions be curtailed and any affected ambiguity be overcome. [8]

matt1618.freeyellow.com/forall.html

 

[MikeDunphy]

ThomasMore1535:

Furthermore, Pope Paul VI specifically declared that the use “for all” is a perfectly orthodox form of consecration.

matt1618.freeyellow.com/forall.html
…
Here’s what Pope Paul VI ruled:
…
Reply: The variant involved is fully justified
…

These are, in fact, the words of an unnamed individual writing in the January, 1970 issue of Notitiae, not the words of Pope Paul VI.

 

[ThomasMore1535]

MikeDunphy:

These are, in fact, the words of an unnamed individual writing in the January, 1970 issue of Notitiae, not the words of Pope Paul VI.

Doesn’t matter. It was issued pursuant to Pope Paul VI’s approval. The same thing happened back in the middle of the nineteenth century when a French Bishop first raised the question of whether Natural Family Planning was acceptable, or whether it was as evil as contraception. The Holy See, not Bl. Pius IX himself, replied that it could be justified under some circumstances. It was issued pursuant to Bl. Pius XI’s approval. Same in this case. Paul VI approved it, and therefore the matter is closed.

 

[MikeDunphy]

ThomasMore1535:

MikeDunphy:

These are, in fact, the words of an unnamed individual writing in the January, 1970 issue of Notitiae, not the words of Pope Paul VI.

Doesn’t matter. It was issued pursuant to Pope Paul VI’s approval.

If Pope Paul VI didn’t say something, saying that he did is an untruth. If Jesus Christ did not say something, saying he did is an untruth.

You have posted several new messages which I will attempt to respond to a greater length, as time permits, but I want to highlight this bit from your post #100:

ThomasMore1535:

…this translation, although Scripturally inaccurate…

So are we to assume that Scripture got it wrong and ICEL got it right?

The new Mass, in its official, Latin form states that Jesus said He would shed His blood pro multis (as did the traditional Mass). Are we to assume that the creators of the new Mass got it wrong and ICEL got it right?

In English, the New Mass consecration of the wine is “Scripturally inaccurate”. In Latin, the New Mass consecration of the wine is scripturally accurate. If we believe that Scripture accurately records what Jesus said at the Last Supper, we should go with the “scripturally accurate” version.

Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition are a more reliable guide to the mind of the Church than the questionable words of some unnamed individual and the undocumented claim that Paul VI agreed with those words. While I have seen no proof that Pope Paul VI agreed with the Notitiae article, it is a matter of public record that new Missal was promulgated in his reign. In the new Missal, Jesus says He sheds His blood pro multis, for many.

 

[MikeDunphy]

## In Aramaic such as Jesus would have spoken, the phrase meaning literally “many”, meant as an idiom “all”. ##

I have seen this claim made in another forum, with a couple of passages from Holy Scripture to back it up. However, on closer examination, the phrase that is used in those passages is not simply “many”, but rather “the many”. While the phrase “the many” apparently can suggest everyone, nevertheless it continues to be translated as “many”, not “all”, even when translated by advocates of “dynamic equivalence”.

Furthermore, the phrase “the many” does not appear in Matthew 26:28, so the connotations of the phrase “the many”, as it appears elsewhere in Scripture, are irrelevent to understanding our Lord’s words of consecration. St. Matthew records that our Lord said He would shed His blood “for many”, and I suspect the evangelist, writing in the first century, had a better idea of what our Lord meant than ICEL did, working in the 20th century.

The Bible has been translated into Aramaic, in a version known as the Peshitta. The Aramaic has in turn been translated into English in a version of the Gospel of Matthew available here. Note that even going directly from Aramaic to English, our Lord is still recorded as having said that He sheds His blood “for many”.

It should also be noted that the translators’ task was not to create a new Liturgy based on speculation about what our Lord originally said in Aramaic. Their job was to take the new Mass, already created, and translate it from Latin to English. The Latin says pro multis, “for many”, and the translators should have followed the text they received. While the Greek, and the Aramaic based on the Greek, don’t define the Mass, the fact that they also attest that our Lord said He would shed His blood “for many” strengthens the argument that the ICEL translators got the consecration wrong.

 

[ThomasMore1535]

MikeDunphy:

If Pope Paul VI didn’t say something, saying that he did is an untruth. If Jesus Christ did not say something, saying he did is an untruth.

You have posted several new messages which I will attempt to respond to a greater length, as time permits, but I want to highlight this bit from your post #100:
So are we to assume that Scripture got it wrong and ICEL got it right?

The new Mass, in its official, Latin form states that Jesus said He would shed His blood pro multis (as did the traditional Mass). Are we to assume that the creators of the new Mass got it wrong and ICEL got it right?

In English, the New Mass consecration of the wine is “Scripturally inaccurate”. In Latin, the New Mass consecration of the wine is scripturally accurate. If we believe that Scripture accurately records what Jesus said at the Last Supper, we should go with the “scripturally accurate” version.

Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition are a more reliable guide to the mind of the Church than the questionable words of some unnamed individual and the undocumented claim that Paul VI agreed with those words. While I have seen no proof that Pope Paul VI agreed with the Notitiae article, it is a matter of public record that new Missal was promulgated in his reign. In the new Missal, Jesus says He sheds His blood pro multis, for many.

Oh, really? Even though Paul VI approved the ICEL translation that has “for all”? The burden is on you to prove that Paul VI did not approve the new translation. Please stop trying to shift the burden of proof. The New Mass was promulgated during Paul VI’s reign, as well as the translation. Are you telling me that Paul VI never once saw the new translation, or never authorized it? What is your proof for such an assertion?

The quoted response, though anonymous, is a statement by the Holy See itself, and the Holy See does not issue statements save by the approval of the Holy Father. That is the norm. The burden is on you to show that Paul VI did not approve this, not the other way around.

You say that “holy scripture and holy tradition” are more reliable than the words of an anonymous writer. What you’re really saying is, your notion of holy scripture and holy tradition are more reliable than the words of an article published by the Holy See, with Paul VI’s authorization. Even if Paul VI did not authorize that response—which I will not concede unless you give proof for it—that does not matter, because no translation of the mass can be approved without the Holy See. Paul VI approved the ICEL translation. End of story. You are relying on your own personal interpretations of traditon and scripture rather than humbly submitting to the authority of Rome.

You’re saying that the consecration words in English are “scripturally inaccurate”? Well, then, you have to say that the consecratory words of the Tridentine Rite are also scripturally inaccurte, since they contain the phrase “mysterium fidei,” which is nowhere found in Sacred Scripture. And it’s a fact that early canons like the Canon of Hyppolytus did not have the “mysterium fidei” in it. Now, I have no problem with the “myterium fidei” being in the words of consecration. But you cannot claim that the “for all” is Scripturally inaccurate while at the same time claiming that the “mysterium fidei” is just fine and dandy, which I assume is your position.

“For many” and “for all” are interchangeable. Look at the ancient canons. They contain many variations on Our Lord’s words, but this has never been viewed as a problem. “All” and “many” in this case are interchangeable. Rome has spoken; the case is closed.

 

[ThomasMore1535]

MikeDunphy:

It should also be noted that the translators’ task was not to create a new Liturgy based on speculation about what our Lord originally said in Aramaic. Their job was to take the new Mass, already created, and translate it from Latin to English. The Latin says pro multis, “for many”, and the translators should have followed the text they received. While the Greek, and the Aramaic based on the Greek, don’t define the Mass, the fact that they also attest that our Lord said He would shed His blood “for many” strengthens the argument that the ICEL translators got the consecration wrong.

Are you therefore saying that, since the consecration is wrong, the New Mass is invalid? Because that is what you are implying, and once again, you seem to be substituting your own personal opinions for the judgment of the Holy See.

 

[MikeDunphy]

Petergee:

Ah, I still get a laugh out of

P: Go, the Mass is ended.
R: Thanks be to God.

But relief from this apparent ordeal does not come yet, because it’s not ended at all, there’s a lot more still to come!

I say the response with tremendous sincerity, particularly on Sundays when we have been singing that we ourselves are the bread of life.

 

[palmas85]

ThomasMore1535:

Then you’re either deliberately falsifying your fears, or you do not understand what Vatican II actually taught. You are confusing abuse with actual doctrine, something that the Church has always had. You seem to be implying that Vatican II did teach heresy, a liberal universal idea of salvation, when in fact anyone who actually reads the documents knows that they taught no such thing. So you are either deliberately ignoring what Vatican II taught, or you are unable to understand what it actually taught. Of course there are abuses, and those are to be lamented. But it is not the result of Vatican II. The New Mass is not heretical, as you seem to be implying. Why exactly are you failing to distinguish between what Vatican II actually said and what liberals attempt to claim that it said?

Since you claim to have read all the Vatican II documents, please show me where, in any of those documents, it says that the Mass should be made more Protestant-friendly. Where in Sacrosanctum Concillium does it mention that?

You cannot claim that “in your opinion” the “for all” implies a liberal notion of universal salvation. Pope Paul VI definitively resolved the matter, as I showed. Perhaps you chose to ignore that rather inconvenient fact since it undermines your argument. Regardless, it seems to me that you are substituting your own personal interpretation of Sacred Tradition for that of the Holy Father, a very Protestant thing to do, and a direct violation of Vatican I, which specifically states that the Holy Father is to be obeyed not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in matters of discipline as well. So it seems to me that you’re breaking with the very tradition you claim to want to uphold.

You indicate above that I said I had read ALL the Vatican II documents. I did not. Check it out, I said I read MOST of them. You see there is a difference between ALL and MOST and MANY. They don’t really mean the same thing. . In much the same fashion, you attributed a statement to the Holy Father, which wasn’t his, in fact it was from an unnamed source in an article. You said it doesn’t matter. It was his intent and issued under his authority. Maybe it was and maybe he did, but you provided no proof at all… The source you gave merely said the ruling came from Rome while Paul VI was still Pope.

The fact is it does matter. If you are going to quote people or assign statements to them, then you should have the integrity to quote them properly, and be sure of what you write instead of attributing whatever meaning you want to their words.

However, after seeing where you got your information from:

**Detection and Overthrow
of the ‘Traditionalist Catholics’
Falsely So-Called

By I. Shawn McElhinney
Dr. Art Sippo
Matt1618 **

I see clearly what your primary interest is in this forum. Sorry old man, I won’t play along.

**Holy Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle
be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the Devil
May God rebuke him we humbly pray
and You, Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the power of God
cast into Hell Satan, and all the evil spirits
who wander through the world, seeking the destruction of souls
**

 

[ThomasMore1535]

palmas85:

You indicate above that I said I had read ALL the Vatican II documents. I did not. Check it out, I said I read MOST of them. You see there is a difference between ALL and MOST and MANY. They don’t really mean the same thing. . In much the same fashion, you attributed a statement to the Holy Father, which wasn’t his, in fact it was from an unnamed source in an article. You said it doesn’t matter. It was his intent and issued under his authority. Maybe it was and maybe he did, but you provided no proof at all… The source you gave merely said the ruling came from Rome while Paul VI was still Pope.

The fact is it does matter. If you are going to quote people or assign statements to them, then you should have the integrity to quote them properly, and be sure of what you write instead of attributing whatever meaning you want to their words.

However, after seeing where you got your information from:

**Detection and Overthrow
of the ‘Traditionalist Catholics’
Falsely So-Called

By I. Shawn McElhinney
Dr. Art Sippo
Matt1618 **

I see clearly what your primary interest is in this forum. Sorry old man, I won’t play along.

Ah, so now you admit that you HAVEN’T in fact read all of the Vatican II documents, just MOST of them. You were claiming to know what the Council said all about the liturgy and everything, and now you admit that you haven’t read all of them. So how can you claim then that the Mass became Protestantized if you haven’t read all of what the Council actually said?

Second of all, I am hardly an “old man.” I am 24 years old.

Third, with your statement “I see what your primary interest in this forum is,” you seem to be implying that I am some kind of a secret, modernist liberal operative seeking root out all those who love the Old Mass, or something like that. Correct me if I’m wrong, please. You’ll no doubt be shocked to know, then, that I actually love the Tridentine Mass. Here in St. Louis, where I live, the Institute of Christ the King provides the Tridentine Mass on a DAILY BASIS at St. Francis de Sales, a church that is a marvelous example of gothic architecture. The old mass is celebrated in all of its glory, and I absolutely love it. I was priviledged to attend a Pontifical High Mass with Archbishop Burke, where he gave the Sacrament of Confirmation. Here are some pictures for you to see what kind of liturgy I like to attend:

institute-christ-king.org/SFdSConfirmations2005.htm

I know you will be amazed to find someone who loves the Tridentine Mass and still fully adheres to and accepts the liturgical changes made by the Magisterium, as well as adherring to the new translation of the mass. Guess that doesn’t exactly fit your conception of someone who accepts the New Mass translation, does it?

I also enjoy attending the Novous Ordo Mass at the Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis. Here’s the kind of Cathedral I like to attend:

lekshe.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/inside.jpg

You see, like you, I enjoy and appreciate the Church’s liturgy. I long for a reform of the liturgical abuses going on right now. But unlike you, I also humbly submit my mind to the judgment of the Magisterium regarding the New Mass. You do not, since you refuse to admit that “for all” is a valid translation of the Latin, and claim that it implies some kind of liberalism, which the Holy See says it does not. I am not in the business of picking and choosing which part of the Church to obey according to my own personal liking.

I find it interesting that in your last post you never actually show that Pope Paul VI did not approve the English translation of the mass. You also ignore the fact that no ruling can come from Rome without the approval of the Holy Father. Do you deny this? Do you deny that the magisterium cannot issue any ruling without the consent of the Holy Father? The burden is still on you to show that Pope Paul VI did not in fact authorize that statement. Stop avoiding the issue.

The burden of proof is on you to show that Pope Paul VI did not approve that document. It is a regular, indeed mandatory, requirement that the Holy Father approve all such statements. That is the assumption. You are the one making the unique claim that somehow an official document of the Magisterium slipped by his notice, and was approved without him knowing about it. That is an allegation. You are the one who has to back up that allegation with proof. Stop trying to shift the burden of proof away from yourself.

 

[ThomasMore1535]

palmas85:

However, after seeing where you got your information from:

**Detection and Overthrow
of the ‘Traditionalist Catholics’
Falsely So-Called

By I. Shawn McElhinney
Dr. Art Sippo
Matt1618 **

I see clearly what your primary interest is in this forum.

And what exactly is your point? You’ve committed an ad hominem fallacy.

And besides, they’re simply calling a spade a spade. Lots of “Traditionalist Catholics” claim to follow Church Tradition, but in fact do not. Rather than following the necessary tradition of submitting to the Roman Pontiff, they interpret Sacred Tradition according to their own personal preferences, just like Protestants with Sacred Scripture. Is that what your idea of being “traditional” is?

 

[palmas85]

ThomasMore1535:

Ah, so now you admit that you HAVEN’T in fact read all of the Vatican II documents, just MOST of them. You were claiming to know what the Council said all about the liturgy and everything, and now you admit that you haven’t read all of them. So how can you claim then that the Mass became Protestantized if you haven’t read all of what the Council actually said?

Second of all, I am hardly an “old man.” I am 24 years old.

You see, like you, I enjoy and appreciate the Church’s liturgy. I long for a reform of the liturgical abuses going on right now. But unlike you, I also humbly submit my mind to the judgment of the Magisterium regarding the New Mass. You do not, since you refuse to admit that “for all” is a valid translation of the Latin, and claim that it implies some kind of liberalism, which the Holy See says it does not. I am not in the business of picking and choosing which part of the Church to obey according to my own personal liking.

I find it interesting that in your last post you never actually show that Pope Paul VI did not approve the English translation of the mass. You also ignore the fact that no ruling can come from Rome without the approval of the Holy Father. Do you deny this? Do you deny that the magisterium cannot issue any ruling without the consent of the Holy Father? The burden is still on you to show that Pope Paul VI did not in fact authorize that statement. Stop avoiding the issue.

The burden of proof is on you to show that Pope Paul VI did not approve that document. It is a regular, indeed mandatory, requirement that the Holy Father approve all such statements. That is the assumption. You are the one making the unique claim that somehow an official document of the Magisterium slipped by his notice, and was approved without him knowing about it. That is an allegation. You are the one who has to back up that allegation with proof. Stop trying to shift the burden of proof away from yourself.

Well old man, just a term of endearment you know, ,here is the pertinent part of my post,

Actually I have read most of the documents that came out of Vatican II and more tha that, I actually remember the council itself, the newspaper and magazine articles about it. The high hopes we had and the weekly pep talks father gave the altar boys. I even remember the transitional mass we used until the Pauline Mass was finally decided upon.

I fail to see in that statement where I said I had read all the documents. Most does not and never has meant all. Sorry.

I accept and obey what Rome says. All of my life, before, during, through the turmoil after Vatican II, and today. I accept, I obey, I don’t have to agree. I don’t have to like some things. The church stopped requiring blind obedience and lemming like behavior a long time ago. In the military, I learned agreement is not an essential element of obedience. In my job, I often find I do not agree with the laws I enforce. But, I have to enforce them. Agreeing is another thing entirely.

I will tell you this, not about anything specific, but something good to know . The Church, the institutional church, is a big beauracratic organization… The man at the top of any beauracracy, Presidents, Prime Ministers, CEO’s, Generals, Admirals Governors Mayors, Police Chiefs and yes even the Pope delegate many of the governing duties to people below them. Often he, the leader, has little specific knowledge of everything that goes on underneath him. He can’t because of the multitude of details involved… Witness the current situation of the Port deal with the UAE firm. It turned out that the President really didn’t know much of anything about it until after the fact. Hardly unusual, even in the Church. If you really truly believe that nothing has ever come out of the Vatican without the Popes express approval, you need to re-read Church History. You really do.

As far as everything else, no, it is not my responsibility to prove anything. . I gave my opinion.as to what I think happened. You said that something was actually done by someone else and stood by that statement. You, my friend are the one who has to back up what you said.

I go to the Pauline Mass, ever since it first came out. When we were allowed to go to the Traditional Mass again, I did. But I still go to the Pauline Mass. Almost every day…
.
And you thought I was just another ultra trad sedevacantist, or as your friends web site and your apparent source of info labeled traditionalists, our opponents and falsely labeled Catholics. See, I do know your intent. And I will not play along.

Don’t lose your passion for the faith no matter what happens, I never did. In spite of everything, I still believe in the Holy Catholic Church

Cheers or as they say in Mexico, Que Viva Thomas Moore 1535

 

[MikeDunphy]

ThomasMore1535:

Then you are saying that the gates of hell have prevailed. You cannot maintain that “for all” is inaccurate and still remain in good standing with the Church. Rome has spoken, the matter is closed.

You are confusing abuses with actual doctrine. You are falsely hoping for some kind of a “golden age” in the Church. You know perfectly well that that will never happen.

You are being overdramatic. A bad translation does not mean Hell has won a final victory over the Church, which will never happen. Rome has indeed spoken clearly on this matter, in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, edited under Saint Charles Borromeo, and published by decree of Pope Saint Pius V.

I am not expecting a “golden age” of perfection in the Church before our Lord’s second coming at the end of time, but I do believe things can be better than they are now.

May the Holy Spirit give you a blessed and spiritually fruitful Sunday.

 

[jbuck919]

I remember the traditional Mass, and I have a great deal of sympathy for those who loved it, and I agree that the church could have done much better than what we ended up with.

Then let me present you with this scenario:

Look around you at any traditionally built church that is larger than a little chapel. Now imagine, a bell rings and everybody stands. A priest and two altar boys (literally young boys) enters, and mumbles his way at rapid speed through an obscure ritual that the boys themselves do not understand except ritualistically and phonetically, In the US, the priest himself probably does not understand half of what he is saying. Once in a while he pivots on a foot and extends his hands saying “Dominus vobiscum.” At the end of mass after Mass is over, he faces the people and reads the beginning of the Gospel of John.(Then if he follows the Leonine directive there are still further prayers before everyone is allowed to go.)

Before you vent your angry responses at me, I am not going quite where you think I’m going. The problem was never the traditional Latin rite. The problem was that the Low Mass was a mitigation of the Solemn Mass, with the High Mass (Missa Cantata) an unacceptable compromise in between. How many of us ever witnessed a true Solemn Mass worthily celebrated in the old form? If that were the norm, it never would have occurred to the church to deviate from it. The only place I know that it is still retained is in certain monasteries, particularly of the Solesmes congregation, in full communion with Rome, and they have it every day. It was possible for some select grand churches to have grand masses as well. The rest of the world had to settle for “ominous nabisco” back then, so why wonder that we have to settle for guitars today?

 

[MikeDunphy]

(I am quoting post #90, slightly rearranged to put questions and answers together).

ThomasMore1535:
In certain vernacular versions of the text for consecrating wine, the words pro multis are translated thus: English, for all; Spanish, por todos, Italian, per tutti. Query:

a. Is there a sufficient reason for introducing this variant and if so, what is it?

Reply: The variant involved is fully justified:

a. According to exegetes the Aramaic word translated in Latin by pro multis has as its meaning “for all”; the many for whom Christ died is without limit; it is equivalent to saying “Christ has died for all.” …The following is an excerpt from an interlinear translation of the Peshitta (the Aramaic version of the Bible):
http://www.geocities.com/adlib.geo/shedformany.gif
I am not an Aramaic scholar, but the Aramaic equivalent of “pro multis” certainly looks like two words here, not the single word claimed by the Notitiae article. Notice that the word in the middle, translated in Latin by multis, has as its meaning “many”, not “all” as claimed in the article.

The addition of the quote from St. Augustine, fully consistent with the Roman Catechism, does nothing to defeat the teaching of the Catechism, which is that Jesus said He was going to shed His blood “for many”, not “for all”.

ThomasMore1535:

b. Is the pertinent traditional teaching in the Catechism of the Council of Trent to be considered superseded?

b. The teaching of the Catechism (Trent’s Catechism) is in no way superseded: the distinction that Christ’s death is sufficient for all but efficacious for many remains valid. Well, good. We can agree that the teaching of the Roman Catechism is in no way superseded. To find out just what that teaching is, just click on this link and search for the phrase “for you and for many”. It occurs three times. Reading the catechism in those areas will reveal the Catechism’s teaching on this topic: Our Lord said He would shed his blood “for many” and deliberately did not say that he was shedding his blood “for all”.

ThomasMore1535:

c. Are all other versions of the Biblical passage in question to be regarded as less accurate?

This question, left unanswered, I consider key. Even if I cannot convince everyone that “for all” is a flawed translation of pro multis and peri pollwn, I hope at least to persuade people that “for many” is a more accurate translation.

ThomasMore1535:

d. Did something inaccurate and needing correction or emendation in fact slip in when the approval was given for such a version?

c. In the approval of this vernacular variant in the liturgical text nothing inaccurate has slipped in that requires correction or emendation.The Notitiae article provided no evidence that “for all” is a better translation of our Lord’s words than “for many”. Surely, when quoting our Lord, we should be as accurate as possible. Above all, we should have a faithful rendering of our Lord’s words during the consecration. As St. Ambrose said:

The consecration is accomplished by the words and expressions of the Lord Jesus. Because, by all the other words spoken, praise is rendered to God, prayer is put up for the people, for kings, and others; but when the time comes for perfecting the sacrament, the priest uses no longer his own words, but the words of Christ. Therefore, it is Christ’s words that perfect this sacrament.

 

[palmas85]

(I am quoting post #90, slightly rearranged to put questions and answers together).
The following is an excerpt from an interlinear translation of the Peshitta (the Aramaic version of the Bible):
http://www.geocities.com/adlib.geo/shedformany.gif
I am not an Aramaic scholar, but the Aramaic equivalent of “pro multis” certainly looks like two words here, not the single word claimed by the Notitiae article. Notice that the word in the middle, translated in Latin by multis, has as its meaning “many”, not “all” as claimed in the article.

The addition of the quote from St. Augustine, fully consistent with the Roman Catechism, does nothing to defeat the teaching of the Catechism, which is that Jesus said He was going to shed His blood “for many”, not “for all”.

Well, good. We can agree that the teaching of the Roman Catechism is in no way superseded. To find out just what that teaching is, just click on this link and search for the phrase “for you and for many”. It occurs three times. Reading the catechism in those areas will reveal the Catechism’s teaching on this topic: Our Lord said He would shed his blood “for many” and deliberately did not say that he was shedding his blood “for all”.

This question, left unanswered, I consider key. Even if I cannot convince everyone that “for all” is a flawed translation of pro multis and peri pollwn, I hope at least to persuade people that “for many” is a more accurate translation.

The Notitiae article provided no evidence that “for all” is a better translation of our Lord’s words than “for many”. Surely, when quoting our Lord, we should be as accurate as possible. Above all, we should have a faithful rendering of our Lord’s words during the consecration. As St. Ambrose said:

I think the pro multis issue overall is an example of ecumenism at work these days. Another thread concerning children receiving from the chalice brought out another issue which is connected I think to the pro multis issue.

On that thread it was brought out that a minister of communion, Priest, Deacon or other could not refuse holy communion apparently to anyone who went to receive. This is apparently done by order of the USCCB. What better example could we have of the inclusive nature and intent of the pro multis issue.

The church ever since I know of has always taught that only Baptized Catholics are to share in the eucharist, with certain rare and extraordinary exceptions. Now, the Bishops have approved a translation that is patently wrong, and almost at the same time apparently come down with a ruling that apparently NO ONE is to be denied holy communion. That is of course if that ruling actually exists, as there sems to be some difficulty in finding it.

If found to be true I think the link is pretty clear and very obvious.

 

[mrdrifter]

ThomasMore1535:

Since you claim to have read all the Vatican II documents, please show me where, in any of those documents, it says that the Mass should be made more Protestant-friendly. Where in Sacrosanctum Concillium does it mention that?

The first paragraph of Sacrosanctum Concilium:

This Sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the Liturgy.

Seems clear that the Council envisioned changing the liturgy to be more appealing, accessable, or whatever, to inter alia Protestants.

 

[MikeDunphy]

ThomasMore1535:

Here’s more to ponder:
The words in the way they are used by Paul are interchangeable. As Kenneth Whithead and James Likoudis relate:

St. Paul does use the phrase “the many” to speak about people in general, in Romans, chapter 5, and possibly elsewhere, but that does not make “all” and “many” interchangeable. “All” people would be many, very many, but “many” people does not necessarily mean everyone.

We are not talking about the letters of St. Paul, anyway, we are talking about the Gospel of St. Matthew. Consider what the following verses mean, if we are free to substitute “all” for “many”:

Matthew 9:10:
And as he sat at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Jesus and his disciples.

It must have been a really big table, if all tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Jesus.

Matthew 7:13:
Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.

We are all doomed, if all take the way to destruction.

 

[JSmitty2005]

How does the Church respond to the pro multis argument considering this (from the Roman Catechism of Trent):

“The additional words for you and for many are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of his Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed his blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When, therefore, Our Lord said for you, he meant either those who were present, or those chosen among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added and for many, he wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles. With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of and to the elect only did his Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle (Heb 9:28) when he says: “Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many,” and also the words of Our Lord in John: “I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine” (Jn 17:9).”