What were the reasons for changing the Mass?

[MikeDunphy]

ThomasMore1535:

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.”

The only justification I have seen for this claim that the Hebrew and Aramaic words for “many” mean the “the all who are many” is the citation of a few verses from St. Paul’s letters and Isaiah 53. However, this works just as well to “prove” that many means all in English. It is the context that gives many the connotation of all, along with the fact that all people would indeed be many, even if “many people” does not mean all.

ThomasMore1535:

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.”

If you go to kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon and type in *polloi *under Greek-English dictionary, then press the Find button, the online dictionary there will tell you that polloi means “many” (not “all”). “Simplistic”? No, the translators were **accurate **when they translated polloi as multis. You can also test out the English-Greek dictionary on the same page, and observe that many translates to πολλοί and all translates to όλοι. *Many *and *all *are different words in English and in Latin and in Greek and in Aramaic.

I tried looking up the quotes from Whitehead and Kilmartin you supplied, but did not see anything more than what you wrote, nothing more than bare assertions that many means everyone.

I was surprised to see you bring forth an argument that started by saying “for all” is scripturally inaccurate. Such a statement undercuts the claim that “for all” is as good a translation of what our Lord said as the traditional “for many”.

 

[MikeDunphy]

ThomasMore1535:

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).

The two verses mentioned are nearly word-for-word identical:

The Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

I see no reason to believe in that these verses “many” has to mean everybody, rather than those who will actually be saved. Saint Thomas Aquinas has a wonderful commentary on the Gospels, known as the Catena Aurea. For the verse from Matthew, he quotes Origen:
“‘And to give his life a ransom for many,’ they, that is, who believed on Him”.

For the verse from Mark, he quotes the Venerable Bede:
“He did not say, however, that He gave His life a ransom for all, but for many, that is, for those who would believe on Him.”

The teaching of the Catholic Church has always been that our Lord said that our Lord said he was shedding his blood “for many”, those who will be saved. Of course, in another sense, He shed His blood for all, even for those who throw away the gift of salvation, but that does not change what He actually said at the Last Supper.

I Love the Catena Aurea. Some of the Angelic Doctor’s writings are difficult for a layman to follow, but in the Catena Aurea he weaves together commentary from the Fathers on the gospels in a very readable way.

 

[MikeDunphy]

MikeDunphy:

If you go to kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon and type in *polloi *under Greek-English dictionary, then press the Find button, the online dictionary there will tell you that polloi means “many” (not “all”). “Simplistic”? No, the translators were **accurate **when they translated polloi as multis. You can also test out the English-Greek dictionary on the same page, and observe that many translates to πολλοί and all translates to όλοι. *Many *and *all *are different words in English and in Latin and in Greek and in Aramaic.

I forgot to include this quote from Philip Goddard:

In Liddell and Scott’s standard Greek Lexicon, the article on πολλοί extends to over two columns of small print and lists many nuances of meaning with extensive quotations from Greek literature to support the corresponding English meanings given. Nowhere, however, in Greek literature do either Liddell and Scott or the many later editors of their Lexicon record any passage where the word bears the meaning “all”.

 

[MikeDunphy]

(Still trying to catch up two weeks later. This is why you have 171 posts to my 16).

ThomasMore1535:

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 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.

Show me where the rules are that state that the Holy Father personally approves all articles in Notitiae and all translations of the Mass and I’ll have something to comment on.

ThomasMore1535:

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

If I were making statements on my own authority, I would say you were wise to trust Notitiae and ICEL over some unknown person on the internet. But I have have given you links you can just click on to check whether the Notitiae article’s linguistic claims are correct (they are not). I have given you a reference to the Roman Catechism which is certainly at least as authoritative as Notitiae. Someone else even posted some of the relevent text from the Catechism. It should be mentioned that the new Catechism touches on this subject, quoting our Lord’s words at the Last Supper four times, at #610, #613, #1365, and #1846. Every single time, the new catechism also quotes our Lord as having said for many.

I am not just giving you my interpretation of Holy Scripture. Look up Matthew 26:28 in your own personal copy of the Bible. I have no way of knowing which version you have, but I am confident that if you will just pick it up and read, it will tell you that at the Last Supper our Lord said that He was shedding His blood for many.

I am not just giving you my interpretation of Holy Tradition. I have mentioned two catechisms, here is a third:

Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas:
The third Sacrament is the Holy Eucharist. Its matter is wheaten bread and wine from the grape mixed with a little water so that the water becomes part of the wine. The water signifies the faithful who are incorporated into Christ. Other than wheaten bread and wine from the grape cannot be the matter for this Sacrament. The form of this Sacrament is the very words of Christ, “This is My Body,” and “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, to the remission of sins.” These words spoken by the priest in the person of Christ brings into being this Sacrament. The minister of this Sacrament is the priest; and no one else can consecrate this matter into the Body of Christ.

I have given you a few quotes from the Fathers of the Curch, here are more quotes from Fathers and Doctors and Saints:

[in my next post, this one is growing too long]

 

[MikeDunphy]

I have given you a few quotes from the Fathers of the Curch, here are more quotes from Fathers and Doctors and Saints:

Starting with two more from the Catena Aurea:
Remigius:
And it is to be noted, that He says not, For a few, nor, For all, but, “For many;” because He came not to redeem a single nation, but many out of all nations.

Pseudo-Jerome:
[Our Lord said His blood is shed for many] “For it does not cleanse all.”

Blessed Theodoret of Cyrrhus:
It should be noted, of course, that he bore the sins of many, not of all: not all came to faith, so he removed the sins of the believers only.

Irenaeus:
For this reason, when about to undergo His sufferings, that He might declare to Abraham and those with him the glad tidings of the inheritance being thrown open, [Christ], after He had given thanks while holding the cup, and had drunk of it, and given it to the disciples, said to them: “Drink ye all of it: this is My blood of the new covenant, which shall be shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of this vine, until that day when I will drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

St. Cyril of Jerusalem:
And thy cup intoxicateth me, as very strong [Psalm 23:5]. Thou seest that cup here spoken of, which Jesus took in His hands, and gave thanks, and said, This is My blood, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Origen:
For though the Angels and Martha ministered to Him, yet did He not come to be ministered unto, but to minister; yea, His ministry extended so far, that He fulfilled even what follows, “And to give his life a ransom for many,” they, that is, who believed on Him; and gave it, i. e. to death.

St. John Cassian:
And He said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee, for strength is made perfect in weakness." And this feeling even our Lord expressed when He prayed in the character of man which He had taken, that He might give us a form of prayer as other things also by His example; saying thus: “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will but as Thou wilt,” though certainly His will was not discordant with His Father’s will, “For He had come to save what was lost and to give His life a ransom for many;” as He Himself says: “No man taketh my life from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it again.”

St. Alphonsus De Liguori:
The words for you and for many are used to distinguish the virtue of the Blood of Christ from its fruits: for the Blood of Our Savior is of sufficient value to save all men but its fruits are applied only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault… This is the explanation of St. Thomas, as quoted by [Pope] Benedict XIV.

[too long again, more quotes follow]

 

[MikeDunphy]

Saint Augustine:
A goat, for instance, was offered for sin, a ram, anything; the victim itself which was offered for sin was called “sin.” A sacrifice for sin then was called “sin;” so that in one place the Law says, “That the Priests are to lay their hands upon the sin.” “Him” then, “who knew no sin, He made sin for us;” that is, “He was made a sacrifice for sin.” Sin was offered, and sin was cancelled. The Blood of the Redeemer was shed, and the debtor’s bond was cancelled. This is the “Blood, That was shed** for many** for the remission of sins.”

St. John Chrysostom:
“And He took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; This is my blood of the New Testament, Which is shed for many, for the remission of sins.”

And how were they not confounded at hearing this? Because He had before told unto them many and great things touching this. Wherefore that He establishes no more, for they had heard it sufficiently, but he speaks of the cause of His passion, namely, the taking away of sins. And He calls it blood of a New Testament, that of the undertaking, the promise, the new law. For this He undertook also of old, and this comprises the Testament that is in the new law. And like as the Old Testament had sheep and bullocks, so this has the Lord’s blood. Hence also He shows that He is soon to die, wherefore also He made mention of a Testament, and He reminds them also of the former Testament, for that also was dedicated with blood. And again He tells the cause of His death, “which is shed for many for the remission of sins;” and He saith, “Do this in remembrance of me.” Seest thou how He removes and draws them off from Jewish customs. For like as ye did that, He saith, in remembrance of the miracles in Egypt, so do this likewise in remembrance of me. That was shed for the preservation of the firstborn, this for the remission of the sins of the whole world. For, “This,” saith He, “is my blood, which is shed for the remission of sins.”

St. Cyprian:
For, taking the cup on the eve of His passion, He blessed it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, “Drink ye all of this; for this is my blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many, for the remission of sins. I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day in which I shall drink new wine with you in the kingdom of my Father.” In which portion we find that the cup which the Lord offered was mixed, and that that was wine which He called His blood. Whence it appears that the blood of Christ is not offered if there be no wine in the cup, nor the Lord’s sacrifice celebrated with a legitimate consecration unless our oblation and sacrifice respond to His passion. But how shall we drink the new wine of the fruit of the vine with Christ in the kingdom of His Father, if in the sacrifice of God the Father and of Christ we do not offer wine, nor mix the cup of the Lord by the Lord’s own tradition?

ThomasMore1535:

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.

The phrase “scripturally inaccurate” comes from your own post. I object to for “for all” because it is not true; it is not what Jesus said. Not everything Jesus said was recorded in the New Testament. We have the Roman Catechism, plus Popes Innocent III, Eugene IV, and Pius V to tell us that Jesus did use the expression “Mystery of Faith”, which was handed down from the Apostles. *.

The Bible is clear, however, that Jesus said “for many” rather than “for all”. That is why, as you guessed, I believe that “Mysterium Fidei” is fine and dandy, while “pro omnibus” is not.

ThomasMore1535:

“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.

Looking at the other canons is a reasonable suggestion, and one which I hope to comply with next week.*

 

[JW10631]

Getting back to the original point of the thread - it had been desired for quite a long time to have the worship done in the vernacular. The Byzantine Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox have almost always worshipped in the vernacular, as well as using Slavonic.

The translation from Latin to English of the Novus Orod has been an issue since it was first completed. Paul VI approved it. +John Paul II+ of eternal memory and Benedict XVI are not happy with it and they want it revamped. Among the shortcomings are the translations of et cum spiritu tuo, the mistranslation of the *Confietor *(mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa - for my fault, for my fault, for my most grievous fault - was omitted in English), the reference to the Gospel authors as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, not St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke and St. John, as is done in the Spanish translation. There are other issues.

Recently, Fr. Groeschel had a guest on his Sunday night EWTN program, a gentleman who is editor of a magazine that covers the Vatican. This gentleman pointed out that the change in the Mass, which used to be about focusing on God, became more of a “community” driven liturgical service, in part (the guest stated) to appeal to Protestants.

Well, it really didn’t work. Probably, what would be best is to translate the Traditional Latin Mass into the vernacular and have the priest speak loud enough for all to hear, instead of the prayers said by the priest which cannot be heard by the congregation - just my humble opinion. That won’t happen. Maybe Benedict XVI will simply come out with a new Order of the Mass.

 

[JSmitty2005]

JW10631:

Getting back to the original point of the thread - it had been desired for quite a long time to have the worship done in the vernacular. The Byzantine Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox have almost always worshipped in the vernacular, as well as using Slavonic.

The translation from Latin to English of the Novus Orod has been an issue since it was first completed. Paul VI approved it. +John Paul II+ of eternal memory and Benedict XVI are not happy with it and they want it revamped. Among the shortcomings are the translations of et cum spiritu tuo, the mistranslation of the *Confietor *(mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa - for my fault, for my fault, for my most grievous fault - was omitted in English), the reference to the Gospel authors as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, not St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke and St. John, as is done in the Spanish translation. There are other issues.

Recently, Fr. Groeschel had a guest on his Sunday night EWTN program, a gentleman who is editor of a magazine that covers the Vatican. This gentleman pointed out that the change in the Mass, which used to be about focusing on God, became more of a “community” driven liturgical service, in part (the guest stated) to appeal to Protestants.

Well, it really didn’t work. Probably, what would be best is to translate the Traditional Latin Mass into the vernacular and have the priest speak loud enough for all to hear, instead of the prayers said by the priest which cannot be heard by the congregation - just my humble opinion. That won’t happen. Maybe Benedict XVI will simply come out with a new Order of the Mass.

I agree. I don’t see why the Tridentine couldn’t just be translated to English and then be done with it.

 

[palmas85]

JSmitty2005:

I agree. I don’t see why the Tridentine couldn’t just be translated to English and then be done with it.

Basically that was what happened between about 1965 and 1970 or so in most places. It was widely asserted that the Traditional Mass was unduly repetitive and liturgically a “mess” due to all of the additions, the Leonine prayers for example. It was also said that the Traditional Mass was a fine example of the piety of the Middle Ages, but did not in any substantive way reflect the Mass of the early church.

I didn’t buy those theories then and I don’t buy them now.

The plain truth is that the Traditional Mass was just too formal, too stylized and way too proper for the tastes of the 60’s. Besides that, it was clearly primarily sacrificial in nature, and that did not square well with the overall ecumenical thrust of Vatican II. The laity was perceived to be merely observers, remember all the stock objections that still crop up, the clanging, cracking, banging whatever of rosary beads, unintelligible prayers hastily muttered in Latin, no lay participation, no knowledge by the laity of what was going on and the poor huddled masses kept in virtual bondage by the evil priests.

By streamlining the Mass, doing away with repetitive prayers and the additions, the Leonine prayers etc., lessening the role of the Priest in relation to the Mass, removing him from the altar except during the consecration, increasing the role and participation of the laity in the mass even changing the architecture of the Churches, it was hoped to create a sense of communal worship that was thought to be missing and may very well have have been in some cases.

IT DID NOT WORK AS THEY HAD HOPED

Lets pray that whatever changes the Vatican comes up with this time around actually accomplish their goal.

 

[MikeDunphy]

JSmitty2005:

JW10631:

Well, it really didn’t work. Probably, what would be best is to translate the Traditional Latin Mass into the vernacular and have the priest speak loud enough for all to hear, instead of the prayers said by the priest which cannot be heard by the congregation - just my humble opinion. That won’t happen. Maybe Benedict XVI will simply come out with a new Order of the Mass.

I agree. I don’t see why the Tridentine couldn’t just be translated to English and then be done with it.

Getting the traditional Mass in English would be a wonderful thing, but I agree with JW, that is unlikely to happen. What I expect is that we will get a partly cleaned up version of the current Mass, and more changes will have to be made later as we continue to edge back towards orthodoxy and tradition.

 

[JSmitty2005]

V2 claimed to have been a return to the Early Church but why would we ever want to do such a thing? Isn’t that to deny the work of the Holy Spirit in the organic development of the liturgy throughout the ages?

 

[rciadan]

My personnel opinion is that there is greater degree of participation. In times pass, you would see people engaged in private prayer with rosaries or prayer books unaware of what was occuring on the altar.
Small case tradiditon is important but not essential

I think that you may have a misperception about what you would see people doing.
Those that you would see praying the rosary or perhaps saying prayers from a prayer book were actively participating at Mass. They were more aware of what was occurring on the Altar then than now (where 30-60% of Catholics state they no longer believe in the Real Presence)! They were joining thier personal petitions, intercessions, with those preayers of the priest at the most holy time of any day, the moment when Christ is truly present on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar.
Now what I see is people talking amonst themselves and paying no attention to the Altar at all. I see people “networking” during Mass. I see people refusing to stand to hear the gospel. I see people refusing to stand or kneel during the consecration. I see people talking in the chapel while people are trying to be alone with God.
In general, the irreverence and lack of awareness has muliplied a thousand-fold since the novus ordo.
And yes, I go to the novus ordo and pray for the day when the SSPX are reconciled and restored to Communion with the Holy See.

 

[SummaTheo]

rciadan:

I think that you may have a misperception about what you would see people doing.
Those that you would see praying the rosary or perhaps saying prayers from a prayer book were actively participating at Mass. They were more aware of what was occurring on the Altar then than now (where 30-60% of Catholics state they no longer believe in the Real Presence)! They were joining thier personal petitions, intercessions, with those preayers of the priest at the most holy time of any day, the moment when Christ is truly present on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar.
Now what I see is people talking amonst themselves and paying no attention to the Altar at all. I see people “networking” during Mass. I see people refusing to stand to hear the gospel. I see people refusing to stand or kneel during the consecration. I see people talking in the chapel while people are trying to be alone with God.
In general, the irreverence and lack of awareness has muliplied a thousand-fold since the novus ordo.
And yes, I go to the novus ordo and pray for the day when the SSPX are reconciled and restored to Communion with the Holy See.

I heard of a poll in Desmond Birch’s Book Trial Tribulation and Triumph which was written in 1996 that 70-80% do not believe in the True Presence.

 

[dentremont]

At Our Church Some Prayers;
Lords Prayer & Aposels
Creed Are Soon To Be Said In Latin.& Wording Has Been Changed .
So Has When/what Music Can Be Played.

 

[JW10631]

That’s good.

Other than prayer, and possibly respectful letters to the Bishops, we will have to live with things as they are. Sincere, orthodox bishops like Bishop Brusewitz in Nebraska, Archbishop Chaput in Denver and Bishop Olmstead in Phoenix are working to make the Mass less “communal” and more focused on worship by doing things right.

 

[rciadan]

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.

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.

AMEN! I wish I could go to the Tridentine every day.I would love to attend daily Mass, traditional. Yet, I too have no problem with the Novus Ordo, other than the way it seems to lend itself to abusive interpretation.

 

[MikeDunphy]

“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.

Ok, let’s consider some of the canons that the Church has used (I quote from several sources, not all Catholic).

I think the earliest known canon is that of Hippolytus (antipope, but also martyr and saint). Some question whether we have the full Liturgy, rather than just an outline of the Liturgy, and others say that he was an innovator rather than a preserver of tradition. With that note of caution, consider what we have from him for the consecration of the Precious Blood:

• This is my blood which is shed for you.  Whenever you do this, do this memory of me. *

Regardless of whether the above expression is sufficient for consecration, there is nothing in it contrary to Holy Scripture.

A small number of Orthodox celebrate a Liturgy of St. Hippolytus today. You can see here and here that versions of this Liturgy currently in use do include the words “for many” in the words of institution.

The Constitution of St. James is also ancient. In it, we hear:
In like manner also “He took the cup,” and mixed it of wine and water, and sanctified it, and delivered it to them, saying: “Drink ye all of this; for this is my blood which is shed for many, for the remission of sins: do this in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show forth my death until I come.”
Note that the priest says that Jesus said “for many”, not “for all”.

The Constitution of St. James developed into the Divine Liturgy of St. James, with almost the same consecration:
*He took the cup, and having mixed wine and water, lifting up His eyes to heaven, and presenting it to Thee, His God and Father, He gave thanks, and hollowed and blessed it, and filled it with the Holy Spirit, and gave it to us His disciples, saying, Drink ye all of it; this is my blood of the new testament shed for you and many, and distributed for the remission of sins.
*
[more follows]

 

[MikeDunphy]

With less commentary here are references to additional Liturgies:

The Qorbono [Maronite]
Likewise he blessed the cup of wine mixed with water, sanctified, and gave it to his disciples, saying:
*This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed and handed over for you and for many, for the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.

Third Anaphora of St. Peter
Likewise over the cup, Lord, you praised, glorified, and said, “This cup is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for forgiveness of sins; take and drink from it, all of you, and it will be to you for pardon of debts and forgiveness of sins, and for eternal life.”

The Chaldean Mass
Take this all of you and drink from it, this is My blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. The mystery of faith which will be shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.

The Syro-Malabar Qurbana (I think this is a Catholic version of the Anaphora of Mar Addai and Mar Mari)
He gave thanks and blessed + + + and gave it to them, saying:
This is My Blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins. Take and drink of it, all of you.
*
This site has several Syrian anaphoras, along with a request not to copy any part of it. Some of them quote Our Lord as saying He would shed His blood “for many”, others are silent on this point, but none quote Him as saying He sheds His blood “for all”.

This essay quotes from three versions of the Syrian Liturgy no longer in use:
The Syrian Liturgy of St. Cyril:
*This is my blood, which seals the Testament of my death; for it prepares you and the many faithful for eternal life.
*
The Syrian Liturgy of St. James:
This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for the many faithful, and is given unto the remission of sins and eternal life.

The Syrian Liturgy of Moses Bar-Cephas:
*This is my blood, which is shed and given for you and for those who believe in me, preparing for eternal life all those who receive it.
*
One more Syrian Liturgy, that of St. Dionysius, Bishop of the Athenians
Likewise, in the same manner, over the cup also, which He mingled with wine and water, He gave thanks, blessed, sanctified and gave to the same disciples and holy apostles, saying, “Take, drink from it, all of you, and believe that this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed and given for you and for many, for the expiation of faults, remission of sins, and eternal life.”

[more follows]

 

[MikeDunphy]

The Hallowing of Mar Nestorius
And in the same way too he mixed the cup with wine and water, and blessed, gave thanks, and drank. And he gave to his disciples and said, Take, drink of it, all of you. This is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins. You must do the same for my memorial until I come. For whenever you eat of this bread and drink of this cup you recall my death until my coming.

The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom
Drink of this all, this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins.

The Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great
Likewise, He took the cup of the fruit of vine, and having mingled it, offering thanks, blessing, and sanctifying it. He gave it to His holy disciples and apostles saying: Drink of this all of you. This is my blood of the new Covenant, shed for you and for many, for the forgiveness of sins.

The Badarak (Divine Liturgy of the Armenian Church)
Drink ye all of this; This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for you and for many for propitiation and for the remission of sins.

Anaphora of Bishop Serapion of Thmuis - another very old Liturgy
*We have also offered the chalice, the symbol of the blood; for the Lord Jesus, ‘after He had supped, took the cup and said to His disciples: Take, drink, this is the new covenant, which is my blood, which shall be shed for the remission of sins.’

The Divine Liturgy of St. Cyril
Take, drink of it all of you, for this is My Blood of the new covenant which shall be shed for you and for many, to be given for the remission of sins. Do this in remembrance of Me.
*
Anaphora of the Apostles (Ethiopian)
*And likewise also the cup: giving thanks, blessing it, and hallowing it, He gave it to His disciples, and said unto them, take drink; this cup is my blood which will be shed on behalf of you as a propitiation for many.
*
[more follows]

 

[MikeDunphy]

In De sacramentis (a collection of homilies on the sacraments for the newly baptised by pseudo-Ambrose), we read:
Likewise also after supper, the day before he suffered, he took the cup, looked up to heaven to thee, holy Father, almighty, everlasting God, and giving thanks, blessed it and delivered it to his apostles and to his disciples, saying, Take, and drink ye all of this; for this is my blood.” Observe all those expressions. Those words are the Evangelists’ up to Take, whether the body or the blood. After that they are the words of Christ; Take, and drink ye all of this; for this is my blood. And observe them in detail.

De sacramentis does not mention “for many” in connection with the consecration of the wine. But these words are mentioned mentioned immediately before the part I quoted, in connection with the consecration of the bread. Some Liturgies attribute the words “for many” to Jesus in the consecration of both the bread and the wine.

The Divine Litugy of St. Gregory
In like manner after he had supped, taking also this excellent chalice into his holy and venerable hands, again giving thanks unto thee, he blessed it, and gave it to his disciples saying: Take and drink ye all of this, for this is the Cup 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. As oft as ye shall do these things, ye shall do them in remembrance of me.

This became the traditional Latin Mass, with the same words of institution, and virtually the same narrative leading up to it.

Celtic Mass (Celtic Lorrha-Stowe Liturgy used until around 7th century)
*Take and drink from this all of you, for this is the Chalice of my Blood, of the new and eternal testament: the mystery of faith: which is shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.

Sarum Mass
In like manner, after He had supped, taking also this excellent Chalice into His holy and venerable hands, giving Thee also thanks, He blessed, and gave it to His disciples, saying: Take and drink this, all of you, 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, for the remission of sins. As often as ye do these things, ye shall do them in remembrance of Me.

The Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon (derived from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer!)
Likewise, after supper, He took the cup; and when He had given thanks, He gave it to them, saving,
Drink ye all of this; For this is My Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins; Do this as oft as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of Me.

Liturgy of St. Germain of Paris (6th century Gallican Rite)
Take and drink of this, all of you, this is My Blood, the Blood of the new and everlasting covenant, which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.

The Mozarabic Liturgy
This is the Chalice of My Blood, of the New Testament, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.
*
[Almost done]