Words of Consecration- Why the change?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joe-S
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Joe-S

Guest
Is any one knowledgeable as to why the words of the consecration were changed from “for many” to “for all”? What was the motivation behind this change? Eastern rite churches and protestants still use “for many”. I am having a hard time understanding why a nearly 2000 yr. tradition and interpretation of the Bible was changed and outside of an Ecumenical council. For what purpose? Who or what body was complaining about the “for many”?
Thank you,
Joe
 
40.png
Joe-S:
Is any one knowledgeable as to why the words of the consecration were changed from “for many” to “for all”? What was the motivation behind this change? Eastern rite churches and protestants still use “for many”. I am having a hard time understanding why a nearly 2000 yr. tradition and interpretation of the Bible was changed and outside of an Ecumenical council. For what purpose? Who or what body was complaining about the “for many”?
Thank you,
Joe
Click to expand...
They were changed because of poor translation.
 
BR. Rich,

thanks for the response, do you have an authoratative source for this by any chance? I don’t see “*any” *Bibles translating it this way,
or the Eastern Churches. It’s hard to imagine that no has cought this
important translation and then when they did, it only changed in the Liturgy and not anyones Bible. These are after all part of the words of consecration are they not?
Thank you,
Joe
 
The word they use in this country translates as “many”. The Local SSPX complain about it having been changed from “many” to “all”, but I can’t recall ever hearing the “all” version.

At any rate, Jesus died for everyone, so His blood was indeed spilt for all men.
 
Well all the Novis Ordo masses say “for all” in the consecration and in the Tridentine Mass it’s rendered “for many”. While Christ died for all his death was efficatious for many. We know not “all” will be saved or believe. This has been the teaching of the Church since time immorial, so I really don’t understand the change after nearly 2000 yrs. For what possible gain?

Thanks,
Joe
 
Joe

What the pro-Novus Ordo supporters are basically saying is that it really does not matter -and are basically violating the 4 principals that must be present for a sacrament to be valid.

If the Brother feels that it was bad translation-then I guess the church was in error for who know, maybe a thousand or so years until those incredibly smart modern theologians and ICEL got it right-as they are still fuddling around with another translation as we speak.

No Joe-Jesus made it clear that not ALL will be saved as that is clear as a bell in scripture, hence the reason , in the Canon of the Mass as codified in the Council of Trent-Pro Multis is “for many” and has meant that for thousands of years.

It was changed, if you take a look at the thread on vatican II, and in the “spirit of Vatican II” for the Catholic church to no longer teach that only Catholics are going to be saved-and as the Pope and the Vatican now teaches-if you are a good Moslem and practice your faith the correct way, you shall be saved. If you are a good Protestant, etc.

The translation and the consecration was changed to make it more appealing to the Protestants and other faiths-that is clear-and in the traditional circles, makes the sacrament invalid or suspect.
40.png
Joe-S:
Well all the Novis Ordo masses say “for all” in the consecration and in the Tridentine Mass it’s rendered “for many”. While Christ died for all his death was efficatious for many. We know not “all” will be saved or believe. This has been the teaching of the Church since time immorial, so I really don’t understand the change after nearly 2000 yrs. For what possible gain?

Thanks,
Joe
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Joe-S:
BR. Rich,

thanks for the response, do you have an authoratative source for this by any chance? I don’t see “*any” *Bibles translating it this way,
or the Eastern Churches. It’s hard to imagine that no has cought this
important translation and then when they did, it only changed in the Liturgy and not anyones Bible. These are after all part of the words of consecration are they not?
Thank you,
Joe
Click to expand...
There have been a number of ICEL issues discussed here and there about poor translation of liturgy texts during the last 30 or so years.
 
40.png
Joe-S:
BR. Rich,

thanks for the response, do you have an authoratative source for this by any chance? I don’t see “*any” *Bibles translating it this way,
or the Eastern Churches. It’s hard to imagine that no has cought this
important translation and then when they did, it only changed in the Liturgy and not anyones Bible. These are after all part of the words of consecration are they not?
Thank you,
Joe
Click to expand...
No, they are part of the Eucharistic prayer but not the actual words necessary for the Consecration.
 
But logically we would have to stick to “all”. The Lord’s blood was shed for all. Not everyone will be saved - but everyone could be if chose to repent. For those who won’t be saved, the Blood was shed no less than for those who will. If we chose “many”, it might imply that the Blood was shed only for those who will be saved. A chosen group? Sounds like predestination…
 
40.png
BulldogCath:
What the pro-Novus Ordo supporters are basically saying is that it really does not matter -and are basically violating the 4 principals that must be present for a sacrament to be valid.
Click to expand...
You surely do seem eager to make pronouncements about what’s valid and what’s not.

The Council of Trent, as far as I know, never specified the English translation of anything. And a Church-approved English-language Mass was not even available until the late 1960’s. So there isn’t even anything “older” to compare to !

This is a trememdous non issue. That some people (and despite the atmosphere in this forum, it really is a tiny, vanishingly small number) would have this be at the heart of their belief that so many things in the Church are doctrinally incorrect or even invalid, is just absurd.
 
40.png
Joe-S:
Is any one knowledgeable as to why the words of the consecration were changed from “for many” to “for all”? What was the motivation behind this change? Eastern rite churches and protestants still use “for many”. I am having a hard time understanding why a nearly 2000 yr. tradition and interpretation of the Bible was changed and outside of an Ecumenical council. For what purpose? Who or what body was complaining about the “for many”?
Thank you,
Joe
Click to expand...
This is a non argument because **many **men do not understand the difference between sanctification and efficacy, nor between translation and substitution. I did not use the word all because that statement would be false, as our Lord Christ understood.

Fogny
 
40.png
chevalier:
But logically we would have to stick to “all”. The Lord’s blood was shed for all. Not everyone will be saved - but everyone could be if chose to repent. For those who won’t be saved, the Blood was shed no less than for those who will. If we chose “many”, it might imply that the Blood was shed only for those who will be saved. A chosen group? Sounds like predestination…
Click to expand...
chevalier, I certainly am not picking an argument. But what you have said deserves a comment.“All” or “Many”. All means everyone, all! Many does not mean “all”. You have said that Jesus’ blood was shed for those souls in hell, isn’t that correct?

I do not know who or why the words were changed. If they were changed for appeasement , that was wrong. There is a theological truth entwined in these words. “All” or “Many” is important. I don’t agree with the Brother when he said the change was a result of new interpretation, unless it was actually a Scriptual interpretation.
 
Thanks for the replies everyone,

a couple of more questions to the responses if you will.
RCN, not sure that this is such a non issue because I know it diveds Catholics because it isn’t as clear as either side would like to make it. Nor did this change come out of an authoritative council. While the mass being said in english is new, the biblical passage which is being said has allready been translated in many english editions including the Dough -Rheims. This is a Liturgical blessing or prayer what ever you want to call it that comes out of Holy Scripture and in every Bible I can find including protestant bibles they all render it “for many”. So why and how do we change scripture in the Liturgy? The Church has clearly set up a contradiction here and is not in harmony with Scripture. Christ seems to have made a point to say “for you-meaning those present and for many” other wise he could have just said “shed for all”.
chevalier, good point on the predestination aspect of it, however this is a Catholic Mass and Catholics do not believe in predestination so I’m not sure who would be drawing that conclusion. We know as Catholics belief and baptism is required as well as faith. Then there is the seed parable, so we know the only predestination is that everyone will not reach out and hold Christs hand when he extends it.
Br. Rich,
what are the words of consecration necessary with in the Eucharistic prayer?
Thank you,
Joe
 
40.png
Joe-S:
Is any one knowledgeable as to why the words of the consecration were changed from “for many” to “for all”? What was the motivation behind this change? Eastern rite churches and protestants still use “for many”. I am having a hard time understanding why a nearly 2000 yr. tradition and interpretation of the Bible was changed and outside of an Ecumenical council. For what purpose? Who or what body was complaining about the “for many”?
Thank you,
Joe
Click to expand...
Joe-S,

Hey, I’m not trying to get too into this topic, but a pertinent article that I’ve been directed to (valid or not, well, you can at least read it), is here.

Also, if you read Pope John XXII “Quia Quorundam” you may see some 14th century for the Church’s authority for changing some things that previous popes have decreed. Obviously, that must be considered, in our era, in light of Vatican 1. But, we should expect that Vatican I was not an innovation, different from the Church’s previous teaching on infabillity. It’s complicated though, and the context of that particular encyclical and several others like it have nowhere near the import of the issue at hand regarding the Liturgy.

Also, Mediator Dei is right on the topic, with some statements, such as:
  1. Additional proof of this indefeasible right of the ecclesiastical hierarchy lies in the circumstances that the sacred liturgy is intimately bound up with doctrinal propositions which the Church proposes to be perfectly true and certain, and must as a consequence conform to the decrees respecting Catholic faith issued by the supreme teaching authority of the Church with a view to safeguarding the integrity of the religion revealed by God.
and of course
  1. The sacred liturgy does, in fact, include divine as well as human elements. The former, instituted as they have been by God, cannot be changed in any way by men. But the human components admit of various modifications, as the needs of the age, circumstance and the good of souls may require, and as the ecclesiastical hierarchy, under guidance of the Holy Spirit, may have authorized
Are you interested? Find out more here!!

I’d recommend reading the above in context, up through at least paragraph 58, and also like paragraphs 20-24.

Sincerely wondering myself,

Rob
 
40.png
Joe-S:
Thanks for the replies everyone,

a couple of more questions to the responses if you will.
RCN, not sure that this is such a non issue because I know it diveds Catholics because it isn’t as clear as either side would like to make it. Nor did this change come out of an authoritative council. While the mass being said in english is new, the biblical passage which is being said has allready been translated in many english editions including the Dough -Rheims. This is a Liturgical blessing or prayer what ever you want to call it that comes out of Holy Scripture and in every Bible I can find including protestant bibles they all render it “for many”. So why and how do we change scripture in the Liturgy? The Church has clearly set up a contradiction here and is not in harmony with Scripture. Christ seems to have made a point to say “for you-meaning those present and for many” other wise he could have just said “shed for all”.
chevalier, good point on the predestination aspect of it, however this is a Catholic Mass and Catholics do not believe in predestination so I’m not sure who would be drawing that conclusion. We know as Catholics belief and baptism is required as well as faith. Then there is the seed parable, so we know the only predestination is that everyone will not reach out and hold Christs hand when he extends it.
Br. Rich,
what are the words of consecration necessary with in the Eucharistic prayer?
Thank you,
Joe
Click to expand...
open the shortcut in post 13; it takes a bit of reading and concentration if you are not used to reading theological explanations, but your questions should be answered. By the way, rendering it “for many” would not be acorrect translation. It should be rendered “for the many”.
 
**These are some passages which seem to support “for many” as oppossed to “for all” and seem to bolster the position that it has been a long standing Church understanding that “for many” is the more correct usage. Which is why I have the confusion on the subject.

“He was offered but once to bear the sins of many. Why does he [St. Paul] say, ‘of many,’ and not ‘for all’? Because not all had faith. Although He died for all, as far as He is concerned, to save all, His death voiding the downfall of all mankind, yet He did not take away the sins of all, because they themselves did not want Him to do this.” - St. John Chrysostom, exegesis of Heb. 9:28.

#187 – MANY VS. ALL

**“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 when he says: ‘Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of 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.’ Beneath the words of this consecration lie hid many other mysteries, which by frequent meditation and study of sacred things, pastors will find it easy, with the divine assistance, to discover for themselves.” - Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part II, Chapter IV, Question XXIV.

Moreover, of the various Mass rites which the traditional Church has always recognized as valid - some 76 different rites in many different languages - many of which date back to Apostolic times -not one has ever used ‘all.’ (Imagine turning each of the ‘manys’ in St. Matthew’s gospel to ‘alls.’) (36). What makes this particular mistranslation most offensive is that the Church has always taught that the word ‘all’ is not used for specific reasons. St. Alphonsus Liguori, a Doctor of the Church, explains why in an opinion confirmed by St. Thomas Aquinas and the** Catechism of the Council of Trent**.

‘The words Pro vobis et pro multis (For you and for many) are used to distinguish the virtue of the Blood of Christ from its fruits: for the Blood of our Saviour is of sufficient value to save all men, but its fruits are applicable only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault. Or, as the theologians say, this precious Blood is (in itself) sufficiently (sufficienter) able to save all men, but (on our part) effectually (efficaciter) it does not save all - it saves only those who cooperate with grace’(Treatise on the Holy Eucharist).

St. Pius V makes it very clear that this is a solemn, perpetual decree:

“We decree under penalty of Our indignation that never at any time is anything to be added, subtracted, or changed (in the Ordinary of the Mass); this we determine and ordain to hold in perpetuity by virtue of this constitution… We likewise determine and declare that no one be compelled or pressured by anyone to change this Missal, or that this Letter should ever be recalled or its effectiveness restrained, but that it may always stand firm and strong in all its vigor.”

The following link goes into the actaul aramaic , greek , and latin words for all and many for those interested.

latin-mass-society.org/promult.htm

Thanks for all your replies and comments, I have a lot more reading to do apparently.

In Christ,

Joe
 
Br. Rich SFO:
No, they are part of the Eucharistic prayer but not the actual words necessary for the Consecration.
Click to expand...
But they ARE part of the Gospel (Matt) right?

What I find humorous is on the Sunday where the Gospel for Matt 26:28 is read by the priest and he says “for many”, through a microphone, then goes back to the altar and says “for all” through a microphone, like he’s in another world.
All this points to someone’s insistence that it is to be a preamble to “universal salvation”.
Liberalism :A mental disorder wherein the Illogical becomes completely logical with no lasting effect on the conscience.
More Liberal intrigue:
Next we have JPII himself via Ecclesia de Eucharistia in the Latin and English publication by the Vatican.va, where he goes on to even change the Gospel itself to pro omnibus.
BUT, when they slip it into the AAS it gets changed back to Pro Multis in the reference to Matthew’s Gospel quote.
This may be the most definitive proof yet that the Holy Ghost mysteriously “steps in” to defend The Church against all odds.
Check out that site. You will learn what few others know.
 
40.png
Joe-S:
Br. Rich,
what are the words of consecration necessary with in the Eucharistic prayer?
Thank you,
Joe
Click to expand...
(Without looking at the Sacramentary) The words in big bold type in the sacramentary are “This is My Body” and “This is the cup of My Blood”.
 
From Cardinal Ottaviani:
  1. IMMANENT PURPOSE. The immanent purpose of the Mass is fundamentally that of sacrifice.

    It is essential that the Sacrifice, whatever its nature, be
    pleasing to God and accepted by Him. Because of original sin, however, no sacrifice other than the Christ’s Sacrifice can claim to be acceptable and pleasing to God in its own right.

    The Novus Ordo alters the nature of the sacrificial offering by turning it into a type of exchange of gifts between God and man. Man brings the bread, and God turns it into “the bread of life”; man brings the wine, and God turns it into “spiritual drink”:

    Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation, for through your goodness we have this bread (or wine) to offer,
    fruit of the earth (vine) and work of human hands,
    It will become for us the bread of life (spiritual drink).

    The expressions “bread of life” and “spiritual drink,” of course, are utterly vague and could mean anything. Once again, we come up against the same basic equivocation: According to the new definition of
    the Mass, Christ is only spiritually present among His own; here, bread and wine are only spiritually—and not substantially—changed.

    In the Preparation of the Gifts, a similar equivocal game was played. The old Offertory contained two magnificent prayers, the “Deus qui humanae” and the “Offerimus tibi”:
    • The first prayer, recited at the preparation of the chalice, begins: “O God, by whom the dignity of human nature was wondrously established and yet more wondrously restored.” It recalled man’s innocence before the Fall of Adam and his ransom by the blood of Christ,
      and it summed up the whole economy of the Sacrifice from Adam to the present day.
    • The second prayer, which accompanies the offering of the chalice, embodies the idea of propitiation for sin: it implores God for His mercy as it asks that the offering may ascend with a sweet fragrance in the presence of Thy divine majesty. Like the first prayer, it admirably stresses the economy of the Sacrifice.
    In the Novus Ordo, both these prayers have been eliminated. In the Eucharistic Prayers, moreover, the repeated petitions to God that He accept the Sacrifice have also been suppressed; thus, there is no longer any clear distinction between divine and human sacrifice.
    Having removed the keystone, the reformers had to put up scaffolding. Having suppressed the real purposes of the Mass, they had to substitute fictitious purposes of their own. This forced them to introduce actions stressing the union between priest and faithful, or
    among the faithful themselves–and led to the ridiculous attempt to superimpose offerings for the poor and for the Church on the offering of the host to be immolated.
    The fundamental uniqueness of the Victim to be sacrificed will thus be completely obliterated. Participation in the immolation of Christ the Victim will turn into a philanthropists’ meeting or a charity banquet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top