Words of the Consecration at Mass

[dbc]

In our parish there are 7 different priests who offer Masses. I am noticing that two of them use a slightly different wording at the consecration of the wine. Where most priests say “… the blood of the new and eternal covenant which will be poured out for you and for MANY…”
the other two priests say “… poured out for you and for ALL…” I am wondering if this variation is acceptable or if it might possibly invalidate the transubstantiation. Thank you.

 

[otjm]

Illicit but valid

 

[PaulfromIowa]

“For all” is the older English translation of the Latin pro multis, changed in 2011 to more accurate translation “for many.” Perhaps some priests slip up when speaking from memory. It is not something to worry about.

usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/roman-missal/six-questions-on-the-translation-of-pro-multis.cfm
USCCB: “Six Questions on the Translation of Pro Multis”

 

[MtnDwellar]

Changing the Eucharistic Prayer is objectively grave matter.

 

[OraLabora]

Changing the Eucharistic Prayer is objectively grave matter.

It would be charitable to assume that the priests using the older version are inadvertently erring by saying it from memory, having for so long used the older translation that they don’t realize their mistake as they are almost saying it by reflex.

As someone getting on in years, I can fully appreciate this kind of mistake. When the French response to the OT and Epistle readings was changed from “nous rendons gloire à Dieu” to the more accurate translation “nous rendons grâce à Dieu”, it took me a long time to have it sufficiently burned into memory to say the correct response. And in our missal in French, it was the only change in 2011.

God is not a tyrant, and understands this kind of mistake. It implies at worst, venial culpability unless the priest is being hard-nosed about adopting the new translation. That’s a different matter, but again, in charity, we should assume that it was a simple mistake. Innocent until proven guilty!

This is the kind of thing I file under “let it slide”. It has never happened to me though, as I attend Mass in English so rarely.

 

[ProVobis]

It would be charitable to assume that the priests using the older version are inadvertently erring by saying it from memory, having for so long used the older translation that they don’t realize their mistake as they are almost saying it by reflex.

As someone getting on in years, I can fully appreciate this kind of mistake. When the French response to the OT and Epistle readings was changed from “nous rendons gloire à Dieu” to the more accurate translation “nous rendons grâce à Dieu”, it took me a long time to have it sufficiently burned into memory to say the correct response. And in our missal in French, it was the only change in 2011.

God is not a tyrant, and understands this kind of mistake. It implies at worst, venial culpability unless the priest is being hard-nosed about adopting the new translation. That’s a different matter, but again, in charity, we should assume that it was a simple mistake. Innocent until proven guilty!

This is the kind of thing I file under “let it slide”. It has never happened to me though, as I attend Mass in English so rarely.

Spanish has “muchos” in most Masses now, although a “todos” slips in occasionally. Haven’t heard it in a while though.

 

[OraLabora]

Spanish has “muchos” in most Masses now, although a “todos” slips in occasionally. Haven’t heard it in a while though.

Interesting. In French, it has been “pour les multitudes” since as long as I can remember (“for the many”).

 

[ProVobis]

Interesting. In French, it has been “pour les multitudes” since as long as I can remember (“for the many”).

Yes, “multitudes” would be closer to “multis” than “many”

Seems to have a slightly different meaning put that way.