Souls are in danger!

I am very sad to say that my very fervent Catholic friends are beginning to entertain the idea of Sedesvacantism because of the state of The Church right now and the scandals arising. Their souls are in serious danger! Your answer could literally bring a 4 or 5 young men back to The Catholic Church!

Firstly, please bare with me; I am not a lawyer, I do not have a phD, nor am I an expert in Ecclesiastical Law and Canon, I'm just a simple Catholic. In layman's terms how does one refute the whole sedesvacantist heresy. I know it is wrong, but I can't argue it, and some of there points are quite convicting because I am not so knowledgable in the subject. Their objections are as such;


Objection #1
Pope Paul IV's "Ex Cum Apostolatus Officio" excommunicates anyone who diverges from the Traditional Catholic faith... and use the example of "The Council of Assisi" or some heretical quote Pope Benedict XVI said while a Cardinal in a book he published etc.

How can I reconcile these two points of an apparent heretical action/quote, and Pope Paul IV's bull "Ex Cum"? It would seem that Pope John Paul II & Pope Benedict XVI were therebye excommunicated for praying with heathens (which is also condemned in Saint Pope Pius X's encyclical..forgot the name)
I always thought that only the Conclave/Curia of Cardinals could unanimously condemn the Pope to abdicate due to heresy/apostacy, and only the Pope could condemn a Cardinal.


Objection #2
Cardinal Siri (or whoever else) was really elected in the 1958 (?I think) Conclave, and he secretly ordained real bishops and a pope (e.g. Anti-'pope' Gregory XVII) who is in exile, and only an elect few know he's the true pope.


Objection #3
Saint Pope Pius X condemns modernism in his dogmatic encyclicals, therefore all popes after him are made void because they're all modernists (which would also include "Ex Cum Apostolatus Officio" for support)


Objection #4
I am often asked at some point, "Are you saying that the Throne of Peter cannot be vacant for 50something years? It has been vacant in the past, for about 3 years in the Middle Ages! What's the difference?"


Objection #5
Church Approved Prophecies say that "Rome will become the seat of the Antichrist" "Rome will lose the faith" "An Anti-Pope will be uncanonically elected"

(without getting into too much prophecy) I always believed this to refer to after the Great Chastisement, and at a time when the visible Antichrist is begining his 3.5 year reign until the end of time... which we are CLEARY not in!


Can someone also explain the different types of heresy (are there different levels/degrees/manifestations of heresy) and how they apply. Ecclesiastical Law etc are not my strong points, so you'll have to explain it to me as if I was an amateur so that once I understand it in the most basic way, then I can then read into the topic very deeply once I have a solid arsenal of facts.


GOD BLESS YOU ALL
AVE VIVAQUE, AD PONTIFEX MAXIMUS BENEDICTUS XVI, REX VATICANUM!

Peregrinus,

The hard truth is that convincing a sedevacantist of his errors; e. g, the infallible teaching that we have a true and valid Pope who is “the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church”, who has been given the keys to the Kingdom with supreme Papal Primacy over the Universal Church, “and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood" (VCI), is like trying to convince an atheist that God really does in fact exist. Its next to impossible.

Of course the “material” sede will begrudgingly bequeath to the Pope some jurisdictional authority if only to supply for an orderly perpetual papal succession and to maintain an unbroken succession of Bishops, while stripping the Pope of his supreme Primacy over the Rites and Teachings of the Church. In their heresy, they do not seem to realize that Papal Primacy is an all or nothing charism, with Peter enjoying episcopal and immediate Primacy over the Universal Church, having no judge but God alone:

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church. All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons. (VCI, Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff)

Neither does the typical sedevacantist acknowledge the infallible truth of VCI when it declared:

Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received.

The sede says, “Yeah, right! Our Lord’s promise was “conditional” and “what the truth has ordained stands firm” is not “infallible”.

The sede will also argue, “well, the ‘pope’ was never the pope to begin with because he fell into obstinate heresy prior to his ‘elevation’”. Most sede’s, if they are honest, will admit that this is a very weak argument since the hard proof for prior obstinate heresy is circumstantial at best, and is belied by the fact that neither the Cardinal Electors, the Bishops at large nor the Church universal recognizes such pertinacious heresy in any of the VCII Popes, and that when a Pope receives the unanimous consent of the Electors and of the Church at large, theologians agree that this is an infallible sign that God has accepted the Pope as His true Vicar with full, episcopal and immediate Primacy over the universal Church; otherwise, we could never know with any degree of positive certitude that we had a valid Pope.

That's not the way our Lord set it up.

Anyway, if you want some solid arguments and answers to your questions, I would suggest that you read all of the threads under this sub-forum, there really aren’t that many. I believe the answers to your questions are contained therein (except perhaps for the ridiculous “Gregory XVII” nonsense which had Cardinal Siri remaining in papal “exile” in abject fear as he pretended to serve the “anti-popes” as a Cardinal; please).

For example, there is an entire (but not too lengthy) thread dedicated to Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, here: https://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t256-cum-ex-apostolatus-officio.

If you get stuck on any particular question, feel free to post it and we’ll see if we can provide an answer.

If you want to convince a sede of the error of his ways, be prepared for some heavy banging of your head against the wall of sophistry, generally marked by obscurity, absurdity, ignorance, fallacious arguments, false errors and false witness; typical of what we see with certain notorious brothers (what we see posted on this forum). See, for example, https://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t253-sedevacantists-are-schismatic-and-excommunicated, and my responses to “Fatima of our times”.

There are sede’s (such as those in the John Lane and John Daly camps) who do not anathematize Catholics who do not agree with their private opinions, and they are honest enough to admit that they may in fact be in error (and they generally stick to themselves); but they just can’t see it based on their (faulty) understanding of tradition, canon law and the Papacy. But I doubt these are the folks you are dealing with.

At the end of the day, it might be best to leave them be. Provide them with some common sense counter-arguments, sure, and then knock the dust off your shoes and move on.

Welcome to The Forum, Peregrinus


I am Blessed to have a strong Bishop where I live. That there is a crisis of Faith in Our One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is undeniable. It is our duty to pray and be submissive to our Pope. He suffers much and we can not even begin to grasp his daily thoughts and prayers. Stay within the Church. Be strong. Show proper example. Live the Faith.The constant struggle and battle between good and evil exists at all levels of human existence. The ill fruits and results of the Crisis we are now in that was caused by Vatican II's implementation, novelties and the liberties taken by some that were not stopped. The damage done to the flock will be restored. It is the guarantee of Our Lord and Savior. Many Saints died for believes and articles of Faith that at times now seems turned upside down; As if they died in vain. The Church has a responsibility to go forth and teach all nations and not in such a manner that a child of twelve could not understand. You can ask ten people (try it) to explain the Church's teaching on Salvation, Homosexuality, Abortion, Contraception, Mortal sin, Holy Days, Penance, the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, heresy, Schism, the Sacraments, the Ten Commandments etc etc and you will get a WIDE variance in beliefs or as some will tell you opinions. It is the job description of a Priest to help lead as many souls as possible to salvation before they die. You would think that our Religious leaders would be on the same page on the basics of our Faith. A Cardinal will take one position on homosexuality and reverse it the next day. We have many many very good religious to look up to and follow but sadly there are far too many destructive or weak religious who claim to be Catholic that are destructive to our Faith and need to shape up or get out. Much damage has been done to our Catholic Faith since Vatican II and it must be restored soon or the great chastisement will take place as prophesied by many; the third secret of Fatima not withstanding. Get rid of YouCat, We need Altars , not tables and for God's sake the priest should face Jesus at Mass. Kneel for Communion and receive our Lord on the tongue out of the respect that is due Our Lord who gave his life so that we may live.

Watch the following:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G12B2s1p3Jw


JMJ,

George

Thank you both so much for your inputs. I'm going to follow the links posted, and go through the forum. I'm alot more confident now

Pax!

YES The Papacy has been usurped before! A classic example would be of Anacletus II, who usurped the papacy after Innocent II had been validly elected. Innocent II wasn't able to take office until 8 years later when Anacletus II died. Who was then proclaimed an anti-pope.

Second the old mass, properly known as "The Old Roman Rite" is much older than the Council of Trent (1570). The main part of the mass called the canon was completely unchanged for over 1300 years until John XXIII started messing around with it and then Paul VI completely destroyed it.

Ask yourself who would destroy the mass? or better yet ask yourself WHo could destroy the mass? the only answer is a fake pope.

Anyhow here is the white smoke that emerged from the Sistine Chapel indicating a pope had been chosen 2 days before the election of John XXIII. I don't think its unreasonable to conclude that the real pope was elected when this smoke emerged.

Who was elected? It's not 100% proven but the evidence points to Cardinal Siri of Genoa.

Ok, I can't post link, just type into youtube "The election of Cardinal Siri" and that will bring up the old conclave footage.

GK wrote:
YES The Papacy has been usurped before! A classic example would be of Anacletus II, who usurped the papacy after Innocent II had been validly elected. Innocent II wasn't able to take office until 8 years later when Anacletus II died. Who was then proclaimed an anti-pope.

Yes, with the whole point being that Innocent II remained the true Pope the entire time, even if there was great confusion caused by the selection of Anacletus who bought and forced his way into the Papal Chair (convincing most of the Romans), and forcing Innocent II into exile (France) where “the world” embraced him as Pope. It was St. Bernard who proved to be a staunch ally of the true Pope and who wrote a strong testimonial in his favor explaining his reasons.

But you would like to convince us that the succession of Popes beginning with Pope John II are heretical anti-popes who have managed to usurp the Chair while pulling the wool over the eyes of every one of the Cardinal electors, over every one of the worlds Bishops and over the universal Church of believers (for 54 years and counting), while the “true Pope” and his successor(s?) have been in secret “exile” (quaking in abject fear) waiting for God-knows-what to reclaim their so-called lawful right to the Chair.

Sure, the gullible will believe and cling even to the most absurd fairy tale if it can ease their consciences for having rejected the universally recognized fact of each and every valid election (what theologians consider infallible confirmation), proving that the conciliar Popes are true and valid Popes, and that our Lord has not abandoned His Church.

GK wrote:
Second the old mass, properly known as "The Old Roman Rite" is much older than the Council of Trent (1570). The main part of the mass called the canon was completely unchanged for over 1300 years until John XXIII started messing around with it and then Paul VI completely destroyed it.

Ask yourself who would destroy the mass? or better yet ask yourself WHo could destroy the mass? the only answer is a fake pope.

The only person possessing the authority to add St. Joseph to the canon of the Mass, and who has the supreme, immediate and full power to make changes to the Rites of the Church, is the Pope; and it is absolutely heretical to say that he has no such authority. While he is bound by Tradition, for the good of the Church (as he sees fit) he is not prevented from making prudential changes to existing rites, or from abrogating, rescinding, suppressing or modifying other Rites, or from introducing a new form to an existing Rite.

But he has NO authority to change the substance of the form of the sacraments (such as the form of Consecration).

In fact, while restoring and codifying the Roman Rite, Pope Pius V abrogated every existing valid liturgical rite of the Western Church that did not have an antiquity of least 200 years, and the fact of the matter is that even the Old Roman Rite has been “tinkered” with on a regular basis (revisions by later popes coming especially in 1604, 1634, 1888, 1920, 1955 and 1962). Btw, when Pius V attempted to abrogate the Ambrosian rite, the Catholics of Milan would have none of it, with the Pope finally acceding to their wishes.

Pope Paul VI did not “destroy” the “Old Roman Rite”, and in fact it has NEVER been abrogated (even if it was suppressed for many years, while still being said by priests who were given a dispensation for saying it publicly).

The New Mass is completely valid and its true propitiatory sacrifice is as pleasing to God as that of the Old Roman Rite, even if the New Mass does not inspire the same reverence and piety, or reflects the same God-centered orientation; but anathema sit to those who say it is not a valid and true Mass.

GK wrote:
Anyhow here is the white smoke that emerged from the Sistine Chapel indicating a pope had been chosen 2 days before the election of John XXIII. I don't think its unreasonable to conclude that the real pope was elected when this smoke emerged.

Who was elected? It's not 100% proven but the evidence points to Cardinal Siri of Genoa.

Ok, I can't post link, just type into youtube "The election of Cardinal Siri" and that will bring up the old conclave footage.

You mean the same Cardinal Siri who continued on as Archbishop of Genoa till he was 80, all the while entirely submitting to the authority of the official popes? You mean the same Cardinal Siri who remained in full communion with the Church, refusing to support any sedevacantist organization? You mean the same Cardinal Siri who celebrated the Mass according to the reformed 1970 Roman Missal and the other revised sacraments? You mean the same Cardinal Siri who signed all of the documents of the Second Vatican Council?

Oh, that Cardinal Siri!

Look, even IF Cardinal Siri received the majority vote in the papal conclaves of 1958 and 1963, he refused the honor. If the following testimony (he purportedly made near the end of his life) can be trusted, and IF the “mistake” he refers to is his refusal to accept the papacy, he makes it clear that he regrets this decision; and asks forgiveness:

I say this because I have great remorse. I have faith in the forgiveness of the Lord, and, therefore, I am at peace. During the first two conclaves in which I participated, my candidature was presented by an influential cardinal. He himself told me that all the French were behind him. The others, then, followed the French. The Germans held back, but gradually, along the way, joined the rest. I said no, and if you elect me I will say no. I have made a mistake, I understand it today. Today? For some years. I did wrong, for I would have avoided completing certain actions. . . I wish to say — but I am afraid to say it — making certain mistakes. Therefore I have had great remorse and I have asked forgiveness of God. I hope that God forgives me.

The Cardinal was bound by oath from revealing the results of the votes of the conclave, so all of this is wild conjecture.

But the FACT remains that Cardinal Siri never accepted the papacy; and the fact remains that he submitted to the authority of the official popes, that he remained in full communion with the Church, the he refused to support any sedevacantist organization, that he celebrated the Mass according to the reformed 1970 Roman Missal and the other revised sacraments, and that he signed all of the documents of the Second Vatican Council.

But you did give it the old sede try.

Btw, GK, I’ll give the “Siri” enthusiasts, as false as their theory is, credit in that they at least appear to recognize the absolute necessity of perpetual succession.

The idea of a sede vacante period lasting and exceeding whole generations (and in this alleged case, multiple generations) that does NOT violate the dogma of perpetual succession is absurd, and would not prevent the Church from going without a visible Vicar on earth for centuries on end, rendering the promise of our Lord (and the dogma of the Church) entirely meaningless, and VCI a cruel fallible joke. This would also mean, of course, the end of apostolic succession, the end of ordinary jurisdiction, and the end of sacramental life. In other words, the end of the indefectibility of the Church.

And that is what our present 54 years and counting pope-less sede’s are facing. They simply throw up their hands (“hey, not my problem”) while waiting for a miracle to restore their pope-less church that does not have a single Bishop in possession of certain ordinary jurisdiction.

Perhaps one of Jehanne’s water-bearing baptizing angels will reveal and anoint the next “true” pope! After all, “what do you think that angels do all day?” (You know, when they’re not otherwise occupied adoring God).

MRyan wrote:

GK wrote:
YES The Papacy has been usurped before! A classic example would be of Anacletus II, who usurped the papacy after Innocent II had been validly elected. Innocent II wasn't able to take office until 8 years later when Anacletus II died. Who was then proclaimed an anti-pope.

Yes, with the whole point being that Innocent II remained the true Pope the entire time, even if there was great confusion caused by the selection of Anacletus who bought and forced his way into the Papal Chair (convincing most of the Romans), and forcing Innocent II into exile (France) where “the world” embraced him as Pope. It was St. Bernard who proved to be a staunch ally of the true Pope and who wrote a strong testimonial in his favor explaining his reasons.

The point here is that the Papacy can and has been usurped. There are also periods where people followed separate popes, the Avignon popes for example. If it can happen for 10 years why not 54?

MRyan wrote: But you would like to convince us that the succession of Popes beginning with Pope John II are heretical anti-popes who have managed to usurp the Chair while pulling the wool over the eyes of every one of the Cardinal electors, over every one of the worlds Bishops and over the universal Church of believers (for 54 years and counting), while the “true Pope” and his successor(s?) have been in secret “exile” (quaking in abject fear) waiting for God-knows-what to reclaim their so-called lawful right to the Chair.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything but I'll present a few facts in support of the theory that the Papacy has been usurped since 1958. You might want to ask yourself how many Catholics were murdered by Soviet regimes. The number is in the millions, so to suggest that they would not resort to intimidation, murder, blackmail, , assassination, etc is rather naive. In 1953 at the last consistory there were 70 Cardinal, 5 years later at the 1958 Conclave there were 53, 3 of them dying within days of the Conclave.

MRyan wrote: Sure, the gullible will believe and cling even to the most absurd fairy tale if it can ease their consciences for having rejected the universally recognized fact of each and every valid election (what theologians consider infallible confirmation), proving that the conciliar Popes are true and valid Popes, and that our Lord has not abandoned His Church.

I think the gullible ones are the ones who think a valid Pope would go around kissing the Koran, and taking part in every kind of heretical worship practice imaginable. Who would preside over an inter-religious meeting in Assisi where the Dali Lama put a statue of Buddha on the tabernacle. Or that that last few popes where completely helpless in shutting the vast homosexual/pedophile networks operating in the Church.

GK wrote:
Second the old mass, properly known as "The Old Roman Rite" is much older than the Council of Trent (1570). The main part of the mass called the canon was completely unchanged for over 1300 years until John XXIII started messing around with it and then Paul VI completely destroyed it.

Ask yourself who would destroy the mass? or better yet ask yourself WHo could destroy the mass? the only answer is a fake pope.

MRyan wrote:The only person possessing the authority to add St. Joseph to the canon of the Mass, and who has the supreme, immediate and full power to make changes to the Rites of the Church, is the Pope; and it is absolutely heretical to say that he has no such authority. While he is bound by Tradition, for the good of the Church (as he sees fit) he is not prevented from making prudential changes to existing rites, or from abrogating, rescinding, suppressing or modifying other Rites, or from introducing a new form to an existing Rite.

Yes, I know, Pius X introduced the dialogue mass, and you didn't see too many people complaining. The Pope has the authority to change the mass but if he comes along and butchers the way Paul VI and Bugnini did then you have to start to wonder.

MRyan wrote: But he has NO authority to change the substance of the form of the sacraments (such as the form of Consecration).

The words of consecration were changed from "for many" to "for all". And I know they were preserved in the Latin rite but nobody uses the Latin rite, and in every other language they used "for all" until recently.

MRyan wrote:In fact, while restoring and codifying the Roman Rite, Pope Pius V abrogated every existing valid liturgical rite of the Western Church that did not have an antiquity of least 200 years, and the fact of the matter is that even the Old Roman Rite has been “tinkered” with on a regular basis (revisions by later popes coming especially in 1604, 1634, 1888, 1920, 1955 and 1962). Btw, when Pius V attempted to abrogate the Ambrosian rite, the Catholics of Milan would have none of it, with the Pope finally acceding to their wishes.

Pope Paul VI did not “destroy” the “Old Roman Rite”, and in fact it has NEVER been abrogated (even if it was suppressed for many years, while still being said by priests who were given a dispensation for saying it publicly).

The New Mass is completely valid and its true propitiatory sacrifice is as pleasing to God as that of the Old Roman Rite, even if the New Mass does not inspire the same reverence and piety, or reflects the same God-centered orientation; but anathema sit to those who say it is not a valid and true Mass.

The words of consecration were changed (unless you were getting it in Latin). Pius V Papal Bull de defectibus states "if anyone should the form of the consecration of the body and blood he does not confect the sacrament." Do what you want but I'll stick with the old mass .

GK wrote:
Anyhow here is the white smoke that emerged from the Sistine Chapel indicating a pope had been chosen 2 days before the election of John XXIII. I don't think its unreasonable to conclude that the real pope was elected when this smoke emerged.

Who was elected? It's not 100% proven but the evidence points to Cardinal Siri of Genoa.

Ok, I can't post link, just type into youtube "The election of Cardinal Siri" and that will bring up the old conclave footage.

MRyan wrote:You mean the same Cardinal Siri who continued on as Archbishop of Genoa till he was 80, all the while entirely submitting to the authority of the official popes? You mean the same Cardinal Siri who remained in full communion with the Church, refusing to support any sedevacantist organization? You mean the same Cardinal Siri who celebrated the Mass according to the reformed 1970 Roman Missal and the other revised sacraments? You mean the same Cardinal Siri who signed all of the documents of the Second Vatican Council?

Oh, that Cardinal Siri!

What you say does pose some problems for the theory but there are also Cardinal Siri published remarks,
"Vatican II was the worst mistake in history"
"We will not be bound by these decrees" (vatican II)
"It will take the Church 50 years to recover from John XXIII pontificate" etc.

Now he did celebrate the new mass on a few occasions but according to a priest in his diocese who was in the seminary since 1964 the clergy in Genoa were instructed not to celebrate the new mass.

MRyan wrote:Look, even IF Cardinal Siri received the majority vote in the papal conclaves of 1958 and 1963, he refused the honor. If the following testimony (he purportedly made near the end of his life) can be trusted, and IF the “mistake” he refers to is his refusal to accept the papacy, he makes it clear that he regrets this decision; and asks forgiveness:

But the evidence for his election lies in the very clear emission of white smoke from the Sistine Chapel 2 days before the election of John XXIII. The white smoke is NOT released until the electee has accepted the office and taken his papal name. If he then resigned under duress then his resignation is invalid and he remains the true pope.

MRyan wrote: The Cardinal was bound by oath from revealing the results of the votes of the conclave, so all of this is wild conjecture.

But the FACT remains that Cardinal Siri never accepted the papacy; and the fact remains that he submitted to the authority of the official popes, that he remained in full communion with the Church, the he refused to support any sedevacantist organization, that he celebrated the Mass according to the reformed 1970 Roman Missal and the other revised sacraments, and that he signed all of the documents of the Second Vatican Council.

But you did give it the old sede try.

He publicly acknowledged the other popes but there is considerable testimony plus his own comments that indicate his true feelings were different. The night before the October 1978 Conclave he stated that if elected he would "return the Church to it's post conciliar days" As to why he did not contest the other popes is that he thought it more useful to keep his position in hopes of getting elected at a future conclave. Furthermore he was virtually unknown outside of Italy, even though he is being widely discussed at the moment 23 years after his death.

Let's begin here:

GK wrote:

MRyan wrote:
But he has NO authority to change the substance of the form of the sacraments (such as the form of Consecration).

The words of consecration were changed from "for many" to "for all". And I know they were preserved in the Latin rite but nobody uses the Latin rite, and in every other language they used "for all" until recently.

The approved ICEL change to "for all" did not change the "substance of the Form", as the Holy Office (and the Pope) confirmed in its directive on the same where it clearly stated that "for all" is to be understood in the same sense as the original and official Latin text (in other words, "for all" is to be understood as "for all of the elect" or "for all of those of the Faithful who will benefit from reception of the Chalice", or words similar to that effect.

In fact, contrary to the claims of certain sede's, there are at least three ancient Anaphoras containing "for many" in the Consecration formula, as Adam Miller has sufficiently documented in his scholarly work "Is the New Mass of Pope Paul VI Invalid"?

The answer is, of course it's valid, and always has been.

MRyan wrote:
In fact, contrary to the claims of certain sede's, there are at least three ancient Anaphoras containing "for many" in the Consecration formula, as Adam Miller has sufficiently documented in his scholarly work "Is the New Mass of Pope Paul VI Invalid"?

I meant to say "... there are at least three ancient Anaphoras containing 'for all' in the Consecration formula"...

Sorry

In the anaphoras he cites the "for all" is qualified by the "the elect" or the "the faithful". "For all" without qualification does not mean the same thing. That along with the other 300 or so mistranslations in the new mass, and Bugnini's desire to render the mass acceptable to protestants, its hard to imagine this is all a result of incompetence.

Can I say that the new mass is invalid with 100% certainty? No, but it is doubtful and should be avoided.

GK wrote: In the anaphoras he cites the "for all" is qualified by the "the elect" or the "the faithful". "For all" without qualification does not mean the same thing.

No, that’s only partially correct.

In the Anaphoras of St. John The Apostle and Evangelist (“to all”) and of St. Mark The Evangelist (“for all”), "all" is qualified by “that believe in him forever and ever” and “all the true faithful”, respectively; however, here is the formula for the Consecration of the wine in the ancient Maronite Canon:

This is the chalice of my blood of the new and eternal Testament which shall be shed for you and for all unto the remission of sin

What this proves is that the Church supplies the Catholic understanding of her sacramental forms (and all of her other Liturgical prayers), and she has NOT changed the meaning of the form by using “for all”, as she clearly declared, and as the Maronite canon demonstrates.

As VCI infallibly declared, what she puts forth “is to be believed and held by all the faithful according to the ancient and continual faith of the Universal Church” (Pastor Aeternus, Denz: 1821). So it is not up to laymen or clerics, with their flawed understanding of sacramental theology and Papal Primacy to determine what constitutes a “change in meaning” to the substance of a sacramental form. The pope, and the pope alone has supreme and final authority over all such matters when it comes to Liturgical rites.

GK wrote:
That along with the other 300 or so mistranslations in the new mass, and Bugnini's desire to render the mass acceptable to protestants, its hard to imagine this is all a result of incompetence.

And I don’t suppose there is any context to your nefarious sounding “300 or so mistranslations in the new mass” charge. I guess if you repeat the mantra long enough, whatever it is your implying (nothing good) becomes true.

And it does not matter if it was Bugnini’s intention to please the Protestants, the only thing that matters is the intention and will of the Supreme Legislator in promulgating the New Rite. Funny that the Protestants understand that the Ordinary Rite is a propitiatory sacrifice (even if they don't believe it), while certain schismatic Catholics do not.

Oh, and don’t forget the old death bed plea of Pope John XXIII, “stop the council, stop the council!” It ranks right up there with “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the anti-Christ”.

GK wrote:
Can I say that the new mass is invalid with 100% certainty? No, but it is doubtful and should be avoided.

A doubtful sacrament is no sacrament, period. Btw, for a Catholic united in faith and communion with the Roman Pontiff, upon whose faith the foundation rests (VCI), that the Pope can promulgate or approve a doubtful sacramental form or Liturgical rite, is heretical.

As Brian Kelly noted:

This mistranslation always troubled me for another reason, a most important one. Before the words of consecration are uttered by the priest, he says over the host: “And [Jesus] said . . .” This is how the account reads of the consecration of the wine in the Gospel of Saint Matthew: “Jesus . . . took the chalice, giving thanks, and gave to them saying: Drink this all of you . . .”

Do you see how grave is this mistranslation? In Persona Christi, the priest is saying that Jesus is saying something He did not say, namely, that this Blood of the “New Testament” is to be shed for “all.” I do not want to raise the issue of the universal sufficiency of Christ’s Blood to save all men, which all Catholics affirm. I do not even raise the contrasting issue of efficacious saving grace here, which benefits only the elect (“the many”), which so many brilliant theologians have done who objected to the mistranslation. Nor am I questioning the validity of the consecration with the vernacular Novus Ordo’s use of the term “all.” I accept its validity. I must accept it.

No! What I am highlighting here with these comments is very simple, and disturbing, perhaps more disturbing on account the New Mass’s validity. It is this: At the most solemn moment of the vernacular Mass, the priest, in the Name of Christ, is saying that Jesus said something that He did not say.

Thank you, Pope Benedict, for mandating this correction.

https://catholicforum.forumotion.com/post?t=711&mode=reply

Yes, it's corrected. But the fact remains: for 30, 40 years the Church permitted the priest to say at Mass - in the canon and at the holy consecration no less - that Christ said something He didn't say.

And it's interesting that Paul Vi called the thing that lead to the vernacular translations, the Novus Ordo.

Council of Trent

Session VII

Canon XIII

Canon XIII.—Si quis dixerit, receptos et approbates Ecclesiæ Catholicæ ritus, in solemni sacramentorum administratione adhiberi consuetos, aut contemni, aut sine peccato a ministris pro libito omitti, aut in novos alios per quemcumque ecclesiarum pastorem mutari posse: anathema sit.

Canon XIII.—If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones: let him be anathema.

Novus Ordo? Probably just a coincidence.

Who was it that said, "The Roman Rite, as we knew it, no longer exists. It has been destroyed"?

Got to keep you on your toes, Mike.

And one of your other main men, John Salza, disagrees with Miller, apparently:

Based on the plain words of her Savior, the Church has used “for many” in consecrating the wine throughout her entire history. It has been used in all the liturgies from the East to the West, including the Alexandrine liturgy, the canons of Hippolytus, De Sacramentis of Pseudo-Ambrose, the Gallican and Mozarabic rites, and all the rest. At no point in her history did the Church ever use “for all” in the consecration formula until the liturgical revolution of the 1960s.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Feature_-_The_validity_of_the_New_Mass'_vernacular_consecration.pdf

Please, Tornpage, let's not get carried away with the guilt by association stuff.

If Salza has a credible or interesting argument on a given topic, I don't mind sharing and discussing it, but that does not mean that I agree with everything he says. In fact, he lost a lot of credibility with me when I read, in an otherwise excellent article, where he said (something like) that for the Church to allow for the "hope" of salvation for un-baptized infants is "heresy".

What nonsense. Is there something in the water?

That Salza doesn't know his history of the ancient Eastern anaphoras is not surprising ... I think sometimes if an errant proportion is repeated often enough, it becomes true, even if strong and credible evidence to the contrary surfaces that renders it false, or at least entirely suspect. The usual method is to attack the credibility of the messenger.

But thanks for pulling my chain; I don't mind, and it's always nice to engage you.

Well I’m glad they found and obscure rite that uses an unqualified “for all.” However the circumstance in which the new mass arose and the man who created it Bugnini (fired twice and banished to Iran) along with his team of protestant theologians makes for a poor comparison. I mean one could assume in the Marian rite that the proper meaning for “for all” is present even though it is not explicitly expressed not so for the Novus Ordo.

The Council of Trent condemned the use of “for all” so if it comes down to Paul VI and the Council of Trent I’ll go with the Council of Trent. If Siri was elected in 1958 then he was the Lawful Pope not Paul Vi.

Also of note is the testimony of Father Stephen Sommerville who was one of the original members the ICEL

An Open Letter to the Church
Renouncing my Service on I.C.E.L.
By Father Stephen Somerville, STL.
ww.fisheaters.cm/frsomerville.html

1 – I am a priest who for over ten years collaborated in a work that became a notable harm to the Catholic Faith. I wish now to apologize before God and the Church and to renounce decisively my personal sharing in that damaging project. I am speaking of the official work of translating the new post-Vatican II Latin liturgy into the English language, when I was a member of the Advisory Board of the International Commission on English Liturgy (I.C.E.L.).

11 – Having just mentioned in passing the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), I now come to identify my other reason for renouncing my translating work on I.C.E.L. It is an even more serious and delicate matter. In the past year (from mid 2001), I have come to know with respect and admiration many traditional Catholics. These, being persons who have decided to return to pre-Vatican II Catholic Mass and Liturgy, and being distinct from "conservative" Catholics (those trying to retouch and improve the Novus Ordo Mass and Sacraments of post-Vatican II), these Traditionals, I say, have taught me a grave lesson. They brought to me a large number of published books and essays. These demonstrated cumulatively, in both scholarly and popular fashion, that the Second Vatican Council was early commandeered and manipulated and infected by modernist, liberalist, and protestantizing persons and ideas. These writings show further that the new liturgy produced by the Vatican "Concilium" group, under the late Archbishop A. Bugnini, was similarly infected. Especially the New Mass is problematic. It waters down the doctrine that the Eucharist is a true Sacrifice, not just a memorial. It weakens the truth of the Real Presence of Christ's victim Body and Blood by demoting the Tabernacle to a corner, by reduced signs of reverence around the Consecration, by giving Communion in the hand, often of women, by cheapering the sacred vessels, by having used six Protestant experts (who disbelieve the Real Presence) in the preparation of the new rite, by encouraging the use of sacro-pop music with guitars, instead of Gregorian chant, and by still further novelties.

So let's suppose that the new mass is valid. Should it be avoided on the bases of it's inferiority. Or do you think it is of equal value as the Old Roman Rite?

The protestant accomodation and dilution of the beautiful and Sacred Latin Mass in the Novus Order must be restored and it will be by the grace of God. One brief quote below on the ongoing confusion and Crisis in our Church

Exchanging the Sign of Peace, Homily Aids

Cardinal Arinze reported that the Holy See, at the request of Pope Benedict and the 2005 Synod, is studying the most appropriate moment during the Mass for exchanging the Sign of Peace.

In Sacramentum Caritatis, Pope Benedict suggested “greater restraint”, and mentioned “distraction” concerning the Sign of Peace:

[D]uring the Synod of Bishops there was discussion about the appropriateness of greater restraint in this gesture, which can be exaggerated and cause a certain distraction in the assembly just before the reception of Communion. (§ 49)

Cardinal Arinze said that Pope Benedict indicated that episcopal conferences should consider two options for exchanging the Sign of Peace: either before the Agnus Dei, as is presently done, or after the Prayers of the Faithful. (This is the practice of the Neo-Catechumenal Way. In 2005, Cardinal Arinze had said the Vatican would allow the Neo-Catechumenal Way to continue its practice of exchanging the sign of peace after the Prayers of the Faithful, just before the offertory, rather than just before Communion.)

Each bishops’ conference is to respond by the end of October, though there is a three-week grace period for late responses. (The US bishops meet in November.) The proposals will then be presented to the Holy Father, who will make a decision on the matter.

Cardinal Arinze also announced that the Congregation for Divine Worship is preparing a book with thematic materials for homilies to assist priests throughout the world with their preaching. Several bishops who addressed the Synod on the Word of God expressed concern about homiletics, and the need for good preaching.

GK wrote:Well I’m glad they found and obscure rite that uses an unqualified “for all.”

I doubt you are “glad” … unless you are happy that it decimates your entire argument. Not only has it been proven that “all” was used in two ancient anaphoras (with qualifiers telling us how they are understood), the Maronite anaphora is an almost word-for-word replica of the ICEL translation.

The Maronite rite may be “obscure”, but that takes nothing away from its ancient and continuous usage, or its legitimacy, since it was an approved rite of the Church.

And what do you mean by “assuming” that the proper meaning of “for all” in the Maronite rite is present even though it is not explicitly expressed, but the same meaning is not expressed in the “Novus Ordo”?

The respective formulas are virtually identical. So how can the old Novus Ordo (ICEL) formula NOT signify the same thing as the Maronite formula, and the same thing as the original Latin text of the Novus Ordo? Because Bugnini was a Freemason and was exiled to Iran? Are you serious? Is Bugnini the Supreme Legislator? Is it the mind of Bugnini that dictates the sense and signification of the sacramental forms of the Church?

Let’s set the record straight:

The Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification. (Mediator Dei, #58, November 20, 1947)

St. Thomas Aquinas taught:

Words belong to the sacramental form by reason of the sense signified by them. Consequently, any addition or suppression of words which do not add to, nor take away from, the essential sense does not destroy the essence of the Sacrament.” (Summa Theologica III, q.60, art. eight)

Furthermore,

There is no doubt whatsoever regarding the validity of Masses celebrated with the use of a duly approved formula containing a formula equivalent to 'for all,' as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already declared (cf. Sacra Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Declaratio de sensu tribuendo adprobationi versionum formularum sacramentalium, 25 Ianuarii 1974, AAS 66 [1974], 661). Indeed, the formula 'for all' would undoubtedly correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord's intention expressed in the text. (Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university)

To recap, the question of “for all” came to the attention of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship early on, and, as Adam Miller affirmed, because “the proper (or improper) interpretation of sacramental forms is a matter of faith”, in 1974 the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued it’s “Declaration on the Meaning of Translations of Sacremantal Formulae”, which said in part:

When a vernacular translation of a sacramental formula is submitted to the Holy See for approval, it examines it carefully. When it is satisfied that it expresses the meaning intended by the Church, it approves and confirms it, stipulating, however, that it must be understood in accordance with the mind of the Church as expressed in the original Latin text.

And of course, the “mind of the Church” in this case is the mind of the Supreme Legislator who has been given full, episcopal and immediate authority over the rites of the Church.

The Supreme Pontiff is very much aware that in the exercise of his universal Primacy, he has NO authority to change the substance of a sacramental form, and in fact is prevented from doing so (if the indefectibility of the Church is to remain secure), precisely as VCI infallibly declared (if, by promulgating invalid sacraments, the Church can fail to provide for the sanctification of the Faithful, she would have failed in her divine mission).

I do not expect a sede to understand this, since for him there hasn’t been a Supreme Pontiff (or a visible true Church) since at least 1958 (and for some sede’s, since at least 1810). After all, once the power to recognize invalid rites, heretical Councils and obstinate heresy in the pope’s is given to clerics and laymen, any pope who “appears to have deviated from the faith” before or after his universally recognized valid elevation is subject to ipso facto excommunication and to “anti-pope” status. Isn’t that right, GK?

Since most sede’s go with the 54 years and counting interregnum, I would really like GK, or any sede on this forum, to tell us how long an interregnum can last, especially with a perpetual string of alleged “anti-popes” (lasting multiple generations) who are recognized by the universal Church as true popes, before the dogma of perpetual succession is violated. Is that 100, 200, 500, or 1000 years? If so, was our Lord’s promise to Peter of a never-failing faith and of an indefectible Church, and the Church’s “infallible” teaching that a visible hierarchy and a visible Pontiff are absolutely necessary for the Church’s survival, and a mark of her indefectibility, only “fallible” and “conditional” suggestions?

GK wrote:
However the circumstance in which the new mass arose and the man who created it Bugnini (fired twice and banished to Iran) along with his team of protestant theologians makes for a poor comparison. I mean one could assume in the Marian rite that the proper meaning for “for all” is present even though it is not explicitly expressed not so for the Novus Ordo.

I guess I just answered this; but let me add, if one were a Catholic who remained united to the Roman Pontiff, one could not assume any such thing.

GK wrote:The Council of Trent condemned the use of “for all” so if it comes down to Paul VI and the Council of Trent I’ll go with the Council of Trent.

The Council of Trent “condemned” no such thing. What is gratuitously stated is gratuitously denied. And, if you are referring to the Catechism of Trent and its reasons for why “all” is not used in the Old Roman Rite, this was not a “condemnation” or a suggestion that “for all” could not be used.

You’ll have to do better than that.

Item last: In the Old Roman Rite, in the Offertory we read:

"OFFERIMUS TIBI, DOMINUS ... TOTIUS MUNDI SALUTE."

The priest is stating that the chalice is offered up for "our salvation and for the whole world".

Please explain, GT, how we are supposed to understand the sense of words, and who supplies the Catholic understanding of the same, when we know the efficacious application of Christ's blood is not for the whole world, but only for those who are worthy to receive it.

Is the Old Rite guilty of promoting the heresy of universal salvation?

GK wrote:Also of note is the testimony of Father Stephen Sommerville who was one of the original members the ICEL

[SNIP]

So let's suppose that the new mass is valid. Should it be avoided on the bases of it's inferiority. Or do you think it is of equal value as the Old Roman Rite?

I already answered this. Every valid mass is a true Propitiatory Sacrifice, with each Sacrifice being of equal value to the Object of our Worship.

Do I think that the New Mass as a whole is as pleasing to God as the Old Rite? No. But does that mean that the faithful cannot benefit from the same graces of the New Mass as from that of the Old? No, it does not (though the Old is certainly more conducive to a right faith and, generally, to "proper" worship); and a lackluster faith will not necessarily be edified by the Old Rite, as pre-VCII "Sunday Catholicism" confirms.

Sure, if I had my selfish druthers, the Novus Ordo would go away ... but I am not in control of such things, and I will follow the Pope's lead in all such matters.

MRyan, your last post is well explained and accurate. Thank you

I do not think it is selfish to want the Novus Order restored and more accurately abolished by the Pope to the Glory of God in word and action. I do love and remain subject to the Pope and can not even imagine standing before God saying that I did not pray for him even as I suffer in the current crisis. I can not begin to grasp the reasons why so much has happened since I was an altar boy but trust in the Holy Spirit.


You can certainly see in Cardinal Arinze's text below the challenge to remedy all of the "difficulties" { Cardinals words } as said below of the Novus Order; way too numerous to detail. Even in the Consecration where in the Latin Mass, the Priest would always hold the Host high above his head and pause for a few seconds in reverence. In the Novus Order , I can think of many variations of the Consecration which have not been good. There must be an accountability to Rome which is monitored and enforced on saying the Mass properly, teaching the Faith, eg; The Sanctity of life, stem cell research, homosexuality, euthanasia, definition of marriage, Salvation, the Sacraments, Ten Commandments, Spiritual and Corporal works of Mercy
dress code, conversion of non Catholics, contraception, code of moral conduct proper sermons etc. The freedom allowed over the past five decades has been a great part of the Crisis of Faith. The lets talk it over experiment of dialogue has failed although I am sure the Devil is cheering it on for his intended destruction of the Church and damnation of souls. We are in danger of all but loosing our Faith if we continue to hurt God by our actions.

Cardinal Arinze to US Bishops on Translation

Following is the text of a letter sent by Cardinal Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, to Bishop William Skylstad, president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, following a meeting of Conference leaders with the Congregation in April. In the letter, Cardinal Arinze stresses that translations of liturgical texts must conform to Liturgiam authenticam, the Holy See’s 2001 Instruction on translation. The letter was sent to all bishops in advance of their June meeting in Los Angeles, where they are scheduled to vote on a translation of the Order of Mass in the new Missale Romanum.

Congregatio De Cultu Divino
Et Disciplina Sacramentorum

Prot. n. 499/06/L
Rome, 2 May 2006

Your Excellency,

With reference to the conversation between yourself, the Vice President and General Secretary of the Conference of Bishops of which you are President, together with me and other Superiors and Officials when you kindly visited our Congregation on April 27, 2006, I wish to recall the following:

The Instruction Liturgiam authenticam is the latest document of the Holy See which guides translations from the original-language liturgical texts into the various modern languages in the Latin Church. Both this Congregation and the Bishops’ Conferences are bound to follow its directives. This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is therefore not competent to grant the recognitio for translations that do not conform to the directives of Liturgiam authenticam. If, however, there are difficulties regarding the translation of a particular part of a text, then this Congregation is always open to dialogue in view of some mutually agreeable solution, still keeping in mind, however, that Liturgiam authenticam remains the guiding norm.

The attention of your Bishops’ Conference was also recalled to the fact that Liturgiam authenticam was issued at the directive of the Holy Father at the time, Pope John Paul II, to guide new translations as well as the revision of all translations done in the last forty years, to bring them into greater fidelity to the original-language official liturgical texts. For this reason it is not acceptable to maintain that people have become accustomed to a certain translation for the past thirty or forty years, and therefore that it is pastorally advisable to make no changes. Where there are good and strong reasons for a change, as has been determined by this Dicastery in regard to the entire translation of the Missale Romanum as well as other important texts, then the revised text should make the needed changes. The attitudes of Bishops and Priests will certainly influence the acceptance of the texts by the lay faithful as well.

Requesting Your Excellency to share these reflections with the Bishops of your Conference I assure you of the continued collaboration of this Congregation and express my religious esteem,

Devotedly yours in Christ,

+Francis Card. Arinze
Prefect

His Excellency,
The Most Reverend William Skylstad
Bishop of Spokane
President of the Conference of Bishops of the United States of America

Related Story: Bishops to Vote on Mass Translation ICEL Texts for Order of Mass, Amendments, Adaptations to be Considered at June Meeting -- by Helen Hull Hitchcock, AB May 2006, Vol. XII, No. 3

[quote]

George Brenner wrote:The protestant accomodation and dilution of the beautiful and Sacred Latin Mass in the Novus Order must be restored and it will be by the grace of God. One brief quote below on the ongoing confusion and Crisis in our Church

Exchanging the Sign of Peace, Homily Aids

Cardinal Arinze reported that the Holy See, at the request of Pope Benedict and the 2005 Synod, is studying the most appropriate moment during the Mass for exchanging the Sign of Peace.

In Sacramentum Caritatis, Pope Benedict suggested “greater restraint”, and mentioned “distraction” concerning the Sign of Peace:

[D]uring the Synod of Bishops there was discussion about the appropriateness of greater restraint in this gesture, which can be exaggerated and cause a certain distraction in the assembly just before the reception of Communion. (§ 49)

Cardinal Arinze said that Pope Benedict indicated that episcopal conferences should consider two options for exchanging the Sign of Peace: either before the Agnus Dei, as is presently done, or after the Prayers of the Faithful. (This is the practice of the Neo-Catechumenal Way. In 2005, Cardinal Arinze had said the Vatican would allow the Neo-Catechumenal Way to continue its practice of exchanging the sign of peace after the Prayers of the Faithful, just before the offertory, rather than just before Communion.)

Each bishops’ conference is to respond by the end of October, though there is a three-week grace period for late responses. (The US bishops meet in November.) The proposals will then be presented to the Holy Father, who will make a decision on the matter.

Cardinal Arinze also announced that the Congregation for Divine Worship is preparing a book with thematic materials for homilies to assist priests throughout the world with their preaching. Several bishops who addressed the Synod on the Word of God expressed concern about homiletics, and the need for good preaching.

It's passing strange whenever the Neo-Catechumenal Way gets referenced in relation to so-called liturgical orthopraxy.

MRyan wrote:
And what do you mean by “assuming” that the proper meaning of “for all” in the Maronite rite is present even though it is not explicitly expressed, but the same meaning is not expressed in the “Novus Ordo”?

The respective formulas are virtually identical. So how can the old Novus Ordo (ICEL) formula NOT signify the same thing as the Maronite formula, and the same thing as the original Latin text of the Novus Ordo? Because Bugnini was a Freemason and was exiled to Iran? Are you serious? Is Bugnini the Supreme Legislator? Is it the mind of Bugnini that dictates the sense and signification of the sacramental forms of the Church?

Let’s set the record straight:

The Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification. (Mediator Dei, #58, November 20, 1947)

Ok, and the words of consecration have long been established.

De Defectibus, Pius V 1572
V - Defects of the form

20. Defects on the part of the form may arise if anything is missing from the complete wording required for the act of consecrating. Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are:

HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, and HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: MYSTERIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM

If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin.

This issue has been settled for a long time.

Welcome to the Forum, GK


I pray for many intentions. One of my most urgent prayers for many decades has been for the return of the word "Many" for "All" in the consecration as it is the faithful translation of Jesus words. Nevertheless, the use of the word "ALL" for a brief time of Church history in no way invalidated the Mass. Please see below a portion of Cardinal Arinze's directive to the Cardinals and Bishops.

Many schismatic Catholics have even argued that the Mass promulgated by Vatican II, when celebrated in English or many other translations, is invalid due to its improper translation Christ’s words.

Cardinal Arinze’s letter says that, as supported by previous declarations from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “there is no doubt whatsoever regarding the validity of Masses celebrated with the use of a duly approved formula containing a formula equivalent to ‘for all.’”

“Indeed,” the cardinal continued, “the formula ‘for all’ would undoubtedly correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord’s intention expressed in the text. It is a dogma of faith that Christ died on the Cross for all men and women (cf. John 11:52; 2 Corinthians 5,14-15; Titus 2,11; 1 John 2,2).”

Nonetheless, while “for all” is, “an explanation of the sort that belongs properly to catechesis,” Arinze said, “’for many’ is a faithful translation of ‘pro multis.’”

Gk,

Do you believe that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid?
Do you believe those that have worshiped at the Novus Ordo Mass do not fulfill their obligation as Catholics?

I have posted many times on this forum that the current Crisis in the Church is among other things due to the protestant accommodation of the liturgy and liberties taken like removing the Altar, sign of peace, communion in the hand, etc etc and must be restored or eliminated and return to the Latin Mass as the solution.

JMJ,


George

DeSelby said:

It's passing strange whenever the Neo-Catechumenal Way gets referenced in relation to so-called liturgical orthopraxy.

Orthopraxis by Shawn Tribe:

In the accounts of the Book of Exodus we read of the great and central importance which was attached to God's worship, and not merely the fact of His worship alone, but right worship at that.

It strikes me that this fact might well serve us today as a means to help explain the Church's teaching that "the liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed." (CCC 1074) After all, what is the sacred liturgy but the formal, solemn public worship of God; "a participation in Christ's own prayer addressed to the Father in the Holy Spirit." (CCC 1073) How could divine worship be anything but of central importance? As for the Israelites then, so too for us now.

Further, this reality may also help us to explain the importance of orthopraxis -- of right and fitting worship -- and why the sacred liturgy cannot be merely looked as some mere human creation that we can arbitrarily create or manipulate at will. That it is something we receive and whose proper and fitting expression has an aspect of divine offering. Further, that God is not indifferent to the worship offered to Him, and thus, neither is the Church indifferent -- and nor should we be.

Sign of Peace right before Communion.... NO !!!!!!!!

Sign of Peace at time of Offertory ..... No

Sign of peace in the Parking lot after Mass.... YES

George Brenner wrote:

Gk,

Do you believe that the Novus Ordo Mass is invalid?

Well it may be valid if it is said in Latin, otherwise I don't think the words "for all" can be substituted for "for many" and I bring up De defectibus (which was printed in front of every altar Missal) as my main reason. Plus I'm not really sure the mass was ever meant to be said in the vernacular. And then there is the new rite of ordination which can also be questioned. Practically speaking I have no doubts whatsoever about the old mass so I would attend that one.

Recently however I have learned from long time residents in Genoa that Cardinal Siri did not think the new mass was invalid however he did instruct the clergy in his diocese not to use it and he did not think the the destruction of the Liturgy was the key problem. In many ways I hope that MRyan is right and that the new mass is valid even if it may not be the ideal rite.

George Brenner wrote: Do you believe those that have worshiped at the Novus Ordo Mass do not fulfill their obligation as Catholics?

Well, it depends on their knowledge and understanding of the things we are discussing. Once one is aquainted with the arguments against the new mass I find it hard to justify attending the Novus Ordo if he has the option of attending the old mass, even if he feels certain of the Novus Ordo's validity.

Hello GK,

You can rest assured what MRyan has to say is the voice of reason{s} All of us can rejoice in the fact that the use of the word "All" in the consecration along with the recent more reverent changes to the Roman Missal will be with us through our lifetimes. So on this issue lets not dwell in the past and be thankful. Unfortunately after Vatican II was completed the Novus Order was put together so quickly that no one in position of authority with the ability to reflect on the changes had the courage to call a spiritual time out. Most wise and pious thinking heads of the ages loved the Latin Mass and all that went with it in spiritual contentment and proper worship. Many Popes warned about tinkering or messing with the very center of our Faith. The proper answer seemed obvious that if the goal was to celebrate the Mass also in the vernacular, one only needed to look at the 1962 Saint Joseph Missal which had the faithful translation into the vernacular opposite the latin on every page.. The answer already existed. I would encourage anyone who can possibly attend the Latin Mass to do so. For those who truly understand the reasons why, no explanation is necessary.
Rest assured many good faithful Priests have died, are alive now and will die under the Novus Order and many have helped, are helping and will help souls attain salvation. By the same token there are far too many that have been and are now wearing collars that have caused and are causing the crisis in Faith. That goes for non clerical and layman also. The confusion, lack of discipline and infiltration by Satan will be restored, so help us God.

GK wrote:

MRyan wrote:
And what do you mean by “assuming” that the proper meaning of “for all” in the Maronite rite is present even though it is not explicitly expressed, but the same meaning is not expressed in the “Novus Ordo”?

The respective formulas are virtually identical. So how can the old Novus Ordo (ICEL) formula NOT signify the same thing as the Maronite formula, and the same thing as the original Latin text of the Novus Ordo? Because Bugnini was a Freemason and was exiled to Iran? Are you serious? Is Bugnini the Supreme Legislator? Is it the mind of Bugnini that dictates the sense and signification of the sacramental forms of the Church?

Let’s set the record straight:

The Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification. (Mediator Dei, #58, November 20, 1947)

Ok, and the words of consecration have long been established.

De Defectibus, Pius V 1572
V - Defects of the form

20. Defects on the part of the form may arise if anything is missing from the complete wording required for the act of consecrating. Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are:

HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, and HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: MYSTERIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM

If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin.

This issue has been settled for a long time.

Yes, the issue has been settled for a long time, but not in your favor. One needs to understand what De Defectibus is actually saying:

IF THE PRIEST were to shorten or change the form of the consecration … so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament.

In other words, IF THE PRIEST, who on his own initiative were to change the words of Consecration belonging to the particular Rite he is celebrating, whether in the Extraordinary, or in the approved vernacular translations of the Ordinary Form, or one the many Eastern Rites, such that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament.

The virtually identical (and approved) ICEL and Maronite Forms with “for all”, as it has been conclusively demonstrated, do not represent the situation envisaged by De Defectibus, since the respective forms were approved by the highest authority in the Church, thus assuring that the respective forms contain the essential signification of the original Latin.

In fact, if a priest were to have changed “for all” to “for many” while saying either Rite, he would have committed a grave sin by rendering the Consecration illicit.

If you wish to demonstrate that the ICEL translation to “for all” effects a doubtful Sacrament, or a conclusively invalid Sacrament (same difference), you cannot do so by appealing to De Defectibus.

And even without De Defectibus you still believe that the “Church” has failed in its Divine mission to provide for the sanctification of the faithful by promulgating a doubtful or an invalid rite, you would also have to conclude that the visible Catholic Church is indeed a gross universal monstrosity, and the “Whore of Babylon”.

But I guess that’s your whole point, isn’t it?

The Church is INDEFECTIBLE and she is VISIBLE; this is de fide, and the specious sede argument for an “invalid or a doubtfully valid form” crumbles when exposed to the light of truth.

George Brenner wrote:
Sign of Peace right before Communion.... NO !!!!!!!!

Sign of Peace at time of Offertory ..... No

Sign of peace in the Parking lot after Mass.... YES

http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2010/07/sign-of-peace.html:

Friday, July 30, 2010

The Sign of Peace

The Sign of Peace is one of the parts of the Liturgy which extends all the way back to the Apostles. However, it's taken a few different forms, and has had different meanings attached to it.

I. The Sign of Peace in the Bible

To begin with, the Sign of Peace was originally a kiss. In the New Testament, we are commanded to "Greet one another with a holy kiss" (or something very similar) in Romans 16:16, 1 Corinthians 16:20, 2 Corinthians 13:13, 1 Thessalonians 5:26, and 1 Peter 5:14. Kissing was a typical form of greeting in first-century Israel, but the Apostles are clearly talking about something distinct from a typical greeting - it's called the "Kiss of Agape" and "Holy Kiss" every time. This calls to mind John 14:27, in which Jesus says, "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid."

Additionally, there are hints of the Kiss of Peace elsewhere, namely, in Luke 22:47-48, which the Church Fathers are the perfect Kiss of Peace, in that Christ kissed and loved even Judas, while Judas was betraying Him to death. Of this, St. John Chrysostom says: "For even if [your enemy] were upon the point of thrusting a sword down into thee, and to plunge his hand into thy neck itself, kiss this very right hand! since even Christ kissed that mouth which wrought His death!" And St. Augustine saw a prefigurement in the Kiss of Peace in Genesis 8:11. After the Flood, Noah sends out a dove, and upon her return, "in her mouth was a freshly plucked olive leaf," a sign to Noah that the Flood was over, and that New Life was sprouting.

Nowawadays, a kiss is generally not considered a normal or appropriate greeting in this culture, so we use other signs in place of a Kiss, which is also why the term "Sign of Peace" is used today. In some countries, it's a bow, in some, it's a handshake, but it's not necessary to be a literal kiss.

II. The Sign of Peace in the Liturgy

Another change has been the placement in the Liturgy. Many early liturgies are believed to have had a Sign or Kiss of Peace in some form in two places: before the Offertory, and at the end of the Lord's Prayer. The reasons are straightforward: Matthew 5:23-24 warns us to forgive our brethren before we offer our gifts at the altar. And in the Lord's Prayer, we ask God to "forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us," so it seems fit to then make sure we're forgiving them of any trespasses. Many Liturgies now only have one of the two. The Roman Canon has the Sign of Peace at the end of the Our Father, while the Penitential Rite at the start of Mass is our chance to seek forgiveness by publicly confessing our sinfulness.

Different regions in the Church seem to have settled into different liturgical orders. Although there are plenty of exceptions, the general trend was:

The East, including Asia and Greek-speaking Europe, had (and still have, in many cases), the Kiss of Peace, Commencement, and then the Lord's Prayer.

The West, including both Latin-speaking Europe and North Africa, had the Lord's Prayer, Commencement, and then the Sign of Peace. Pope Gregory rearranged the Roman Canon, moving the Lord's Prayer, so that it became: the Commencement, the Lord's Prayer, and then the Sign of Peace.

The East: Justin Martyr describes the Kiss of Peace as right before the Offertory in Chapter 65 of his First Apology, written in the 150s A.D.:

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it].

So Justin Martyr, living in the East (the modern-day West Bank), is describing a classically Eastern Liturgy: the Prayers of the Faithful, Kiss of Peace, and then, once everyone has forgiven each other, the Eucharistic Liturgy begins.

The West: St. Augustine, in his Sermon 227 (found in relevant part on page 197-198 here) describes the North African Liturgy:

Then, after the consecration of the Holy Sacrifice of God, because He wished us also to be His sacrifice, a fact which was made clear when the Holy Sacrifice was first instituted, and because that Sacrifice is a sign of what we are, behold, when the Sacrifice is finished, we say the Lord's Prayer which you have received and recited. After this, the 'Peace be with you’ is said, and the Christians embrace one another with the holy kiss. This is a sign of peace; as the lips indicate, let peace be made in your conscience, that is, when your lips draw near to those of your brother, do not let your heart withdraw from his. Hence, these are great and powerful sacraments. Do you wish to know how they are commended? The Apostle says: "Whoever eats the body of Christ or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord."

So as with the Gregorian Roman Canon, the Consecration occurs, followed by the Lord's Prayer and Sign of Peace, which are intended to prepare us spiritually to receive the Eucharist.

III. What Peace?

Sadly, the Sign of Peace, in recent years, has lead to ironic in-fighting amongst Christians. The fight has been largely over the meaning of the Sign of Peace, and how it should be done. There are largely two schools of thought:

1. The Sign of Peace is an expression of our love for one another, and is best expressed through warmly embracing one another in some way. This is something of the 1 Peter 5:14, where a warm greeting is extended between Christians.

2. The Sign of Peace is an expression of God's Love for us, and is best expressed by the priest extending a sign of peace to us (and the congregation returning it), as the priest stands as a representation of Christ for us in this role. This is the school of thought which focuses on how the Sign of Peace is given in John 14:27: the Presider (Christ) extending it to the Apostles, instead of "how the world gives it," by Christ having the Apostles shake hands.

Of course, there's no reason both camps can't be right. After all, if the 1 Peter 5:14 is truly extending a Kiss of Agape, a Holy Kiss of Peace, they can do so only because it's not peace as the world gives it. Much of the debate is embittered by broader post-Vatican II fights within the Roman Rite, namely because the Extraordinary Form of the Mass is very much in the John 14:27 camp, while in practice, the Ordinary Form of the Mass often takes the 1 Peter 5:14 view to an extreme, with the priest leaving the sanctuary to gladhand the congregation, while the Body of Christ is left on the altar. Additionally, lots of people are uncomfortable with strangers or shaking hands.

This is one area, however, where there is a lot of Patristic and Biblical support for the reform of the Mass. Augustine, for example, is clearly in the 1 Peter 5:14 camp. But there may be a way to extract the best of both worlds. That may be what the Vatican has in the works, in fact. Cardinal Arinze suggested in 2008 that the pope might consider moving the Sign of Peace to before the Offertory. The idea is simple: the 1 Peter 5:14 version of the Sign of Peace is great, but it's pretty out-of-place at its current place in the Mass, because it disrupts the Eucharistic Liturgy. We're on our knees, worshiping God in near silence with all eyes on the priest, and on the Host, and then we stand up, say the Our Father, and shake hands with one another, in some cases, welcoming them to a Mass now 90% over.

IV. A Possible Solution?

Here's my idea:

- Keep the Penitential Rite: we confess our sinfulness here to both God and "you, my brothers and sisters." This is a good start, and an important time to reflect on any sins we may need to ask forgiveness for

- Sign of Peace before the Offertory: in the 1 Peter 5:14 sense, with a sharing of a Sign of Peace between neighbors. Give people a moment to genuinely recount their faults and ask forgiveness of their neighbors. This fulfills Matthew 5:23-24, by ensuring clean hearts before we offer the Sacrifice of Christ to His Father.

- Sign of Peace after the Lord's Prayer, before Communion: here, in the John 14:27 sense. In other words, should be reverted to its classic Latin Rite form, in which it's just between the priest, representing Christ, and the congregation. This is more appropriate for the place in Mass. It also is in keeping with 1 Corinthians 11:28, as St. Augustine notes, by providing a moment of self-examination right before Communion.

Having two signs of peace is nothing new. In fact, the Liturgy which gave me the idea was perhaps the oldest existent Liturgy Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari, also known as the Liturgy of the Blessed Apostles. It was composed by two of St. Thomas' disciples in India, and has, in some form, has been in use since the generation after the Apostles up until today. Since it's of Syriac Indian origin, it's distinct from the liturgical trends both in the Latin West and Greek East. It has a Sign of Peace before the Consecration, like the East, (in part X of the Liturgy, in the link above). For this one, the people give the Kiss of Peace to one another. Then, after the consecration, the priest, and then the people, pray the Our Father, the priest says, "Peace be with you," and the people respond, "With thee and with thy spirit," but it's exclusively between the priest and the people, not the people and each other. This second one is very close to the practice of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. That's exactly what I think should be done.

Another example, admittedly at the extreme, is the Divine Liturgy of St. James (which is believed to date back, in some form to 60 A.D.), in which the priest says "peace be with you" to the congregation seven times, and the deacon two more. On the fifth of these nine times, the congregation exchanges a Kiss of Peace. At this point, it's shortly before the Consecration. The eighth time the priest extends the Sign of Peace to the people, it's right before both the priest and people receive Communion, and is to ensure that their hearts are clean before coming to receive Christ.

The advantage to both of these is that it takes the best of both worlds.

[END]

One Priest whose Mass I attended often in the nineties would say before Mass started lets turn to our neighbor and greet them with a welcome and sign of peace. Then at Communion time after the Our Father He would say " Let us all kneel and pray for peace" which put us in a devotional position for the Agnus Dei; now looking back there was wisdom.

MRyan wrote:

GK wrote:

MRyan wrote:
And what do you mean by “assuming” that the proper meaning of “for all” in the Maronite rite is present even though it is not explicitly expressed, but the same meaning is not expressed in the “Novus Ordo”?

The respective formulas are virtually identical. So how can the old Novus Ordo (ICEL) formula NOT signify the same thing as the Maronite formula, and the same thing as the original Latin text of the Novus Ordo? Because Bugnini was a Freemason and was exiled to Iran? Are you serious? Is Bugnini the Supreme Legislator? Is it the mind of Bugnini that dictates the sense and signification of the sacramental forms of the Church?

Let’s set the record straight:

The Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification. (Mediator Dei, #58, November 20, 1947)

Ok, and the words of consecration have long been established.

De Defectibus, Pius V 1572
V - Defects of the form

20. Defects on the part of the form may arise if anything is missing from the complete wording required for the act of consecrating. Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are:

HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, and HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: MYSTERIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM

If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin.

This issue has been settled for a long time.

Yes, the issue has been settled for a long time, but not in your favor. One needs to understand what De Defectibus is actually saying:

IF THE PRIEST were to shorten or change the form of the consecration … so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament.

In other words, IF THE PRIEST, who on his own initiative were to change the words of Consecration belonging to the particular Rite he is celebrating, whether in the Extraordinary, or in the approved vernacular translations of the Ordinary Form, or one the many Eastern Rites, such that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament.

That's not what it is saying at all. It gives the the words of consecration and states if anyone changes this (meaning) he does not confect the sacrament. He's not talking about obscure rites, or "respective rites" and he certainly is not talking about new rites since he just finished banning all rites less than 200 years old. Anybody knows that "for many" does not mean the same things as "for all". The form has been changed, at least in the English version.

Just to throw this out there...not that it relates DIRECTLY to the consecration of the Eucharist, since that is recorded in scripture, but it would relate more to the change in the rite for episcopal consecration in the Latin rite-------> Are you all aware that the formula for absolution in the Byzantine rite is DIFFERENT from the formula in the Latin rite? Additionally, there are SEVERAL approved formulas of absolution in the Byzantine tradition so that what you would hear from a priest in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church would not be necessarily the same as what you hear with the Melkites.

Anyway, just wanted to throw that out there. Problem is that most traditionalists aren't even aware of the Eastern rites, or if they are they kind of just brush them aside.

What all the rites have in common is "This is my body" and "This is my blood" (Byzantine)/"This is the Chalice of my blood" (Latin)

The Byzantine rites doesn't have the Mysterium Fidei. Additionally the epiklesis in the Byzantine rite is AFTER the consecration, not before. (I'm warning you though, never get into THAT discussion with a Byzantine Catholic, LOL!)

I actually think it is God's providence that made the Novus Ordo consecration be OUT LOUD. Can you imagine what a modernist would do to the words of Consecration with a SILENT CANON....when not even the altar server can hear the consecration?

Trads (not to say that I am NOT a Trad but...) always talk about INTENTION of the priest...but in the TLM you can't even HEAR the priest let alone know his intention.

GK wrote:

MRyan wrote:
Yes, the issue has been settled for a long time, but not in your favor. One needs to understand what De Defectibus is actually saying:

IF THE PRIEST were to shorten or change the form of the consecration … so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament.

In other words, IF THE PRIEST, who on his own initiative were to change the words of Consecration belonging to the particular Rite he is celebrating, whether in the Extraordinary, or in the approved vernacular translations of the Ordinary Form, or one the many Eastern Rites, such that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament.

That's not what it is saying at all. It gives the the words of consecration and states if anyone changes this (meaning) he does not confect the sacrament. He's not talking about obscure rites, or "respective rites" and he certainly is not talking about new rites since he just finished banning all rites less than 200 years old. Anybody knows that "for many" does not mean the same things as "for all". The form has been changed, at least in the English version.

Pope Pius V (in De Defictibus) most certainly is talking about every approved Rite of the Church, whether you think it is “obscure” or not. Every respective Form in every Rite of the Church must maintain the same essential meaning as the original Latin. The Maronite Rite is NOT some “obscure” Rite of the Church that one can brush off as some aberration. Here’s a little history lesson:

The Maronites began in the Near East in an area known as the Fertile Crescent, which today comprises the countries of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Israel. Their common language was Aramaic, the same language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ in the holy Family at Nazareth, as well as at the Last Supper. Aramaic is still used by the Maronites in various hymns and parts of the Mass, especially at the Consecration.

Of all the Eastern rite Churches, the Maronite Church is the only one known by the name of a person—St. Maron. Born in the middle of the fourth century, St. Maron was a hermit, who, by his holiness and the miracles he worked, attracted many followers. After his death around the year 410, his monastic disciples built a large monastery in his honor, from which other monasteries were founded.

The followers of St. Maron, both monks and laity, were always faithful to the teaching of the Pope. The Maronite Church is the only one among the Eastern Churches that has always maintained its bonds with Rome and the Successor of St. Peter. In fact, in 517, as controversy continued to rage over the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon (451) regarding Christ as “true God and true Man,” persecution of the Maronites broke out which resulted in the martyrdom of 350 Maronite monks on account of their defense of the Council’s decrees. Because of this, the Maronites were also known as the “Chalcedonians.” … in 1584, Pope Gregory XIII established the Maronite Seminary in Rome. Thus throughout history, there have been continuous and close relations between the Maronites in the East and western countries in Europe.

The Divine Liturgy of the Mass traces its roots to Antioch, where “the disciples were first called Christians” (Acts 11:26). St. Peter fled to Antioch when a persecution broke out in Jerusalem, resulting in the martyrdom of St. James (cf. Acts 12). According to tradition, St. Peter founded the Church at Antioch and became its first bishop (cf. Eusebius, History of the Church, III, 36). The early Maronites were the direct descendants of the people who received their faith from the Apostle Peter. (http://www.maronitemonks.org/MaroniteCatholics.htm)

What is “obscure” to you is a venerable and ancient treasure of the Church that sanctified thousands upon thousands of Eastern Catholics in the “Fertile Crescent” who “were the direct descendants of the people who received their faith from the Apostle Peter”.

In fact, Syriac (Christian Aramaic) still remains the liturgical language of the Maronite Church, with the subject Anaphora of the ancient Liturgy being a translation of the Latin into Aramaic. Yeah, I guess that’s “obscure”.

You’ve already admitted that “to all” and “for all” are legitimate translations that do not change the meaning of the form since they contain their own qualification; i.e., in the Anaphoras of St. John The Apostle and Evangelist (“to all”) and of St. Mark The Evangelist (“for all”), "all" is qualified by “that believe in him forever and ever” and “all the true faithful”, respectively; however, and once again, here is the formula for the Consecration of the wine in the ancient Maronite Canon:

This is the chalice of my blood of the new and eternal Testament which shall be shed for you and for all unto the remission of sin

Here are the central points you seem to have a problem with:

1. There are at least three ancient Anaphoras containing “all” instead of “many”, with the Maronite form being virtually identical to the ICEL form.

2. The first two Anaphora’s prove that “all” has been used in the approved rites of the Church (while also indicating for whom the Chalice will be efficacious), while the Maronite form proves the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, to wit:

Words belong to the sacramental form by reason of the sense signified by them. Consequently, any addition or suppression of words which do not add to, nor take away from, the essential sense does not destroy the essence of the Sacrament.” (Summa Theologica III, q.60, art. eight)

In other words, the suppression of the words “that believe in him forever and ever” or “all the true faithful”, does NOT take away from or destroy the essence of the Sacrament, just as the original ICEL translation does not take away from the original Latin text or destroy the essence of the Sacrament.

3. The Church supplies the Catholic understanding of her sacramental forms, and as she has clearly articulated by the Church, the original ICEL form “must be understood in accordance with the mind of the Church as expressed in the original Latin text.”

I think we’re done here: case closed.

RashaLampa wrote:Just to throw this out there...not that it relates DIRECTLY to the consecration of the Eucharist, since that is recorded in scripture, but it would relate more to the change in the rite for episcopal consecration in the Latin rite-------> Are you all aware that the formula for absolution in the Byzantine rite is DIFFERENT from the formula in the Latin rite? Additionally, there are SEVERAL approved formulas of absolution in the Byzantine tradition so that what you would hear from a priest in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church would not be necessarily the same as what you hear with the Melkites.

Anyway, just wanted to throw that out there. Problem is that most traditionalists aren't even aware of the Eastern rites, or if they are they kind of just brush them aside.

Rasha, excellent points. Neither are most traditionalists aware of the theology of the Eastern Fathers, while our last two popes immersed themselves in its richness. This is clearly reflected in much of their writings ... which is why many trads consider this theology a "novelty".

Mike,

In fact, Syriac (Christian Aramaic) still remains the liturgical language of the Maronite Church, with the subject Anaphora of the ancient Liturgy being a translation of the Latin into Aramaic. Yeah, I guess that’s “obscure”.

I recall having at least one exchange with you on Miller and this "subject Anaphora," and maybe I'll have to go back and check that or those. ):

Or maybe not.

Are you saying that this "subject Anaphora" in the ancient Liturgy is an Aramaic translation from a preceding Latin text? If so, what does the Latin original say?

I found this on the internet - actually, it appears Mike posted it at fisheaters before. It appears to be the whole quote from Miller on the "subject Anaphora":

Maybe most damaging to the anti-"for all" advocates is the fact that the clause "for all" was used for a number of centuries in one of the old Maronite Canons (they call it the "Anaphoras"). In this ancient Sacred Liturgy there were traditionally 22 Anaphoras. Of these twenty-two Anaphoras, some being perhaps the most ancient in the history of the Church, there are just six still in general use among Maronites at this time. In one of these, the Consecration of the wine did not say "for many." It said "shed for you and for all." For over 300 years this Maronite Anaphora used the Syriac (or Aramaic) translation of the Old Latin text; and in the consecration of the wine in that translation they used the words “for all.” This fact is confirmed by two sources. "The translation of the old Latin texts said: 'For All.' The original Syriac texts from our liturgy [was] translated 'For Many.' In our recently updated translation, more faithful to the original Syriac, we now have: 'For you and for many.'-Chorbishop Hector Doueihi, Eparchial Liturgist, Brooklyn, NY "[M]y old Maronite liturgical books indeed do say in the Consecration 'For All.' In our recent versions, this has been changed to 'For you and for many.' Your point is interesting and well-taken."-Father Richard Saad, St. Elias Maronite Church, Birmingham, AL (from a private correspondence with an associate of the author) The Consecration of the wine in the ancient Maronite Canon (which itself was a Syriac translation of the Latin) reads as follows: "This is the chalice of my blood of the new and eternal Testament which shall be shed for you and for all unto the remission of sin." This translation was used legitimately and validly and appropriately, without censure from Rome, but with approval. I am not talking about Modern English translations here. The vernacular has never been used in a Maronite Consecration, but always the Aramaic (also called Syriac). The translation was from Latin into Syriac/Aramaic. Their vernacular being, of course, Arabic (in which the REST of the Mass is said).

Here's what I'm getting from this. There was an Anaphora in the Marionite Rite which said "for all" - similar to the ICEL - which was a translation of a Latin text that didn't say "for all." However, Rome permitted this translation and it was used for some 300 years or so, whenever that was. However, the original Syriac of the Marionite Rite said "for many."

I wonder if the ICEL translators had Christ saying something He didn't say in reliance upon an obscure Anaphora (one of six, with the original text in the mother tongue saying "for many") used for some 300 years or so in a Marionite Rite that was itself a translation from a Latin text that said "for many" and . . . and if they did happen to be motivated by this "subject Anaphora" in making their translation I think it is legitimate to question, "why?"

tornpage wrote:
Here's what I'm getting from this. There was an Anaphora in the Marionite Rite which said "for all" - similar to the ICEL - which was a translation of a Latin text that didn't say "for all." However, Rome permitted this translation and it was used for some 300 years or so, whenever that was. However, the original Syriac of the Marionite Rite said "for many."

Thanks, Tornpage, for stressing and confirming the essential point. And yes, I think it is safe to say the authentic Latin text always said "pro multis", but it was translated as "for all" in the Aramaic/Syriac (Maronite) Liturgy, with Rome's permission.

And this is one of the reasons I have always been suspicious of this Miller argument: we have theologians of the Church making a translation (the ICEL "for all" translation) that is subject to vigorous dispute and charges of heresy from some quarters and we do not hear about this "justification" of the translation being similar to an "ancient" Marionite Rite Anaphora until some layman named Adam Miller advances the argument . . . yet justifications were made before Miller, by priests and theologians no less.

And we have a knowledgable lay Catholic like Salza saying, "At no point in her history did the Church ever use 'for all' in the consecration formula until the liturgical revolution of the 1960s."

Obscure? It appears that way to me.

Rasha,

What all the rites have in common is "This is my body" and "This is my blood" (Byzantine)/"This is the Chalice of my blood" (Latin)

The Byzantine rites doesn't have the Mysterium Fidei. Additionally the epiklesis in the Byzantine rite is AFTER the consecration, not before. (I'm warning you though, never get into THAT discussion with a Byzantine Catholic, LOL!)

I actually think it is God's providence that made the Novus Ordo consecration be OUT LOUD. Can you imagine what a modernist would do to the words of Consecration with a SILENT CANON....when not even the altar server can hear the consecration?

To put this more DIRECTLY in context: I wonder what the "Eastern Rites" would do if the pope or some papal committee or committee of their bishops (let us assume papal approval) substantially changed their immemorial liturgy of St. John Chrysostom or Liturgy of St. Basil the Great, even to go so far as to substantially alter the Canon? Can you imagine what they'd do?

If they feel about the Holy Mass the way that the Orthodox do, I have a fairly good idea.

MRyan wrote:

GK wrote:
That's not what it is saying at all. It gives the the words of consecration and states if anyone changes this (meaning) he does not confect the sacrament. He's not talking about obscure rites, or "respective rites" and he certainly is not talking about new rites since he just finished banning all rites less than 200 years old. Anybody knows that "for many" does not mean the same things as "for all". The form has been changed, at least in the English version.

Pope Pius V (in De Defictibus) most certainly is talking about every approved Rite of the Church, whether you think it is “obscure” or not. Every respective Form in every Rite of the Church must maintain the same essential meaning as the original Latin.

And how do you arrive at that conclusion? Certainly not by anything written in the document. And especially not if you take Pro Quimum into account which established the Old Roman Rite as the normative rite of the Catholic Church.

MRyan wrote:The Maronite Rite is NOT some “obscure” Rite of the Church that one can brush off as some aberration.

Ok, then when exactly was this rite in use?, when was the last time it was used?, when was it approved? Who did the translations into English?

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html#IV.%20Is%20%E2%80%9CFor%20All%E2%80%9D%20an%20invalid%20translation%20of%20%E2%80%9CPro%20Vobis%20et%20Pro%20Multis%E2%80%9D?

IN DEFENSE OF THE PAULINE MASS
By Matt1618

IV. Is “For All” an Invalid
Translation of “Pro Vobis et Pro Multis”?

“So-called traditionalists charge that it is a mistranslation of the Latin text "Pro Vobis et Pro Multus", when it is translated as "For you and for All Men" instead of “For you and for many”. This supposedly implies the heretical idea that all men will necessarily be saved. Also, the so-called Traditionalists will argue that the formula for consecration, fixed for All Time by Christ, was "For Many". Therefore the consecration "For All" renders the consecration invalid, or to the less extreme, at least say that this is a corruption and altering of Jesus' words.

Is it a heretical idea that Christ died for all men, and thus "For Many" is an invalid idea? On the contrary, scripture and tradition teach unhesitatingly that Christ died for all men. No doubt the efficaciousness of the redemption will not save all men, but it is scripture and Church doctrine that Christ died for all:

He is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.(1 John 2:2)

For as in Adam ALL DIE, so also in Christ shall ALL BE made alive"(1 Cor. 15:22);

He... did not spare his own son but gave him up for us ALL...(Rom. 8:32).

In actuality, the consecratory offering has never been the place to go to find the explicit doctrine on how many will be saved. In fact the church has never said, that by this phrase “For Many”, has EVER BEEN the defining factor of how many people will be saved. In reality, our Lord said that few will be saved, as when our Lord said “For many are called, but few are chosen” (Mt. 22:14). He also said “For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few” (Mt. 7:14). The emphasis, is thus not on the extent of salvation, but on who Christ died for. Once we see this, an English understanding of the term “For Many” would indeed make the Tridentine Mass heretical, and show scripture and tradition to be contradictory. After all, the church has always taught that Christ died for all, not merely many. If we held that here is where we teach that "Christ died for many, and not all", the Catholic Church would be teaching a pile of contradictions, as I know most traditionalists do not hold.

In fact, the use of many, and for all, in the bible are interchangeable. For example, in Rom. 5:15, Paul writes:

“For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.”

If Christ died only for many, and could not mean all, we would have scripture contradicting Trent, which as faithful Catholics understand, is not possible. The Church teaches as dogma that original sin effects all, not many. Not only does Scripture not contradict Trent, Paul also uses the word for all in the very same section Paul wrote in Romans 5:12:

"Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."

As Whitehead points out, "the Hebrew and Aramaic words of "many" familiar to the Apostles, had a common meaning of "the all who are many" or an "undefined multitude" The bible on occasion uses all and many interchangeabley" (Whitehead, 101), as we saw with Paul.

Whitehead quotes the great biblical scholar, Pierre Benoit, O.P., who writes of the word "many" in the scriptures (Whitehead, 101):

"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 to the end of space and time that he includes in the 'many' for whom he was going to give his life as a 'ransom' (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45). (Benoit, Pierre, O.P. "The Accounts of the Institution and What they Imply," in "The Eucharist in the New Testament: A symposium", Helicon Press, Baltimore and Dublin, 1964, page 80.)

This is right in line with the great Doctors of the Church, as St. Thomas referencing the other great Doctor, St. Augustine on the issue:

"St. Augustine explains 'multi' to mean 'all men'; and this manner of speaking is frequently found in sacred scripture. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Question 75, Reply to Objection 2).

The Council of Trent's Catechism and St. Thomas Aquinas himself did hold that the consecratory formula should include the phrase 'for many' instead of 'for all'. They did justify the use of the consecration formula in that day. In the same way, the Council of Florence, when endeavoring to achieve union with the Armenian Orthodox Church did set forth a statement of the necessity of the formula which said "for many." (Whitehead, 107). Although that was the case, none said this was the only way that valid consecrations have taken in the past, or valid consecrations in the future can be said.

The Council of Trent recognized that the words "For you and for many" are not found in that form in the New Testament. Those words were "joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God." (Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. 226). The Council of Trent Catechism thus recognizes that it is the Church who determines what the proper form of a sacrament must be (Whitehead, 106). There is no hint that the Catechism was mandating that those precise words "For you and for many" be used for all time. In fact, during the institution of the original Eucharist itself, when Jesus consecrated the first Eucharist, we have different formulas in scripture. Although the gospels of Mark and Matthew have Jesus using the formula "for many" (although not "For you and for many" as the Tridentine rite has it), Luke and Paul do not use the phrase 'for many' at all. Paul probably wrote the first consecration in scripture, 1 Cor. 11:23-26:

"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes"

St. Paul reports receiving this consecratory formula from the Lord himself (by apostolic tradition)(v. 23). Notice, however, that he did not use the words "for many" or "for all". The same with St. Luke (Lk. 22:14-20). What so-called Traditionalist would have the nerve to say that his consecrations were not valid because Paul does not use the phrase 'for many'!

A study done by Dom Leclerq finds that there have been no fewer than 89 variations in the formulas for consecration in the history of the Church. (Whitehead, 109, Dom Leclerq, Dictionnaire d'Archeologie Chretienne et de Liturgie (Col. 730-750). Of these variations there are a number where not only the phrase "for many' but other words of the "Tridentine' form (Such as Mystery of Faith) of the consecration are not to be found.

The Catholic Church has never been limited to the Roman rite. It recognizes nine rites, which has its own right and proper way of doing things, including the celebration of the Eucharist, as Atwatter's Catholic Dictionary points out before Vatican II (Latin, Byzantine, Armenian, Chaldean, Coptic, Ethiopic, Malabar, Maronite and Syrian rites):

The Mass of St. Hippolytus, which dates from the 3rd century, does not use the phrase for many, but "This is my body, which is broken for you", and "This is my Blood which is shed for you". The following recognized Oriental Liturgies do not include "for many" in the consecration of the chalice: Catholic Ethiopian Rite, "Take, drink, this is my blood which is shed for you for the remission of sins." (From King, Archdale A., Rites of Eastern Christendom, Catholic Book Agency, Rome, 1947. Vol. 1, pp. 641-642). The same goes with the Liturgy of the Abyssinian Jacobites. Although most Eastern rites do presently use the phrase 'for many', in the ancient Eucharistic prayers many did not use that phrase. All of these Eucharistic prayers have been recognized by the Catholic Church.

Finally a few examples that Whitehead provides of Eucharistic prayers dating back to the 7th century in books published by the Holy See include the Anaphora (Eucharistic prayer) of the Lord Jesus Christ:(107)

"And as often as ye do this, make memorial of Me. And likewise also the cup, putting wine into it, giving thanks, blessing (three signings of the cross) and sanctifying, Thou gavest unto them. Truly, This is Thy Blood which was shed for our sins."

The Anaphora of the Evangelist John also does not use the 'for many' formula. [My note: And neither does the Anaphora of the Evangelist Mark, nor the ancient Maronite Rite use the 'for many' formula; all three use "all".]

Thus, the formulas that do not include "for many" are historic, and have long been recognized by the Catholic Church. The fact that the phrase is not included in the English translation of the Latin formula is thus not an innovation of Pauline Rite Mass.”

The following response is from a similar discussion over at AQ (some time ago). I am in full agreement with “thomist”, who wrote:

Pro multis is not all that is changed so let's analyze carefully whether there really is a change in meaning. In the English Novus Ordo the words are: it will be shed for you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven. Notice this is mentioned as a possibility, while the Latin Rite has it in the indicative mood: which will be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins. The possibility of forgiveness of sins for all implies the actual forgiveness for many.

Moreover, it has been also taught by the Church that there could be nothing in her discipline intrinsically evil or harmful to souls. (Cf. Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, Council of Trent, Pius XII Mediator Dei.) Certainly if the Novus Ordo consecration were invalid that would be harmful to souls and evil, constituting official idolatry in the Church.

I do happen to believe, no matter how individual men may behave, that the Holy Spirit will protect the Church from having idolatry in Her official worship.

I will go so far to say that if the Novus Ordo (if offered by the book) is invalid the only intellectually honest thing to do is to apostasize. For Catholicism will have been proven false.

This can be illustrated by a simple syllogism:

1. The Novus Ordo is the official liturgy of the Catholic Church, with full Papal approval, and purports to be a liturgy where bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of God Himself and adored as such.
2. But the bread (or at least the wine) actually are not so changed, leading the faithful and the Church to adore a mere creature as though it were God. That is idolatry by definition.
3. Then the Church will have idolatry as part of Her worship.
4. It must therefore be a false Church. A true Church must have true worship everywhere, and cannot possibly countenance any sort of false worship, much less idolatry.

Yes, I'm aware there are some traditionalists, including priests, who claim the Novus Ordo is doubtful and or invalid in itself. This is a terrible blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. Their attitude is just as non-Catholic as modernist Fr. Joe down the street. Harsh, but true. For Fr. Joe doesn't think that a N.O. priest, even with the right intention, is really offering the Blood of Christ, and neither do they. They think the Holy Ghost could let the Church fall into official idolatry. This is to say nothing less than that Christ let His Spotless Bride become a cheap whore, and that the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Truth, fell down on the job, and let the Church (of which He is the Invisible Head)

This does not mean I like everything else that goes on in the N.O. But I will fight everyone to the death on the matter of its intrinsic validity. To claim otherwise is simply non-Catholic, no matter how "traditional" it might seem.

As previously indicated, the documented evidence of three ancient Eastern Anaphoras clearly demonstrate that John Salza had his facts wrong where, in his article "'For many' versus ‘For all’: Is the Novus Ordo consecration valid?", he says: “At no point in her history did the Church ever use ‘for all’ in the consecration formula until the liturgical revolution of the 1960s”.

Not only has this been proven wrong, but for those who insist that “for many” is essential for a valid consecration of the chalice, as my previous post by “Matt1618” indicates, of the “89 variations in the formulas for consecration in the history of the Church … there are a number where not only the phrase ‘for many' but other words of the ‘Tridentine' form (Such as Mystery of Faith) of the consecration are not to be found”.

For example, of the 89 variations in the formulas for consecration found in the eight non-Roman rites of the Church, in the Maronite rite there are at least six Anaphoras in general use, one of which, as we have seen, contained the word “for all” (in Syriac or Aramaic) and was in use for over three hundred years. And, to answer GK’s question, the Anaphora was changed to “for many” only recently according to “Chorbishop Hector Doueihi, Eparchial Liturgist, Brooklyn, NY, and Father Richard Saad, St. Elias Maronite Church, Birmingham, AL”. (Adam Miller, Is the New Mass of Pope Paul VI Invalid?, p.16)

Of course, as De Defectibus tells us:

If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin.

First, a bit of contextual history provided by Salza:

De Defectibus … was incorporated into the Roman Missal promulgated by the decree Quo Primum on July 14, 1570. The document intended to address defects that occur during the celebration of the Holy Mass. […] However, it is obvious that we must harmonize De Defectibus’ apparent teaching on the necessity of the long form with the Catechism’s teaching on the sufficiency of the short form. If these texts cannot be harmonized, we would have to accuse a sainted pope of contradicting himself on a grave matter concerning the validity of the sacrament. After all, St. Pius V released the Catechism of Trent around November 1566, and De Defectibus only a little more than three years later, in 1570. Do we really want to accuse St. Pius V in 1570 of not knowing what he taught in 1566? I don’t think so.

This brings us to the important “short vs. long form” debate, and to John Salza’s credit, he brings to the discussion an interesting perspective and some critical distinctions that shed some light on this important question.

Some may be surprised to learn, for example, that not only did the Catechism of the Council of Trent make “a distinction between the essential and non-essential words in the form”, it also tells us what the essential words are (thus validating the sufficiency of the “short form” thesis).

Not only that, but, and “Most importantly, the Council of Trent directs the Church to use “the form which shall be prescribed for each of the sacraments by the holy Council in the catechism” (Session 24, 7. De Reformatione). In other words, the Council tells us to look to the Catechism of Trent, not De Defectibus, for the definitive guidance on what constitutes “the form…for each of the sacraments.”

De Defectibus, in other words:

“says the words ‘Hic est enim…in remissionem peccatorum’ (the long form) constitute “the words of consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament.’ The document also says that if anything in the form is missing or changed, and this changes the meaning of the words, the sacrament is invalid. The document does not expressly distinguish between essential and non-essential words within the form.

It follows, then:

… from the standpoint of the level of ecclesiastical authority, the Catechism of Trent is more authoritative than De Defectibus. If there were a contradiction between the two documents, a universal catechism takes precedence over disciplinary guidelines concerning the liturgy when addressing the same issue. While De Defectibus does touch upon matters of faith and morals, its primary purpose is to explicate discipline and not teach doctrine. Certainly, the document was not intended to settle the question on the form of consecration, or this debate would have been over more than four centuries ago.

In closing, Salza goes on to say:

Second, it cannot be established with any certainty that there is a contradiction between the Trent Catechism and De Defectibus. When De Defectibus refers to the “wording required for the act of consecrating,” it does not tell us t words are “required.”ever, based on the precedent of the Catechism of Trent, the “required” form “consists of those words which signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the blood of our Lord.” In other words, De Defectibus seems to be following the Catechism’s distinction between words in the form that are “required” (the short form) and words in the form that are not “required” (the remaining words in the long form). If not, then the Church contradicted her own Catechism three years after it was released, and not a single theologian of the time made an issue of it.

Hence, when De Defectibus refers to changes in “the form of the consecration” so that “the words did not mean the same thing,” it can be interpreted to mean only those changes to the words in the short form (the “required” words).

Agreeably, De Defectibus does not expressly make this distinction, and simply refers to “the form of this Sacrament” as the long form. But its ostensible distinction between required and non-required words can be harmonized with the Catechism of Trent. In fact, De Defectibus explicitly acknowledges that the form of consecration contains non-essential words when it says “if he…were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin.”

GK wrote:
That's not what it is saying at all. It gives the the words of consecration and states if anyone changes this (meaning) he does not confect the sacrament. He's not talking about obscure rites, or "respective rites" and he certainly is not talking about new rites since he just finished banning all rites less than 200 years old.

Of course that’s what it is saying; but you are missing the forest because of your fixation on the tree. The tree is represented by the words of consecration of the Roman Rite; and, contrary to your erroneous statement, the Roman Rite is NOT “the normative rite of the Catholic Church”, it is the normative Rite of the Latin Church or the “Church of Rome” (which now includes the “extraordinary and ordinary forms” of the Roman Rite). There are eight other non-Latin (non-Roman) Rites, each of which is a “normative Rite of the Catholic Church”.

That Pope Pius V (as Bishop of Rome as well as Supreme Pontiff) provides the exact form of the Roman Rite in his disciplinary decree, does NOT mean to suggest that the following prescription is reserved for the Roman Rite alone; the eight other Rites are bound by the same prescription as it applies to their respective (and approved) forms:

“If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament”

The prescription is universal. The entire form of the Roman Rite is particular to the Roman Rite alone.

GK wrote:
Anybody knows that "for many" does not mean the same things as "for all". The form has been changed, at least in the English version.

Not so fast. As indicated in a previous post, “St. Augustine explains 'multi' to mean 'all men'; and this manner of speaking is frequently found in sacred scripture.” Also “the Hebrew and Aramaic words of ‘many’ familiar to the Apostles, had a common meaning of ‘the all who are many’" or an ‘undefined multitude’ The bible on occasion uses all and many interchangeabley" (Whitehead, 101), as we saw with [St.] Paul.”

In fact, I noticed you didn’t respond to the following question:

In the Old Roman Rite, in the Offertory we read:

"OFFERIMUS TIBI, DOMINUS ... TOTIUS MUNDI SALUTE."

The priest is stating that the chalice is offered up for "our salvation and for the whole world".

Please explain, GT, how we are supposed to understand the sense of words, and who supplies the Catholic understanding of the same, when we know the efficacious application of Christ's blood is not for the whole world, but only for those who are worthy to receive it.

Is the Old Rite guilty of promoting the heresy of universal salvation?

While you're at it, how do remain consistent when examining our Lord’s words, “for you and for many” when “you” quite specifically (uni-vocally) refers to all of those who are seated at the Last Supper (the 12 Apostles)? One of the 12 seated with our Lord when he instituted the Eucharist is Judas, who obviously would not benefit from the efficacy of the sacrament.

Now, if “for all” cannot signify “all of the many” because “all does not mean many”, then “for you” cannot signify “most of you”, “many of you” or “all but one of you”, but it must signify “all of you seated with Me, my Apostles” because that’s what “you” literally signifies.

Good luck with that; meanwhile, the answer is simple:

As far as the Church is concerned, “for you” and “for all”, with the latter in the context of the former ICEL English translation, “must be understood in accordance with the mind of the Church as expressed in the original Latin text.”

Since it is the Church that supplies the essential understanding to her approved forms, what part of this do you not understand?

tornpage wrote:And this is one of the reasons I have always been suspicious of this Miller argument: we have theologians of the Church making a translation (the ICEL "for all" translation) that is subject to vigorous dispute and charges of heresy from some quarters and we do not hear about this "justification" of the translation being similar to an "ancient" Marionite Rite Anaphora until some layman named Adam Miller advances the argument . . . yet justifications were made before Miller, by priests and theologians no less.

And we have a knowledgable lay Catholic like Salza saying, "At no point in her history did the Church ever use 'for all' in the consecration formula until the liturgical revolution of the 1960s."

Obscure? It appears that way to me.

You appear to get slightly agitated when accepted “tradition” gets turned upside down and the arguments of “knowledgeable” lay experts like Omlor, Salza and the notorious Dimond brothers are refuted with actual documented evidence. The fact is that Omlor did mention the Maronite Rite in his book, but cited only one of the English translations thereof (“for many”).

But tell me, how much actual research did Salza or the Dimond brothers conduct before drawing their conclusion? You can’t say, because, as far as I know, they didn’t tell us. Yeah, along comes this “layman” named Adam Miller (with a Masters in Sacred Theology, for what its worth) who, with a little digging comes up with actual documented evidence (to include first-hand testimony) that confirms the existence of these “obscure” Anaphoras that contains “for all”.

Now, if “obscure” means not known to the western public at large, I have no problem with that. But these Anaphoras were not “obscure” to the generations of Catholics in the Fertile Crescent who participated in this Liturgy for centuries.

And here you are complaining about Anaphoras that do not say the same words said by our Lord (I guess St. Luke and St. Paul didn’t get the memo either since both of them omitted the subject words completely, and the latter received a direct revelation from our Lord on the words of consecration, as it was said by St. Paul at Mass, and, we may assume, by the churches he founded), when at least two of those Anaphoras contain “all”, while providing the additional words that provide the proper context, as in “all of the many” (a transliteration familiar to St. Paul and scripture) who will receive the benefit of the sacrament.

Rather than being “suspicious of the Miller argument” (not that you are calling his research or scholarship into question, or anything), would you like his email address so you can contact him and voice your suspicions directly?

Or, will you simply continue to voice your “suspicion” of his findings every time his work, and his documented evidence, is cited, without giving us a single valid reason why his evidence should be suspect?

One would think that one of these “knowledgeable” experts would have challenged the findings of Miller by now with evidence of their own that refutes him.

Where is it? All I’ve seen from some of those who are clearly troubled by his research are unsubstantiated suspicions about his work, or, overt attacks against his person and his scholarship ... without a single piece of evidence to support it.

Miller includes in his editions an Appendix that contains the latest objections against his arguments, and he answers each one of them. There has not been a single argument or proof that I am aware of that calls into question or refutes the FACT of the three subject Anaphoras.

It would be very easy to contact his Maronite first-hand sources and to review the evidence for oneself.

Lets just pretend it is 100 years from now and someone is posting this quote from Cardinal Arinze below. I mean how much clearer can the following be? Children are being aborted/Killed every day. Time much better spent that cries out for much more action and urgency

[quote]Letter from Cardinal Francis Arinze on the Translation of Pro Multis

On October 17, 2006, Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, wrote to the Presidents of all Conferences of Bishops concerning the translation of pro multis in the words ofconsecration of the Order of Mass. A copy of the Cardinal-Prefect’s letter… [is] provided… for the information of our readers.


CONGREGATIO DE CULTU DIVINO
ET DISCIPLINA SACRAMENTORUM



Rome, 17 October 2006
Prot. no. 467/05/L

Your Eminence / Your Excellency,

In July 2005 this Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, by agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote to all Presidents of Conferences of Bishops to ask their considered opinion regarding the translation into the various vernaculars of the expression pro multis in the formula for the consecration of the Precious Blood during the celebration of Holy Mass (ref. Prot. n. 467/05/L of 9 July 2005). The replies received from the Bishops’ Conferences were studied by the two Congregations and a report was made to the Holy Father. At his direction, this Congregation now writes to Your Eminence / Your Excellency in the following terms:

A text corresponding to the words pro multis, handed down by the Church, constitutes the formula that has been in use in the Roman Rite in Latin from the earliest centuries. In the past 30 years or so, some approved vernacular texts have carried the interpretative translation “for all,” “per tutti,” or equivalents.
There is no doubt whatsoever regarding the validity of Masses celebrated with the use of a duly approved formula containing a formula equivalent to “for all” as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already declared (cf. Sacra Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Declaratio de sensu tribuendo adprobationi versionum formularum sacramentalium, 25 ianuarii 1974, AAS 66 [1974], 661). Indeed, the formula “for all” would undoubtedly correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord’s intention expressed in the text. It is a dogma of faith that Christ died on the Cross for all men and women (cf. John 11:52; 2 Corinthians 5:14-15; Titus 2:11; 1 John 2:2).
There are, however, many arguments in favor of a more precise rendering of the traditional formula pro multis:


The Synoptic Gospels (Mt 26:28; Mk 14:24) make specific reference to “many” for whom the Lord is offering the Sacrifice, and this wording has been emphasized by some biblical scholars in connection with the words of the prophet Isaiah (53:11-12). It would have been entirely possible in the Gospel texts to have said “for all” (for example, cf. Luke 12:41); instead, the formula given in the institution narrative is “for many,” and the words have been faithfully translated thus in most modern biblical versions.


The Roman Rite in Latin has always said pro multis and never pro omnibus in the consecration of the chalice.


The anaphoras of the various Oriental Rites, whether in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, the Slavic languages, etc., contain the verbal equivalent of the Latin pro multis in their respective languages.


“For many” is a faithful translation of pro multis, whereas “for all” is rather an explanation of the sort that belongs properly to catechesis.


The expression “for many,” while remaining open to the inclusion of each human person, is reflective also of the fact that this salvation is not brought about in some mechanistic way, without one’s own willing or participation; rather, the believer is invited to accept in faith the gift that is being offered and to receive the supernatural life that is given to those who participate in this mystery, living it out in their lives as well so as to be numbered among the “many” to whom the text refers.


In line with the Instruction Liturgiam authenticam, effort should be made to be more faithful to the Latin texts of the typical editions.
The Bishops’ Conferences of those countries where the formula “for all” or its equivalent is currently in use are therefore requested to undertake the necessary catechesis of the faithful on this matter in the next one or two years to prepare them for the introduction of a precise vernacular translation of the formula pro multis (e.g., “for many,” “per molti,” etc.) in the next translation of the Roman Missal that the Bishops and the Holy See will approve for use in their country.
With the expression of my high esteem and respect, I remain, Your Eminence /Your Excellency,

Devotedly Yours in Christ,

+ Francis Cardinal Arinze
Prefect


[quote]

Rome, 17 October 2006
Prot. no. 467/05/L

Your Eminence / Your Excellency,

In July 2005 this Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, by agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote to all Presidents of Conferences of Bishops to ask their considered opinion regarding the translation into the various vernaculars of the expression pro multis in the formula for the consecration of the Precious Blood during the celebration of Holy Mass (ref. Prot. n. 467/05/L of 9 July 2005). The replies received from the Bishops’ Conferences were studied by the two Congregations and a report was made to the Holy Father. At his direction, this Congregation now writes to Your Eminence / Your Excellency in the following terms:

A text corresponding to the words pro multis, handed down by the Church, constitutes the formula that has been in use in the Roman Rite in Latin from the earliest centuries. In the past 30 years or so, some approved vernacular texts have carried the interpretative translation “for all,” “per tutti,” or equivalents.
There is no doubt whatsoever regarding the validity of Masses celebrated with the use of a duly approved formula containing a formula equivalent to “for all” as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already declared (cf. Sacra Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Declaratio de sensu tribuendo adprobationi versionum formularum sacramentalium, 25 ianuarii 1974, AAS 66 [1974], 661). Indeed, the formula “for all” would undoubtedly correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord’s intention expressed in the text. It is a dogma of faith that Christ died on the Cross for all men and women (cf. John 11:52; 2 Corinthians 5:14-15; Titus 2:11; 1 John 2:2).
There are, however, many arguments in favor of a more precise rendering of the traditional formula pro multis:


The Synoptic Gospels (Mt 26:28; Mk 14:24) make specific reference to “many” for whom the Lord is offering the Sacrifice, and this wording has been emphasized by some biblical scholars in connection with the words of the prophet Isaiah (53:11-12). It would have been entirely possible in the Gospel texts to have said “for all” (for example, cf. Luke 12:41); instead, the formula given in the institution narrative is “for many,” and the words have been faithfully translated thus in most modern biblical versions.


The Roman Rite in Latin has always said pro multis and never pro omnibus in the consecration of the chalice.


The anaphoras of the various Oriental Rites, whether in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, the Slavic languages, etc., contain the verbal equivalent of the Latin pro multis in their respective languages.


“For many” is a faithful translation of pro multis, whereas “for all” is rather an explanation of the sort that belongs properly to catechesis.


The expression “for many,” while remaining open to the inclusion of each human person, is reflective also of the fact that this salvation is not brought about in some mechanistic way, without one’s own willing or participation; rather, the believer is invited to accept in faith the gift that is being offered and to receive the supernatural life that is given to those who participate in this mystery, living it out in their lives as well so as to be numbered among the “many” to whom the text refers.


In line with the Instruction Liturgiam authenticam, effort should be made to be more faithful to the Latin texts of the typical editions.
The Bishops’ Conferences of those countries where the formula “for all” or its equivalent is currently in use are therefore requested to undertake the necessary catechesis of the faithful on this matter in the next one or two years to prepare them for the introduction of a precise vernacular translation of the formula pro multis (e.g., “for many,” “per molti,” etc.) in the next translation of the Roman Missal that the Bishops and the Holy See will approve for use in their country.
With the expression of my high esteem and respect, I remain, Your Eminence /Your Excellency,

Devotedly Yours in Christ,

+ Francis Cardinal Arinze
Prefect

In other words (in non-gobbledegook language), "We got it wrong."

I wish people would stop telling me how my time would be better served.