Regarding the Words of Consecration of the Wine

[Era Might]

[quote name='Desert Walker' date='Mar 15 2006, 12:34 PM']The only doubts begin to arise when you consider which ritual actually contributes more grace to the interior life of the Church.  There IS a reality here!

[right][snapback]912423[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Come on! Whether the Liturgy uses "For all" or "For many" has nothing to do with the grace available to the Church, or those attending Mass.

It's a legitimate diversity in language. We need to get over it. There are more important things in life.

Edited March 15, 2006 by Era Might

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 15 2006, 10:38 AM']The People of God aren't stupid.

If you want to play that card, "for many" could suggest to the faithful that some are predestined to hell, since the blood was only shed "for many".

The answer here is not to attack "for all", but to provide proper catechesis, just as we should provide proper catechesis vis a vis "for many" and any other element of the Sacred Liturgy which can be misconstrued.
[right][snapback]912440[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well it doesn't suggest that some are predestined for Hell. You just made an illogical jump. It DOES suggest that it is possible to actually GO to Hell by one's rejection of Christ and his way.

Proper catechesis... yeah you're right. And it isn't happening! Ratzinger actually speculated in one of his many writings that it would more effectively catechize people if the priest was turned around again, because many have lost the sense that what we're doing at Mass is directed to God, not ourselves.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Desert Walker' date='Mar 15 2006, 12:48 PM']Well it doesn't suggest that some are predestined for Hell.  You just made an illogical jump.  [right][snapback]912470[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

And "for all" doesn't suggest anything improper either.

"For all" has been declared a legitimate form for the Liturgy. If it is causing confusion in anyone (which would be pretty rare IMO), the answer is not to attack "for all", but to give proper catechesis.

If you prefer "for many", that's fine. But just because you prefer one thing doesn't mean you have to attack the other.

Edited March 15, 2006 by Era Might

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 15 2006, 10:40 AM']Come on! Whether the Liturgy uses "For all" or "For many" has nothing to do with the grace available to the Church, or those attending Mass.
[right][snapback]912446[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

There is no way you can conclusively prove that statement.

What could be more important than the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass oh Christian?!

[Era Might]

[quote name='Desert Walker' date='Mar 15 2006, 12:50 PM']There is no way you can conclusively prove that statement.

What could be more important than the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass oh Christian?!
[right][snapback]912475[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well, let's see.

You claim the Church has deprived its children of grace because it changed the language in Mass.

I don't need to prove anything. This statement is absurd on its face. The grace of the Church doesn't depend on this or that Liturgical form, this or that way of doing things. The Liturgy is the Liturgy. Period.

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 15 2006, 10:50 AM']And "for all" doesn't suggest anything improper either.

"For all" has been declared a legitimate form for the Liturgy. If it is causing confusion in anyone (which would be pretty rare IMO), the answer is not to attack "for all", but to give proper catechesis.

If you prefer "for many", that's fine. But just because you prefer one thing doesn't mean you have to attack the other.
[right][snapback]912474[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Do you know where confusion comes from? Inconsistency. You're looking at this from a secular point of view.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Desert Walker' date='Mar 15 2006, 12:52 PM']Do you know where confusion comes from?  Inconsistency.  You're looking at this from a secular point of view.
[right][snapback]912480[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well when the secularites come into the Church, they can be catechised along with everyone else.

You think non-Catholics care about whether it says "for all" or "for many"? This is something only we Catholics go on and on about, because we're crazy like that. How many angels can dance on the pin of a needle that is engraved with the words "for all"?

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Desert Walker' date='Mar 15 2006, 10:48 AM']Well it doesn't suggest that some are predestined for Hell.  You just made an illogical jump.  It DOES suggest that it is possible to actually GO to Hell by one's rejection of Christ and his way.[/quote]Actually if you wish to adhere to the strict literal understanding that you are imposing to refute "for all" then "for many" does imply that the Bloody was not shed for some meaning they are predestined to hell.

That was Era's point. If you want to refute the use of one an strict literal grounds, you must apply that to the other as well. If this is the case, then "for many" would mean that there are some for whom the Blood was not shed. We know that is not true as you indicated in a later post. One must accept Christ (oversimplification), but the point is that if you wish for a strict, first glance literal reading, for many would exclude certain people which is predestination.

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 15 2006, 10:52 AM']Well, let's see.

You claim the Church has deprived its children of grace because it changed the language in Mass.

I don't need to prove anything. This statement is absurd on its face. The grace of the Church doesn't depend on this or that Liturgical form, this or that way of doing things. The Liturgy is the Liturgy. Period.
[right][snapback]912479[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

So we could leave stuff out of the ritual and it wouldn't matter? Ok let's just get rid of the Eucharistic prayer. It will still be the liturgy. It's just outward forms thats all.

You need to get with the program. God became FLESH! He became MATTER and FORM!

[Era Might]

[quote name='Desert Walker' date='Mar 15 2006, 12:55 PM']So we could leave stuff out of the ritual and it wouldn't matter?  Ok let's just get rid of the Eucharistic prayer.  It will still be the liturgy.  It's just outward forms thats all.

You need to get with the program.  God became FLESH!  He became MATTER and FORM!
[right][snapback]912489[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The Canon has been changed too.

John XXIII added St. Joseph to it.

*HORRIFIC GASP*

*THE HORRORS! INCONSISTENCY!*

Edited March 15, 2006 by Era Might

[Era Might]

I joke, but Catholics were actually scandalized by the addition of St. Joseph to the Canon.

This too shall pass.

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Mar 15 2006, 10:54 AM']One must accept Christ (oversimplification), but the point is that if you wish for a strict, first glance literal reading, for many would exclude certain people which is predestination.
[right][snapback]912486[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

This betrays a lack of understanding about how Christ's saving blood is actually applied to us. It is done sacramentally, meaning WE"VE got to participate in the application of the blood upon our own lives. We have free will, we can reject the blood of Christ. "For many" has nothing to do with predistination; which would follow from the phrase "For the elect."

Christ's blood is a free gift, but has no effect on us if our lives have no conformity to His.

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 15 2006, 10:59 AM']I joke, but Catholics were actually scandalized by the addition of St. Joseph to the Canon.

This too shall pass.
[right][snapback]912497[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Funny, but that does not compare with the subject at hand.

[Era Might]

It sure does.

Every generation of Catholics is aghast at change. The mendicant movement was condemned. Thomas Aquinas was accused of being a heretic for his Aristotelean synthesis. Paul VI is accused of betraying Liturgical Tradition.

Times change. The Church has accepted "for all" as a legitimate Liturgical form. Like I said, we need to get over it. Or we can nitpick about this and that and get worked up over nothing, in the meantime alienating people who might convert if they weren't disgusted by the legalism we submit ourselves to so often, fighting amongst ourselves.

Edited March 15, 2006 by Era Might

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Desert Walker' date='Mar 15 2006, 11:04 AM'] "For many" has nothing to do with predistination; which would follow from the phrase "For the elect."[/quote]But it does. For if you want a strict and literal interpretation then "for many" would exclude people from being able to partake in it. We understand how it is applied to us, but if Christ's blood was shed for only 80% of the world, then 20% of the world would not be able to partake in it and thus be predestined to hell. That 80% for which the Blood was shed would be considred there elect here.

Our point is that it was shed "for all" in the sense that all may choose to come to Christ and partake of his salvific Blood, but it was shed "for many" in the understanding that while it is availible for all, only many will come to Christ. It is a both, and understanding.

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 15 2006, 11:13 AM']It sure does.

Every generation of Catholics is aghast at change. The mendicant movement was condemned. Thomas Aquinas was accused of being a heretic for his Aristotelean synthesis. Paul VI is accused of betraying Liturgical Tradition.

Times change. The Church has accepted "for all" as a legitimate Liturgical form. Like I said, we need to get over it. Or we can nitpick about this and that and get worked up over nothing, in the meantime alienating people who might convert if they weren't disgusted by the legalism we submit ourselves to so often, fighting amongst ourselves.
[right][snapback]912524[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The great thing about Catholics is that they give a carp about the so-called little things in life.

Ya know you sound an awful lot like you think any change that comes down the pike is good change. Some change is good and some change is bad.

One thing I havn't made clear is that I also accept the current words as legit lit form. But I don't think they will stay that way for reasons I have tried to present and other reasons. I have a strong feeling about this.

Ratzinger himself has said that the perception that Liturgical Tradition was abandoned is understandable given the horribly irresponsible way in which Sacrosanctum Concilium was "interpreted" by so-called liturgists.

Edited March 15, 2006 by Desert Walker

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Mar 15 2006, 11:18 AM']But it does. For if you want a strict and literal interpretation then "for many" would exclude people from being able to partake in it. We understand how it is applied to us, but if Christ's blood was shed for only 80% of the world, then 20% of the world would not be able to partake in it and thus be predestined to hell. That 80% for which the Blood was shed would be considred there elect here.

Our point is that it was shed "for all" in the sense that all may choose to come to Christ and partake of his salvific Blood, but it was shed "for many" in the understanding that while it is availible for all, only many will come to Christ. It is a both, and understanding.
[right][snapback]912530[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well put. I totally agree. I see the point. I'm still not sure whether "for all" is what Jesus Himself said. And wouldn't it be important to say exactly what he said...?

Also did Jesus speak in Arimaic or Hebrew? Was Hebrew the language of the Passover ritual or something? And if, in Hebrew the phrases "For all" and "For many" are interchangeable, what did Jesus intend to say? That is, what phrase, in OUR language, reflects what He meant?

I personally think Trent got it right.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Desert Walker' date='Mar 15 2006, 11:32 AM']  I'm still not sure whether "for all" is what Jesus Himself said.  And wouldn't it be important to say exactly what he said...?

Also did Jesus speak in Arimaic or Hebrew?  Was Hebrew the language of the Passover ritual or something?  And if, in Hebrew the phrases "For all" and "For many" are interchangeable, what did Jesus intend to say?  That is, what phrase, in OUR language, reflects what He meant?[right][snapback]912552[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]I would agree that it matters what Christ said. As far as which language he would have spoken at the Last Supper, I would wager Hebrew, but I cannot be sure. If it was indeed Hebrew, and there is no real difference in the words in that language, then I would say that Christ had the right understanding. Each language has its limitations, while Hebrew might have an inherent understanding which encompassed the correct understanding in a simple phrase, it seems that English does not.

[Dave]

Just for the record, I believe that going from "for many" in the Latin to "for all" in the vernacular isn't the best translation. But it couldn't possibly make the Mass invalid. It is a fact of history that over the centuries many canons have been used and are still in use, and that there exists a great variety of words of the consecration. One of the finest scholars in Europe at that time, Fr. J. van der Ploeg, O.P. of Nijmegen, Holland, has a list of dozens of different words of the consecration, which have been used at one time or another in the Church’s long history, and would, if used today, still validly consecrate. They all agree on the one essential: the words "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood," or "This is the chalice of My Blood." These words and no others constitute the absolute essential words of the consecration, the form of the sacrament. Regardless of how canons may have differed over the years, "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood" are the one thing they all had in common. Amator Veritatis, you once told me that the idea that "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood" being all that was necessary for a valid consecration was merely theological opinion. But that's just not true; I mean, how could the Church have endorsed so many different canons over the years with the one thing in common being "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood"? Many of these canons never even had "for many" OR "for all" in them!

The Mass of St. Hippolytus, for example, 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." neither does the Catholic Ethiopian Rite: "Take, drink, this is My Blood which is shed for you for the remission of sins." 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.

Still other examples include the Anaphora of the Lord Jesus Christ:

"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.

Edited March 16, 2006 by Dave

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Dave' date='Mar 15 2006, 08:18 PM']Just for the record, I believe that going from "for many" in the Latin to "for all" in the vernacular isn't the best translation.  [/quote]I agree totally. When I was taking Latin we would translate the collect and the like for the upcoming Sunday. I cringed everytime we translated them because of the omissions or additions that ICEL made. While they may be approved I nonetheless developed a healthy dislike for ICEL.