Author Topic: Does "for all" invalidate the new mass?  (Read 1545 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5273
  • Reputation: +3047/-1363
  • Gender: Male
Does "for all" invalidate the new mass?
« on: October 11, 2019, 05:19:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Bzycat brought up a question about whether or not Paul VI's consecration formula of "for all" invalidates the mass.  It is my contention that the use of "for all" is an invalidating ideal, however I am not the Church, so this is just my opinion.  At the very least, the use of this phrase, instead of the orthodox "for many", casts a dark shadow of positive doubt over the new mass.  Also, the use of such a phrase is illicit, and therefore gravely sinful, as the Church has clearly stated multiple times the EXACT words to use in the consecration formula.  (note: this whole argument applies for the latin rite of the mass, of which the new mass is part of.)
    .
    I argue that the use of "for all" is invalidating for the following reasons (again, at the very least, this change gives positive doubt):
    .
    1.  Pope St Pius V's law "De Defectibus" - 1570
    .
    St Pius V explained many defects which would invalid the consecration of the mass, and some which would not invalidate it, but would be illicit and gravely sinful.  He explains that any defects related to the "form" of the consecration are invalidating.  As he explains in part 1:
    .
    I - Defects of the Missing
    There is no Sacrament if any of these is missing: the proper matter, the form, including the intention, and the priestly ordination of the celebrant. If these things are present, the Sacrament is valid, no matter what else is lacking. There are other defects, however, which may involve sin or scandal, even if they do not impair the validity of the Sacrament.
    .
    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:

    Bread  -  HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM,
    .
    Wine  -  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.
    .
    .
    My comment:  "Pro multis" above is the latin phrase of "for many".  It is quite clear that St Pius V considered this phrase as part of the necessary form for the consecration of the wine.
    .
    Further, notice what is said to be the consecration formula for the bread.  This is also different from what Paul VI introduced.  See below.  
    .
    -  http://www.dailycatholic.org/defectib.htm
    .
    .
    2.  Pope Paul VI's law "Missale Romanum" - 1969
    .
    Pope Paul VI's new mass made changes to both prayers of the consecration.  In the prayer over the bread, he added two phrases before the Traditional/orthodox consecration formula.  Changes in red.
    .
    Bread  -  Thus, in each Eucharistic Prayer, we wish that the words be pronounced thus: over the bread: ACCIPITE ET MANDUCATE EX HOC OMNES: HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, QUOD PRO VOBIS TRADETUR;
    .
    Wine  -   ACCIPITE ET BIBITE EX EO OMNES: HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI, (....Mysterium Fidei....) QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM. HOC FACITE IN MEAM COMMEMORATIONEM.
    .
    The words MYSTERIUM FIDEI, taken from the context of the words of Christ the Lord, and said by the priest, serve as an introduction to the acclamation of the faithful.
    .
    My Comment:  Any words which Paul VI added from St Pius V's formula are highlighted in red.  Any (missing) words are in parenthesis.
    .
    Firstly, you will notice that Paul VI's conscration formula is vastly different from St Pius V's.  In the consecration of the bread, Paul VI did not change anything, but he did add phrases before and after.  Does this invalidate the formula?  I don't know.  But Cardinal Ottaviani and Bacci both said that the additional phrases made the formula seem like a "narrative" instead of a "1st person" voice of the priest, who is supposed to be speaking in the place of Christ.  This is highly problematic, and can lead those of weak faith to believe that the priest is not ACTUALLY consecrating the bread, but only "narrating" what Christ said on Holy Thursday night.  This change is certainly a protestant change and is highly unorthodox.
    .
    Secondly, in regards to the consecration of the wine, the same problem occurs as above, where additional phrases are added which makes the formula appear as a narration instead of a "1st person" sacrifice by the priest.
    .
    Thirdly, the phrase "mysterium fidei" is entirely removed from the consecration formula.  How is this not invalidating?  
    .
    Fourthly, notice that Paul VI's formula contains the phrase "pro multis" which means "for many".  Thus, even the true, latin phrase of the new mass says that the idea of "for many" is necessary.
    .
    Conclusion:  If for 40 years, those "priests" who said the new mass in the vernacular used "for all" instead of "for many", I don't know how one can argue that these were valid consecrations.  Both St Pius V and Paul VI used "for many" in the latin.  Anyone with half a brain knows that "many" does not mean the same as "all".  Add to this the additional phrases which make the consecration seem like a narration of a historical event, instead of an actual sacrifice which is CURRENTLY taking place on the altar, and my conclusion is that the novus ordo is invalid which uses "for all".  It may ALSO be invalid by adding the additional phrases, which changes the meaning of the formula.
    .
    Again, I am not the Church, so this is just my opinion.  At the very least, these changes should give all catholics positive doubt that the new mass is invalid.  These are also the thoughts of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci when they studied the new mass before it was introduced.
    .
    http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690403_missale-romanum.html

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 980
    • Reputation: +210/-75
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Does "for all" invalidate the new mass?
    « Reply #1 on: October 11, 2019, 05:41:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I am curious if Cardinal Ottaviani thought it was invalid or not.  Did he ever comment on that?


    Offline forlorn

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1743
    • Reputation: +686/-965
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Does "for all" invalidate the new mass?
    « Reply #2 on: October 11, 2019, 05:43:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I was told the Latin phrase is actually "for the many", and that "the many" means "all" in Latin. Am I mistaken here or what's the story? 

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5273
    • Reputation: +3047/-1363
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Does "for all" invalidate the new mass?
    « Reply #3 on: October 11, 2019, 05:55:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    I am curious if Cardinal Ottaviani thought it was invalid or not.  Did he ever comment on that?

    +Ottaviani could not definitively say it was invalid, because he was commenting on a yet-unreleased rite.  In other words, he didn't know if that was the final product.  He did say that one could positively doubt the consecration.
    .

    Quote
    I was told the Latin phrase is actually "for the many", and that "the many" means "all" in Latin. Am I mistaken here or what's the story? 
    Multis = many.
    Omnes = all.
    2 totally different words.

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 980
    • Reputation: +210/-75
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Does "for all" invalidate the new mass?
    « Reply #4 on: October 11, 2019, 05:57:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • +Ottaviani could not definitively say it was invalid, because he was commenting on a yet-unreleased rite.  In other words, he didn't know if that was the final product.  He did say that one could positively doubt the consecration.
    .
    Multis = many.
    Omnes = all.
    2 totally different words.
    hmmmmmm.  Did Ottaviani ever say the New Mass with the new formula?  

    Not an argument for any position I'm legit curious.


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 20117
    • Reputation: +10988/-5298
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Does "for all" invalidate the new mass?
    « Reply #5 on: October 11, 2019, 05:58:18 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • I believe that it almost-certainly invalidates the NOM.  Interestingly, they just brought back the "for many" translation in most of the vernacular languages.  In the meantime, nearly all the priests ordained in the old rite by a bishop consecrated in the old rite are gone or in retirement.  Father Pulvermacher once said something to the effect that they got rid of the Mass, but they'll allow it to come back once they had gotten rid of the priests.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 20117
    • Reputation: +10988/-5298
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Does "for all" invalidate the new mass?
    « Reply #6 on: October 11, 2019, 06:03:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • hmmmmmm.  Did Ottaviani ever say the New Mass with the new formula?  

    Not an argument for any position I'm legit curious.

    I don't know.  Did the Italian vernacular also have the "for all" mistranslation?

    I knew a Jesuit priest in Chicago who offered the Novus Ordo only in Latin because he felt that the "for all" rendered it invalid.  He was not otherwise particularly conservative (except for being Pro Life).  He refused to say it in vernacular, standing up to his superiors saying that he had the right to say it in the Latin.

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5273
    • Reputation: +3047/-1363
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Does "for all" invalidate the new mass?
    « Reply #7 on: October 11, 2019, 06:13:11 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    Interestingly, they just brought back the "for many" translation in most of the vernacular languages. 
    Right, I think that +Benedict made that change when he introduced his latin-english hybrid new mass.
    .
    But does this fix all the other problems with the consecration formulas, namely 1) the added phrases which imply a narration instead of a sacrificial act by the priest, and 2) the removal of the "mystery of faith" phrase?  Even if a "priest" uses "for many" there are still potential invalidating aspects.
    .
    So, for 40 years, the new mass, when said the in the vernacular, had multiple doubtfully valid problems.  How many "masses" were affected from 1969 til 2008ish?  Here's the calculation:
    .
    40+ years, times 52 sundays, times 1 billion catholics = approx. 2 QUADrillion (that's a 1,000 trillion) catholic were deprived of a valid mass.  Even if you assume that only half used "for all", it's still 1 quadrillion.  That's a lot of invalid masses, which have absolutely no graces.  0%.  zilch.
    .
    It's insanity that people keep defending the novus ordo. 


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 20117
    • Reputation: +10988/-5298
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Does "for all" invalidate the new mass?
    « Reply #8 on: October 11, 2019, 06:27:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I was told the Latin phrase is actually "for the many", and that "the many" means "all" in Latin. Am I mistaken here or what's the story?

    He's referring to the Greek where many with the article, so "THE many", means "the multitudes", which could be rendered as "all".  Perhaps you've heard the expression "hoi polloi".  Only problem for this theory?  The Greek version given in the Gospel of St. Mark LACKS the article "the" and simply says "many".  Many in Greek without the article can never mean anything other than many.  Lots of these glib little answers from Novus Ordo-ites who haven't actually done the research.

    Another answer was the claim that semitic languages lacked a separate words for "all" and "many" ... which has been long debunked as a lie.  Not to mention, you're claiming that the Holy Spirit in rendering the Greek (it is the Greek text that the Church holds to be inspired), happened to chose the wrong possible translation of the semitic, an error with Bugnini and company were able to correct the Holy Spirit about ... nearly 2000 years after Our Lord said the words.

    So, since both of these reasons are demonstrably garbage, WHY did they mess with this?  Was it just to make the Church seem more welcoming to all of humanity or was it to deliberately invalidate the Mass ... just to make sure?

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 20117
    • Reputation: +10988/-5298
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Does "for all" invalidate the new mass?
    « Reply #9 on: October 11, 2019, 06:30:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Right, I think that +Benedict made that change when he introduced his latin-english hybrid new mass.
    .
    But does this fix all the other problems with the consecration formulas, namely 1) the added phrases which imply a narration instead of a sacrificial act by the priest, and 2) the removal of the "mystery of faith" phrase?  Even if a "priest" uses "for many" there are still potential invalidating aspects.
    .
    So, for 40 years, the new mass, when said the in the vernacular, had multiple doubtfully valid problems.  How many "masses" were affected from 1969 til 2008ish?  Here's the calculation:
    .
    40+ years, times 52 sundays, times 1 billion catholics = approx. 2 QUADrillion (that's a 1,000 trillion) catholic were deprived of a valid mass.  Even if you assume that only half used "for all", it's still 1 quadrillion.  That's a lot of invalid masses, which have absolutely no graces.  0%.  zilch.
    .
    It's insanity that people keep defending the novus ordo.


    Not sure.  It's still very possibly invalid.  Now, the mysterium fidei does not appear in the Eastern Rite essential form, so it's possibly not a critical part of the form's signification.

    Offline TKGS

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4594
    • Reputation: +3931/-389
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Does "for all" invalidate the new mass?
    « Reply #10 on: October 11, 2019, 06:53:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I don't know.  Did the Italian vernacular also have the "for all" mistranslation?

    I remember reading that the only vernacular version that did not change the words to "for all" was the Polish.  I have no idea whether this was accurate or not but I do know that the Italian, Spanish, and English was "for all" while someone told me that the the French version could be translated as "for all" or "for the multitudes".

    I've not read that all of the vernacular translations have been "corrected" though it is my understanding that English has been.  They were still saying "for all" when I escaped the Novus Ordo.


    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 980
    • Reputation: +210/-75
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Does "for all" invalidate the new mass?
    « Reply #11 on: October 11, 2019, 07:04:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • He's referring to the Greek where many with the article, so "THE many", means "the multitudes", which could be rendered as "all".  Perhaps you've heard the expression "hoi polloi".  Only problem for this theory?  The Greek version given in the Gospel of St. Mark LACKS the article "the" and simply says "many".  Many in Greek without the article can never mean anything other than many.  Lots of these glib little answers from Novus Ordo-ites who haven't actually done the research.

    Another answer was the claim that semitic languages lacked a separate words for "all" and "many" ... which has been long debunked as a lie.  Not to mention, you're claiming that the Holy Spirit in rendering the Greek (it is the Greek text that the Church holds to be inspired), happened to chose the wrong possible translation of the semitic, an error with Bugnini and company were able to correct the Holy Spirit about ... nearly 2000 years after Our Lord said the words.

    So, since both of these reasons are demonstrably garbage, WHY did they mess with this?  Was it just to make the Church seem more welcoming to all of humanity or was it to deliberately invalidate the Mass ... just to make sure?
    Interestingly if it were deliberately to invalidate the mass then that would mean the novus ordo with the “for many” translation would be valid (at least assuming a valid priest)
    I realize this isn’t an actual argument but I do have a hard time believing someone as brilliant as Fr Hesse would’ve been invalidly ordained and not realized it.  But I realize some people think the episcopal rite is the real issue 

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 20117
    • Reputation: +10988/-5298
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Does "for all" invalidate the new mass?
    « Reply #12 on: October 11, 2019, 07:20:23 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Interestingly if it were deliberately to invalidate the mass then that would mean the novus ordo with the “for many” translation would be valid (at least assuming a valid priest)
    I realize this isn’t an actual argument but I do have a hard time believing someone as brilliant as Fr Hesse would’ve been invalidly ordained and not realized it.  But I realize some people think the episcopal rite is the real issue

    Right, if you look closely enough at the NOM, the Anaphora I is essentially the Roman Tridentine Canon.  I actually believe that the Novus Ordo Mass, taken in and of itself, using Anaphora I, is more likely than not valid.

    I think that the Rite of Ordination is positively doubtful due to the removal of a word that had been declared to be part of the essential word.  It's debatable whether it changed the meaning enough, but there's enough there to cause doubt.

    I don't see how the Rite of Episcopal Consecration could be valid.  Father Cekada's study took it apart.  It was lifted from a rite that most closely resembles the installation of a Patriarch (who was already a bishop) and failed to specify the power of order being granted.

    Offline ByzCat3000

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 980
    • Reputation: +210/-75
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Does "for all" invalidate the new mass?
    « Reply #13 on: October 11, 2019, 07:26:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Right, if you look closely enough at the NOM, the Anaphora I is essentially the Roman Tridentine Canon.  I actually believe that the Novus Ordo Mass, taken in and of itself, using Anaphora I, is more likely than not valid.

    I think that the Rite of Ordination is positively doubtful due to the removal of a word that had been declared to be part of the essential word.  It's debatable whether it changed the meaning enough, but there's enough there to cause doubt.

    I don't see how the Rite of Episcopal Consecration could be valid.  Father Cekada's study took it apart.  It was lifted from a rite that most closely resembles the installation of a Patriarch (who was already a bishop) and failed to specify the power of order being granted.
    Could intent be supplied by the Church or by the belief of the person doing the consecration?  Or is that clearly wrong/heretical? 

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 20117
    • Reputation: +10988/-5298
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Does "for all" invalidate the new mass?
    « Reply #14 on: October 11, 2019, 07:30:06 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Could intent be supplied by the Church or by the belief of the person doing the consecration?  Or is that clearly wrong/heretical?

    I do not believe that intent can override defect of form (or matter).


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16