Apologies if this topic has already been discussed. A person I heard of recently thinks that by the priest saying "all" instead of "many" at the consecration makes the mass invalid. They refuse to receive communion because of this.
My understanding is proper translation was reverted to "many" by Pope Benedict. So priest is not using approved language. Maybe rather than not taking the Eucharist, this person should speak to priest about it? But having said this , even with this mistake, as long as he says "this is my body" and "this is my blood", I believe Eucharist and Mass is valid. But , still I would speak to the priest.
Correct. I asked this specific question years ago to an FSSP priest and he said the essential words were " this is MY Body this is My Blood" made it valid provided the right matter and intention were valid.
I asked an SSPX priest once and he said the same thing. Here in Italy, all NO masses that I know of say "tutti".
It is not a "mistake" by the priest, Miker. Most of the Episcopal Conferences in the world refused to change the words as Benedict XVI required. The ones that I know followed Benedict's command were USA, Mexico, and UK. I am certain that Portugal, Spain, Italy, Germany did NOT follow Benedict. They continue to say the equivalent of "for all" in the Novus Ordo. And the words "this is my blood" is not enough for validity. The Magisterium, through Pope St. Pius V, has spoken on that and has never been changed. Pius V defined the words required for validity for the Roman Rite, as the words that are said in the TLM Consecrations. You can confirm this by looking at any TLM Altar Missal. The instruction document De Defectibus is in every one of the those Altar Missals. And the Missal including De defectibus was promulgated by Pius V in the Papal Bull Quo Primum. Here is what De defectibus says (in English): 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.
Saint Paul tells us that all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God. So, if we were to consider the absolute sense of the word, without understanding it as hyperbole, the holy apostle would be denying the Immaculate Conception. This is one of the reasons I’m cautious about traditionalist objections that cast doubt on the validity of the Mass over a single word whose full meaning varies throughout Sacred Scripture.
In His infinite wisdom, the first persecutors of His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Romans, had their civilization so utterly destroyed, that their language, Latin, disappeared from use, except in His Church, which adopted it at the language for His TLM, giving His Church a language with unchanging, constant, and certain meanings, which couldn’t be accomplished with a “living” language where meanings change over time. His TLM mass, over 1500 years of unchanging reverence and validity. Tradition!
Latin and Greek, as well as Aramaic, are priceless treasures for the Church, for they are languages that came from the lips of Our Lord and some of the earliest and greatest saints of our Church. However, what I wanted to emphasize is that the Mass is not invalidated if the priest uses the word "all" instead of "many," as these terms are equivalent in some passages of Scripture. In the same way, the Our Father, which is the prayer Christ taught us, is not invalidated when we pray "forgive us our trespasses" instead of "forgive us our debts," which is the exact transcription of part of the prayer as found in the Didache, a catechism of the early Church dating back to the 1st or 2nd century.
But Luan, your opinion on the matter conflicts with the reasoning and command of Pope Benedict XVI. He commanded that the words be changed in the vernacular to properly correspond to the official Latin text. He did not say that "for all" means the same thing as "for many." The Pope said the opposite.
I don’t know that using ALL instead of MANY during consecration of the wine invalidates the entire mass…but it would invalidate the consecration. The phrase "for the salvation of the many" refers to the words of Jesus during the Last Supper, as recorded in the Gospels. Specifically, when Jesus institutes the Eucharist, he says the bread is his body and the wine is his blood, which is "shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins." Who can change the words of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? No man! If the intention it to concentrate counter to what is in the Bible, it is invalid and a mortal sin.
I respect your opinion; whenever you and I disagree, it is with mutual respect. However, I would like to point out that I believe the original meaning of many in the Latin language is not a direct denial of "all." This is because there is a dual meaning in the word "all": all the peoples of the earth, who have sinned but are invited to receive God’s grace. However, only a portion of the elect—who are many—end up being effectively saved. The problem is that, amid the universalist notions that arose after Vatican II, people have the false impression that every individual will be saved by Christ’s sacrifice, even while rejecting the Church’s dogmas, commandments, and sacraments. Yet it is worth noting that St. Paul uses the word “Omnes” in the Latin Vulgate, which corresponds to the word “all” in various languages around the world. This could seriously compromise the belief in the Immaculate Conception if not read in the proper context.
No, it does not invalidate the consecration. What may happen is that some people have a very mistaken notion that no one will be condemned, just as many Protestants read the Letter to the Romans and, because of the word “all” interpreted in an absolute and contextless sense, denied the Immaculate Conception. If the consecration were invalid, the entire Mass would be invalid as well, because the whole liturgy becomes a pleasing offering to God through the consecration, when Christ becomes present on the altar as both victim and priest. Padre Pio said that it is easier for the world to exist without the sun than without the Holy Mass.
Thank you for the kind reply, Luan. The respect is indeed mutual. Again, I think we should follow Pope Benedict XVI. Here is his explanation to the German Bishops (who ignored him): https://www.vatican.va/content/bene...uments/hf_ben-xvi_let_20120414_zollitsch.html ... In this context, the Holy See has decided that in the new translation of the Missal, the words “pro multis” should be translated as they stand, and not presented in the form of an interpretation. In the place of the interpretative explanation “for all”, the simple rendering “for many” must appear. ... Once again, though, we ask: why “for many”? Did the Lord not die for all? The fact that Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, is the man for all men, the new Adam, is one of the fundamental convictions of our faith. Let me recall just three Scriptural texts on the subject: God “did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all”, as Paul says in the Letter to the Romans (8:32). “One has died for all,” as he says in the Second Letter to the Corinthians concerning Jesus’ death (5:14). Jesus “gave himself as a ransom for all,” as we read in the First Letter to Timothy (2:6). So the question arises once more: if this is so clear, why do we say “for many” in the Eucharistic Prayer? Well, the Church has taken this formula from the institution narratives of the New Testament. She says these words out of deference for Jesus’ own words, in order to remain literally faithful to him. Respect for the words of Jesus himself is the reason for the formulation of the Eucharistic Prayer. But then we ask: why did Jesus say this? The reason is that in this way Jesus enables people to recognize him as the Suffering Servant of Is 53, he reveals himself as the figure to whom the prophecy refers. The Church’s respect for the words of Jesus, Jesus’ fidelity to the words of “Scripture”: this double fidelity is the concrete reason for the formulation “for many”. In this chain of respectful fidelity, we too take our place with a literal translation of the words of Scripture. ....
Yes, respect for the original text is reflected in the use of the word many instead of all, just as it would be if we returned to praying the Our Father according to the version written in the Didache. Similarly, the Church has never altered the words of Saint Paul in the Letter to the Romans by replacing all with many, in order to avoid any form of embarrassment, since Protestants use this against us to deny the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. There are many ways to invalidate the consecration, but given the use of the word omnes in the Latin text of the Vulgate, any complete opposition between the words all and many would create a serious problem for the understanding of a central dogma of our faith.
If Benedict XVI was your Pope, then no, "for many" cannot be replaced by "for all." As I showed in the document I posted above, BXVI commanded that the "for all" be changed to "for many." Certain Bishops ignored his command. https://www.vatican.va/content/bene...uments/hf_ben-xvi_let_20120414_zollitsch.html
