Regarding the Words of Consecration of the Wine

[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.

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Mar 15 2006, 09:20 PM']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.
[right][snapback]913020[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

ICEL has allowed lack of discipline to cloud its judgement.