Fidelity to the Word
Our Lord and His Holy Apostles at the Last Supper

A blog dedicated to Christ Jesus our Lord and His True Presence in the Holy Mystery of the Eucharist

But Christ having come a high priest of the good things to come, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation, nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption.

Hebrews 9:11-12

Friday, May 12, 2006

Echoes of Luther heard in the Cave

He got rid of the Mass of the Catechumens and changed it to Liturgy of The Word. Sound familiar?

He got rid of the Mass of the Faithful and changed it to Liturgy of The Eucharist. Sound familiar?

He stopped the "priest" from facing God in The Tabernacle ... [and] had them face the congregation instead. Sound familiar?

[He] got rid of unchanging Liturgical Latin and replaced it with the present day, ever changing, vernacular tongue. Sound familiar?

[He] ripped out the Communion Rail and forbade Communion kneeling and on the tongue. He replaced it with Communion standing, in the hand and under both Species. Sound familiar?

[He] added to the formula of the Consecration of the bread the words "quad pro obis tradetur" ("which will be given up for you"), and deleted both "mysterium Fidei ("the mystery of faith") and "pro multis" ("for the many") and replaced it with "for all". Sound familiar?

Great post in the Lair of the Catholic Cavemen about the protestant nature of the "post-conciliar" revisions to the Mass.


I left two comments (no I am not obsessive about this issue, I am tenacious).

[First comment]:

Dave said...
the Divine Liturgies of the Byzantine Rites have "which is broken for you for the remission of sins"

They have more than that.

According to this web-page, There are three forms of the Eucharist presently in the Orthodox Church:

1. The Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, which is the most frequently celebrated.
2. The Divine Liturgy of St Basil the Great, celebrated 10 times per year.
3. The Divine Liturgy of St James, brother of the Lord, celebrated on the Feast of St James (Oct 23).

The Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, has:
He took the cup, saying:
Drink of it all of you; this is my Blood of the new Covenant which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.

The Divine Liturgy of St Basil the Great has:
He gave it to His holy disciples and apostles saying: Drink of this all of you. This is my blood of the new Covenant, shed for you and for many, for the forgiveness of sins.

The Divine Liturgy of St. James has:
he shared it among his holy and blessed Disciples and Apostles, saying:
Drink from this all of you. This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out and distributed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.


The changes to the Mass overall, especially the changes to the formula of consecration of the Precious Blood, and the disregard for the traditional pious practices of the Church, moved the Mass closer to a Lutheran service and farther from the Orthodox Divine Liturgies.

Dave also said the Eastern Churches "have no problem using the vernacular". I may be mistaken, but I believe many of the Eastern Churches do have their own traditional liturgical languages and moved with great care into using more of the vernacular, not making a lot of other changes at the same time.


[Second comment]:

Great post, but, with respect, "pro multis" is better translated as "for many" rather than "for the many". Latin doesn't have a definite article, so either translation is reasonable, but if you go back to Matthew 26:28, from which the words of consecration were taken, the Greek in which the Gospel was written has "περί πολλων", that is, "for many" rather than "for the many". (Greek does have definite articles).

This matters because elsewhere in the Bible, particularly in St. Paul's Letter to the Romans, the phrase "the many" carries the connotation of people in general. Some people exaggerate this to mean "the many" is equivalent to "all men", rather than that the phrase merely can suggest "all men" in some contexts.

If we accept that "for many" is equivalent to "for the many", and that "for the many" is equivalent to "for all", then it becomes easier to accept that Jesus said at the Last Supper that he would shed his blood "for all", and the mistranslation you rightfully deplore gains support. None of the three phrases are equivalent, and it is a mistake to treat any two of them as interchangeable.

Labels: , ,


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home