"It will be shed for you and for MANY so that sins may be forgiven." Why not "all"?

Mass "facing the people" means mass facing the priest. I've long thought that this has had a malign effect on clerical psychology, with predictable results for liturgy. As for clerical opposition to the reform of the English translation: you find that mostly among an older generation of Catholic progressivists, for it is yet another sign that their day has passed. When I instruct seminarians on acolyte duties, one of the things I make these priestly aspirants do is repeat out loud: "The liturgy is not about ME."

"This Lent, I will do the red and read the black. Period."

YES!!!!! That is my new gmail status....and maybe forward your link to my parish priests...

Thank you Dr. Weigel!

This seems as good a place as any for me to put a question to Catholics at large. In my parish, located within the Diocese of Rochester, NY, we do not pray the Confetior. Now this is hardly new - we didn't pray if very often in the old rite - but I *thought* this was required under the new translation. Our pastor muttered something about our meeting the penitential prayer another way (all I can think here is the Kyrie), but it seems a bit odd to me.

Realizing that Rochester is viewed by many as an outpost of rampant heterodoxy, any responses and advice, especially from those who know what they're talking about, would be gratefully appreciated.

Tom: "It will be shed for you and for MANY so that sins may be forgiven." Why not "all"?

Because "for all" is not what the normative Latin text of the Mass actually says? Because "for many" was prayed that way for almost 2000 years prior to the liturgical changes of the 1960s? Because "for many" is what Holy Scripture consistently says? Because "for many" is what Christ Himself said?

Tom: "For many" is precisely what it says in the Latin. As St. Paul says in 1 Tm 2:4, Jesus would have all men be saved. But not all of us accept the salvation offered.

Tom,
The more accurate translation of the words of Consecration quote more precisely the words of Jesus at the Last Supper, according to the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, no matter the Bible you reference. It brought me up short the first time I encountered it; but I think that's probably a good thing - a seed for contemplation.
Mark
*****
Mark 14: 23-24
And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.
*
Matthew 26: 27-28
And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
*

Let the people say, "AMEN".

Mr. Walsh, your comment about the psychology of it seems exactly right to me. The "cooking show" aspect of ad populum celebration makes the priest far too conscious that he is the center of attention--and of course it actually has the effect of making him the center of attention where he otherwise would not be. Probably the most risible claim made by people who defend the course the liturgy wound up taking is that the older liturgy was "all about the priest." Lurking behind this is the implication that somehow, contemporary practice is LESS about the priest. This is so diametrically and obviously the reverse of the truth that one is tempted to put it down as a lie.

Why not "all"? Because that's not what the Gospel says. See Matthew 26:28

I agree with Michael P. Walsh that the problem is Mass "facing the people." The priest can take on the role of a performer. Our pastor constantly ad-libs, almost every line, adding comments here and there to make it all more relevant. The "Spirit of Vatican II" is interpreted by some priests as making the Mass into a communal gathering where everyone feels at home and the celebrant is like a "facilitator" at a meeting.

Because, Tom, we pray what we believe. See Matthew 26:28.

Tom: The new translation reads "many" versus "all" because in every Gospel and biblical reference the Lord is quoted as saying "many", not "all". This is so in the Greek, in the Latin translations throughout history, and also in the ancient Syriac and Aramaic versions. The use of "all" in the English versions was an aberration. It is simply a question of accuracy, no more no less.

I've often thought the same as this author says but I would go a step further at least explicitly: The changes were made to remove all the politically correct tendencies to make the texts gender neutral. Sadly, I have already heard a very good priest trying to remove the word "men" from the Creed ("for us men"). really? How many women out there in the pews are offended by this? Is this an assertion of male dominance and power or just a centuries old usage of the English language?

With regularity our priest utters complaints about the new translation, its language ("consubstantial!?"), the ungainly phrasing of the new collects, but mostly the whole "high-handed" manner in which the liturgy was revised. Poor man. Nobody cares but for those liberal stalwarts of the congregation who flock around to commiserate. Yes - do the red, read the black; suck it up and be a man.

there seems to be something empty about just doing the red and reading the black. This may be fine for the celebrant what about the disconnect from the congregation? Why not just have Cardinal Dolan on the Jumbotron in each church with repeating reruns broadcast each day to the English speaking world and deacons distribute communion in each location?

I was ordained in 1978. When the new translation came in at the beginning of Advent, 2011, I experienced the uplifting effect of the words. Naturally I felt I had been cheated for 33 years. The new translation is such a consolation and adds incredibly to the prayer life of a priest. To "Tom" I would advise reading the Church's in-depth explanation on why "many" is preferable to "all".

Tom - Read this for one explanation for "for many." http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/ratzinger_formany_nov06.asp

Tom says: "It will be shed for you and for MANY so that sins may be forgiven." Why not "all"?

First of all, you don't have the quotation right. Yours is a mashup of the old and the new translation. The new, more literal translation says, "It will be shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins." The old translation read, "It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven."

The two basic Christian doctrines expressed in this one sentence of the prayer are: (1) that sins are forgiven by the shedding of Christ's blood, and (2) that salvation is not universal (the unrepentant will not be forgiven). Notice how the old translation had to insert "may be" to avoid having the prayer express universal salvation. The mistranslation of "many" as "all" created a doctrinal error that had to be corrected later in the sentence.

Re. Tom's question: "For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins." Matthew 26:28

That's what Jesus said.

Tom, the Mass translations are the CORRECT translations from the original Latin, and what the words of Jesus were at the Last Supper, see Matthew Chapter 26 verse 28, Mark Chpt 14 vs. 24. So if you have a problem with this, then you have a problem with Jesus.

Good luck with the leadership of the Jesuits doing the red and say the black. They only would do so if their "pope", Barack Obama would mandate it!

In my parish, the two priests have settled into an invariable formula. The "very brief introduction to the Mass of the day" (as provided for in the rubrics) is transformed into a reflection on the upcoming Liturgy of the Word, making it a dry run for the homily. This is then segued into the penitential rite by (1) an ad hoc examination of conscience conducted by the priest for the congregation drawing on some phrase in the Gospel of the day (e.g., "remembering the times when we have failed to ask for God's healing help") on to which there is then tacked (2) an ill-thought out, redundant and premature introduction to the Kyrie ("we ask for His mercy and love" – before we have even confessed our sins, note) capped finally by (3) the lame tag ("and so together we pray"): all of which suppresses the awe-ful and mandated concise summons:- "brothers and sisters, let us acknowledge our sins, and so prepare ourselves to celebrate the sacred mysteries".

The logical and coherent structure of (a) a private examination of conscience conducted in common, (b) public admission of guilt and request for mutual prayers, (c) the priest's prayer for mercy, and (d) the public appeal for mercy (if not already comprised in one of the alternate penitential formulae) as provided for in the introductory rites, is thus reduced to a formulaic shambles which now lacks even any spark of spontaneity – a misplaced virtue but which might, initially, have recommended it to some.

I am not ready to adopt your diagnosis in this particular case, Dr. Weigel, but thanks for the opportunity to get that off my chest as a preliminary to my taking it up directly with the priests themselves.

Tom, the answer to "why not all" is that not "all" accept Jesus' offer of salvation.
That and the fact that "all" is not what "Pro Multis" means and that any translation of scripture with any adherence to original texts (i.e. NASB, Douai- Rheims, JKing James- Authorized, etc.) all translate the institution narrative from Scripture as "for many." One example, from Mark's Gospel:

Mark 14:24 Vulgate
24et ait illis hic est sanguis meus novi testamenti qui pro multis effunditur
Mark 14:24 NASB
24 And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.”
Mark 14:24 KJV
24And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
Mark 14:24 Douai-Rheims
24And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.

Regarding Tom's question the replies were very good. I will only add that the account of the Last Supper stops just before the words of consecration, then and there the narrative is supposed to change into the Act, the priest acting in the person of Christ. Hence, pronouncing "My Body" and "the chalice of My Blood" the bread and wine are each changed into the Living Glorified Body of Christ. Just before the Act of transubstantiation, the formula (as in the gospel accounts) is given: "He took the chalice . . . and gave it to His disciples saying . . . " Since Jesus did not say "which will be shed for you and for all" we are left in the vernacular translation (not so in the Latin Novus Ordo) with the grave liturgical evil of affirming an untruth, namely that the Son of God "said" something He did not say. How did this happen in almost all the vernacular translations of the Novus Ordo Missae? How could a priest, acting in the Person of Christ, affirm that Jesus "said" something He did not say? This is astonishing.

It's hard to think that of any of us that regularly attend mass in North America haven't experienced - probably very, very frequently - what George Weigel did at this unnamed cathedral.

Unfortunately, it's not clear to me that the new translation is having the effect hoped for on these creative priests. It might take more time (and a prod from the local ordinary), but a missal can't do much to stop a priest with a deeply ingrained habitus of "liturgical creativity." At any rate, such has been my experience so far.

So more is needed. And I do think Howard is right that much of the difficulty began, and continues, with the common practice of celebrating the mass versus populorum, that is to say, with the priest behind the altar, facing the people. The Council never spoke to making such a change, nor did Paul VI when he instituted the new missal. But it has become universal just the same. And we have seen the results: for many priests, it is hard to resist the feeling that one is "performing" for the audience. Priests who have subsequently experienced celebrating the traditional mass have spoken of just this as their most striking experience.

So perhaps it's time to revisit the issue of the direction of liturgical prayer. Would it really be such a bad idea for American bishops to make the new norm one of celebration of the canon of the mass - not the whole mass, just the eucharistic prayer - ad orientem, at least where sanctuary geography makes this possible?

Tom says: "It will be shed for you and for MANY so that sins may be forgiven." Why not "all"?

In order to be forgiven, one has to ask forgiveness. Not everyone asks.

@ML (7:09am):

There are actually 3 forms for the penitential rite (not including the sprinkling rite, often used in the Easter season and the fact that on Ash Wednesday the penitential rite is omitted entirely due to the distribution of ashes).

1. The confiteor, followed by the absolution, followed by the Lord have mercy/Christ have mercy/Lord have mercy.

2. A shorter form that is rarely used (in my experience): Priest - Have mercy on us, O Lord; Response - For we have sinned against you; P - Show us, O Lord, your mercy.; R - And grant us your salvation. This is followed again by the absolution and Lord have mercy.

3. Lord have mercy/Christ have mercy/Lord have mercy, each prefaced by invocations directed to Christ.

At least this is the way I read it in my new Canadian edition of the Missal. It is possible that there may be slight variations in different countries. Hope that helps!

greggo says: "there seems to be something empty about just doing the red and reading the black. This may be fine for the celebrant what about the disconnect from the congregation? Why not just have Cardinal Dolan on the Jumbotron in each church with repeating reruns broadcast each day to the English speaking world and deacons distribute communion in each location?"

That's like asking why anyone should spend time with family when Skype is available. It's not the same thing, and we don't treat it as the same.

When we consider it particularly important that something be done right, we tend to write it down and follow the script. (E.g., 'Miranda' warnings are not made up on the spot by the arresting officer, for good reason.)

The Eucharist is a mystical event in which Jesus' sacrifice is made present to the whole Church and His Body and Blood made present to those in attendance. The occasion is inherently solemn, regardless of whether it is otherwise joyful or sorrowful (cf. weddings vs. funerals). The content of those sacramental prayers guards the solemnity of the occasion, and so it matters that they be deliberate and not ad hoc or improvised.

The Eucharist cannot be reduced to watching a video and receiving a treat, as if this were day care.

It is rare for the abstract of an article by Mr. Weigel to be available on a mug:

http://www.cafepress.com/frzsstore/8514830

Sed contra fratres, the Holy Father and his Blessed predecessor celebrated mass ad populo. Are we trying to be more Catholic than the Pope?

Facing the East is the cure.

To Emily, Mike, Mark Kirby, Fr. Tito, Kevin C, Craig, depscribr, and Kelso...Thank you very much for answering my question. I have looked up your references and learned from the points you have made. I'm not far up the liturgical ladder and am always trying to better my faith.

Nathan, Bill Daughterty and Marky Mark: You all seem very wound up. Your replies are hardly a road to evangelizing properly. In school when I read Hans Urs von Balthazar the Cardinal intimates many time of a possible universal reconciliation. I think (but am not certain) his angle on this was that once any human got a glimpse of transcendant God given Grace, no one could not accept. Some have responded that people must ask for God's grace. I read where other Post Liberal theologians have pointed out God's relentless pursuit of us all (Robert Barron's "The Strangest Way").

I am being serious when I ask how Nathan, Bill and Markey Mark could contain themselves during the Eucharistic Prayer subsequent to V2 and prior to the New Missal. Does Kelso's point carry any weight?

Best,

Tom: Not "all" because it's based on the Gospel of Matthew 26:28, viz. " ", which means, "which is poured out for many". means "many"—Lat. "multi", the text of the Roman Missal.

I am always amused when our lay faithful talk about priests in such negative fashion. It blocks out how the new DREs of the 70s, 80s and 90s carried out their tasks with evangelical fervor, and not broaching any opposition from even priests assigned as assistants in their parishes, who dared to question the validity of their practices. A visiting priest once wondered why the remaining sacred species was shoved into a drawer, and the lay administrator simply said: "Because that is how I do it here." Narcissism, autocracy, etc, are human traits, not just priestly traits. Let s/he who has no sin, cast the first stone.

I seriously doubt that our priests, who are, by-and-large, good men doing good work, understand how their dramatics and extemporizing confuse and irritate many of the faithful. We can't even get our brothers and sisters to understand that "practicing" doesn't qualify one as an authority on Christ's teachings. That we are entering a major battle for our very survival over the HHS mandate while our priests dicker with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass demonstrates we need more discipline in our hierarchy and catechesis.

Tom: The suffering servant of Isaiah uses the words 'for the many'. In the words of institution this phrase is used by Jesus speaking about himself. It is not about who is being saved, it is about Who is saving. It is the Lord Jesus who is saving us. For us, He is the suffering servant whose blood is poured out for the "many"for the forgiveness of sins.

Father Howard:

Thank you very much. This helps a great deal and am humbled by the awakening. I was making it about me when it's about Christ.

Regards,

Tom

May God energize the Catholic Church in this season of Lent for the work He has laid before it.

At the same time, I find it ironic that my Catholic brothers and sisters who are digging deeply down to the scriptural roots of the "many," but somehow fail to notice that there are no scriptural roots at all for the institution of the priesthood. Rather, the words of Jesus seem to be herbicide spread against it, such as not calling men "Father" and so forth. Even John Paul II recognized the incongruity of his Papal titles beside such verses, but concluded, in as many words, "and yet there they are."

Now before the reader has a tizzy, I am merely trying, respectfully, to carry this point about observing the scriptures to its logical and maybe even helpful conclusion. Namely, if it is good for the priest to remove himself from center stage, why isn't it better to remove himself from the stage altogether? What does the Bible say?

Something to think about.

Meanwhile, I pray that God will bless the Catholic Church, her priests and people as they seek to serve him.

The "original" text is Greek, not Latin. Just FYI folks.

The Orthodox Churches tend to universal salvation (see Morwenna Ludlow's Universal Salvation: Eschatology in the Thought of Gregory of Nyssa and Karl Rahner) where Catholicism has Purgatory as a result of the same scriptures.

The new mass is a vast improvement, at least for me.

Dean from Ohio,

I assure you that the concept of the Christian priesthood is entirely defensible and true, however I will not take this moment to defend it, in part because you only lukewarmly and softly slap at it.

Rather I'd like to mention how intrigued I am at how that which you find unbiblical (and therefore presumably untrue) you nonetheless call on God's blessing over. If priests are who they claim to be, and if you are correct on your interpretation of the whole thing, and Jesus really did seek to kill it from the get go, how can you tolerate it, much less treat it somewhat warmly?

Why is it that a lack of charity in the name of the Church is acceptable?

Adriel,

I am not slapping and my suggestion is not lukewarm. And I am not asking God to bless an organizational structure, but rather to love and strengthen the church universal despite its many flaws.

There are many scriptural examples of God's mercy (vs tolerance) on his children and his continuing to work in and through them despite their misconceptions, sins and the like. The Patriarchs and the Kings in the OT come to mind. In the NT, the disciples, Peter, even the priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas. The high priesthood was corrupt, a political perk passed around to connected family members, yet Jesus addressed it, with all its flaws, as the God-appointed body through which God would work. Caiaphas even prophesied unwittingly that Jesus would die for the people.

Here is a scriptural passage that describes God's mercy in spite of our faults, from Psalm 103:

He made known his ways to Moses,
his deeds to the people of Israel:
The LORD is compassionate and gracious,
slow to anger, abounding in love.
He will not always accuse,
nor will he harbor his anger forever;
he does not treat us as our sins deserve
or repay us according to our iniquities.
For as high as the heavens are above the earth,
so great is his love for those who fear him;
as far as the east is from the west,
so far has he removed our transgressions from us.
As a father has compassion on his children,
so the LORD has compassion on those who fear him;
for he knows how we are formed,
he remembers that we are dust.

I know that I have my own sins, flaws and misconceptions, and yet God is merciful to me and still considers me his fellow worker. Amazing but true. So yes, I can pray that God will bless others despite their shortcomings, knowing that God will be gracious to them as well. The warmth is because we are brothers and sisters in God's family, the redeemed from the world.

Scripture does say we are both to encourage and admonish one another, so I speak about errors I see. Every false belief has a negative consequence that undermines God's kingdom.

The only priesthood I see in the NT is the priesthood of the believer. Where then should I look for the defense you speak of?

Good morning:

Yesterday I asked a question pertaining to the New Missal....in particular the new translation "It will be shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins."
I inquired "why MANY and not ALL". As one can see above, many helpful comments came my way. Some were sarcastic but most were illuminating (some left me saying to myself "duh..what am I thinking?!).
In the interest of reading further perspectives, I pulled my Catholic study Bible from the shelf last night (way too dusty) and thought I'd share some contents. There's no attempt at a retort. I merely wanted to understand what the assembly from V2 was emphasizing beyond 'they were a bunch of 60's progressives' (my words).
I consulted the New American Catholic Study Bible from 1990. The particular passages found were edited by Fr. Donald Senior S.T.L., S.T.D.. Pope John Paul II appointed him as a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission and was reappointed in 2006 and 2008 by Pope Benedict XVI.
The footnote beneath Mark 14, 24 points the reader to the explanation beneath Matthew 20, 28. "Ransom: this noun which occurs in the New Testament only here and in the Marcan parallel (Mk 10, 45) does not necessarily express the idea of liberation by payment of some price. The cognate verb in used frequently in the LXX of God's liberating Israel from Egypt or from Babylonia after the exile; see Ex 6, 6; 15, 13; Ps 77 (76 LXX, 16; Is 43, 1; 44, 22. The liberation brought by Jesus' death will be for many; cf Is 53, 12. Many does not mean that some are excluded, but is a Semitism designating the collectivity who benefit from the service of the one, and is equivalent to "all." While there are few verbal contacts between this and the fourth Servant Song (Is 52, 13-53, 12), the ideas of that passage are reflected here."
I think this is worth noting also because the origional scripture is in Greek and not Latin (just as 'ego sum ego qui sum' is rooted in the Hebrew 'Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh'. The Latin is essentially 'I am who I am' yet the Exodus passage is interpreted as that by many and also ' I will always be faithful' by others....and sometimes both by some).
Thanks again to all.....

Benedict XVI once pointed out that the pope faces the people when he says Mass in the Vatican because the old rubic was actually to face East (and the rising Sun), neither to face the altar or to face the people.

Thank you, George for your insightful "complaint" about the reality of the humanity of our priests. Indeed, approaching the priest after Mass could have netted a very emotional response - you were wise not to do so. That stated, I am grateful to you for elevating and making public certain problems with disobedient or disenchanted or mis-informed priests who do not do what they ought to do, in contradiction to the wishes of the Pope and his Magisterium, and therefore, God in His Holy Spirit. Thank you!

Before the new translation, at the conclusion of mass, our priest would give the concluding rite ending with the traditional "the mass has ended..." then turn to our deacon, who would complete the line with joyful enthusiasm, "... go in peace to LOVE and SERVE the Lord!" Parishioners loved it.

At the introduction of the new translation, the deacon was told not to make his exclamation anymore. The lines are different. His enthusiasm muted.

Too bad.

.@ Patrick:. go in peace to LOVE and SERVE the Lord!" Parishioners loved it.

Our local deacon said:"
"Go in the peace of Christ to love and serve each other."

Being married to a deacon, I'm sure that this is Oh! so incorrect and the Mass does not belong to the presider or the deacon.

Do the red, read the black.

Go in peace, glorifying the Lord by your life.

Now that is amazing and joyful and challenging. I think Holy Mother Church knew we needed a revisit to the impromptu liturgy.

Patrick: it is my understanding that the "traditional" words concluding Mass should be simply: "go in peace." "The Mass has ended: go in peace" is redundant; the word "Mass" just comes from the concluding words in Latin: "Ite, missa est" (essentlally, "go forth").

Dean From Ohio:

You wrote: "The only priesthood I see in the NT is the priesthood of the believer. Where then should I look for the defense you speak of?"

You need to read Acts of the Apostles a little more closely. See all of that talk about 'laying on of hands and sending" so and so to such and such a place? That is the ordaining of what we would today call bishops. And then, obviously, deacons are selected to assist the bishops. Later, as the Church expanded, the bishops, i.e. the successors of the Apostles, ordained "helpers", i.e. what we today know as priests to assist them.

You see, in Apostolic times what we would today recognize as our parish church was, in fact, the whole "diocese". So, in modern imagery, today's "parish priest" was the "bishop" of Apostolic times. But, as the number of believers grew and became too numerous for a single bishop or a single church to manage but the next church was too far distant, the bishop would ordain priests to assist him in the celebration of the Mass and Sacraments and other places of worship would be established aside from the main church that served as the seat of the bishop, i.e. what we now know as the cathedral.

Also, please understand that "if it's not in the Bible it's not valid" is an artificial construction. Nowhere does it say that in the Bible. Because, of course, if that were the case, what was the Church using before there was a Bible?

I sure hope that helps.

God Bless!
-Greg

I remember a pastor a few years ago coming out at the start of a service with his chirpy "Good morning, everyone!" then following it with, "What a service we have for you this morning!"

All I could think of was Ed Sullivan (I'm dating myself) starting his Sunday night program, "We've got a really big shew for you tonight."

Mark:

The term here is similar to our English dis-"miss"al. Though this in term may also be homophonically and rationally linked to the notion of a "mass" of people. In that people come together in "Mass," in a group or mass. And dis-massing the people would be ... commanding them to disperse.

So that the command to "Ite, msse est," is effect a demobilization order, or command to disperse? Probably its root meaning, as I would advance in my own etymological/semantic theory, was to de-mass. Or to say the massing was now over.

By the way? Once the formal mass is dismissed? Then it would not seem inappropriate for the pastor to say a few words on his own. So long as it is understood is he speaking informally. Outside the formal Mass.

Thanks, Greg, for your reply.

Obviously the church has God-ordained leaders who serve vocationally. Paul named several categories as God's gifts to the church:

"It was he [Jesus] who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ." - Ephesians 4:11-13

As scripture states, we ought to submit to them and treat them with double honor.

What I don't see as following the direction of God in scripture is the morphing of "bishop" (episcopos, in scripture), and these other "preparers" of God's people listed above, into priests who offer a sacrifice that the writer of Hebrews says was offered once for all time. It is the title "priest" and the idea of the repeated real offering of the body and blood of Christ that the Catholic Church has assumed on itself, in my view without scriptural warrant and without God's authority, and indeed contrary to the plain teaching of the word of God. That is what I was referring to in my initial post above, and these are the aspects of the Catholic Clergy which should be, in my continued understanding, reconsidered by the Catholic Church in submitting to God's word as Jesus and the apostles did, and which the Pharisees with their traditions did not.

As to what the church used before the New Testament canon was finalized, they "continued in the apostles' teaching...." Given Jesus' high view of scripture in the OT, and Peter's ("carried along") and Paul's ("God-breathed") high views of the inspiration of scripture, and Peter's view that Paul's writings were to be laid alongside as peer documents with "the other scriptures" (Gr. allos) in the OT, I can't believe that God allowed a separate stream of foundational apostolic teaching contrary to the NT canon to develop and endure. Sorry, I don't see it. The better model to describe the traditions of churches contrary to scripture is that of the Pharisees.

But I do thank God that he continues to work through his people despite their misunderstandings and shortcomings, including mine. May we all be one.

Thank you Mr. Weigel for your timely remarks on the new translation and clerical narcissism. If only I could face the altar along with the rest of God's People and have the attention taken off me, and directed to God. This is something the present Holy Father has written about and generally favors. However, for those of us in the trenches, whose bishops aren't sold on the idea and whose people would think we were "turning our backs on them", it'll have to continue to be pro popolo for the forseable future.

Here's A question I have that maybe some one can answer. Why was the words "....The Mystery Of Faith" left out during during the raising of the Chalice
at the consecration? Didn't Jesus use those words at the last Supper? The Novus Order omitted these words. WHY? I notice many comments are fussing over the use the words "Many" and "All" when they should be asking why the omission of the words Jesus used. Any comments? Iwould to hear them

I welcome formalization of the liturgy to exclude pastoral personality intrusions but that does not seem to have happened. At every Mass I have attended in various locations since the change, the priests have taken 5, 10, even 25 minutes at the end of the Mass before the final blessing to lecture parishioners on a variety of issues, mostly political. Where does it say in the new rubrics that this is permitted? And, by the way, regarding the sacredness of the new language, dew does not fall from heaven, not since the 1860s.

Of course the actual words Jesus use must NOT be corrupted...but there is a grave and real problem with the sloppy translations which claim to improve or know more than Jesus Himself: If the words to the consecration are changed and NOT the words of Jesus, was the wine ever really consecrated. Like the numbers to a safe's combination, the REAL words of Christ unlocked the mystery of the consecration..."Do THIS in remembrance of me" NOT improvise as you will. IF the wine was NOT consecrated due the the invalid wording, then there was no blood. Without blood, there is no sacrifice. No sacrifice, perhaps no Mass: another way the smoke of satan possibly won a war against us for a long time./
Many of my friends and I noticed a distinct difference since the wording has been corrected in our Communions. And people renewed in fighting back against the evils of secularism. It has awakened the church Militant, I hope.

They changed the words of the transubstantiation in the mass,from "ALL to"MANY". This makes one of the Consecrations not valid. Obviously the one saying for "ALL" is not VALID. That's why they reverted back to the words " FOR MANY" to indicate what Christ said during the Last supper. The Church should admit that all the millions of masses said since 1967 were not valid as transubstantiation did not occur!! The consequence of it all ? No communion was valid eider. They the Church realized that for many years and changed it in 2011 Now you know millions of Mass attendees did not receive graces associated with the mass. They received different Graces because of there sincerity. The difficulty I am having with Catholics is: They DON'T Questioning there own faith in light of the Church teachings.

perhaps the pope never heard the term." your fired"......and throw in those things that call themselves nuns..........

Dean,

Thank you for your reply and post. I will pray for the day when the Spirit opens your eyes and your heart.

May God bless you and all the separated brethren.

-Greg

As a lay person -- with ADD -- I have found myself entering more prayerfully into the Mass with the new words prayed by the priests. I can actually pay attention better and be more prayerful. The words are beautiful, and resonate with the spirit.
Even with the priests who read the prayers so fast that they might as well be reciting the Gettysburg Address, the words force them to pause.

I am not as well versed in scripture as many who have commented here, but still am learning much from the comments. I have been trying to commit all of the new wording for the Mass to memory and submit to the directives of the Holy Catholic Church. As a person born and raised under Vatican II, I sometimes struggle to pay attention to the new words, as the old ones really have been "committed to heart". However, I trust that the Church, through the breath of the Spirit is guiding us to deepen our understanding of the WORD.
Regarding narcissism - we are all guilty of this to a degree, and I too can identify times when I have been proud/honored to serve at Mass or proud/honored of my children who sing with the choir or cantor. This is part of our sinful nature and I continue to work on serving God with humility. Our priests need our prayers and support to be able to recognize this in themselves and to ask for God's grace to overcome this tendency. I understand how hard this is for some to witness - one of my own children has grown distant and angry with priests because of this ("It's all about him- it's a big show"). Please continue to pray for our Church and for all those who have strayed to return with "all their heart". When I was reading the postings I couldn't help but think of the bickering between the Scribes and Pharisees over technicalities in interpretation. This made me a little sad - as it is evident that so many clearly love the scripture enough to study it intensely. I would urge each one of us to open our hearts to the Word, and trust in the guidance of the Church.

In the beginning of January, I attended Mass at the Weston Priory in Weston, Vermont.
They didn't follow the old norm nor the new norm but were saying Mass according to their norm. Is there such a thing as a dispensation from the liturgical norm?

I thought the Church was supposed to be one. I tried contacting the Vermont Bishop's office but got no response.

I've been reading a good deal of contemporary Marion literature; Our Lady of Kibeho,
and The Marion Movement of Priests along with the book, The End of the Present World and the Mysteries of the Future Life and between the three, it would appear that we must all be very careful what we accept as the truth and just as careful to not blindly follow those who we trust are leading us to the truth. Our Catholic Church may very well be in grave peril and some of what we are witnessing liturgically is symptomatic of the times we have entered. Knowing what Rome is teaching / saying is very likely critical to the present time. If one must choose or take sides, choose Rome.

Words are important. Words have the power to heal, to transform, to create. The changes made in the responses are minimal and easy to remember, while the changes for the priests are greater and more substantial. And they are so much richer and fuller. I really enjoy hearing and following the words in "black." They may not flow off the celebrant's tongue, but they do flow in my spirit and my soul. The new language brings the Mass closer to me, more alive, more what I always wanted it to be. What the "recalcitrant" priests don't seem to realize is that they, because of their ego or whatever causes their disobedience, not only cause the laity harm but the whole of the Mass. Watering down the Mass is the work of the devil. Not that they consciously do it, but it's done nonetheless. That makes me angry, because the priests are not the determining factor in the laity getting to heaven, but the Holy Mass is. We must continue to pray for all our priests and our bishops. Many of them require even more catechizing and evangelizing than even the people in the pews. Many will be upset at hearing this, but it is the truth. And we know we must know where we are to know where we are going. God bless us and help us all!

To Dean from Ohio,


Maybe the following will assist you:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/02/biblical-overview-sacrifice-of-mass.html

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/mass.htm#revelation

This last link is really easy to understand Q&A format.

Peace!
Mairin

I'm sorry, but the idea that the changes were promulgated to "discipline the tendency of priests to turn the mass into an experession of the celebrant's personality" is outrageous and I call that claim into question.

Mr. Weigel, do you have an official church document which states any such motivation, or is this something that you have made up as a motivation for others? If it is something that you have perceived, can you please tell me how you developed the ability to discern the motivations of others, since said charism is never mentioned in any fashion by any church teaching?

I am (eagerly) awaiting from Mr. Weigel an essay on the (sad) state of funerals today: How the worship of God became the praise of men.

cmm says: "dew does not fall from heaven"

This is true, dew condenses, it does not fall. And the formation of dew is, interestingly enough, called dewfall. As an aside, the dewfall has Biblical roots -- e.g., Hosea 14:5, Psalm 133:3, Isaiah 45:8.

Let the dew fall!

Tom asks: "I am being serious when I ask how Nathan, Bill and Markey Mark could contain themselves during the Eucharistic Prayer subsequent to V2 and prior to the New Missal."

I suspect Nathan, Bill and Markey Mark managed the same way so very many of us did all these very long years. We took to heart St. Paul's words to the Corinthians, made them our own, and lived accordingly: Charity "Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth away" (1 Corinthians 13:7-8). With the current revisions to the Roman Missal, we can now see through the glass a little less darkly. Thanks be to God!

@ Theofile-
many religious and monastic orders have their own rites and missals which differ somewhat from the standard Roman Rite. They have generally fallen out of use, but some locations use them. It is pertinent that the PCED also determined that Summorum Pontificum liberated the use of local rites (the Ambrosian Rite from Milan by name, and reference to "the other Latin rites.")

Narcissism ?

Hate to tell you but when I first attended Mass with the "translation du jour" I thought it was pretty narcissistic. I mean, look at all the personal pronouns that are in the current version vs. the previous one. Look at the creed and how many times the word "I" is used. And the Confiteor - "my" fault, "my" fault, "my" most grievous fault. Too much "I" "I" "I" in "my" personal opinion.

Craig says:

"The Eucharist is a mystical event in which Jesus' sacrifice is made present to the whole Church and His Body and Blood made present to those in attendance. The occasion is inherently solemn, regardless of whether it is otherwise joyful or sorrowful (cf. weddings vs. funerals). The content of those sacramental prayers guards the solemnity of the occasion, and so it matters that they be deliberate and not ad hoc or improvised."

This is one of the most beautiful descriptions of the Mass I've read to-date. Thank you for sharing these inspired words. May I quote you?

Why the need for a new revised Mass? The Church should simply return to the Tridentine Mass that was perfectly designed for the salvation of souls. It is pre-approved!

Our Pastor and two retired priests will not pray from the new Roman Missal; our associate pastor, who appears to be orthodox does and so does the winter visitor Monsignor from Spokane. I've corresponded via email with our Pastor and being as charitable as I could be and I was very charitable, it met with zero concession. Our Bishop has been informed of their actions and other abuses in the diocese and it does not appear that any action will be taken to thwart the abuses. The question I have is how have things gotten to the point they have when their is such wide spread and open aggression against the Holy See? How will all this dissension not lead to schism?
My opinion is that the new translation has shined a light on the faction of the consecrated priests that deny the authority of Rome and if I remember my history correctly, something not all dissimilar happened during the French Revolution when many religious to up sides with the secular society of their time; that didn't turn out well for anyone within the Church. Sure hope that's not where we are headed.

God save us all from the bites of the cannibals, as me granny used to say.

If I were not a true and well tested in faith, of many centuries, Irish Catholic, I'd be tested to the point of leaving altogether listening to you lot.


A teaspoon of water has more depth to it than your 'narcissistic' 'spirituality' - whatever version/variety of Mass you would attend. That's the strong impression given here and other places I read too.

Grow up America.

Therese of Lisieux would have a field day with you lot.

And to the psychologist who trains acolytes. It's not about YOU either !!

Dearie me, after all this one needs to call one's veterinary surgeon and have him administer one's horse sedative. Me nerves are wholly and thoroughly shattered.

Mary, Mother of Contemplation, who pondered all things in the heart - and did not whine and moan like this lot - Ora Pro Nobis.


God bless us all. :-)

Mr. Weigel is correct. The best answer is to have every parish rediscover the Extraordinary form of the Mass. If every parish celebrates that form, all priests will be forced to lose their narcissism, and all Catholics will demand that the Ordinary form of the Mass be celebrated properly.

To me, it's pretty clear that the Novus Ordo promotes narcissism when the priest faces the people. An acquaintance of mine stunned me when he said that he thought the revised one would be the Traditional Latin Mass in English. That's why I wanted to remind hem that for about twelve years now, I've wanted the Church to abolish the new one because only partly Catholic.

I've read or heard that the Holy Father's longterm goal is a hybrid rite of Mass to replace the Novus Ordo and the Traditional rite of Mass. So I hardly help wondering whether Pope Benedict changed his mind after he wrote Summorum Pontificum. If memory serves me, right. that motu proprio says that the Church's venerable liturgical rites should be preserved forever(?). What does he want to do with the TLM: preserve or abolish it?

To Dean from Ohio who questions the scriptural warrant of the Catholic Priesthood:

Your question, sincere as it is and not asked with ‘proselytizing’ bitterness, is a good indication of a desire to know things better. And yet, as your question stands, are you not aware that that question has been asked before by the Protestant reformers of the 16th century when they denied the sacrificial priesthood of the Church? Note that the Reformers proclaimed loudly the common priesthood of all believers, and the Catholic Church does not deny that all of us indeed are priests in the general sense by our common baptism, but the Catholic Church’s understanding of the Eucharist and of the Sacrament of Holy Orders gives rise to the dogma of the Sacrificial Priesthood – distinct from the common priesthood of believers.

The Sacrament of Holy Orders cannot be understood apart from the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. Since in the understanding of the Catholic Church, the celebration of the Eucharist is essentially the sacramentalization of the event of Calvary (or to put it in other words, the making present of the One, Eternal, Unrepeatable Sacrifice of Christ), there needs to be an agent/person who must do the making present of that One and Eternal Sacrifice. And it is in this context that the Sacrament of Holy Orders exists in the Church for the perpetuation of the One and Eternal Sacrifice. This is based on the Lord’s own words to His Apostles at the Last Supper: “Hoc facite in meam commemorationem.” (Do this in remembrance of me). Take note that the word “commemoratio” somewhat blandly translated by the English “remembrance” does not do justice to the the original meaning of the word as understood by the Lord and the Apostles. Note that when the Lord took the bread and the wine and changed them into His Body and Blood, He did this at the Passover banquet – a banquet that was for the Jews a “making present”, a re-enactment of the night when the Angel of Death “passed over” their homes and spared their first-born, a night in which they were saved by God from the slavery of Egypt. The “commemoratio” of the Passover was essentially a making present, a reliving, so that those who would be born and live many many generations later would not be deprived of some of the experience of the saving event of that night. That was why, they had to eat bitter herbs and serve hard unleavened bread! (Which brings us to the point that the main focus of the Passover was not really the meal – it was the re-enactment, the reliving, the making present of that night of salvation in Egypt with the context of the MEAL as a medium to accomplish this).
This is the reason why the Church understands the words : “Hoc facite in meam commemorationem.” (Do this in remembrance of me) as a commission, a command upon the Apostles to do as the Jews of old did with their Passover: not just to sit on a chair, think about, and sentimentally reminisce a past event, but to re-live it, make it present, re-enact it, present it anew. And this is the theology of the Sacrifice of the Mass: the Mass is the making present of the same Body and of the same Blood, once offered on the wood of the Cross, but now eternally seated with the Father and never more to die, and yet now present with us, so that the we can join our own sacrifices and prayers to that One and Unrepeatable Sacrifice. The Mass is not a new offering, it is a mystical making present of the Cause of Salvation on Calvary, and the Church presents it once more to God, not because it is not powerful enough, but so that we, who live 2,000 years after that once and for all time event, can join ourselves to it, and experience it in the here and now. It is not as the Protestants claim, that we kill Christ again and again – that would be blasphemy!
And so, Holy Orders come into the fore with this understanding of what the Mass is: the Priest (Latin = sacerdos) deriving his powers from that Twelve who originally sat on the night of the Last Supper and inheriting the command “Hoc facite in meam commemorationem” (Do this in remembrance of me) by the laying on of hands, makes present the Body and the Blood that has saved the world, applying its power anew to our daily weakness, needs, and sins. Just as the Sacrament of the Eucharist is not a usurpation of the uniqueness and unrepeatability of the Sacrifice of Christ, so Holy Orders do not usurp the One Priesthood of Christ. Yes, according to the letter to the Hebrews, there is but One Priest and One Eternal Sacrifice, and the Church holds steadfastly to it, yet the One Sacrificial Priest and the One Eternal Sacrifice of the New Law is now “sacramentalized” (made present through visible signs) in the Mass and in the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

You see, Mass and Eucharist, they go together and a corruption in the understanding of one will corrupt the understanding of the other. And the sacrament of the sacrificing Priesthood is not the same as the priesthood of all believers, since the command is given not to all the “disciples” but only to the Twelve, and the Twelve laid hands, not on all those who believed but on the later presbyteroi and episcopoi.

As for your problem with clear scriptural warrant that just because something is not mentioned in the Bible then that something is not true: that would be problematic, because the Apostolic heritage and teaching, has been transmitted to us not only by means of the writted word, but by means of their unwritten preaching and their lived experience. If you do not understand what I say, just go and try to understand what the Church means by Sacred Tradition. And let me warn you beforehand, that it is not as some Protestants would caricature it as Catholic inventions, rather it is the heritage of the whole Apostolic teaching committed to us from Apostolic times down to our own. And to make this easier for understanding, just study the historical records and evidence of early belief in the ancient Church and see how they support current teachings.

To Fr. Rodel F. Lopez,

Thank you for your lengthy reply. I appreciate your effort to clarify some of these points. I have some reading to do,and this is a great start. Clearly, if I believed all that some Protestants have said of Catholics I would not be reading and commenting on this article. Thank you also for not believing all that some Catholics have said of Protestants.

To Mairin,

Thank you for the links. I'm sure they will be helpful.

Ut unum sint.

The institution of the Novus Ordo required changes to the words, form, and structure of the Mass many thousands of times more complex and radical than the recent re-translation of the Mass. So I frankly doubt the sincerity of those who complain that the translation is too difficult or that it poses an obstacle either to the faithful or the celebrant. There is practically no amount of confusion they will not permit or even encourage, if it de-sacrilizes the liturgy. So a big fat "boo-hoo" for those people who find "new books" to be a challenge.

In response to Fr. Koening, I am surprised to learn that you need your bishop's approval to celebrate ad orientum. The pastor at my parish here in Alexandria, VA--not exactly of a hotbed of conservative ecclesiastical leadership--just went and did it, and to my knowledge he never begged our bishop's approval.

I love the new translation of Mass.

2points: (1) I know of one priest who insists on using word "all" instead of "many"which I am not happy about. I wonder if the use of the word "many"refers to the exceptions, the sinless, for instance the sinless Blessed Virgin Mary.
(2) I think, with all the thought and effort that went in to making these changes, one aspect still remains unclear, how many times does one strike ones breast during the Confiteor, once or 3 times? This should be prescriptive to ensure all are doing the same thing.

CS Lewis' famous quotation on this subject (which I think is basically unanswerable) is always worth another read:

"Above all, you must be rid of the hideous idea, fruit of a widespread inferiority complex, that pomp, on the proper occasions, has any connection with vanity or self-conceit. A celebrant approaching the altar, a princess led out by a king to dance a minuet, a general officer on a ceremonial parade, a major-domo preceding the boar's head at a Christmas feast – all these wear unusual clothes, and move with calculated dignity. This does not mean they are vain; it means they are obedient. … The modern habit of doing ceremonial things unceremoniously is no proof of humility; instead, it proves the offender's inability to forget himself in the rite. … We moderns may like dances that are hardly distinguishable from walking, and poetry which sounds as if it might be uttered ex tempore. Our ancestors did not. They liked a dance which was a dance, and fine clothes which no one could mistake for working clothes, and feasts that no one could mistake for ordinary dinners, and poetry that unblushingly proclaimed itself to be poetry. What is the point in having a poet inspired by the muse, if he tells the stories just as you or I would have told them?"

Do the red, read the black:
Brothers and sisters, to prepare ourselves to celebrate this Mass let us call to mind our sins.
Celebrant at Mass here last Sunday:
Brothers and sisters, Isaac carrying the wood for the sacrifice reminds us already of Jesus who bearing the wood of the cross, submitted to be bound and led to the slaughter. The heavenly Father did not refuse us his Son, his only Son.
What was only begun in Isaac was completed in Jesus.
In him we are saved and set free.
So let us turn with confidence to the Father who loosens the bonds of sin and death.

For me, the revised version of the Novus Ordo is almost as deplorable as the one it replaced. The Novus Ordo's supporters keep talking about reverence when they seem to ignore what happens when the priest bends to kiss the altar while his back faces the tabernacle. The priest "moons" the Blessed Sacrament.

The revised Novus Ordo is hardly a major improvement. It's the same novelty with a few tweaks.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/reformof.htm