www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Universal Tridentine Mass

Johan,

While I agree with your post in general, I have to disagree that the "pro multis" or "for many/all" question isn't really an issue except to those schismatics who wish to make it so.

This site explains a lot: http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/mass.html

Logos Teen

No again, Johan

The Latin form of the N.O. form of Mass contains still "pro multis". The translation in English is "for all" The Trads especially SSPXers presume that this invalidates the Liturgy mistakenly.

Actually it was the Jansenist heretics who considered "pro multis" as being for the "many" in the sense of the elect similarly to Calvinism

The Novus Ordo Mass cannot be blamed for the changes in the words of the connsacration and other mistranslations, which were never part of the Latin text, and were added much later to the vernacular versions.

In theory there is not a problem when they say "For All" or "For Many", because Christ shed his blood for all men, as it was his intention to save all men, and many will be saved.

The problem, if I am not mistaken, is the intention of those who added "For All", and it appears in almost all the vernacular translations. If the change was deliberated, then the traditionalists' claims would be legitimate.

I have noticed that the modern Roman mass is very participatory and has lots of possitive elements that have a lot in common with the Eastern liturgy (specialy the Slavic liturgy). If the abuses are destroyed and eliminated, and the altars, correct translations and the images return, things would probably work better for the Latin Church.

By the way, I think that the Missal of 1965 (the "middle way" between the Old Mass and the modern one) was an excellent option. I have read the Missal and it had lots of things in common with the Eastern liturgy (and i don't mean the East is better than the West or anything like that), it was still a Tridentine Mass with the prayers, but in vernacular, and with the litany.

Joe, how profound! It is beautiful.

Of course its the soft spots that make us uniquely___________(fill in here). But we must never forget our connectedness to all other true Christians in our worship. It's those "firm" components of the liturgy that Jesus gifted us with!

Michael

As far as "pro multis" goes will anyone here actually say publically that Jesus did not die FOR ALL? Hello? His Blood shed for some but not others?

Now, granted, all will not accept, believe in or acknowledge Him. But I defy anyone to say Jesus only died for some and not all. While it is usually not a great idea to tamper with core parts of liturgy such as the Canon (Latin liturgy) or Anaphora (Eastern), this change to "shed...for all" I don't think can sensibly be considered a change which would completely invalidate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Latin rite.

I was a Society of St. Pius X seminarian for the past two years. Every day for that time, I lived, breathed, and prayed the Roman liturgy as it was done before Vatican II, and am very much of the opinion that for the Western Church, this liurgy can be its only means of sanctification.
The Church has two lungs, East and West. I have chosen to side with the East, but do not reject the other lung, in spite of its problems even in its best form. However, there is no use in having two lungs if one does not function properly. Both East and West cannot function properly unless they truly live the Apostolic Faith that has been passed down to them, flaws and all. Yes, low Masses, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, and the Stations of the Cross can seem strange to the Orthodox. But they have to realize that these decadent "Baroque" devotions inspired great saints and lovers of Christ. The primary heart of all this was the ancient Roman Mass, that had developed gradually from the time of St. Gregory the Great until the Roman Missal of 1962. It should be a great hope of all of us, East and West, that Christians can once again drink from that great fountain of holiness that produced a Padre Pio, a St. Francis Xavier, and a Cure d'Ars.
Sicut cervus desiderat ad fontes aquarum...

Indeed He has risen!

Arturo

Johan,

Do you think is God who is not pleased with the Church? I think it is the people who are not pleased.

Joe

My understand is that "pro multis" might best be translated as "for the masses", except that has a Marxist sound to it. It does seem to straddle the Calvinistic "for many" and the standard "for all".

Axios

It seems that Rome is still the same. The Traditional Mass will be celebrated in a side chapel in St Peters, but not in st. Peters, as a "secret" event. It seems it won't be celebrated in St. Peter's cause it would bother the spirits of the architects of the liturgical reform.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/20030522.htm

The Tridentine Mass is beautiful. I think 90% of the people in the pews at any RC church don't really miss it. I think if it returns to more general usage, it will become a devotional activity--I know if it were offered at my RC parish back home it would probably draw about 50 people, and could be held in the chapel.

Of course, I'd still drive an hour to go join the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. I have no problems with the validity of the Novo Ordo or the Tridentine Mass--but the Byzantine Liturgies leave me walking six inches off the ground all week.

Neil

Neil, thanks for posting. You express my thoughts as well.

Michael