Following the authentic Tradition of the Church these days
requires much in the way of sacrifice. Few have the ease
and convenience of a closely located Mass location, let
alone full Tridentine parish church, anywhere near as close
and convenient as the nearest Novus Ordo parish. Far
fewer still are willing to sacrifice the loss of friends,
"position," or recognition that comes with their participation in the Novus Ordo, perhaps as "Eucharistic Ministers" or "Musical Minister" or "Readers" or "Servers." Not all have the "taste" for it even as not all people like classical music. Is the Tridentine Mass really worth all the sacrifice we go through to attend it? In particular, is the validity of the Novus
Ordo really all that impaired, that avoiding it is warranted even on that one ground alone? Can't "for all" be considered close enough to "for many?"
Needless to say, those denizens of the Novus Ordo work
hard at lulling souls spiritually to sleep who are foolish enough to listen to them. For a brief period, tradition
threatened to awaken them from their slumber by pointing
out the severity of the wrongness of using "for all." But
little is heard of this today as certain respectable traditional societies (such as the SSPX) insist on affirming that the Novus Ordo is (or at least can be, under the most ideal circumstances anyway) valid, sacramentally speaking.
Well in that case, why bother? How can such an error be
"defended?" Two basic arguments are used, one merely
being to the effect that "Hey, it's approved, and so therefore
it MUST be OK." I prefer to respond to that claim in a
future article. The second is merely through the use of
blatant scholastic dishonesty. In short, certain persons
in or at the Vatican, or in support of their extraordinary
position, have deliberately distorted the known facts and
theological sources. It cannot be put down to mere
accident or incompetence, and therefore this article does constitute
a formal accusation. A recent posting to ZENIT, a question
"Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of
liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University,"
cites two attempts in 1970 on the part of certain authors
of the official publishing organ of the Congregation for
Divine Worship and the Sacraments, Notitiae. In these
articles, several questions were asked, which I will address
one by one:
a) Is there a good reason, and if there is, what is it, for
deciding on such a variation [using "for all" instead of "for
many"]? to which the response given therein was:
"a) According to exegetes, the Aramaic word which in Latin
is translated 'pro multis,' means 'pro omnibus': the multitude
for whom Christ died is unbounded, which is the same as
saying: Christ died for all."
This of course turned out to be
based on the single "scholar" Joachim Jeremias who had
the effrontery to claim that the Aramaic Language had no
distinct words for "many" and "all!" Of course, Aramaic
does have distinct words, as does every known language
ever used by man. The one is not the same as the other.
So obvious and horrific was that error of using the one
unsupported "source" for their claim that later that year
they had to add a "clarification" thus: "In that response,
one reads: 'According to exegetes the Aramaic word,
which in Latin is translated "pro multis," means "pro
omnibus."' This assertion should be expressed a little
more cautiously. To be exact: In the Hebrew (Aramaic)
language there is one word for 'omnes' and another for
'multi.' The word 'multi' then, strictly speaking, does not
mean 'omnes.'" So much for "scholar" Jeremias, whose career never recovered.
But now they must backpeddle. The "corrected response"
"But because the word 'multi' in different ways in our Western languages does not exclude the
whole, it can and does in fact connote it, where the
context or subject matter suggests or requires it. It is
not easy to offer clear examples of this phenomenon.
Here are some:"
and it then provides some examples,
one from the Fourth Book of Esdras (an apocryphal book not included in the standard Catholic Bible), a couple Qumram texts,
and a few others from the New Testament where "many"
could (in their particular contexts) mean "all." Yes, in
some few contexts, "many" can refer to "all" as in "Of all
persons in the world, how many are they?" In the above
quote, "the multitude for whom Christ died is unbounded"
is provided as a justification for treating that "many" as
"all." But unbounded need not be all, as can be illustrated
through simple arithmetic. How many even positive integers
are there (i. e. 2, 4, 6, 8, etc.)? Infinitely many, "unbounded"
one could say. But does that mean that such a set includes
all positive integers? If so, where are 1 and 3 and 5 and so
Worse still, the Qumram texts given do not support the
unique interpretation of "many" equally "all" that the Novus
Ordinarians would give them. Let us take the first: "In the
Qumram text Hodayot IV, 28, 29, both words 'many' and
'all' are found in a synonymous parallel (two parallel verses
in which the same thing is said twice): 'You have worked
wonders among the many on account of your glory that
you might make known to all your great works.'" But look what it really says: The great
wonders of God are worked among "the many," namely
the Jews, in order to make known to "all," namely the
whole world, Jew and Gentile alike, God's great works.
Even more interestingly the Vatican liars claim to find
further Qumram basis in that "Moreover, in Qumram
'many' (with or without the article) came to be a technical
term (almost a name) for the community of all the
full-fledged members, and thus just in the 'rule' of the
sect it occurs in around 30 places." Oops again! There
is no way to mistake the full-fledged members of a particular community for the whole world. The Qumrum community refers to
itself as "the many," which was a grammatical form Jesus was
conspicuously following when He performed the first
Mass, though of course applying it to His community
the Church instead of the Qumram community. "All" of "the many" who comprise a specific community, be it that of
Qumram or that of the Church, can never be confused
with "all" of the whole world. Their very sources refute them, even in the small extracts as given in their quotes.
The New testament passages cited merely refer to the
value of His sacrifice which indeed is sufficient for all
persons, were they all to repent, rather than the actual
fruit of His sacrifice, namely those who do repent and
follow Him (the Church). But the same subterfuge was
used in the original response which continued with:
Augustine will help recall this: 'You see what He hath
given; find out then what He bought. The Blood of Christ
was the price. What is equal to this? What, but the
whole world? What, but all nations? They are very
ungrateful for their price, or very proud, who say that the
price is so small that it bought the Africans only; or that
they are so great, as that it was given for them alone.'
(Enarr. In Ps. 95, n. 5)"
But the saint was not talking about the form to be used for consecrating the Eucharist
but rather against some heresy that had developed in
his native Africa to the effect that the value of Christ's
sacrifice was somehow limited, perhaps to the extent
of its actual fruits. Whoever looked up that Augustinian
reference no doubt saw it in its true context, yet they
quoted it in support of an innovation that St. Augustine
never imagined let alone saw in his day.
I wonder if the folks who came up with this ever actually
READ the Catechism of the Council of Trent. For it
plainly states: "The additional words for you and for
many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke,
but were joined together by the Catholic Church under
the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare
the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look
to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed
His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the
fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall
easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of
the human race. When therefore (our Lord) said: For
you, He meant either those who were present, or those
chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were,
with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom
He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He
wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the
elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.
With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used,
as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone
spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring
the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the
Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to
exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our
Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world,
but for them whom thou hast given me, because they
are thine." (Catechism of the Council of Trent, pages
227-228, TAN Books edition)
Still, one might say, "Granted, 'for all' is utterly uncalled
for and gravely against what Jesus Christ intended, but
can that really be so serious? Why can't it be applied
to all the world for whom He died instead of merely those
who accept His gift? But this question ignores the
basic fact that the Eucharist is the Sacrament of Unity
of the Church. Not Unity between the Church and the
world ("world" in the sense of "the world, the flesh, and
the Devil"), but the Unity of the believers amongst
themselves, and with the souls in Purgatory, the saints in Heaven, and most of all with God Himself Whose Sacred Flesh they have devoutly eaten.
And this makes sense in that this is the main Sacrament
of the Church. A distinction is being made between the
ordinary and the sacred. Without some things being
ordinary, the very word "sacred" would become emptied
of meaning. For example, if one were to say "Why is
Sunday more holy than the other days of the week? Why
not make all days holy?" What is wrong with such a
suggestion is that it doing such a thing would make all
days equally sacred, hence equally ordinary, and the
very concept of the sacred becomes lost.
This is why there has always been a physical separation
between the "sacred" place in the church for the priests
and the "ordinary" place for everyone else. In the ancient
tabernacle (tent) of the Israelites and again the various
Jewish temples, there was always the "most holy" and
the "holy" and then the other areas outside (yet still
within the temple and hence still somewhat "more holy"
than anywhere outside the temple), such as the Court of the Women and the Court of the Gentiles. Catholic churches
have always reflected the same separation. In the
Eastern churches for example, there is the Iconostasis,
and in the Western, the rood screen, or at bare minimum,
the altar railing. So too with the Blessed Sacrament.
"Many" grains of wheat go into the "one loaf," but not
all, and "many" grapes go into the "one chalice," but
not all. So it is that "many" (as many as who so choose
to obey Christ) compose the "one Mystical Body of the
Church," but not all. If "all persons on the face of the
earth" could be meant here, then "all loaves of bread,
leavened and unleavened, sweetened and unsweetened,
purchased or still on grocery store shelves" would
equally therefore become "the Body of Christ" and the
same for all the wine in all the bottles, bars, and
wineries around the world. It would cheapen the
Sacrament to worthlessness if "all" could ever validly
be meant. "Many" is therefore a necessary component
of the valid sacramental form.
But what about the use of the so-called "short form"?
Since it contains neither "for many" nor "for all" some
might doubt its validity, but it does appear to have been
used on at least some very few occasions. However, because an approved priest using the short form would obviously intend to do what the Church does in using the far more universal long form, one could argue that "for many" might be sufficiently implied with a "short form" (one that only says "this is the chalice of my blood." (period!)
All of that being the case, could a Novus Ordo ever be
performed validly in the vernacular using "for all"?
Strangely, yes, because many priests trained and formed
and ordained in the "good old days" might say the "all"
of the Novus Ordo meaning, at least unconsciously or
implicitly, ("all who belong to Christ," or even [if they
know all their parishoners well enough to recognize each
and every one of them in the building at the time and see
no unfamiliar faces] "all persons in this room" or "all of
you") And of course, this assumes that similar hurdles regarding the Novus Ordo distortion of the use of the phrase "Mystery of Faith" are also similarily overcome. But if he says "all" here and by it means "all
persons everywhere on the face of the earth" (which
would be exactly the same as "all persons for whom
Christ died" referencing the value rather than the fruit
of His sacrifice) then he does not confect the
sacrament, and the "Mass" is invalid. Who knows
what he meant? The Novus Ordo vernacular form is
ambiguous, and in any event gravely sacrilegious,
even if only "all" of Christ's faithful is validly meant.