In Defense of the Pauline Mass

8/4/2019 In Defense of the Pauline Mass

1/17

IN DEFENSE OF THE PAULINE MASS

By Matt1618

Due to many abuses of the Mass that was authorized by Pope Paul VI in 1969,there are many people who have responded that the New Mass that was authorized

by Pope Paul was not authorizable. There are people who call themselves

traditionalists who argue that the Tridentine Mass, established in the 16th century,

was to be always and forever (quoting Pope Pius V in Quo Primum), and couldnever be changed. There are many reasons that those who reject the Pauline Rite

Mass (New Mass) give for doing so, and I do not have the time or space to go

through each of the reasons why they reject the Pauline Rite Mass. Here I will givea summary of some of the major objections that so-called traditionalists give for

rejecting the New Mass, and I will attempt to show why those reasons are invalid. I

acknowledge here that most of the information I will use here, is borrowed from

the book, The Pope, The Council, and the Mass, written by James Likoudis and

Kenneth Whitehead. This book goes into more depth on each of the issues raised

here, as well as other objections to the Pauline Mass. If anyone wants to take an in-depth look at each of the issues brought up here, plus much more, I suggest that

one purchases this book from Catholic Answers at 619-387-7200. I can only

peripherally here touch on these issues.

Here I will spend time on each of the Following Issues:

I. Did Pope Paul VI have authorization to create a New Mass? II. The Sacrifice of the Mass

III. What about Cardinal Ottavianis Letter?

IV. Is For All an invalid translation of Pro Vobis et Pro Multis?

V. The Mystery of Faith

I. Did Pope Paul VI haveauthorization to create a New Mass?

This issue is the one most central to the debate. Many so-called traditionalistscharge that the Pauline Mass is invalid and Pope Paul VI did not have the authority

to change the Tridentine Mass. The Tridentine Mass is supposedly the only Mass

that has been preserved for 2000 years, with little change. Finally, the charge is

that Pope St. Pius V definitively declared that this Mass promulgated was never to

be altered, changed. Let us look at some of the most important texts that relate:


2/17

Quo Primum

This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Massdifferently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the

church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a

custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of notless than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-

mentioned prerogative or custom. However, if this Missal, which we have seen fit

to publish, be more agreeable to these latter, We grant them permission to celebrate

Mass according to its rite, provided they have the consent of their bishop or prelate

or of their whole Chapter, everything else to the contrary notwithstanding. .

All other of the churches referred to above, however, are hereby denied the use of

other missals, which are to be discontinued entirely and absolutely; whereas, by

this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We

order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal,nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the

penalty of Our displeasure. .

We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all otherpersons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of

the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We

order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to

the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to

discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals,

however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not incelebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other

than those contained in this Missal. .

Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We

grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any

church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any

scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and

may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons,chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated,

obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise

declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal,

and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain alwaysvalid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and

decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of

provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of theaforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription - except,

however, if more than two hundred years' standing.

Here we have a papal decree that at first glance seems to be unalterable in any way.In order to understand this decree we must examine the meaning of the term, and


3/17

how Pope Pius V himself understood the text, how subsequent popes dealt with the

issue, and if indeed there was any precedent for the changes in the Pauline RiteMass. Also Was the Tridentine decree only a reaffirmation of 1500 years of an

unchanged Mass, from at least the time of Pope Gregory, as is often alleged?

Unfortunately, it seems that 20th century people, read 20th century language inunderstanding 16th century Church documents.

A careful reading of the text shows that Pope St. Pius V never intended by Quo

Primum that further revision of the Roman Missal could ever be made, or that no

other form of the Roman Mass, could henceforth ever be said (as alleged by thoseagainst the New Mass). In fact even in Quo Primum he provided for the celebration

of other forms of the Mass: rites which had been followed for more than 200 years

were specifically exempted from the provisions of Quo Primum and from the use

of the St. Pius V Roman Missal (Whitehead, pp. 54-55).

None of the popes who followed St. Pius V felt bound to not make alterations of

the Roman rite. These alterations were done long before the New Mass

promulgated by Pope Paul VI. As Father Joseph Jungmann, who has done the most

thorough study of the Roman rite explains Some real changes since the sixteenthcentury in the rubrics and in the text of the Missal of Pius V have resulted in

certain instances from papal orders, such as Pope Urban VII Pope Clement XII,

Pope Leo XIII, and Pope Pius X. (Father Jungmann, The Mass of the Roman Rite,

Its Origins and Development, 1950, revised by Charles K. Riepe, Christian

Classics, 1974, p. 105).

An interesting parallel is in 1568 the Apostolic Constitution Quod a Vobix. Here

the Pope established the new Roman Breviary with forceful language fully asstrong as used in Quo Primum. The so-called Traditionalist view, if to be

consistent, (just as they highlight there be absolutely no change to the Missal)

would have to argue that there could be no change to the Roman Breviary. If that

was the case, why did St. Pope Pius X, not hesitate to revise the Roman Breviary in

1911 by means of his own Apostolic Constitution Divino Afflatu? Just as Pope

Pius X made a revision, so did Pope Paul VI revise the Roman Missal by means ofhis Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum. There were no so-called

traditionalists around complaining that Pope St. Pius did not have such authority.

The reason is that the Popes did have the authority to revise the Roman Breviary,

as well as the Missal.

Quod a Vobis says this about the Breviary, just as Quo Primum says about the

Roman Missal:

Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this letter or heedlessly to

venture to go contrary to this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance,command, precept, grant, indult declaration, will decree and prohibition. Should

anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he willincur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.


4/17

This was a conventional legal formula in papal documents of the day, not

something binding on future popes. As Whitehead notes: Certainly Pope St. PiusX considered it so when he revised the Roman Breviary in 1911 in spite of the

identical caveat contained in St. Pius Vs Quod a Vobis. He specifically says that

he is ordering a new arrangement of the Roman Breviary issued by St. Pius Vand revised by Clement VIII, Urban VIII and Leo XIII,... When Pope Pius X

revised the Roman breviary, he even concluded his Apostolic Constitution Divino

Afflatu with an ecclesiastical caveat against anyone daring to change his decision

which was the established legal form to be attached to papal decree in his time.

This was stated even while he was revising this in perpetuity document of the

16th century!! Thus popes using such language do not stop future popes from

making changes; it is remarkably similar to the caveat in Quo Primum.(Whitehead, p. 57). Prior to Vatican II, other changes were made to the Missal by

Pope Pius XII and John XXIII as well.

Did Pope Paul VI have the authority to repeal the Apostolic Constitution, Quo

Primum? Technically, he did not abrogate the Roman Missal, but he did replace it

by the new revised Roman Missal and derogated the use of the older Missal. Pope

Paul VI possessed the same papal authority as Pope St. Pius V. The principle is

explicitly recognized by the Code of Canon Law. Canon 22 states that if the laterlaw is equally general or equally particular with the former one - and both Quo

Primum and Missale Romanum are equally Apostolic Constitutions dealing with

exactly the same subject matter of the former law. A later law repeals the formerone, if it contains an explicit statement to that effect, a repealing clause." Pope

Paul VIs Missale Romanum did exactly that. It both mentions Quo Primum andsays that what he is promulgating is promulgated notwithstanding, as far as is

necessary, Apostolic Constitutions and Ordinances issued by our Predecessors and

other prescriptions worthy of special mention and derogation. (Whitehead, 58, 59)

What about the language in Quo Primum that says it is to apply henceforth, now,

and forever and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified? In

perpetuity means that they are to last indefinitely, that no specific date or time is

set in advance when this will automatically lapse; Thus it will remain in force until

subsequently modified by legitimate authority. That legitimate authority is in factfuture popes. For example, Clement XIV wrote Dominus ac Redemptor in 1773

which suppressed the Society of Jesus, and he declared that this measure should be

perpetuo validas; but this in no way prevented his successor Pius VII from

reestablishing the Society of Jesus anyway in Sollicitudo Omnium of August 7,1814. The mere use of the term perpetual did not mean that a subsequent Pope no

longer had the authority to revive the religious order which the previous Pope had

dissolved. Perpetual merely means here until some further legitimate enactment

is carried out by a sovereign Pontiff. (Whitehead, p. 59-60).

We must remember the text of Quo Primum shows that Pope Pius V recognizedthat his Mass was a NEW RITE, not the same thing that had been celebrated for 15


5/17

centuries. A pure reading of the text of the New Testament institution of the

Eucharist by Christ, and very early rites showed that since then there were manychanges over the years, though the substance was maintained. That is the same

thing maintained by Pope Paul VI when he instituted the New Mass. The Council

of Trent called for Pope Pius V to do a revised Roman Missal, just as Pope Paul VIdid a revised Roman Missal at the request of Vatican II. The Council of Trent

writes: In the dispensation of the sacraments, provided their substance is

preserved, the Church has always had the power to determine or change, according

to circumstances, times and places, what she judges more expedient for the benefit

of those receiving them or for the veneration of the sacraments. (Council of Trent,

21st Session). Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei explained, as circumstances warrant,

public worship is organized, developed and enriched by NEW RITES,

CEREMONIES, and regulations (#22). (Whitehead, p. 46-47).

Anathemas are attached to those who disobey Papal decrees, based on PapalAuthority as affirmed by Vatican Council I. Those who refuse to recognize Papal

authority on Novus Ordo (thinking that they know tradition better) are condemned

by the decrees of Vatican I, a decree that on the surface they accept.

If anyone should say that the Roman Pontiff has merely the function of inspection

or direction but not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church,

not only in matters pertaining to faith and morals, but also in matters pertaining to

the discipline and government of the Church throughout the entire world, or that he

has only the principal share, but not the full plenitutde of this supreme power; or

that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate over all Churches and overeach individual Church, over all shepherds and all the faithful, and over each

individual one of these: let him be anathema (Vatican Council I, Dogmatic

Constitution of the Church of Christ, #3).

We thus see papal primacy is in faith, morals, and discipline. If we do not,

anathemas are attached. Any so-called Traditionalist, who rejects the validity of the

Pauline Rite Mass, lets himself be anathematized. Pope Pius IX declares that any

attempt to evade Church discipline on the ground that faith and morals are notinvolved goes contrary to Catholic doctrine; It is part of Catholic faith and

morals.(Whitehead, p. 49-50). Pope Pius IX also taught that it is as contrary to the

divine constitution of the Church as it is to perpetual and constant tradition for

anyone to attempt to prove the catholicity of his faith and truly call himself aCatholic when he fails in obedience to the Apostolic See. (Pope Pius IX, Quartus

Supra to the Armenians, January 6, 1873). We are called not to disobedience, but

faithful obedience.

II. The Sacrifice of the Mass


6/17

Some argue that one of the big deficiencies of the Pauline Rite Mass, is that it isonly termed a communal meal, a memorial meal, and has done away or at leastdrastically reduced the emphasis on the Sacrifice of the Mass. This was supposedly

done to appeal to Protestant observers, who supposedly helped to write the Mass.

Indeed the Mass is a memorial, but that is not a lessening of tradition or scripture.

Jesus told his apostles Do this as a memorial of Me. The term memorial (oranamnesis in the Greek) means that when the priest utters the words of

consecration, he brings about or represents the same mystery which Christ brought

about at the Last Supper on the night before He suffered. The one sacrifice of theCross is thus rendered present, though in an unbloody manner, and the divine

Victim of the Cross is both offerer and offered in the Churchs liturgical rite

.(Whitehead, p. 78).

There were no doubt Protestant observers of the working sessions of theCommission. Protestants do not generally believe Christ can be made present; thus

there can be no sacrifice. They only believe in the priesthood of all believers, not

a ministerial priesthood. Let us see whether Catholic doctrine was watered down in

these areas. What did the Vatican II Church officially declare about the Mass in

reference to Pauline Rite Mass?"

"Hence, the Mass, the Lords Supper, is at the same time and inseparably:

1) A sacrifice in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated

2) a memorial of the death and resurrection of the Lord, who said do this in

memory of me (Lk. 22:19).3) a sacred banquet in which, through the communion of the Body and Blood of

the Lord, the People of God share the benefits of the Paschal Sacrifice, renew theNew Covenant which God has made with man once for all through the Blood of

Christ. (Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery Eucharisticum

Mysterium, #C1."

In the foreword to the General Instruction on the Roman Missal states:The Sacrificial character of the Mass was solemnly defined by the Council of Trent

in accordance with the universal tradition of the Church (Session 22, Sep. 17,

1562). The Second Vatican Council has enunciated this same teaching once again,and made this highly significant comment: At the Last Supper our Saviour

instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood. He did this in order to

perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross until he should come again; (Constitution On

the Sacred Liturgy #47).

This foreword describes the New Order of the Mass as a sacrifice of praise,thanksgiving, propitiation and satisfaction, thus affirming doctrines that Protestants

specifically deny. The Pauline Mass affirms these things; it was not designed to

please Protestants by compromising Catholic doctrine whatsoever (Whitehead, p.80).


7/17

What about the charge of the Mass being Protestantized? After all, there is more

hymn singing, vernacular liturgy, a greater emphasis on the Scriptures, etc. Thefact is that the early church had some of the same things-hymn singing,

vernacular liturgy, greater emphasis on the Scriptures- and that, finally, the fact

that the Church has adopted these particular things today means that they are reallycompatible with Catholic worship. (Whitehead, 82).

One thing that must be noted of the input of Protestant observers at Vatican II. On

July 4, 1976, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship unequivocally declared:

The Protestant observers did not participate in the composition of the texts of thenew Missal.( Documentation Catholique #58, 1976, page 649). What is clear in

the Pauline Rite Mass? It reflects the Eucharistic Sacrifice as a propitiatory work

offered for the living and the dead; concerning the Transubstantiation of the bread

and wine into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ; concerning the

intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the saints; concerning prayer for thedead- are all points on which Protestants continue to disagree with the Catholic

Church but all of which are explicitly present in the Pauline Rite Mass.

(Whitehead, p. 85).

For those who say the Mass is Protestantized, there is one question to ask? Do you

know of one Protestant church who celebrates the Pauline Rite liturgy and any of

the 4 Eucharistic prayers? No, the proof is in the pudding. No Protestant services

recognize any of these distinctly Catholic doctrines. Max Thurian, a Calvinist

monk at the time, wrote the following in reference to Protestantism and the Pauline

Rite Mass:

Recently a Protestant commission was given the task of revising the prayers of theLast Supper. It was proposed that they adopt the second Catholic Eucharistic

Prayer (inspired by St. Hippolytus). That proposition was rejected, because the

commission considered that the doctrine implied in that prayer did not correspond

to the actual common faith of Protestants... the invocation of the Spirit on the bread

and wine presupposed Transubstantiation. (Max Thurian, Quoted in La Croix

(Paris), June 15, 1977.) Notice that the second Eucharistic prayer was inspired bythe ancient tradition of St. Hippolytus. Not only was there not a single non-

Catholic who participated in the work of the post-conciliar Commission headed by

Cardinal Lercaro of Bologna, there were no Protestants back in the 3rd Century,

from which this Eucharistic prayer is based on. It is distinctively Catholic.

The Tridentine decree gave an impression that the sacrifice of bread and wine

came during the offertory. Actually there is only one sacrifice of the Body and

Blood of Christ accomplished during the consecration of the elements. Many

eminent liturgists even during the days of St. Pius V discussed a reform of theRoman Canon to eliminate a misunderstanding of the meaning of sacrifice. The

Tridentine Mass could give an impression that the offering of bread and wineconstituted the sacrifice of Christ when it said, for example "We offer unto Thee, O


8/17

Lord, the Chalice of salvation." and "Receive O Holy father.. this immaculate host

which I...offer Thee...,". This caused some to think that this is when the sacrifice ofChrist took place. In actuality, the salvific sacrifice of Christ was on Calvary, and

the sacrifice is perpetually renewed on the altar AT THE MOMENT OF

CONSECRATION by a validly-ordained priest, and not before. The Council ofTrent clearly teaches this (Council of Trent, Thirteenth Session, Decree on the

Most Holy Eucharist) (Whitehead, 120).

The Pauline Rite Mass teaches clearly that the anamnesis, the prayer which follows

the words of consecration "makes memory" of the death and resurrection by thepriest offering his body and blood (made present by Transubstantiation ) to the

Father.

The first Eucharistic prayer retains much of the Roman Canon. It is too long to

recite here but it maintains the idea that it is sacrifice. The traditional Roman canonretains the place of preeminence among the four chief Eucharistic Prayers. For

example, it includes:

Through him we ask you to accept and bless these gifts we offer you in

sacrifice.... We offer you this sacrifice of praise. These are similar to the

Tridentine Mass.

Eucharistic Prayer II is substantially that of St. Hippolytus that goes back to the

year 215 AD, and declares:

"In memory of his death and resurrection, we offer you, Father, this life-giving

bread, this saving cup."

If any objections are made to the above prayer, one is objecting to the most

treasured, and ancient of Eucharistic prayers, (and by no means Protestant).

Eucharistic Prayer III says:

We offer you in thanksgiving THIS HOLY AND LIVING SACRIFICE. Look withfavor on your Church's offering, and see t he Victim, whose death has reconciled

us to your self.

Eucharistic Prayer IV says:We offer you his body and blood, THE ACCEPTABLE SACRIFICE which brings

salvation to the whole world. (Whitehead, 120-121)

We thus see in the prayers that Pauline Rite Mass maintains completely Catholic

orthodoxy-because it is a sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ who is

both Priest and Victim, and who offers Himself as a victim in propitiation for the

living and dead.

III. What about Cardinal Ottavianis Letter?


9/17

The Ottaviani Intervention is one of the most often peddled pieces of the so-called

traditionalist movement. Cardinal Ottaviani expressed many concerns about theNew Mass, and the so-called traditionalists have played this letter up very much. If

you go to any site that rejects the Pauline Rite Mass, this letter by the Cardinal will

probably be very prominent. Let us look parts of the letter and his most strenuous

objection. This is tied into to objections to the Sacrifice of the Eucharist. Cardinal

Ottaviani did have sincere problems with some of the changes, no doubt. He wrote

this before New Mass was finalized:

The Novus Ordo Missae-considering the new elements, susceptible of widelydiffering evaluations, which appear to be implied or taken for granted-represents,

as a whole and in detail, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the

Holy Mass as it was formulated in Session XXIII of the Council of Trent. . . .Therefore, we most earnestly beseech your Holiness not to deprive us--at a time of

such painful divisions and ever-increasing perils for the purity of the Faith and the

unity of the Church--of the possibility of continuing to have recourse to the fruitfulintegrity of that Missale Romanum of St. Pius V, so highly praised by your

Holiness and so deeply venerated and loved by the whole Catholic Church (In

Triumph. December, 1969).

The first thing to note that this criticism was leveled before the final version of the

Pauline Rite Mass was completed. However, few of those in the schismatic circles

who circulate the Ottaviani Intervention , publish Cardinal Ottaviani commentson the final version of the Pauline Rite Mass AFTER IT WAS OFFICIALLYPROMULGATED. Pope Paul VI gave two general audiences in regards to the

Pauline Rite Mass. Cardinal Ottaviani responded to this by writing:

I have REJOICED PROFOUNDLY to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on

the question of the new Ordo Missae, and ESPECIALLY THE DOCTRINAL

PRECISIONS CONTAINED IN HIS DISCOURSES at the public Audiences of

November 19 and 26, after which I believe, NO ONE CAN ANY LONGER BE

GENUINELY SCANDALIZED. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent

catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the textis capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your Doctrinal Note [on the Pauline

Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae WIDE DIFFUSION

AND SUCCESS. (Whitehead, 129, Letter from his eminence Alfredo CardinalOttaviani to Dom Gerard Lafond, O.S.B., in Documentation Catholique, #67,

1970, pages 215-216 and 343)

Cardinal Ottaviani published later yet another very relevant public statement in

which he said: The Beauty of the Church is equally resplendent in the variety of

the liturgical rites which enrich her divine cult-when they are legitimate andconform to the faith. Precisely the LEGITIMACY OF THEIR ORIGIN


10/17

PROTECTS AND GUARDS THEM AGAINST INFILTRATION OF ERRORS. .

. .The PURITY AND UNITY OF THE FAITH is in this manner also UPHELDBY THE SUPREME MAGISTERIUM OF THE POPE THROUGH THE

LITURGICAL LAWS.(In Cruzado Espanol, May 25, 1970)

What was Cardinal Ottavianis view of who truly followed the Roman Catholic

faith? What was his view of the papacy?

The words of Christ feed my sheep are words which have been addressed onlyto his vicar, and it follows that whoever would wish to be counted among the Flock

of Christ must submit to the Universal Pastor appointed by Christ. No one can be a

exception to this rule, not even Bishops. (Whitehead, 130, From Leroy Philippe,

Pierre a Parle, Chevaliers #32, 1976).

The two ensuing letters by Cardinal Ottaviani, after the Ottaviani interventionhave been a matter of public record for all to see. However, none of those who use

this intervention as a way to smear the Pauline Rite Mass, ever let people in on the

fact that Ottaviani subsequently wrote that no one could any longer be scandalized.The fact that people continue to publish his original attacks on the Pauline Rite

Mass without letting anybody seeing his ensuing letters show deceit of the so-

called Traditionalist movement. Maybe we can give the benefit of the doubt and

say that many who do tout his original intervention do not know of his subsequent

letters in which he affirmed the purity of the faith that was preserved in the Pauline

Rite Mass; Nevertheless, these ensuing letters show that indeed that Cardinal

Ottaviani did not end up holding the position of those who reject the Pauline RiteMass. No doubt he was attached to the Tridentine Mass, and in fact now, for those

who get indults, that is fine. But Cardinal Ottaviani in the end rejoiced over the factthat the Pauline Rite Mass was preserved and protected against the infiltration of

errors and that the Supreme Magisterium upheld the purity and unity of the faith.

As one of the most erudite Thomistic theologians of our time, Charles Cardinal

Journet, in referring to the Pauline Rite Mass, writes:Let me take care to say, there is no renouncing of anything essential. . . The

substance of the Mass remains absolutely the same: there is the Offertory, the

Consecration. . . And the Sovereign Pontiff has recalled expressly what was notexpressed sufficiently in the rubrics of the new Ordo: that the Mass is a sacrifice.

He has recalled that there is a change of bread and wine into the Body and Blood

of Christ. All these things, which are not Protestant, are truly Catholic- and also

orthodox. Thus there is the reaffirmation of the classic Catholic doctrine on the

Eucharist sacrifice. (Whitehead, 131, from Cardinal Journet and the New Order of

the Mass, in Documentation Catholique #9, May 1, 1977, pages 444-445).


11/17

IV. Is For All an Invalid

Translation of Pro Vobis et Pro Multis?

So-called traditionalists charge that it is a mistranslation of the Latin text "Pro

Vobis et Pro Multus", when it is translated as "For you and for All Men" instead of

For you and for many. This supposedly implies the heretical idea that all men

will necessarily be saved. Also, the so-called Traditionalists will argue that theformula for consecration, fixed for All Time by Christ, was "For Many". Therefore

the consecration "For All" renders the consecration invalid, or to the less extreme,

at least say that this is a corruption and altering of Jesus' words.

Is it a heretical idea that Christ died for all men, and thus "For Many" is an invalididea? On the contrary, scripture and tradition teach unhesitatingly that Christ died

for all men. No doubt the efficaciousness of the redemption will not save all men,

but it is scripture and Church doctrine that Christ died for all:

He is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of thewhole world.(1 John 2:2)

For as in Adam ALL DIE, so also in Christ shall ALL BE made alive"(1 Cor.

15:22);

He... did not spare his own son but gave him up for us ALL...(Rom. 8:32).

In actuality, the consecratory offering has never been the place to go to find the

explicit doctrine on how many will be saved. In fact the church has never said, that

by this phrase For Many, has EVER BEEN the defining factor of how many

people will be saved. In reality, our Lord said that few will be saved, as when ourLord said For many are called, but few are chosen (Mt. 22:14). He also said For

the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are

few (Mt. 7:14). The emphasis, is thus not on the extent of salvation, but on who

Christ died for. Once we see this, an English understanding of the term For

Many would indeed make the Tridentine Mass heretical, and show scripture and

tradition to be contradictory. After all, the church has always taught that Christdied for all, not merely many. If we held that here is where we teach that "Christ

died for many, and not all", the Catholic Church would be teaching a pile of

contradictions, as I know most traditionalists do not hold.

In fact, the use of many, and for all, in the bible are interchangeable. For example,

in Rom. 5:15, Paul writes:

For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God

and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.


12/17

If Christ died only for many, and could not mean all, we would have scripture

contradicting Trent, which as faithful Catholics understand, is not possible. TheChurch teaches as dogma that original sin effects all, not many. Not only does

Scripture not contradict Trent, Paul also uses the word for all in the very same

section Paul wrote in Romans 5:12:

Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and

so death spread to all men because all men sinned.

As Whitehead points out, "the Hebrew and Aramaic words of "many" familiar to

the Apostles, had a common meaning of "the all who are many" or an "undefined

multitude" The bible on occasion uses all and many interchangeabley" (Whitehead,

101), as we saw with Paul.

Whitehead quotes the great biblical scholar, Pierre Benoit, O.P., who writes of theword "many" in the scriptures (Whitehead, 101):

"The word which we translate as 'many' stresses the sense of a great number and

does not exclude anyone. . .Jesus certainly makes this fullness of salvation his ownand it is the whole of mankind to the end of space and time that he includes in the

'many' for whom he was going to give his life as a 'ransom' (Matthew 20:28; Mark

10:45). (Benoit, Pierre, O.P. "The Accounts of the Institution and What they

Imply," in "The Eucharist in the New Testament: A symposium", Helicon Press,

Baltimore and Dublin, 1964, page 80.) This is right in line with the great Doctors

of the Church, as St. Thomas referencing the other great Doctor, St. Augustine on

the issue:"St. Augustine explains 'multi' to mean 'all men'; and this manner of speaking is

frequently found in sacred scripture. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica,

Question 75, Reply to Objection 2).

The Council of Trent's Catechism and St. Thomas Aquinas himself did hold that

the consecratory formula should include the phrase 'for many' instead of 'for all'.

They did justify the use of the consecration formula in that day. In the same way,the Council of Florence, when endeavoring to achieve union with the Armenian

Orthodox Church did set forth a statement of the necessity of the formula which

said "for many." (Whitehead, 107). Although that was the case, none said this wasthe only way that valid consecrations have taken in the past, or valid consecrations

in the future can be said.

The Council of Trent recognized that the words "For you and for many" are not

found in that form in the New Testament. Those words were "joined together by

the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God." (Catechism of theCouncil of Trent, p. 226). The Council of Trent Catechism thus recognizes that it is

the Church who determines what the proper form of a sacrament must be

(Whitehead, 106). There is no hint that the Catechism was mandating that thoseprecise words "For you and for many" be used for all time. In fact, during the


13/17

institution of the original Eucharist itself, when Jesus consecrated the first

Eucharist, we have different formulas in scripture. Although the gospels of Markand Matthew have Jesus using the formula "for many" (although not "For you and

for many" as the Tridentine rite has it), Luke and Paul do not use the phrase 'for

many' at all. Paul probably wrote the first consecration in scripture, 1 Cor. 11:23-26:

"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on

the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he

broke it, and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance ofme.' In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new

covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For

as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until

he comes"

St. Paul reports receiving this consecratory formula from the Lord himself (by

apostolic tradition)(v. 23). Notice, however, that he did not use the words "for

many" or "for all". The same with St. Luke (Lk. 22:14-20). What so-called

Traditionalist would have the nerve to say that his consecrations were not valid

because Paul does not use the phrase 'for many'!

A study done by Dom Leclerq finds that there have been no fewer than 89

variations in the formulas for consecration in the history of the Church.

(Whitehead, 109, Dom Leclerq, Dictionnaire d'Archeologie Chretienne et de

Liturgie (Col. 730-750). Of these variations there are a number where not only thephrase "for many' but other words of the "Tridentine' form (Such as Mystery of

Faith) of the consecration are not to be found.

The Catholic Church has never been limited to the Roman rite. It recognizes nine

rites, which has its own right and proper way of doing things, including the

celebration of the Eucharist, as Atwatter's Catholic Dictionary points out before

Vatican II (Latin, Byzantine, Armenian, Chaldean, Coptic, Ethiopic, Malabar,Maronite and Syrian rites):

The Mass of St. Hippolytus, 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 myBlood which is shed for you". The following recognized Oriental Liturgies do not

include "for many" in the consecration of the chalice: Catholic Ethiopian Rite,

"Take, drink, this is my blood which is shed for you for the remission of sins."

(From King, Archdale A., Rites of Eastern Christendom, Catholic Book Agency,

Rome, 1947. Vol. 1, pp. 641-642). 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.


14/17

Finally a few examples that Whitehead provides of Eucharistic prayers dating back

to the 7th century in books published by the Holy See include the Anaphora(Eucharistic prayer) of the Lord Jesus Christ:(107)

"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) andsanctifying, 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.

Thus, the formulas that do not include "for many" are historic, and have long beenrecognized by the Catholic Church. The fact that the phrase is not included in the

English translation of the Latin formula is thus not an innovation of Pauline Rite

Mass.

V. The Mystery of Faith

Some So-called Traditionalists will argue that the removal of the words

"Mysterium Fidei" (or Mystery of Faith from the words of consecration and their

use instead for acclamation deliberately downgrades or denies the belief in the real

presence.

The important facts stated in reference to scripture and early Church history inreference to "For Many" is even more present in this case of the term mystery of

faith. Nowhere in any of the four accounts of the institution of the Eucharist in thebible, is there any reference to the term mystery of faith. It is obvious that the

consecrations were valid, even though Jesus and the apostles did not use the term

mystery of faith, either during the consecration, or after the consecration. The veryfact that Jesus did not use the term 'Mystery of Faith' during the consecration was

reason for Pope Paul VI to move it to another part of the liturgy. If anyone gets

dogmatic that it is essential to the consecration, this fact blows this objection

away.

The same issues in regards to the history of the use of the term 'For Many' is

relevant to 'Mystery of Faith'. There are many rites long recognized by the Church

as valid that do not use the term 'Mystery of Faith'. This shows that it does not

directly touch the issue of a valid consecration.

As Whitehead notes, actually it may be more appropriate to put the term 'Mystery

of Faith' during the time of acclamation, instead of during the consecration, as done

during the Tridentine Mass because:"The words of consecration involve an action as contrasted to a declaiming; and

these words of consecration are, of course, substantially the actual words of Jesus


15/17

Christ ... In a sense they are really words of a declamatory nature, and thus not so

strictly a part of the great Action or Deed of the consecration...They constitutemore of ...a sort of declaration of what the consecration has brought about. So it is

also appropriate and fitting that these words be said AFTER the words of

consecration which actually effect the Transubstantiation of the bread and wineinto the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ." (Whitehead, 114) .

The declaration of this great 'Mystery of Faith' signifies that the awesome

Transubstantiation of the elements has taken place. The term Mystery of Faith

does not make it take place. An important item is Pauls written account of theinstitution of the Eucharist that he orally received (by oral tradition) from the Lord,

1 Cor. 11:23-27:

11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That

the Lord Jesus the [same] night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And whenhe had given thanks, he brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is

broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also [he

took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my

blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me. 26 For as often asye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 27

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink [this] cup of the Lord,

unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

Let us note the order of this Eucharistic institution according to Paul. First, after

telling us that he orally received this from the Lord, (through the apostles)(v. 23),Paul then gives us the words of consecration (vv. 24-25). After Paul records the

consecration, he next gives us the acclamation in 1 Cor. 11:26 For as often as youeat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until He

comes. One of the Pauline Rite Mass acclamations, is almost word for word from

Pauls letter, the most ancient tradition as recorded in scripture. The Pauline Rite

Mass acclamation is: When you eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim

your death, Lord Jesus, until you come in glory. Also, we see that this

acclamation fits exactly the biblical pattern. First, we see Paul record theconsecration. After that is the acclamation, which looks forward to the Lords

coming. How can the Novus Order be in error when its follows the biblical pattern,

the most ancient of traditions?

Pope Paul VI in no way intended to downplay the Real Presence of Christ in the

Eucharist. Pope Paul wrote in theMysterium Fidei, for example, that Nor it is

allowable to discuss the mystery of Transubstantiation without mentioning what

the Council of Trent stated about the marvelous conversion of the whole substance

of the bread into the Body and the whole substance of the wine into the Blood of

Christ.


16/17

In the Pauline Rite Mass transubstantiation is affirmed, and as we saw earlier,

Protestants would never adopt the prayers of the Pauline Rite Mass specificallybecause it affirms Transubstantiation (among the other specifically Catholic

doctrines found in the Pauline Rite Mass that are not found in any form of

Protestantism).

In Sum, we see that most of the major attacks on Pauline Rite Mass are groundless,unscriptural, and unhistorical. There are no doubt abuses of the Pauline Rite Mass

by many. However, Catholics can affirm that the Gates of Hell will never prevail

against the Church, Matt. 16:18. The Sacrifice of the Eucharist, central to theworship of our Lord Jesus Christ, will never fail. We can rejoice in our worship of

the One True God, who offered himself to his Father for our very salvation. One

thing we can be sure, as reflected by St. Cyril of Alexandria:

Christ said indicating the bread and wine: This is My Body, and This is MyBlood, in order that you might not judge what you see to be a mere figure. The

offerings, by the hidden power of God Almighty, are changed into Christs Body

and Blood, and by receiving these we come to share in the life-giving and

sanctifying efficacy.( St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of St.

Matthew, Quoted in Pope Paul VIs Encyclical Mysterium Fidei)

To all visitors Grace of Christ to you!

Page created by: Matt1618.

Send email with questions or comments on this writing to

[email protected]

Return to Ultra-Traditionalist Page

Return to Matt's Catholic Apologetics Page

1998 In Defense of the Pauline Rite Mass...by Matt1618. This text may be

downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to

another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express

written permission from the author.
mailto:%[email protected]:%[email protected]:%[email protected]://matt1618.freeyellow.com/http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/TRADIT.htmlmailto:%[email protected]:%[email protected]:%[email protected]:%[email protected]


17/17

Last modified September 16, 1999.

In Defense of the Pauline Mass

Documents

Transcript of In Defense of the Pauline Mass