Just Something To Think About
Give this some serious consideration
When do you think this may have happened? "After the Consecration comes the Communion. Many of the congregation have not been to Confession and many have not fasted, not even from alcohol. They approach the Communion table with the others. X X X X X distributed the hosts and offers the chalice. The communicants receive the consecrated bread in the hand and casually drink from the chalice".
Sound like Mass at your local parish? Was it at St. Bozo's in Los Angeles? Church of the Group Hug in Boston? Nope... It was at a Lutheran Midnight "Mass" in Germany, Christmas, 1521.
Now I know darn good and well that the vast majority of folks who swing into The Lair are decent, faithful, loyal Catholics. I know this post is gonna get a lot of folks P.O.'ed. If you're angry, this isn't my intent. I just want to give folks something to consider.
Here are some examples of what Martin Luther did when he instituted the Protestant Revolt in the 1500's.
He got rid of the Mass of the Catechumens and changed it to Liturgy of The Word. Sound familiar?
He got rid of the Mass of the Faithful and changed it to Liturgy of The Eucharist. Sound familiar?
He stopped the "priest" from facing God in The Tabernacle (not that Lutherans have real priests or believe in The Real Presence) and he had them face the congregation instead. Sound familiar?
Luther got rid of unchanging Liturgical Latin and replaced it with the present day, ever changing, vernacular tongue. Sound familiar?
Luther ripped out the Communion Rail and forbade Communion kneeling and on the tongue. He replaced it with Communion standing, in the hand and under both Species. Sound familiar?
Luther added to the formula of the Consecration of the bread the words "quad pro obis tradetur" ("which will be given up for you"), and deleted both "mysterium Fidei ("the mystery of faith") and "pro multis" ("for the many") and replaced it with "for all". Sound familiar?
This last one is very important. Remember, for Catholics, it's always been "pro multis" ("for the many"). Jesus never said "for all". The Holy Bible never said "for all". The Catholic Mass never said "for all"... until Vatican II that is. The change to "for the many" is flat out dangerous. Here's why... it denies Jesus at sooooo many levels.
Think about what St. Paul said in Hebrews 9:28: "Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many". How about what Our Lord said to St. John: "I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom the hast given me, because they are thine" (Jn 17:9). Bottom line; if Jesus wanted to say "and it is shed for all", then by golly... He would have said it, but He didn't! Not a good idea to second guess Christ.
Many of us are familiar with the Heresy of Universalism (everyone's going to Heaven. It doesn't really matter what you believe, as long as you believe). "For all" flirts awfully close to Universalism.
A friend of mine back home (who attends the New Mass only) in California took his family to the The Passion of The Christ when it first came out. He called me when they got home and he told me that something happened that made him start seeing things from my perspective. He told me that during the Last Supper scene when Jesus said "This is shed for you and the many...", one of his young daughters leaned over to him and whispered "Dad, Jesus said it wrong". Needless to say, that upset him greatly... and it got him to thinking.
There's an old Latin saying ~ "lex orandi, lex credendi" (as you pray, you will believe). One cannot imitate Protestantism indefinitely without becoming Protestant. Remember, if it waddles like a Protestant, lays eggs like a Protestant, quacks like a Protestant... well, I'm sure you get my point.
Give this some serious consideration
When do you think this may have happened? "After the Consecration comes the Communion. Many of the congregation have not been to Confession and many have not fasted, not even from alcohol. They approach the Communion table with the others. X X X X X distributed the hosts and offers the chalice. The communicants receive the consecrated bread in the hand and casually drink from the chalice".
Sound like Mass at your local parish? Was it at St. Bozo's in Los Angeles? Church of the Group Hug in Boston? Nope... It was at a Lutheran Midnight "Mass" in Germany, Christmas, 1521.
Now I know darn good and well that the vast majority of folks who swing into The Lair are decent, faithful, loyal Catholics. I know this post is gonna get a lot of folks P.O.'ed. If you're angry, this isn't my intent. I just want to give folks something to consider.
Here are some examples of what Martin Luther did when he instituted the Protestant Revolt in the 1500's.
He got rid of the Mass of the Catechumens and changed it to Liturgy of The Word. Sound familiar?
He got rid of the Mass of the Faithful and changed it to Liturgy of The Eucharist. Sound familiar?
He stopped the "priest" from facing God in The Tabernacle (not that Lutherans have real priests or believe in The Real Presence) and he had them face the congregation instead. Sound familiar?
Luther got rid of unchanging Liturgical Latin and replaced it with the present day, ever changing, vernacular tongue. Sound familiar?
Luther ripped out the Communion Rail and forbade Communion kneeling and on the tongue. He replaced it with Communion standing, in the hand and under both Species. Sound familiar?
Luther added to the formula of the Consecration of the bread the words "quad pro obis tradetur" ("which will be given up for you"), and deleted both "mysterium Fidei ("the mystery of faith") and "pro multis" ("for the many") and replaced it with "for all". Sound familiar?
This last one is very important. Remember, for Catholics, it's always been "pro multis" ("for the many"). Jesus never said "for all". The Holy Bible never said "for all". The Catholic Mass never said "for all"... until Vatican II that is. The change to "for the many" is flat out dangerous. Here's why... it denies Jesus at sooooo many levels.
Think about what St. Paul said in Hebrews 9:28: "Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many". How about what Our Lord said to St. John: "I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom the hast given me, because they are thine" (Jn 17:9). Bottom line; if Jesus wanted to say "and it is shed for all", then by golly... He would have said it, but He didn't! Not a good idea to second guess Christ.
Many of us are familiar with the Heresy of Universalism (everyone's going to Heaven. It doesn't really matter what you believe, as long as you believe). "For all" flirts awfully close to Universalism.
A friend of mine back home (who attends the New Mass only) in California took his family to the The Passion of The Christ when it first came out. He called me when they got home and he told me that something happened that made him start seeing things from my perspective. He told me that during the Last Supper scene when Jesus said "This is shed for you and the many...", one of his young daughters leaned over to him and whispered "Dad, Jesus said it wrong". Needless to say, that upset him greatly... and it got him to thinking.
There's an old Latin saying ~ "lex orandi, lex credendi" (as you pray, you will believe). One cannot imitate Protestantism indefinitely without becoming Protestant. Remember, if it waddles like a Protestant, lays eggs like a Protestant, quacks like a Protestant... well, I'm sure you get my point.
posted by Kevin Whiteman at
11:35 AM
12 Comments:
Very, very well said.
Pax,
G2
some good stuff to consider...we need to get back to the basics, for certain..
(I tagged you in a recent post,and since I do not want to impose if you do not participate in these, let me know...they seem kind of silly, but I thought I'd treat it lightly...c'ya.)
No problemo, mi amigo!
I am forty-five years old so the whole Vatican II rigamarole passed by me in my very early childhood; I have never known any Mass but the Novus Ordo. What you describe here is frightening to me, and my only consolation is Christ's promise that He is with us to the end. Keep up the good work, your blog is a joy to read even if some of the content is disturbing. Truth doesn't have to be sweet-tasting, does it?!
Hooligan, I'm only a year older than you, bro. But as far as Christ always being with us, you're 100% right. Just please keep in mind that He knew darn good and well that there would always be those who would want to destroy His Church.
Like Pope Paul VI said "The Smoke of Satan has entered the sanctuary". Scarey stuff, indeed.
Regarding the incorrect English, post Vat II, translation of "pro multis" (for many) into "for all" or Bishop (ugh) Trautman's inane argument that it really means "for all" (somehow ignoring 2500+ years of Latin consistency), I thought you cave dwellers would be interested to know that in the Catholic Maronite Rite, their translation into English -- and I suspect in the original Aramaic or Arabic (they use both languages) --is "for many."
Interesting, but then...
...why do many of the Lutherans I know have a Communion rail in their churches...and use it?
...why do their pastors face ad orientum for prayers?
...why do many conservative Lutherans favor receiving the bread on the tongue rather than in the hand?
I believe you're describing Calivinist innovations rather than entirely Lutheran ones.
Also, the Divine Liturgies of the Byzantine Rites have "which is broken for you for the remission of sins", omit "the mystery of faith", and have the faithful receive under both kinds while standing. They likewise conclude the Our Father with "for the kingdom...", and have no problem using the vernacular. None of these things make them Protestant.
Dave,
Interesting, but then...
...it's really irrelevent what "conservative Lutherans" do during their prayer service. Buch like "High Church" Episcopalians here in America, or "Anglo-Catholic" Anglicans in The UK, no how matter how many of the trappings of Catholicism they may incorporate, they still adhere to a heretical belief system. And besides, what I described in my post were novelties incorporated by Luther.
as far as the Eastern Rites, are you ref'ing traditional Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, or the "novus ordo-ized" post V2 renovations?
I refer to the traditional, de-Latinized Divine Liturgy. Have you ever attended one? Quite beautiful.
As far as what Lutherans or Anglicans do -- OK, they don't have the Real Thing. I know that. However, I think that their practices do deserve an accurate description.
Dave said...
the Divine Liturgies of the Byzantine Rites have "which is broken for you for the remission of sins"
They have more than that.
According to this web-page, There are three forms of the Eucharist presently in the Orthodox Church:
# The Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, which is the most frequently celebrated.
# The Divine Liturgy of St Basil the Great, celebrated 10 times per year.
# The Divine Liturgy of St James, brother of the Lord, celebrated on the Feast of St James (Oct 23).
The Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, has:
He took the cup, saying:
Drink of it all of you; this is my Blood of the new Covenant which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.
The Divine Liturgy of St Basil the Great has:
He gave it to His holy disciples and apostles saying: Drink of this all of you. This is my blood of the new Covenant, shed for you and for many, for the forgiveness of sins.
The Divine Liturgy of St. James has:
he shared it among his holy and blessed Disciples and Apostles, saying:
Drink from this all of you. This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out and distributed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Great post, but, with respect, "pro multis" is better translated as "for many" rather than "for the many". Latin doesn't have a definite article, so either translation is reasonable, but if you go back to Matthew 26:28, from which the words of consecration were taken, the Greek in which the Gospel was written has "περί πολλων", that is, "for many" rather than "for the many". (Greek does have definite articles).
This matters because elsewhere in the Bible, particularly in St. Paul's Letter to the Romans, the phrase "the many" carries the connotation of people in general. Some people exaggerate this to mean "the many" is equivalent to "all men", rather than that the phrase merely can suggest "all men" in some contexts.
If we accept that "for many" is equivalent to "for the many", and that "for the many" is equivalent to "for all", then it becomes easier to accept that Jesus said at the Last Supper that he would shed his blood "for all", and the mistranslation you rightfully deplore gains support. None of the three phrases are equivalent, and it is a mistake to treat any two of them as interchangeable.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home