Thank you Robert. You are right in what you say. My husband and I recently moved from Galway back to Inishowen which is in The Derry Diocese. Attending Mass here is so different. The congregation stands, sits and kneels at the right time and do nor say the Priests part of The Mass. Homilies for the most part are centred on Christ. Its so amazing. My Soul feels Peace during the Mass here and I feel like Im growing in my faith again. Im not saying every parish is perfect, but its very different from Galway and Mayo. Our Bishop is amazing. Ive seen him just sitting quietly in the pews of the Cathedral praying. What a witness!!!
This summer, I attended a Mass is a small, very devout parish in rural New York State. The priest was a visitor; it was the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Mass was utterly disordered and several obvious things went awry. This was due to this priest’s being elderly and very “progressive.” Soon after I went to a splendid Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York. After Mass I asked the very devout and orthodox young priest who had celebrated that Mass about the Assumption Mass, and he said, “No, that Mass was not licit.” Seeing my distress, he asked me to kneel, prayed with me and absolved me of any sin. It was, however, shocking and very disturbing.
My priest, who is a Canon Lawyer, said that if the priest says "for all" rather than "for many" is an invalid mass. Wait until the bad cardinals changes totally the wording in order to be a horizontal church which will accept all faiths without being baptised or with no education on our Catholic Faith
Correct. The true words of consecration, as affirmed by the Ecumenical Council of Florence: "...the holy Roman Church, relying on the teaching and authority of the apostles Peter and Paul…uses this form of words in the consecration of the Lord's Body: This is my body. And of His blood: For this is the chalice of my blood, of the New and eternal Testament: The mystery of faith, which shall be shed, for you and for many, unto the remission of sins." ... As the Douay-Rheims Bible online commentary shows, the words are linked to Daniel 9:27. This stretches back to the Apostles. Starting there, it continued forwards from then until Florence, was affirmed by the Council of Florence, continued on to the Council of Trent and past it, and was present in missals up until 1962. The word "all" is not the same as the word "many" and are two entirely different words and if all meant many they would say many. Jesus, in Mk 14:24, used the word "many." Prophet Daniel in Dan. 9:27 ("And he shall confirm the covenant with many, in one week: and in the half of the week..." Douay-Rheims Bible online, commentary: "27] "In the half of the week": or, in the middle of the week, etc. Because Christ preached three years and a half: and then by his sacrifice upon the cross abolished all the sacrifices of the law." This explanation explains why some oppose using the words "the many."
@paulettelawyer4983 I also disagree. "For All" has been said in the Mass since 1974, and there have been at least two Eucharistic miracles in that time with this Mass. Obviously, Jesus is OK with it. Canon Lawyers are sometimes more interested in their prestige as lawyers than they are in bringing Jesus to the people even in a Mass that isn't 100% perfect on any given day. Today's Pharasees.
I grew up in Canada, every Mass was “for you and for all” in the vernacular, for the entirety of Pope John Paul’s reign until Pope Benedict change it back to “for many”. Every NO Mass.
@@theburdenissweet5860 That was the official English version of the Mass until Advent 2011. So that's what you should have been hearing until then, but not since, and not now as in the video.
Many years ago I attended a Mass celebrated by an elderly priest who was clearly in the early stages of dementia. He did the exact same thing, consecrated the bread with the words for the wine, then the words for the wine for the wine. Myself and another person approached the pastor after Mass (thank goodness he was there), and with two witnesses he believed us. He said the Mass wasn't valid, and he would have the ciboria in the tabernacle placed on the altar at the next Mass and have the celebrant intend to consecrate any hosts that weren't. Good man. Former seminary professor and rector. The elderly priest went to the retirement home soon after. Always sad to see an elder lose cognition to dementia.
The true words of consecration, as affirmed by the Ecumenical Council of Florence: "...the holy Roman Church, relying on the teaching and authority of the apostles Peter and Paul…uses this form of words in the consecration of the Lord's Body: This is my body. And of His blood: For this is the chalice of my blood, of the New and eternal Testament: The mystery of faith, which shall be shed, for you and for many, unto the remission of sins." ... As the Douay-Rheims Bible online commentary shows, the words are linked to Daniel 9:27. This stretches back to the Apostles. Starting there, it continued forwards from then until Florence, was affirmed by the Council of Florence, continued on to the Council of Trent and past it, and was present in missals up until 1962. The word "all" is not the same as the word "many" and are two entirely different words and if all meant many they would say many. Jesus, in Mk 14:24, used the word "many." Prophet Daniel in Dan. 9:27 ("And he shall confirm the covenant with many, in one week: and in the half of the week..." Douay-Rheims Bible online, commentary: "27] "In the half of the week": or, in the middle of the week, etc. Because Christ preached three years and a half: and then by his sacrifice upon the cross abolished all the sacrifices of the law." This explanation explains why some oppose using the words "the many."
Are you sure? I know a priest celebrating TLM who forgot to consecrate the chalice. Maybe he had a bad day, maybe he didn't sleep well. YET It was the TLM. Mistakes and errors can occur everywhere
Latin mass is the only mass which will give rise to vocations Altar boys with incense candles etc etc serving the priest Priest well formed and in no way will make up words or make mistakes at consecration People kneeling and receiving communion on the tongue and priests facing East ie facing God as they offer the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary
Thank you Robert, I experience the same, during the Holy Mass in one of our church in Ireland. People partycypant with me, they didn't notice, not even one of the strong believers .
@barbaraw5264 I had the same experience too. And it was not a mistake because the next time I attended his Mass he said ' for all ' again. I asked a good holy priest from another parish but same diocese. I did not tell him which parish. He said " I can't say anything but he should not say that" . I guess he did not want to criticise another priest but his answer said it all. He said it 3 times in the conversation. I have never gone back to that priest's Mass.
I'm watching too much RUclips. Dr Brant Pitre made the point that in essence the TLM had a "fence" around it that prevented participation by the laity. (He never said 'fence' I got that from a RUclips video about Hebrew Numerology. But it expresses his thought succinctly. ) This is a great analogy. V2 lowered the fence for the laity to participate, and instead the clergy rushed through. In the Novus Ordo, devotion and orthodoxy are not built in, rather we are dependent upon the celebrant to be devote and orthodox. We the laity are mourning the loss of the fence that protected our liturgy, because so many of the clergy are neither devote nor orthodox. Thank God my Pastor is devote, orthodox and loves scripture. He rejoices in leading a couple of small Parishes that have been on the verge of closure for years. God works in mysterious ways.
@@patrickmcguire628 "Amen, amen, I say to you: He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth: and the sheep hear his voice. And he calleth his own sheep by name and leadeth them out. And when he hath let out his own sheep, he goeth before them: and the sheep follow him, because they know his voice. But a stranger they follow not, but fly from him, because they know not the voice of strangers. This proverb Jesus spoke to them. But they understood not what he spoke. Jesus therefore said to them again: Amen, amen, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All others, as many as have come, are thieves and robbers: and the sheep heard them not. I am the door. By me, if any man enter in, he shall be saved: and he shall go in and go out, and shall find pastures. The thief cometh not, but for to steal and to kill and to destroy. I am come that they may have life and may have it more abundantly." (John 10:1-10)
Had a priest skip right from the Sanctus to the second half of the Eucharistic prayer (don't remember which). We were waiting for him to notice until the Pater, but nope. My dad had to step forward and (softly) inform him of what had happened. He was a little abashed, but chuckled and promptly began the prayer from the beginning, this time confecting the Sacrament.
The point of this video is to point out that exact thing: that it invalidates the Sacrifice. His Blood is still there sacramentally, and His Body, Soul, and Divinity by concommitance... but His Body was not sacramentally confected.
This all hinges on "What are the exact minimum required words of institution to constitute valid form of the sacrament?" It's very possible that he needs to say "for many" to constitute valid form, but I'm not sure if that's true. I will say that every priest I know has their eyes locked on the book during the consecration, and they go slowly and carefully say every word exactly, and that's what should happen.
@@janicesummers0417 "He came unto his own: and his own received him not. But _as many as received him,_ he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name." (John 1:11-12)
I suppose a Priest, like any other human, could be ill or feeling "off" and make a mistake, but it then behooves anyone who notices to make him aware so that he can repeat correctly. That being said, I believe most of those situations/occurrences are intentional, IMO. We need to be praying for our Priests and holy vocations in our rosary! Pray the rosary daily. The evil one has no power against that. 🙏📿
@@thecatholicmanI do not know what that is but I know that Vatican 2 is not Catholic because they changed dogmas, liturgy and disciplines. I guess you just covered the liturgical with an example. Dogmas can’t be changed because they are protected by indefectivility. So is this mass and are these priests Catholics or just members of a new sect cooked up after the second Vatican council?
@ yes it changed a number of them. One that is very obvious is all religions can lead you to salvation. That contradict the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic church. Collegiality is another one. Man I am a rocky but you seem pretty clueless.
Bishop Fulton Sheen said that the renewal of the Church would come from faithful lay people calling priests to be priests and bishops to be bishops and truly act in Christ's Name for the good of the whole Church and in fidelity to Jesus and the Apostolic Tradition which he commanded His Apostles and their successors to hand on until the end of time.
Over 20 years ago in Galway Jesuit church, there was an MSC priest who made up the entire Mass. My then 8 years old daughter came out of the Church and in a very cross manner, said to me, " Mum, that priest just made up his own words for the whole Mass ". I was delighted even a child knew this was wrong
I am in a diocese where the bishop has given strict direction on standing when we should be kneeling and vice versa. I kneel as we did in the old days but priests tell me that we are obliged to do as the bishop directs us and some of the priests think that that decision is under the authority of the local bishop. I am trying to be obedient to the Lord since the directive in our diocese is causing so much confusion. Can you bring clarification please?
In the video while holding the host and saying the words of concecration the priest incorrectly used the words "chalice" and" blood" although he was holding the host ?
I brought this question to a spiritual director priest (in his 70’s) as it troubled me also. The explanation I was provided was as follows: Vatican II introduced the new form of the Mass in 1964. The words in question at that time were “for all”. Then in 2011 they changed it to “for many”. That’s 47 years of saying Mass daily, sometimes several times a day using the “for all” format. It can be difficult for them to update this kind of muscle memory especially for older priests who have used “for all” for so much of their lives. Generally when I notice this happens it’s with older priests. He also mentioned that the mass is still valid and licit as long as the correct intention is there specifically around the “for all” vs “for many” piece. As for any other changes to wording he didn’t get into as it was just this particular wording issue I had questioned. He suggested I not approach the priest over it as they’re already aware but just find it difficult to change. I was satisfied and left at peace with the response.
One last time: The true words of consecration, as affirmed by the Ecumenical Council of Florence: "...the holy Roman Church, relying on the teaching and authority of the apostles Peter and Paul…uses this form of words in the consecration of the Lord's Body: This is my body. And of His blood: For this is the chalice of my blood, of the New and eternal Testament: The mystery of faith, which shall be shed, for you and for many, unto the remission of sins." ... As the Douay-Rheims Bible online commentary shows, the words are linked to Daniel 9:27. This stretches back to the Apostles. Starting there, it continued forwards from then until Florence, was affirmed by the Council of Florence, continued on to the Council of Trent and past it, and was present in missals up until 1962. The word "all" is not the same as the word "many" and are two entirely different words and if all meant many they would say many. Jesus, in Mk 14:24, used the word "many." Prophet Daniel in Dan. 9:27 ("And he shall confirm the covenant with many, in one week: and in the half of the week..." Douay-Rheims Bible online, commentary: "27] "In the half of the week": or, in the middle of the week, etc. Because Christ preached three years and a half: and then by his sacrifice upon the cross abolished all the sacrifices of the law." This explanation explains why some oppose using the words "the many." The word "many" is of extreme importance.
I usually attend the TLM but when I attend the English Mass it’s usually at a church that also offers the TLM - in those cases they are much more likely to just say the black and do the red. Praying for all our priests. God bless.
Funny, Mass on Sunday last, the Priest used that same phrase and more that I couldn't receive Holy Eucharist because I didn't think I was at a valid Mass. I did attend a later Holy Mass to receive. It's unbelievable what's happening in our Churches.
Two last things from my comment below: 1) Marie Julie Jahenny also stated this change according to what Jesus was warning us, the future faithful. There is a book titled “we were warned” or something to that nature. I want to say the year is 1890’s. Jesus states how the words will be altered in Latin language. In there you can also find the origins of this change, which is basically from descendants of Pharisees in the 1600’s. 2) Where did you get the Garabandal flag behind you? I live in the US.
If I am not mistaken, Pope Francis made a revision only to the Italian Missal but not the Latin version. If you watch the Mass served by Cardinal Tagle in Italian, in the presence of Pope Francis, on the Epiphany of our Lord 2025, he says "per tutti" while holding up the Chalice. Not all Languages have adopted this change.
My local Novus Ordo parish has a visiting ex Jesuit who makes up his own words during the Mass, calling disciples "friends" during the consecration prayer among other things like never reciting the Confiteor and Creed. I stopped attending that parish because I feared his mass are all invalid. The pastor of the parish says, there is nothing he can do! This priest wears Bermuda shorts outside of Sunday mass! This is a travesty in my opinion.
Muslims, whose mosques are full to the brim on Fridays, by the way, memorize the Quran in Arabic, even if it is not their mother tongue.... so Catholic priests are perfectly capable of memorizing the Mass in Latin. Latin should ALWAYS be used worldwide as the common liturgical lingua franca of all Catholics, so that we can understand the mass no matter which part of the world we visit.... we need a Catholic Renaissance in the West and we need our Churches as enthusiastically full on Sunday as mosques are on Fridays
In my local parish which I avoid when I can the Confiteor and Creed are never said during the mass...and I'm referring to Sunday masses. Sermons are hit and miss with one of the priests too. As for the Consecration, both priests hold the Host and the Chalice up with one hand only. Our church is in need of so much prayer 🙏🏻
It isn't just "many" vs "all" that can invalidate the Novus Ordo. It is possible every NO mass is invalid for disobeying the infallible declaration of Quo Primum. The difference between the Latin mass of 1500 years, and the Novus Ordo is night and day. So much of the NO depends on the intent of the priest, if even that can validate it. The Latin liturgy protected against the priest's disposition. The opening confession was greatly reduced in the NO; the offering of the Host and Chalice included humble request for pardon for our sins. The new mass does not and simply talks about a git of bread. There is a lack of humility in the Novus Ordo liturgy itself, not to mention the blasphemy of communion in the hand and eucharistic ministers. That may be enough to invalidate it.
It's very disturbing for those of us who faithfully attend the NO masses held in our parishes to hear other Catholics tell us that our masses may be invalid. If so many think this then why are they not protesting to the Bishops, and to Rome.
We know the Novus Ordo mass is valid because there have been numerous Eucharistic Miracles in which the host turns to flesh and blood using that style. The fact that we need so many miracles points to a significant problem, but the validity of the Novus Ordo isn't it.
Used to think that, too, but that's (apparently) not the proper magisterial note, which makes all the difference on it's binding force. Regardless, I firmly opine that to reject Quo Primum is at best a gross impiety and arrogance. Penance for the Bishops; have Faith that Christ will act in you if you suffer with Him for them.
I heard a speaker on you tube discussing this about the validity of the modren mass and pre V2 mass. He was very much a supporter of the traditional Latin mass, but firstly he discussed that our Lord would not leave us without him and allow us not to have a mass , so even if we don't like it and it may be deeply flawed, christ is present in the host in the modren mass. Secondly I know people use the term Novous ordu as a short hand but it is not correct and is a spiteful term in much of modren internet usage taking a did at everyone involved in the current liturgy.
I remember singing this in the choir in school - “take this all of you and eat it, this is my body”. I think it’s ppl have forgotten the way mass is done - is all.
Don’t complicate it I agree. But maybe to distinguish from Francis the Bishop of Rome? Because I’ll be honest most people haven’t got a clue about these things they just turn up on Sunday and that’s it 😢
How can this NOT be deliberate, Robert?! It's a very elaborate wording, not a slipping of the tongue. And if it's deliberate, what's the intention behind it? And what does "being a good priest" mean? Haven't we all known many a priest who seemed "good" only to find out sad if not terrible things about them later? I truly don't understand, Robert... I don't know what's happening in Ireland in all the details but your extremely charitable attitude towards this priest leaves me completely puzzled. 🤔😬
Wait! He said the same thing for the Eucharistic (bread) and chalice (wine) consecration. My friend, you have been blessed by Jesus to read His Words using Maria Valtorta, true victim Saint but still kept under wraps for His GOOD reasons. I was able to purchase all the notebooks from the valtorta site. In one of the notebooks Jesus is telling us, today, these changes in the entire mass especially the words of consecration. He was even more angry with these priests saying whatever they wanted instead of following the ancient PRESCRIBED MANDATORY Words. Why? If the consecration Words are not clearly stated verbatim according to old rite then the sacrifice of the mass is invalid. The Eucharist is just matzo cracker that comes in the plastic jar.
You reap what you sow, unfortunately. So also was the phrase “ mysterium fedei” said by the priest only at the consecration. Why was this deleted from the consecration and given to the people to say?
Since for years before the redoing of the English translation the text said ‘all’ instead of ‘many’, I cannot think this change invalidated the Mass. And again, the Traditional rite does not have ‘quod pro vobis tradetur’ at the consecration of the host.
"Obey your prelates and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls: that they may do this with joy and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you. Pray for us. For we trust we have a good conscience, being willing to behave ourselves well in all things." (Heb. 13:17-18)
The truth is related to 1Cor13:10. In Canon law an indefective translation automatically abrogates a defective translation, so the priest invalidates the mass when he choses the defective translation 'all' over the indefective translation 'for many'.
The canon law follows the principle in 1Cor 13:10; so an indefective translation automatically abrogates a defective translation, thus the priest in choosing to use the defective 'all' translation instead of the indefective 'many' translation is choosing NOT to intend to do what the Church does. His intention invalidates the mass cf. Mark 7:20-23 and Gestis Verbisque 2.2.24
Two Sacraments Our Lord gave to us the specific words. Priests have to say exactly what Jesus Christ said. Two Sacraments Our Lord gave us the specific words are Holy Mass and Baptism. Very easy to invalidate both.
Deminta or carelessness ? This is why priests are trained to read, not say mass from memory. I have also been at masses where unusual emphasis in the voice is placed on certain words or phrases, making it more like a performance of some kind. You are dead right about the confused standing and kneeling. It is so confused varying from parish to parish even in the same diocese. With christmas and work I have been to 3 different churches in Galway city and they are all very different in mood,reverance atmosphere etc. Too much individual priest variation and display.
The Committee which prepared the new order of the Mass included several Protestants and some Universalists. Universalists believe that, by his death on the cross, Our Lord achieved the salvation of all of mankind, that there is no literal Hell, or, if there is, that no one will actually go there and that the whole human race will be saved and go to Heaven. The Universalists were successful in having the Canon of the Mass altered to achieve their stated aims, so that the words “shed for you and for many” (the words used by Our Lord as recorded in the Gospels) were changed to “shed for you and for all men”. That fact that no one even noticed, or cared, that this change had been introduced says something for the state of the modern Church. Pope Benedict XVI did, in due course, order that the correct words of consecration be restored to the Canon of the Mass. However, it is worth nothing that, in Italy, the words used are still “for all” (“per tutti”) because the Pope is, ex officio, Primate of All Italy and, in that capacity (not in the exercise of his Petrine Ministry, which applies to the Universal Church) he is able to alter the words in the Canon of the Mass in Italian, because there is no higher authority in the Church in Italy which can question his decision. The Pope, of course, is a Universalist and also propounds the heresies of syncretism and indifferentism. He is able to do so because almost all of the Prelates in the Catholic Church today are solely concerned with advancing their own careers in the Church, rather than in preaching the Gospel, or, if they are concerned, they know that they must keep silent, or they will be “cancelled”. The “official” Canon of the Mass in the New Order in Latin is correctly given as “pro multis” and it no local Episcopal Conference has power to alter the wording when translating in into their own national language, save for the Pope, who, as Primate of All Italy, may do as he pleases and no one would dare to question him.
Sadly, this can't be written off as a bad day. There is a rot within the clergy especially in Ireland. Frankly, it's is a mess that borders on the pathetic with this example coupled with that nonsense written by "Fr" Hoban plus my own awful experience at St. Mary in Astee, County Kerry. It is so sad to witness such self-hatred.
Of course the Mass was valid. Any priest can make a mistake with the words. It was a genuine error, and no disrespect or sacrilege was intended. Jesus himself was human and must have experienced tiredness or confusion at some time, as we all do. The Lord accepts our imperfect worship and blesses it with His divine grace.
You are correct that obedience to the Missal is paramount for any priest, but neither the Greek word used nor the theology is so clear. That Christ died for many and not for all is a Jansenist heresy refuted by Pope Innocent X in Cum occasione (1653). The heresy originated in Calvinist Protestantism when their Synod of Dort (1618-19) declared that Christ redeemed “only those who were chosen from eternity” and their Westminster Confession (1646) later defined those chosen as “the elect”. I'll email you a short (1.5 page) study of the Greek word polloi and its use in the NT.
"For all" is a countable total, Latin/ Italian = totus; this in fact psychologically restricts the mercy of God to a humanly countable 'all' or total. One might also consider , the use of the word 'all' is differentiating as in 'all' the saved but not the damned. On the other hand, "for many" or "for the multitude" allows the mind to grasp the infinite, uncountable number of souls that God's unrestricted mercy reaches for ever. cf Revelation 7:9
@@cathmhaoil The Latin is a translation, and therefore a derivative interpretation, of the Greek Scripture, though in the context of Tradition, it is a valuable one.
Robert what does it mean that a mass is said wrong? Surely if ppl are gathered in Gods name then that is all that is necessary. One commenter here said they felt afraid because a priest had a disorderly mass and they were progressive and therefore they required a blessing from another priest. Why would they require a blessing from another priest? What are the main problems with Vatican 2 that ppl are opposed to?
The mass must be said according to the missal. No innovation, no change, to ad libbing, and for a sacrament to be valid form and matter must be used correctly. The form in this case (the words) were not valid.
Added to what @thecatholicman says: The canon law follows the principle in 1Cor 13:10; so an indefective translation automatically abrogates a defective translation, thus the priest in choosing to use the defective 'all' translation instead of the indefective 'many' translation is choosing NOT to intend to do what the Church does. His intention invalidates the mass cf. Mark 7:20-23 and Gestis Verbisque 2.2.24 The priest introduces psychological manipulation into the form chosen.
Let's also fix the Glory Be. It makes no sense to say "world without end" in English when most other languages do not. They use the (poor) excuse that it is an idiom. If thats a valid idiom, then "for all" isn't a big deal since that could also be said to be an idiom, since we already know it's conditional.
The world without end ( secula seculorum) goes back before the translation of the mass in English. Look at the old pre Vatican II missals and the English translation
In that case, the bread became Jesus. But the Sacrifice was not represented, since the double consecration is _the thing_ that signifies, in an unbloody manner, the separation of Christ's Body and Blood, which is His Death.
While the phrase "for all" is certainly problematic, it does not invalidate the Mass. The form of the Mass are the words of consecration which are "this is my Body" and "this is my blood" alone. Additionally, if it did invalidate the Mass than all English Masses would have been invalid for decades.
Both the Sacramentary and Denzinger disagree with you. "This is the chalice of my blood ..." indicates that the words that follow are also part of the form requirement for validity, dating back to the council of Florence. Remember Mark 7:20-23. What comes out of the mouth indicates the hidden intention of the heart, intention as well as form is required for validity. If the priest imposes his own ideology on the form then his intention is clearly not that of the church. If he was obedient and faithful to the Word he would have no problem saying the 'black' and doing the 'red'.
@cathmhaoil But in this case, also, the priest had the intention to do what the Church does, so wouldn't that suffice for validity, and if not, do you content that the English Masses were invalid for decades?
Robert, is this for real?? Anyhow, that Mass was invalid. Case closed. Just like another priest who ad libs the Novus Ordo and mentions the Liam Mccarthy Cup at the consecration of the Chalice.
I did not catch the wrong wording at first, it went on by. A Priest changed words of consecration at a parish I went to. Instead of saying “do this in memory of Me”, he said “when you do this, remember Me.” Slight difference, but in the words Jesus used, there is definitely more of a command. There is A LOT of flexibility in the Novus Ordo.
There should not be any flexibility. I understand that any deviation causes the Grace of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass diminished. When the wording of the consecration of the Body and Blood of Our Lord is changed, it can make the consecration invalid. "All" instead of "Many" diminishes the Grace, but not make the consecration invalid. The new ones coming out after the recent synod will make it invalid. We MUST leave the church we attend, if the new ones is used during the Mass, so that we may avoid participating in blaspheming God. And look for a church which uses the correct consecration language.
If you can find a copy of a book The Essential Thomas More in pback...you will find More chastising Luther for omitting the words. from the Consecration as the actual words of Jesus at the Last Supper. " AS OFTEN AS YOU DO THESE THINGS YOU SHALL." DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME " . The 7 words were omitted from Luther's new mass even though they were up to the reformed liturgy of Luther considered " Essential ".. Words are such tiny little things, but, omitting or changing the actual words of God, the 2nd Person of The Blessed Trinity from the Words of Consecration plead for the original text to be verbatim. I plead with you and any other person who reads this to take this seriously. We may not be getting Jesus body, blood, soul and Divinity at all at Communion, but, only bread. The book I read this in was out in the 1980s.I think the publisher was Image pb books.And it had the Imprimoter which declared it contained no error. . .
Perhaps this priest should be corrected by someone? We engage in so much hand ringing. Well if it’s up to the laity as you so rightly pointed out. Then someone should do it. Speak up! Not in a rude way but respectfully.
@@thecatholicman To be fair on Bergoglio, he has gone out of his way to made it easy. If what he repeatedly and clearly states makes him an apostate, then he is not the Pope because a Pope MUST be catholic.
Thank you Robert. You are right in what you say. My husband and I recently moved from Galway back to Inishowen which is in The Derry Diocese. Attending Mass here is so different. The congregation stands, sits and kneels at the right time and do nor say the Priests part of The Mass. Homilies for the most part are centred on Christ. Its so amazing. My Soul feels Peace during the Mass here and I feel like Im growing in my faith again. Im not saying every parish is perfect, but its very different from Galway and Mayo. Our Bishop is amazing. Ive seen him just sitting quietly in the pews of the Cathedral praying. What a witness!!!
This summer, I attended a Mass is a small, very devout parish in rural New York State. The priest was a visitor; it was the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Mass was utterly disordered and several obvious things went awry. This was due to this priest’s being elderly and very “progressive.” Soon after I went to a splendid Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York. After Mass I asked the very devout and orthodox young priest who had celebrated that Mass about the Assumption Mass, and he said, “No, that Mass was not licit.” Seeing my distress, he asked me to kneel, prayed with me and absolved me of any sin. It was, however, shocking and very disturbing.
My priest, who is a Canon Lawyer, said that if the priest says "for all" rather than "for many" is an invalid mass. Wait until the bad cardinals changes totally the wording in order to be a horizontal church which will accept all faiths without being baptised or with no education on our Catholic Faith
I don’t agree with that and the Church has not said that.
Correct. The true words of consecration, as affirmed by the Ecumenical Council of Florence:
"...the holy Roman Church, relying on the teaching and authority of the apostles Peter and Paul…uses this form of words in the consecration of the Lord's Body:
This is my body. And of His blood: For this is the chalice of my blood, of the New and eternal Testament: The mystery of faith, which shall be shed, for you and for many, unto the remission of sins." ...
As the Douay-Rheims Bible online commentary shows, the words are linked to Daniel 9:27.
This stretches back to the Apostles.
Starting there, it continued forwards from then until Florence, was affirmed by the Council of Florence, continued on to the Council of Trent and past it, and was present in missals up until 1962.
The word "all" is not the same as the word "many" and are two entirely different words and if all meant many they would say many.
Jesus, in Mk 14:24, used the word "many." Prophet Daniel in Dan. 9:27 ("And he shall confirm the covenant with many, in one week: and in the half of the week..."
Douay-Rheims Bible online, commentary:
"27] "In the half of the week": or, in the middle of the week, etc. Because Christ preached three years and a half: and then by his sacrifice upon the cross abolished all the sacrifices of the law." This explanation explains why some oppose using the words "the many."
@paulettelawyer4983 I also disagree. "For All" has been said in the Mass since 1974, and there have been at least two Eucharistic miracles in that time with this Mass. Obviously, Jesus is OK with it. Canon Lawyers are sometimes more interested in their prestige as lawyers than they are in bringing Jesus to the people even in a Mass that isn't 100% perfect on any given day. Today's Pharasees.
@@DeusVult1190Florence is not an ecumenical council.
@@johnpalomo1688 It was the Seventeenth Ecumenical Council.
You may want to look at a list of all of them and refresh your memory.
I grew up in Canada, every Mass was “for you and for all” in the vernacular, for the entirety of Pope John Paul’s reign until Pope Benedict change it back to “for many”. Every NO Mass.
@@theburdenissweet5860 That was the official English version of the Mass until Advent 2011. So that's what you should have been hearing until then, but not since, and not now as in the video.
Many years ago I attended a Mass celebrated by an elderly priest who was clearly in the early stages of dementia. He did the exact same thing, consecrated the bread with the words for the wine, then the words for the wine for the wine.
Myself and another person approached the pastor after Mass (thank goodness he was there), and with two witnesses he believed us.
He said the Mass wasn't valid, and he would have the ciboria in the tabernacle placed on the altar at the next Mass and have the celebrant intend to consecrate any hosts that weren't. Good man. Former seminary professor and rector.
The elderly priest went to the retirement home soon after. Always sad to see an elder lose cognition to dementia.
@@robertpesche Prayers for him, wherever he is.
The curse of Adam strikes again.
The true words of consecration, as affirmed by the Ecumenical Council of Florence:
"...the holy Roman Church, relying on the teaching and authority of the apostles Peter and Paul…uses this form of words in the consecration of the Lord's Body:
This is my body. And of His blood: For this is the chalice of my blood, of the New and eternal Testament: The mystery of faith, which shall be shed, for you and for many, unto the remission of sins." ...
As the Douay-Rheims Bible online commentary shows, the words are linked to Daniel 9:27.
This stretches back to the Apostles.
Starting there, it continued forwards from then until Florence, was affirmed by the Council of Florence, continued on to the Council of Trent and past it, and was present in missals up until 1962.
The word "all" is not the same as the word "many" and are two entirely different words and if all meant many they would say many.
Jesus, in Mk 14:24, used the word "many." Prophet Daniel in Dan. 9:27 ("And he shall confirm the covenant with many, in one week: and in the half of the week..."
Douay-Rheims Bible online, commentary:
"27] "In the half of the week": or, in the middle of the week, etc. Because Christ preached three years and a half: and then by his sacrifice upon the cross abolished all the sacrifices of the law." This explanation explains why some oppose using the words "the many."
@ That has no relevance on what priests were required to say in English from 1969 to 2011.
The Council of Florence is eternally relevant because English was going to be used after 1962 and Florence cannot be revoked.
So important to point these things out. Thank you 🙏🇦🇺
Well done and said again Robert! Thank you!🙏🏻🙏🏻👍👍👍
For this reason, alone, it is enough to return to the Traditional Latin Mass ❤
There were plenty of abuses in Latin unfortunately pre-Vatican II.
No it is not
@CONDACOCLIPS you're right there's thousands of reasons to abandon the Novus Ordo Mass.
Are you sure?
I know a priest celebrating TLM who forgot to consecrate the chalice.
Maybe he had a bad day, maybe he didn't sleep well.
YET
It was the TLM.
Mistakes and errors can occur everywhere
@@piotrjozwiak7951 but the TLM reduces the risk more than Novus Ordo
Latin mass is the only mass which will give rise to vocations
Altar boys with incense candles etc etc serving the priest
Priest well formed and in no way will make up words or make mistakes at consecration
People kneeling and receiving communion on the tongue and priests facing East ie facing God as they offer the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary
Priests are more prone to spiritual distractions or attacks due to their role in doing the consecration.
Thank you Robert,
I experience the same, during the Holy Mass in one of our church in Ireland.
People partycypant with me, they didn't notice, not even one of the strong believers .
@barbaraw5264 I had the same experience too. And it was not a mistake because the next time I attended his Mass he said ' for all ' again. I asked a good holy priest from another parish but same diocese. I did not tell him which parish. He said " I can't say anything but he should not say that" . I guess he did not want to criticise another priest but his answer said it all. He said it 3 times in the conversation. I have never gone back to that priest's Mass.
I'm watching too much RUclips. Dr Brant Pitre made the point that in essence the TLM had a "fence" around it that prevented participation by the laity. (He never said 'fence' I got that from a RUclips video about Hebrew Numerology. But it expresses his thought succinctly. ) This is a great analogy. V2 lowered the fence for the laity to participate, and instead the clergy rushed through. In the Novus Ordo, devotion and orthodoxy are not built in, rather we are dependent upon the celebrant to be devote and orthodox. We the laity are mourning the loss of the fence that protected our liturgy, because so many of the clergy are neither devote nor orthodox. Thank God my Pastor is devote, orthodox and loves scripture. He rejoices in leading a couple of small Parishes that have been on the verge of closure for years. God works in mysterious ways.
@@patrickmcguire628 It is a rail, not a fence.
@@patrickmcguire628 "Amen, amen, I say to you: He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold but climbeth up another way, the same is a thief and a robber.
But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.
To him the porter openeth: and the sheep hear his voice. And he calleth his own sheep by name and leadeth them out.
And when he hath let out his own sheep, he goeth before them: and the sheep follow him, because they know his voice.
But a stranger they follow not, but fly from him, because they know not the voice of strangers.
This proverb Jesus spoke to them. But they understood not what he spoke.
Jesus therefore said to them again: Amen, amen, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.
All others, as many as have come, are thieves and robbers: and the sheep heard them not.
I am the door. By me, if any man enter in, he shall be saved: and he shall go in and go out, and shall find pastures.
The thief cometh not, but for to steal and to kill and to destroy. I am come that they may have life and may have it more abundantly." (John 10:1-10)
Had a priest skip right from the Sanctus to the second half of the Eucharistic prayer (don't remember which). We were waiting for him to notice until the Pater, but nope. My dad had to step forward and (softly) inform him of what had happened. He was a little abashed, but chuckled and promptly began the prayer from the beginning, this time confecting the Sacrament.
He turned two pages
I was confused because he said the cup of my blood whilst holding the host.
The point of this video is to point out that exact thing: that it invalidates the Sacrifice.
His Blood is still there sacramentally, and His Body, Soul, and Divinity by concommitance... but His Body was not sacramentally confected.
Wow
"Could happen to a bishop". In other words, we all make mistakes. God bless him 🙏
This all hinges on "What are the exact minimum required words of institution to constitute valid form of the sacrament?" It's very possible that he needs to say "for many" to constitute valid form, but I'm not sure if that's true. I will say that every priest I know has their eyes locked on the book during the consecration, and they go slowly and carefully say every word exactly, and that's what should happen.
Yes, the priest in the Old Rite was under the pain of mortal sin if he changed anything in the canon.
Well spotted Robert ,yes you are right .
“For many”❤
@@janicesummers0417 "He came unto his own: and his own received him not.
But _as many as received him,_ he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name." (John 1:11-12)
That is wrong no doubt.
The bigger issue is holding the bread and mid way switching up the words to drinking from the chalice.
I suppose a Priest, like any other human, could be ill or feeling "off" and make a mistake, but it then behooves anyone who notices to make him aware so that he can repeat correctly. That being said, I believe most of those situations/occurrences are intentional, IMO. We need to be praying for our Priests and holy vocations in our rosary! Pray the rosary daily. The evil one has no power against that. 🙏📿
I was at a requiem mass as an undertaker and a priest consecrated the chalice twice and my heart sank
It is not only the words but the way it is said. Bishop Sanborn explains very well.
The sedevacantists have fallen into the heresy of donatism.
@@thecatholicmanI do not know what that is but I know that Vatican 2 is not Catholic because they changed dogmas, liturgy and disciplines. I guess you just covered the liturgical with an example. Dogmas can’t be changed because they are protected by indefectivility. So is this mass and are these priests Catholics or just members of a new sect cooked up after the second Vatican council?
@ Vatican Ii changed no Dogmas.
@ yes it changed a number of them. One that is very obvious is all religions can lead you to salvation. That contradict the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic church. Collegiality is another one. Man I am a rocky but you seem pretty clueless.
If it was an unintentional and honest mistake-- my sympathy and prayers for the priest. 😢
Bishop Fulton Sheen said that the renewal of the Church would come from faithful lay people calling priests to be priests and bishops to be bishops and truly act in Christ's Name for the good of the whole Church and in fidelity to Jesus and the Apostolic Tradition which he commanded His Apostles and their successors to hand on until the end of time.
Over 20 years ago in Galway Jesuit church, there was an MSC priest who made up the entire Mass. My then 8 years old daughter came out of the Church and in a very cross manner, said to me, " Mum, that priest just made up his own words for the whole Mass ". I was delighted even a child knew this was wrong
I love the Magnificat too. It’s great!
It is also invalid because it says for all, not for many.
I am in a diocese where the bishop has given strict direction on standing when we should be kneeling and vice versa. I kneel as we did in the old days but priests tell me that we are obliged to do as the bishop directs us and some of the priests think that that decision is under the authority of the local bishop. I am trying to be obedient to the Lord since the directive in our diocese is causing so much confusion. Can you bring clarification please?
In the video while holding the host and saying the words of concecration the priest incorrectly used the words "chalice" and" blood" although he was holding the host ?
I brought this question to a spiritual director priest (in his 70’s) as it troubled me also. The explanation I was provided was as follows: Vatican II introduced the new form of the Mass in 1964. The words in question at that time were “for all”. Then in 2011 they changed it to “for many”. That’s 47 years of saying Mass daily, sometimes several times a day using the “for all” format. It can be difficult for them to update this kind of muscle memory especially for older priests who have used “for all” for so much of their lives. Generally when I notice this happens it’s with older priests. He also mentioned that the mass is still valid and licit as long as the correct intention is there specifically around the “for all” vs “for many” piece. As for any other changes to wording he didn’t get into as it was just this particular wording issue I had questioned. He suggested I not approach the priest over it as they’re already aware but just find it difficult to change. I was satisfied and left at peace with the response.
One last time:
The true words of consecration, as affirmed by the Ecumenical Council of Florence:
"...the holy Roman Church, relying on the teaching and authority of the apostles Peter and Paul…uses this form of words in the consecration of the Lord's Body:
This is my body. And of His blood: For this is the chalice of my blood, of the New and eternal Testament: The mystery of faith, which shall be shed, for you and for many, unto the remission of sins." ...
As the Douay-Rheims Bible online commentary shows, the words are linked to Daniel 9:27.
This stretches back to the Apostles.
Starting there, it continued forwards from then until Florence, was affirmed by the Council of Florence, continued on to the Council of Trent and past it, and was present in missals up until 1962.
The word "all" is not the same as the word "many" and are two entirely different words and if all meant many they would say many.
Jesus, in Mk 14:24, used the word "many." Prophet Daniel in Dan. 9:27 ("And he shall confirm the covenant with many, in one week: and in the half of the week..."
Douay-Rheims Bible online, commentary:
"27] "In the half of the week": or, in the middle of the week, etc. Because Christ preached three years and a half: and then by his sacrifice upon the cross abolished all the sacrifices of the law." This explanation explains why some oppose using the words "the many."
The word "many" is of extreme importance.
I usually attend the TLM but when I attend the English Mass it’s usually at a church that also offers the TLM - in those cases they are much more likely to just say the black and do the red. Praying for all our priests. God bless.
Funny, Mass on Sunday last, the Priest used that same phrase and more that I couldn't receive Holy Eucharist because I didn't think I was at a valid Mass.
I did attend a later Holy Mass to receive. It's unbelievable what's happening in our Churches.
It's been happening for 70 years.
Two last things from my comment below: 1) Marie Julie Jahenny also stated this change according to what Jesus was warning us, the future faithful. There is a book titled “we were warned” or something to that nature. I want to say the year is 1890’s. Jesus states how the words will be altered in Latin language. In there you can also find the origins of this change, which is basically from descendants of Pharisees in the 1600’s.
2) Where did you get the Garabandal flag behind you? I live in the US.
If I am not mistaken, Pope Francis made a revision only to the Italian Missal but not the Latin version. If you watch the Mass served by Cardinal Tagle in Italian, in the presence of Pope Francis, on the Epiphany of our Lord 2025, he says "per tutti" while holding up the Chalice. Not all Languages have adopted this change.
My local Novus Ordo parish has a visiting ex Jesuit who makes up his own words during the Mass, calling disciples "friends" during the consecration prayer among other things like never reciting the Confiteor and Creed. I stopped attending that parish because I feared his mass are all invalid. The pastor of the parish says, there is nothing he can do! This priest wears Bermuda shorts outside of Sunday mass! This is a travesty in my opinion.
Jesuits seem bored with they church and constantly looking for some novelty corrupt the church
Muslims, whose mosques are full to the brim on Fridays, by the way, memorize the Quran in Arabic, even if it is not their mother tongue.... so Catholic priests are perfectly capable of memorizing the Mass in Latin. Latin should ALWAYS be used worldwide as the common liturgical lingua franca of all Catholics, so that we can understand the mass no matter which part of the world we visit.... we need a Catholic Renaissance in the West and we need our Churches as enthusiastically full on Sunday as mosques are on Fridays
In my local parish which I avoid when I can the Confiteor and Creed are never said during the mass...and I'm referring to Sunday masses. Sermons are hit and miss with one of the priests too. As for the Consecration, both priests hold the Host and the Chalice up with one hand only. Our church is in need of so much prayer 🙏🏻
Is it fr James Martin
Basically he just got it confused - I’d say it happens from saying it so often on repeat.
It isn't just "many" vs "all" that can invalidate the Novus Ordo. It is possible every NO mass is invalid for disobeying the infallible declaration of Quo Primum. The difference between the Latin mass of 1500 years, and the Novus Ordo is night and day. So much of the NO depends on the intent of the priest, if even that can validate it. The Latin liturgy protected against the priest's disposition. The opening confession was greatly reduced in the NO; the offering of the Host and Chalice included humble request for pardon for our sins. The new mass does not and simply talks about a git of bread. There is a lack of humility in the Novus Ordo liturgy itself, not to mention the blasphemy of communion in the hand and eucharistic ministers. That may be enough to invalidate it.
It's very disturbing for those of us who faithfully attend the NO masses held in our parishes to hear other Catholics tell us that our masses may be invalid.
If so many think this then why are they not protesting to the Bishops, and to Rome.
@@paulinewoods375 anyone who thinks the mass should be said in the Vernacular is already anathema according to Trent
We know the Novus Ordo mass is valid because there have been numerous Eucharistic Miracles in which the host turns to flesh and blood using that style. The fact that we need so many miracles points to a significant problem, but the validity of the Novus Ordo isn't it.
Used to think that, too, but that's (apparently) not the proper magisterial note, which makes all the difference on it's binding force.
Regardless, I firmly opine that to reject Quo Primum is at best a gross impiety and arrogance. Penance for the Bishops; have Faith that Christ will act in you if you suffer with Him for them.
I heard a speaker on you tube discussing this about the validity of the modren mass and pre V2 mass. He was very much a supporter of the traditional Latin mass, but firstly he discussed that our Lord would not leave us without him and allow us not to have a mass , so even if we don't like it and it may be deeply flawed, christ is present in the host in the modren mass. Secondly I know people use the term Novous ordu as a short hand but it is not correct and is a spiteful term in much of modren internet usage taking a did at everyone involved in the current liturgy.
I remember singing this in the choir in school - “take this all of you and eat it, this is my body”.
I think it’s ppl have forgotten the way mass is done - is all.
Yes. Jesus' words were for all the Apostles to take and eat.
@@Jake4Truthyes it’s always been that.
I also had a mass once with a guest priest who said “for all”.
He was not paying attention to what he was doing (for some reason) .
Don’t complicate it I agree. But maybe to distinguish from Francis the Bishop of Rome? Because I’ll be honest most people haven’t got a clue about these things they just turn up on Sunday and that’s it 😢
How can this NOT be deliberate, Robert?! It's a very elaborate wording, not a slipping of the tongue. And if it's deliberate, what's the intention behind it? And what does "being a good priest" mean? Haven't we all known many a priest who seemed "good" only to find out sad if not terrible things about them later? I truly don't understand, Robert... I don't know what's happening in Ireland in all the details but your extremely charitable attitude towards this priest leaves me completely puzzled. 🤔😬
Wait! He said the same thing for the Eucharistic (bread) and chalice (wine) consecration.
My friend, you have been blessed by Jesus to read His Words using Maria Valtorta, true victim Saint but still kept under wraps for His GOOD reasons. I was able to purchase all the notebooks from the valtorta site. In one of the notebooks Jesus is telling us, today, these changes in the entire mass especially the words of consecration. He was even more angry with these priests saying whatever they wanted instead of following the ancient PRESCRIBED MANDATORY Words. Why? If the consecration Words are not clearly stated verbatim according to old rite then the sacrifice of the mass is invalid. The Eucharist is just matzo cracker that comes in the plastic jar.
You reap what you sow, unfortunately. So also was the phrase “ mysterium fedei” said by the priest only at the consecration. Why was this deleted from the consecration and given to the people to say?
many priests say for all,expecially in Italy
Since for years before the redoing of the English translation the text said ‘all’ instead of ‘many’, I cannot think this change invalidated the Mass. And again, the Traditional rite does not have ‘quod pro vobis tradetur’ at the consecration of the host.
It’s an act of disobedience to the church, pure and simple. And it teaches disobedience to the people
it says so in Trent so u disobey Trent, meaning no Heaven unless u repent
"Obey your prelates and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls: that they may do this with joy and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.
Pray for us. For we trust we have a good conscience, being willing to behave ourselves well in all things." (Heb. 13:17-18)
The truth is related to 1Cor13:10. In Canon law an indefective translation automatically abrogates a defective translation, so the priest invalidates the mass when he choses the defective translation 'all' over the indefective translation 'for many'.
Amen🙏
We used "for all" before 2010... was all those masses invalid
Technically no, but it’s a wrong translation that was corrected. Pro multis can’t be translated for all.
The canon law follows the principle in 1Cor 13:10; so an indefective translation automatically abrogates a defective translation, thus the priest in choosing to use the defective 'all' translation instead of the indefective 'many' translation is choosing NOT to intend to do what the Church does. His intention invalidates the mass cf. Mark 7:20-23 and Gestis Verbisque 2.2.24
Over the years I've seen this happen a couple of times.
Father, say the black do the red..... Keep it and if you make a mistake stop and do it over again.
Two Sacraments Our Lord gave to us the specific words. Priests have to say exactly what Jesus Christ said. Two Sacraments Our Lord gave us the specific words are Holy Mass and Baptism. Very easy to invalidate both.
Please..Extraordinary ministers is the correct expression.
lol demons want to be addressed properly
Deminta or carelessness ? This is why priests are trained to read, not say mass from memory.
I have also been at masses where unusual emphasis in the voice is placed on certain words or phrases, making it more like a performance of some kind.
You are dead right about the confused standing and kneeling. It is so confused varying from parish to parish even in the same diocese.
With christmas and work I have been to 3 different churches in Galway city and they are all very different in mood,reverance atmosphere etc. Too much individual priest variation and display.
We are not given the Blessed Wine at Our Roman Catholic Church!🕊️💖🙏
It's not necessary and was never done in the pre V2 liturgy. The Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord. It's all that is needed.
You're not required to receive both. Receiving the host is sufficient
Another words use the exact words. No changing.
The Committee which prepared the new order of the Mass included several Protestants and some Universalists. Universalists believe that, by his death on the cross, Our Lord achieved the salvation of all of mankind, that there is no literal Hell, or, if there is, that no one will actually go there and that the whole human race will be saved and go to Heaven. The Universalists were successful in having the Canon of the Mass altered to achieve their stated aims, so that the words “shed for you and for many” (the words used by Our Lord as recorded in the Gospels) were changed to “shed for you and for all men”. That fact that no one even noticed, or cared, that this change had been introduced says something for the state of the modern Church. Pope Benedict XVI did, in due course, order that the correct words of consecration be restored to the Canon of the Mass. However, it is worth nothing that, in Italy, the words used are still “for all” (“per tutti”) because the Pope is, ex officio, Primate of All Italy and, in that capacity (not in the exercise of his Petrine Ministry, which applies to the Universal Church) he is able to alter the words in the Canon of the Mass in Italian, because there is no higher authority in the Church in Italy which can question his decision. The Pope, of course, is a Universalist and also propounds the heresies of syncretism and indifferentism. He is able to do so because almost all of the Prelates in the Catholic Church today are solely concerned with advancing their own careers in the Church, rather than in preaching the Gospel, or, if they are concerned, they know that they must keep silent, or they will be “cancelled”. The “official” Canon of the Mass in the New Order in Latin is correctly given as “pro multis” and it no local Episcopal Conference has power to alter the wording when translating in into their own national language, save for the Pope, who, as Primate of All Italy, may do as he pleases and no one would dare to question him.
Sadly, this can't be written off as a bad day. There is a rot within the clergy especially in Ireland. Frankly, it's is a mess that borders on the pathetic with this example coupled with that nonsense written by "Fr" Hoban plus my own awful experience at St. Mary in Astee, County Kerry. It is so sad to witness such self-hatred.
Of course the Mass was valid. Any priest can make a mistake with the words. It was a genuine error, and no disrespect or sacrilege was intended. Jesus himself was human and must have experienced tiredness or confusion at some time, as we all do. The Lord accepts our imperfect worship and blesses it with His divine grace.
You are correct that obedience to the Missal is paramount for any priest, but neither the Greek word used nor the theology is so clear. That Christ died for many and not for all is a Jansenist heresy refuted by Pope Innocent X in Cum occasione (1653). The heresy originated in Calvinist Protestantism when their Synod of Dort (1618-19) declared that Christ redeemed “only those who were chosen from eternity” and their Westminster Confession (1646) later defined those chosen as “the elect”. I'll email you a short (1.5 page) study of the Greek word polloi and its use in the NT.
"For all" is a countable total, Latin/ Italian = totus; this in fact psychologically restricts the mercy of God to a humanly countable 'all' or total. One might also consider , the use of the word 'all' is differentiating as in 'all' the saved but not the damned. On the other hand, "for many" or "for the multitude" allows the mind to grasp the infinite, uncountable number of souls that God's unrestricted mercy reaches for ever. cf Revelation 7:9
@@cathmhaoil The Latin is a translation, and therefore a derivative interpretation, of the Greek Scripture, though in the context of Tradition, it is a valuable one.
Robert what does it mean that a mass is said wrong? Surely if ppl are gathered in Gods name then that is all that is necessary.
One commenter here said they felt afraid because a priest had a disorderly mass and they were progressive and therefore they required a blessing from another priest.
Why would they require a blessing from another priest?
What are the main problems with Vatican 2 that ppl are opposed to?
The mass must be said according to the missal. No innovation, no change, to ad libbing, and for a sacrament to be valid form and matter must be used correctly. The form in this case (the words) were not valid.
Added to what @thecatholicman says: The canon law follows the principle in 1Cor 13:10; so an indefective translation automatically abrogates a defective translation, thus the priest in choosing to use the defective 'all' translation instead of the indefective 'many' translation is choosing NOT to intend to do what the Church does. His intention invalidates the mass cf. Mark 7:20-23 and Gestis Verbisque 2.2.24 The priest introduces psychological manipulation into the form chosen.
'For all' is sometimes used illicitly by clergy who believe in universal salvation.
Let's also fix the Glory Be. It makes no sense to say "world without end" in English when most other languages do not. They use the (poor) excuse that it is an idiom. If thats a valid idiom, then "for all" isn't a big deal since that could also be said to be an idiom, since we already know it's conditional.
The world without end ( secula seculorum) goes back before the translation of the mass in English. Look at the old pre Vatican II missals and the English translation
Sure when Pope John Paul 2 said the Mass in Limerick in 1979 , he never consecrated the wine.
In that case, the bread became Jesus. But the Sacrifice was not represented, since the double consecration is _the thing_ that signifies, in an unbloody manner, the separation of Christ's Body and Blood, which is His Death.
While the phrase "for all" is certainly problematic, it does not invalidate the Mass. The form of the Mass are the words of consecration which are "this is my Body" and "this is my blood" alone. Additionally, if it did invalidate the Mass than all English Masses would have been invalid for decades.
Both the Sacramentary and Denzinger disagree with you. "This is the chalice of my blood ..." indicates that the words that follow are also part of the form requirement for validity, dating back to the council of Florence. Remember Mark 7:20-23. What comes out of the mouth indicates the hidden intention of the heart, intention as well as form is required for validity. If the priest imposes his own ideology on the form then his intention is clearly not that of the church. If he was obedient and faithful to the Word he would have no problem saying the 'black' and doing the 'red'.
@cathmhaoil Hmmm, interesting. I will look into that because I was working off of the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott.
@cathmhaoil But in this case, also, the priest had the intention to do what the Church does, so wouldn't that suffice for validity, and if not, do you content that the English Masses were invalid for decades?
Why was the consecration being recorded? Was it you that did it? Isn't it an act of impiety to do so?
No, I didn’t record it. A friend sent it to me from the webcam and asked what I thought and since I was all that exact mass I did a video on it.
Lots of Churches share their Masses live on YT or a website for the homebound.
happens everyday
Robert, is this for real??
Anyhow, that Mass was invalid.
Case closed. Just like another priest who ad libs the Novus Ordo and mentions the Liam Mccarthy Cup at the consecration of the Chalice.
Dermot you haven’t see the other stuff that happens at some masses.
Maybe the Words of Consecration should be said in Latin to avoid any risk of improvisation?
It would be best
I did not catch the wrong wording at first, it went on by. A Priest changed words of consecration at a parish I went to. Instead of saying “do this in memory of Me”, he said “when you do this, remember Me.” Slight difference, but in the words Jesus used, there is definitely more of a command. There is A LOT of flexibility in the Novus Ordo.
There should not be any flexibility. I understand that any deviation causes the Grace of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass diminished. When the wording of the consecration of the Body and Blood of Our Lord is changed, it can make the consecration invalid. "All" instead of "Many" diminishes the Grace, but not make the consecration invalid. The new ones coming out after the recent synod will make it invalid. We MUST leave the church we attend, if the new ones is used during the Mass, so that we may avoid participating in blaspheming God. And look for a church which uses the correct consecration language.
Find a different chapel Robert 🙏
If you can find a copy of a book The Essential Thomas More in pback...you will find More chastising Luther for omitting the words. from the Consecration as the actual words of Jesus at the Last Supper. " AS OFTEN AS YOU DO THESE THINGS YOU SHALL." DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME "
.
The 7 words were omitted from Luther's new mass even though they were up to the reformed liturgy of Luther considered " Essential "..
Words are such tiny little things, but, omitting or changing the actual words of God, the 2nd Person of The Blessed Trinity from the Words of Consecration plead for the original text to be verbatim.
I plead with you and any other person who reads this to take this seriously. We may not be getting Jesus body, blood, soul and Divinity at all at Communion, but, only bread.
The book I read this in was out in the 1980s.I think the publisher was Image pb books.And it had the Imprimoter which declared it contained no error.
.
.
Perhaps this priest should be corrected by someone? We engage in so much hand ringing. Well if it’s up to the laity as you so rightly pointed out. Then someone should do it. Speak up! Not in a rude way but respectfully.
No, he should not mention Bergoglio. We are actually without a pope since december 31th 2022.
I am not in a position to decide that.
@@thecatholicman To be fair on Bergoglio, he has gone out of his way to made it easy. If what he repeatedly and clearly states makes him an apostate, then he is not the Pope because a Pope MUST be catholic.
Many…not All