|
Hi Gerard,
Thanks for the e-mail.
A good document to read on this is Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Vatican II document on the Sacred Liturgy. It lays out all the reasons for liturgical reform.
A few key parts are:
21. "In
order that the Christian people
may more certainly derive an abundance
of graces from the Sacred Liturgy,
holy Mother Church desires to
undertake with great care a general
restoration of the liturgy itself.
For the liturgy is made up of
unchangeable elements divinely
instituted, and of elements subject
to change. These latter not only may be changed but ought to be
changed with the passage of time,
if they have suffered from the
intrusion of anything out of harmony
with the inner nature of the liturgy
or have become less suitable.
In this restoration both texts
and rites should be drawn up so
as to express more clearly the
holy things which they signify.
The Christian people, as far as
is possible, should be able to understand them with ease and
take part in them fully, actively,
and as a community."
24. "Sacred
Scripture is of the greatest importance
in the celebration of the liturgy.
For it is from it, that lessons
are read and explained in the
homily, and psalms are sung. It is from the scriptures that
the prayers, collects, and hymns
draw their inspiration and their
force, and that actions and signs
derive their meaning. Hence in
order to achieve the restoration,
progress, and adaptation of the
sacred liturgy it is essential
to promote that sweet and living
love for sacred scripture to which
the venerable tradition of Eastern
and Western rites gives testimony."
35. "That
the intimate connection between
rite and words may be apparent
in the liturgy:
'(1) In sacred celebrations
a more ample, more varied, and
more suitable reading from Sacred
Scripture should be restored.' "
50. "The
rite of the Mass is to be revised
in such a way that the intrinsic
nature and purpose of its several
parts, as well as the connection
between them, may be more clearly
manifested, and that devout and
active participation by the faithful
may be more easily achieved.
For this purpose the rites
are to be simplified, due care
being taken to preserve their
substance. Parts which, with the
passage of time, came to be duplicated,
or were added with little advantage,
are to be omitted. Other parts
which suffered loss through accidents
of history are to be restored
to the vigor they had in the days
of the holy Fathers, as may seem
useful or necessary."
'53. "The "common
prayer" or "prayer of
the faithful' is to be restored
after the Gospel and homily, especially
on Sundays and holidays of obligation.
By this prayer in which the people
are to take part, intercession
will be made:
- for holy Church
- for the civil authorities
- for
those oppressed by various needs
- for all mankind, and
- for the salvation
of the entire world."[39]
|
Having the faithful participate more
fully in the Liturgy was a key reason,
because in the Mass of Pope St. Pius V,
nearly every interaction occurred
between the server and the priest,
such that the people were mere passive
observers and listeners — so
much so, that many developed the
habit of praying the Rosary during
the Mass since they had nothing else
to do for much of it.
You said:
- Why was the word "many" replaced
with "all" in the consecration
of the wine in the Novus Ordo?
The word "many" was not
replaced with "all" during
the consecration of the wine. Rather,
(ICEL) (the International Committee
on English in the Liturgy) chose to
translate the words "pro multis" in the Mass of Pope Paul VI, (also known
as the Novus Ordo Mass. [which
literally means "many" or "the many"] as "for
all") because it was theologically
fitting.
To say that Christ died "for
many" but not "for all" smacks
of heresy, in particular Calvinism and Jansenism.
Fundamentals
of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott (1955) says,
"In
the year 1653, Pope Innocent X condemned
as heretical the proposition that
Christ died for the salvation of
the predestined exclusively (Denzinger
1096). In the year 1690, Pope Alexander VIII rejected the assertion that Christ offered himself to God for
the Faithful only (Denzinger 1294)." (page
188)
The Council Of Trent says of
Christ's mission:
Through [the] which it came to pass, that the heavenly Father, the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort, when that blessed fulness of the time was come, sent unto men Jesus Christ, His own Son, who had been, both before the Law, and during the time of the Law, declared and promised to many of the holy fathers, that He might both redeem the Jews who were under the Law, and that the Gentiles, who followed not after justice, might attain to justice, and that all might receive the adoption of sons. Him hath God set forth as a propitiator, through faith in his blood, for our sins; and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world.
Buckley, Theodore Alois, The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (London: George Routledge and Co., 1851), pp. 30–31 (Sixth
session, Chapter II). |
The Bible maintains that there is
a sense in which Christ died for
all men. John 4:42 describes Christ
as "the Savior of the world," and 1 John 2:2 states that Christ "is
the propitiation for our sins, and
not for ours only but also for the
whole world." 1 Timothy 4:10 describes God as "the Savior of all men, especially
of those who believe."
Aquinas stated, "Christ's passion
was not only a sufficient but a superabundant
atonement for the sins of the human
race; according to 1 John 2:2, 'He
is the propitiation for our sins,
and not for ours only, but also for
those of the whole world.'" Again
he says, "(Christ) is the propitiation
for our sins, efficaciously for some,
but sufficiently for all, because
the price of His Blood is sufficient for the salvation of all; but it
has its effect only in the elect." (Commentary
on Titus, I, Titus 2:6)
Consequently, to claim that Christ
died only for the elect, or only
for the faithful, and not in some sense, for all people, is heresy.
Obviously, not all people are saved,
but the salvation is available to
all. There is not one person for
whom Christ did not die to redeem.
And no, it does not invalidate the
Sacrament, even if it were wrong,
because the form of the Sacrament
of Holy Eucharist is the words of
institution pronounced by the celebrant:
“This is My Body,” and “This
is My Blood.”
See the
Baltimore Catechism, Question 893.
The wine is consecrated by the
words "This is my blood." alone.
Therefore, any attempt to clarify
a subsequent word to better represent
Catholic doctrine, while preserving
the original intent, would not
have an effect on the validity
of the Sacrament.
I hope this helps, let me know if
you have any further questions.
Eric Ewanco
|
