EFvsNO: For many/for all question [edited]

This is the first time I’ve ever posted, so not quite sure if I’m in the right place!
I’m a lifelong Catholic with 12 years Catholic schools background, the last 4 was post Vatican II.
Can someone please explain why the Tridentine Mass is called the ExtraOrdinary Form?
Also, according to Fr. Paul Kramer, the NO is not licit when the Consecration uses the words, “and for all” instead of “and for many”. Does this mean that none of the Eucharists we’ve attended with the NO have been valid?
I am so confused about so much, I have no idea what is right anymore.
Please help.

The current phrasing is “Ordinary Form” and “Extraordinary Form”. The NO (Ordinary Form) is the, well, ordinary form of the Roman Rite. The EF is another allowed form of the Roman Rite.

As for the pro multis argument, don’t let yourself be led down that path. Trust the Church, and trust God if the Church does mess up. I myself have some traditional sentiments, but if the OF is good enough for our Holy Father it’s plenty good enough for me.

“Extraordinary” means “outside of the ordinary.” There are many extraordinary forms besides the Tridentine. For example, a local Dominican Church here in Portland sometimes celebrates Mass according to the Dominican Rite (which is actually much older than the Tridentine).

Well, according to the Pope and the Magesterium of the Church, Fr. Kramer is quite wrong.

Father Kramer is a supporter of another confused and dissident priest-Father Gruner.I wouldn’t use this priest as an authority on ANYTHING.

My understanding is that Fr.Gruner is connected with Fatima Crusader, and that the Crusader is a publication of Fatima.org. Is this not true? I firmly believe in the Fatima Apparitions.

Do you really think Jesus would say “No that’s invalid! It’s not my Body and Blood because of a disagreement in the translation of one word from Aramaic to Greek or Latin to English to the Liturgy over 2000 years.”

Come on, this is the devil at work!

Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” Mt 18:3.

Do you think the children refuse the love of Jesus because they disagree with a translation of ‘all’ vs ‘many’?

Besides, it’s changed to ‘many’ in the current revisions, so the argument is irrelevant and ridiculous.

We have so many evil things to fight, like atheism, abortion and Catholic apathy, why waste time on useless semantics?

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei,Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

Sorry…no intent to offend. Just trying to understand and sort out all the info. You have a point, which I certainly subscribe to, but what about Canon Law and Tradition? Have they no merit or importance?
I don’t want to argue or nitpick…I’m only looking for some direction.
Thank you for your input.:slight_smile:

Canon Law does not decree the content of liturgical texts. It does contain other regulations in regard to the Mass (a couple of which note that only lawfully approved liturgical texts are to be used), but it does not establish the text. It is the Pope who has the definitive power to approve the legal text. As long as an approved text is used, proper material (bread/wine), and the priest has the proper intention you can rest assured the Mass is valid.

Altho there is no dogma declaring which specific words must be pronounced in order to effect transubstantiation, my understanding is that “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood” are the ones generally considered to be crucial. For example, if a priest were to accidentally misread and thus omit some of the words, as long as he said the words “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood”, the species would become Our Lord’s Body and Blood.


"Father Gruner was suspended “a divinis” by the Vatican in 1996 – meaning he is relieved of his priestly functions, primarily administering the sacraments." From the 11th paragraph.

I too believe in the Fatima apparitions, however, Fr. Gruner and his Fatima Crusader organization are not people that I would listen to or contribute to.

I still get his mailings. They go from my mailbox to the garbage can. I’ve read it several times and the Vatican did the right thing.

There are better Fatima apostolates to get involved with.

And I firmly believe in the ministry of St. Paul. But I do not believe in the “ministry” of the false fortune-teller who proclaimed Paul’s ministry (and neither did St. Paul):

As we were going to the place of prayer, we met a slave girl with an oracular spirit, who used to bring a large profit to her owners through her fortune-telling. She began to follow Paul and us, shouting, “These people are slaves of the Most High God, who proclaim to you a way of salvation.” She did this for many days. Paul became annoyed, turned, and said to the spirit, “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” Then it came out at that moment.
[RIGHT]Acts 16:16-18

There have always been those who give lip-service to the Church in order to promote their own agendas. Fr. Gruner is one of a long lineage of such characters (and he has also been rebuked).

I think the best answer to that question would come from Pope Benedict himself. Here’s a link to his Motu Proprio

Also, according to Fr. Paul Kramer, the NO is not licit when the Consecration uses the words, “and for all” instead of “and for many”. Does this mean that none of the Eucharists we’ve attended with the NO have been valid?
I am so confused about so much, I have no idea what is right anymore.
Please help.

4 Roman Pontiffs (Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI) have all felt that these words make a valid consecration. If any of them felt otherwise, he would not have hesitated (even one minute) to change it. It isn’t the best translation of the Latin, but that’s not the same thing as saying that it’s invalid. It’s worthy of note that Pope Benedict has in fact made a “final decision” that the words in English should be “for many” but at the same time, he’s waiting for the entire Mass to be re-translated and for the books to be published–in fact, the process began under Pope John Paul II. If Pope Benedict determined that these words were indeed invalid, there would be no hesitation, no delay.

For the sake of our observers and seekers: The approved Fatima Apostolate is: Fatima Family Apostolate International. Now back to our regularly scheduled thread.

There are plenty of traditionalists over at Fisheaters that would be willing to disagree over your traditional sentiments based on that last sentence. If turning the Lateran Basilica into a whorehouse was good enough for John XII, then it’s good enough for me… en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_XII

Like it or not, the ICEL has done its best to “clunkify” every liturgical text in English, although I believe the Novus Ordo is valid. Just because something is valid and approved by the Church doesn’t mean there aren’t problems with it. To behave as though the Novus Ordo dropped from Heaven is the same logical error that many radical traditionalists fall into when they behave the same way about the Mass of Trent. Essentially, what most neo-conservative Catholics say is that it’s ok to criticize things within the Church, as long as it’s between AD 300 and AD 1969.

Yes, the Church has had “false” Popes, and “not so good” Popes. As I understand it, we only have to believe the Dogma’s, and any declarations made excathedra. So…conscientious objections CAN be made, and SHOULD be made by all faithful Catholics, who seriously question or doubt any changes that do not follow Apostolic teaching and Tradition. Thank you for your insight.:thumbsup:

Too often some think that the words of consecration are a “magic spell,” which consecrates the Eucharist. While the form is certainly important, it is also most important that the priest, who operates in the person of Christ, intends to do what Christ did more so than just say what Christ said. The controversy over “for many” vs. “for all” is very overblown anyway, since both are theologically sound. Remember that what is essential is a) Form, meaning a properly approved liturgical text (and “for all” is approved), b) Matter, the proper substances of bread and wine for the Offering, and c) Intent, that the priest, in the person of Christ, intends to do what Christ did.

I think this question has been well answered. Let me throw in one thought. Even this error in the English translation has had one good fruit; it has opened the discussion to what is the minimum required for consecration. The Holy Spirirt can even use our mistakes.

originally posted by Mark77

Come on, this is the devil at work!


Besides, it’s changed to ‘many’ in the current revisions, so the argument is irrelevant and ridiculous.

On the contrary, this serves to underscore the argument and its legitimate basis.

We have so many evil things to fight, like atheism, abortion and Catholic apathy, why waste time on useless semantics?

I would argue that specific words are extremely important - if they were not, we would not have a New Testament (most of which was written to clarify things already being taught orally and to lend a permanency to the correct teachings, as opposed to what others may or may not have been promulgating aside from the apostles). Thus, calling the concern over what the correct words of consecration are “useless semantics” debases the relevance of them. According to this logic, adding of changing a single word is “no biggie” (hey it’s just ONE word, right?). But what if the word is…hmmmm “not” Let’s see. *This is “not” my body. * Doesn’t mean the same thing. How about “like” This is “like” my body. Or This “was” my body. The importance of “one” word is so readily evident. The main crux is that the changes in the words of consecration leave the faithful to wonder. If the Church adhered to one formula for so long, it must have been right. So, the rational thinking is to wonder if the new language, (which, one must admit says an entirely different thing) is still right.

I have never seen an authoritative place where the specific words of consecration are listed so that the “form” of the sacrament can be easily recognized by the faithful. (I feel this is a major shortcoming of the teaching authority of the Church) Are the words following “This is the cup/chalice of my blood” a part of the consecration? Or are they just modifiers? If they are modifiers, they are irrelevant insofar as the confection of the sacrament is concerned. If they ARE apart of the form, then caution has to be taken as to whether they can be legitimately changed and still fulfill the form(especially since the major change from “many” to “all” (multis/omnes) has us changing the ACTUAL words of Christ. Don’t discount the importance of words. IMHO that is what has led to so many of today’s problems in general.

However, I for one don’t subscribe to the idea that the word “many” nullifies the sacrament (although I struggled with this for a long time). I believe it was an unneccesary change that has tragically caused much argument and dissention. However, I do think the Pope said it right (I paraphrase here) that it is undeniable that Christ shed his blood for all - so that all would have access to the salvific power of his sacrifice- however, Jesus DID say “for many” at the Last Supper, and the concept of his dying for all is better left for catechism classes than in the Mass itself.

Beautifully said. Thank you so much.:slight_smile: pickguard1

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.