Furthermore, “For Many” and “For All” are English interpretations of the Latin Rite. They are BOTH valid interpretations of the original Latin.
Why can’t I find “for all” in ANY translation of the Bible in English?
I’ve checked in the RSV-CE, NAB, KJV, and the NRSV. Even the
the NEW VULGATE in LATIN says:
Mark 14:24: Et ait illis: “Hic est sanguis meus novi testamenti, qui* pro multis *effunditur” (Navarre Bibles, Mark)
pro multis means “For many” as the Roman Missal of 1962 indicates.
It may be valid, but hardly desirable. Why can’t ICEL just stick to the Bible? Is their understanding better than all the Bibles that have ever been translated? Even if you can make argument that “For all” is valid - so what. Which is clearly the better translation? Someone mentioned on another thread on certain day of the year one can hear the priest read the gospel and say “For many” and then return to the altar and say the consecration of the Eucharist liturgy with “for all”. Even if “for all” is valid, why propagate this inconsistency?
I’ve noticed a tendency on this website whereby some apologists for the Mass of Paul VI in over reaction to Radical Traditionalists, to try to deny there exists any problems in the New Mass. The banquet aspect is overemphasized (Or at least the Sacrifice is under emphasized) in the new mass as has been stated by a number faithful catholic apologists including Marcus Grodi and Tim Staples. Tim Staples makes exactly this point on his tape set “The Eucharist: The Most Blessed Sacrament of the Altar” .The translation of the New Mass is valid, but nevertheless mediocre in rendering. There seems to be argument that well we only need “This is my Body” part so who cares about how the rest is said because the minimum (“This is my Body”) makes it valid.
**I’ll end this by saying that the Latin Rite Mass is the New Mass, and the Novus Ordo Missae is actually the Old Mass of the first Christians! I came to this conclusion by educating myself on the roots of the Mass and on the real teachings of The Church. **
Really. You are trying to advocate a heresy called primitivism. I believe the creed and the penitential rite are late additions of the medieval period that appear at the begiining of your so-called “old” mass. According to The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy by Adrian Fortesque the additions to Latin rite (Which are retained in the Mass) are:
Gloria (5th Century)
Kyrie eleison (Imported from the east in the 5th Century)
The Creed (11th Century) at least as part of the Mass.
The Confiteor (Penitential rite) - Father Adrian describes as “an early Medieval Prayer”
One of the interesting things is Father Fortesque describes the Chant as among the older parts of the Roman rite from those four things above that are retained in the New Mass and the chant is gone however this came about.
Try Reading the Mass of the Early Christians by Mike Aquilina. You will see the earliest Liturgies (Like the Liturgy of St. James) did not say “The Lord be with you…And also with you”, they said “The Lord be with you…And with thy Spirit” like we say in the Byzantine Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil (Late 400s). Its my understanding that Rome wants this specific change (“And with thy Spirit”) and the ICEL and American bishops like Troutman are stonewalling. The Liturgy of St. James dates from year 400 and uses “For Many” in its consecration. I am eternal grateful that I was Baptized in the Byzantine rite as an infant. I might add the Byzantine Liturgy is in English but there is a huge difference in terms of the sense of the sacred from the Novus ordo missae. Our Byzantine Consecration during The Divine Liturgy reads:
TAKE, EAT, THIS IS MY BODY, WHICH IS BROKEN FOR YOU , FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS.
DRINK OF THIS, ALL OF YOU, THIS IS MY BLOOD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, WHICH IS SHED FOR YOU AND MANY, FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS