Question regarding Eucharist explaining it to someone Help

Ok I was talking to someone is Face-book and this is what she said in a little conversation that we had i’ll just copy and past maybe you guys can help me out with this thanks God Bless :thumbsup:

I do understand the mass, and i cherish it. It’s the Eucharistic prayer that i find seriously flawed with the Catholic Mass. I don’t know how it happenned. The word “for many”, changed into “for all” at the Sacrifice. That makes the the entire mass invalid. Transubstantiation of the Bread will not happen. It is done in vain. “ALL” would mean including evil spirits, demons and others that cannot be saved. The original sacrifice states very clearly “for many”. I think because of this slight of word, The Catholic Church is sufferring all kinds of afflictions, including the massive problem with ‘abusive’ priests. Indeed the smoke of satan has entered the Church. The abomination, i believe , has begun as in Daniel. The Real Church has gone underground, and to find a priest ‘willing’ to say the original mass is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

There are a number of answers of varying complexity. First, the words of consecration are “this is my body” and “this is . . . my blood.” The other parts of the consecratory prayer, though extremely important, are not actually necessary for the consecration to take place.

Second, at most this is a problem with the current English translation. The Mass itself is written in Latin (yes, the current form of the Mass too), and translated into other languages. I wonder if your friend is fine with the Mass in Spanish-speaking countries, Italy, Germany, and pretty much everywhere else, where the respective translations say “for you and for many.” Often people who (pretend to be) gravely concerned about this question think the world revolves around the English language, and can scarcely comprehend that the great majority of Masses said around the world don’t use our translations at all. Besides which, we’ll soon enough (probably November 2011) be getting new translations which properly render “pro multis” as “for many.” I wonder if your friend will be satisfied then? (No, of course not, she doesn’t really care about technical theological issues, she hates the Catholic Church.)

As to even deeper theological issues, I encourage you to read Cardinal Arinze’s letter (here, along with other information) to bishops concerning the translation, which is very brief and provides a good jumping-off point.

I’d urge you to give up this kind of conversation. People like this person have rejected God, because they have rejected what is of God. They have rejected Christ, because they reject those whom Christ sent. They blaspheme the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, because they do not glorify Christ, but glorify themselves as having “special knowledge” and being “a chosen few” who are “underground” as the “Real Church.”

Shake the dust from your feet and move on! :slight_smile:

The person obviously does NOT understand the Catholic Mass.

“pro multis” in the original language is indeed literally “for many” but in the context of the times, such an expression is equivalent to “for all”. And clearly, as the Bible teaches God desires all to be saved.

Transubstantiation is one philosophical way approved by the Church to express and understand, humanly, what happens at the consecration. In and of itself it is not dogma. Belief in the Real Presence is dogma.

What the Catholic Church has to say about transubstantiation:
“And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.” (1561 - Council of Trent, Session XIII, c. IV)

“The doctrine of the synod [of Pistoia] … absolutely omits to make any mention of transubstantiation, or conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, which the Council of Trent defined as an article of faith, and which is contained in the solemn profession of faith; … by an indiscreet and suspicious omission of this sort knowledge is taken away both of an article pertaining to faith, and also of the word consecrated by the Church to protect the profession of it…” (1794 - Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei 29, addressing the errors of a false council held in Pistoia) [It should be pointed out that the synod of Pistoia *did say that “after the consecration Christ is truly, really, substantially under the species [and that] the whole substance of the bread and wine ceases, appearances only remaining”, but Pius VI considered the complete omission of the term “transubstantiation” to be “dangerous, derogatory to the exposition of Catholic truth about the dogma of transubstantiation, [and] favorable to heretics”!]

“Some even say that the doctrine of transubstantiation transubstantiationis doctrinam], based on an antiquated philosophic notion of substance, should be so modified that the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist be reduced to a kind of symbolism, whereby the consecrated species would be merely efficacious signs of the spiritual presence of Christ and of His intimate union with the faithful members of His Mystical Body.” (1950 - Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis 26)

“For We can see that some of those who are dealing with this Most Holy Mystery in speech and writing are disseminating opinions on Masses celebrated in private or on the dogma of transubstantiation dogma transsubstantiationis] that are disturbing the minds of the faithful and causing them no small measure of confusion about matters of faith, just as if it were all right for someone to take doctrine that has already been defined by the Church and consign it to oblivion or else interpret it in such a way as to weaken the genuine meaning of the words or the recognized force of the concepts involved.” (1965 - Pope Paul VI, Mysterium Fidei 10)

“To give an example of what We are talking about, it is not permissible … to discuss the mystery of transubstantiation without mentioning what the Council of Trent had to say about the marvelous conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body and the whole substance of the wine into the Blood of Christ, as if they involve nothing more than ‘transignification,’ or ‘transfinalization’ as they call it.” (1965 - Pope Paul VI, Mysterium Fidei 11)

“After the Council of Trent, Our predecessor, Pius VI, issued a serious warning, on the occasion of the errors of the Synod of Pistoia, that parish priests not neglect to speak of transubstantiation, which is listed among the articles of the faith, in the course of carrying out their office of teaching.” (1965 - Pope Paul VI, Mysterium Fidei 54)

“[Jesus Christ] is substantially present there through the conversion of the bread and wine that, following the Council of Trent, is most accurately termed transubstantiation.” (1967 - Eucharisticum Mysterium 3f)

“Moreover, the wondrous mystery of the Lord’s real presence under the eucharistic species, reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council6 and other documents of the Church’s Magisterium in the same sense and with the same words that the Council of Trent had proposed as a matter of faith, is proclaimed in the celebration of Mass not only by means of the very words of consecration, by which Christ becomes present through transubstantiation…” (2002 - GIRM 2)

Thanks for the quick response and for helping me out in this subject i greatly appreciate it. My friend does belive that the Catholic Church is the one true Church but she thinks that over the years it has been taken over by evil. I know she means good deep in her heart but at the same time she has been mislead by other people and also books that attack the RCC, I just told her to seek truth and God will guide back to his one true Church and my God Bless her in her journey.:signofcross:

I am so happy that we share (you Catholics in this web site) the same interestes and thank God for guiding me here its been great keep the faith and defend it my brothers :highprayer:

I guess she doesn’t believe in the Bible then:

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,** and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.** (Mt. 16:18)

So either the Bible is wrong and our Church is built on a house of cards, or the Bible speaks the Truth, and the evil we see in the Church is the evil of individual sinners.

I shall pray for her so she can eventually come home :gopray2:

I was just going to say that I think that practically they both mean the same thing. Christ did die for all (I can’t remember, I think that’s at least a doctrine, it might be dogma), it’s just that the institutional narrative is taken from the Gospels (obviously) which say for many.

Using “for all” as the translation of “pro multis” does not invalidate the Mass. That is currently the approved English translation. It will soon be changed.

Further, as Mark Thompson noted, the critical words of consecration are “this is my body” and “this is my blood.” There have, if I recall correctly, been instances where a priest in a concentration camp or battle zone, had to limit the prayers to just those words.

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