Replies

In answer to your post #2--have you considered: that when many priests do the consecration, when it comes time to lift the host, they do so with ONE HAND (ditto the Wine).

Oh no! Not ONE HAND!!! I can see how this gives you nightmares. ONE HAND!!!!

This is obviously a Protestant innovation, this using of ONE HAND.

(For what it's worth, my priests use both hands. Furthermore, we should keep seperate the NO rite and its abuses.)

For all the world it looks to be that he is sharing bread with the congregation (most priests don't raise the host very high and they twirl around to get the far corners of the congregation). The consecration of the wine looks like a TOAST.

I realize it must be disconcerting to have te priest look like he is sharing bread with the congregation. Especially as he says "take this, all of you and eat it." To the untrained eye, it would appear as if Jesus or the priest actually wanted us to eat it. Or perhaps, to share this bread.

This is an obvious corruption of the text. Jesus never said that.

Also, the consecration of the Wine has a wrong translation for Jesus' words. Look it up if you don't believe me.

Pro multis it says. What do you think it means?

Gee, Dave--you weren't exactly soothing in your response. Perhaps the one hand is an abuse of the NO. The point is this rite seems to invite abuse, thus taking away from the solemnity of the event.

Re pro multis:

from (http://www.latin-mass-society.org/promult.htm)

ICEL claims that the Aramaic and Hebrew words for "many",which it assumes to be the original words underlying the Greek text of the New Testament, have an inclusive sense and can therefore legitimately be rendered in English as "all".

The fact is, however, that in both the gospels where these words occur, those of St. Matthew and St. Mark, they are translated into Greek as p o l l o i (polloi), which means "many", not as p a n t e V (pantes), which means "all". In other words, faced with a possible ambiguity in the Aramaic, both St. Matthew and St. Mark picked the Greek word for "many" and not that for "all". I think it is reasonable to suppose that the evangelists, writing in the second half of the first century, within a few decades of the Last Supper, are likely to have had a better conception of exactly what Our Lord had said and meant to say than the members of ICEL in the second half of the twentieth.