The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
#91
(12-23-2010, 01:37 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote: Quis, thank you for the clarifications.  I’m glad that we concur on the fundamentals.  We can quickly dispense with a lot of our quibbling:

(12-22-2010, 09:56 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: If I add "supercalifragilisticexpialodocious" to the end of the words fo Consecration, does it invalidate the Sacrament?

I answer, no, it doesn't, because it doesn't change the meaning.

Agreed.

(12-22-2010, 09:56 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Not all words added inherently invalidate the Sacrament.

Agreed.

(12-22-2010, 09:56 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: There is codification of a Sacrament, what the Church says the form and matter are.  Then there is validity of the Sacrament.


Agreed.

(12-22-2010, 09:56 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: At the very least, if we draw a metaphor, mingling other words in with the form would not necessarily invalidate it, also as shown by my examples above.  It has to be enough to change what it is.

Agreed.  Phew!  And yet:

(12-22-2010, 09:56 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: In the case of the form, if the the words of Institution - this is my body, this is my blood - refer to Christ and are unadulterated in meaning this is the body and blood of Christ Himself, then it is valid; that's my contention.

Not agreed upon.  I’m sorry.  The crux of the matter remains this: the form of a sacrament must “signify the grace which it effects.”  The graces of Christ’s sacrifice FOR ALL flow into the sacrament of baptism.  The graces of Christ’s sacrifice FOR MANY flow into the sacrament of the Eucharist.  That’s why the change in the wording changes the meaning.  If you’re a priest at a Roman Rite altar, the wording of your sacramental form must refer correctly to the sacramental blood in the chalice, not to the baptismal waters in the font.  Although you would be making a theologically correct statement by using “for all,” you would fail in correctly signifying the Eucharist, which is the particular efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice—the fruits of His Passion, His gift to the Christian believer.

I put it this way to poor old gIgas on a different thread:
(09-26-2010, 04:52 PM)Gilgamesh Wrote: If you want to go on a missionary crusade, then feel free to preach it, brother, to the entire world that Jesus died on the cross for their sins.  If, however, you are a Roman Rite priest at an altar saying the words of consecration at Mass, then your words must correctly pertain to the sacrament being confected.  Christ used “for many” at the Last Supper for a specific reason—because he was referring to the elect.

Hopefully that suffices in clarifying things from my end.

If you contend that the words of a sacramental form don’t have to signify the grace which it effects, then you must suppose that Anglicans still have valid Holy Orders, ex opere operato.  The signification is crucial.  Correct?

Correct, but let's see what Apostolicae Curae says about the invalidity of the orders, and then I will refer this back to your first statement.

Quote:25. But the words which until recently were commonly held by Anglicans to constitute the proper form of priestly ordination namely, "Receive the Holy Ghost," certainly do not in the least definitely express the sacred Ordel of Priesthood (sacerdotium) or its grace and power, which is chiefly the power "of consecrating and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord" (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, de Sacr. Ord. , Canon 1) in that sacrifice which is no "bare commemoration of the sacrifice offered on the Cross" (Ibid, Sess XXII., de Sacrif. Missae, Canon 3).

26. This form had, indeed, afterwards added to it the words "for the office and work of a priest," etc.; but this rather shows that the Anglicans themselves perceived that the first form was defective and inadequate. But even if this addition could give to the form its due signification, it was introduced too late, as a century had already elapsed since the adoption of the Edwardine Ordinal, for, as the Hierarchy had become extinct, there remained no power of ordaining

Without rendering a judgment because it is too late, the Pope makes clear it is possible for the signfication to occur under much different words.  I'm sure some would argue "for the office and work of a priest" is not the same obvious meaning as "of consecrating and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord" but the Pope allows that it may in fact suffice.

So, yes, it is about what it signifies and if alternate wording can signify the same thing.  The answer to the latter is, we find from the Encylical above and other places, and in agreement with de defectibus, yes, alternate wording can signify the same thing.  The words do not literally need to be the same exact words, but they have to have the same meaning.

Does "for many" and "for all" signify the same thing with respect to the context in which they are used?  We cannot ignore the context; if we did, "this is my blood" taken out of context can refer to the speaker and not in persona Christi.  The Catechism does not ignore the context in its explanation either:

Quote:The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore ('our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.

With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine.

Likewise "for all" can be explained and understood as "for all of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles."  It has to be understood in this context just as "for many" is understood in the same context; otherwise, "for many" can be understood to mean just the Jews.

The change to "for all" leads to more error for those who misunderstand or distort the meaning; agreed on that.  However, the intended meaning in context is the same as "for all".  A further argument is in some Gospels Christ said "for you" yet the Eucharist is clearly understood to mean "for you and your followers" i.e., those who would follow the Apostles in Sanctity.

You will also note it says for this reason for many was chosen - it doesn't say "for all" would invalidate the Sacrament.  It explains "for many" was chosen because it is more fitting.

Finally, as the Catechism states about those words: they declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion.  They do not signify the effect of the Sacrament.  The Catechism explains what is signified by this Sacrament:

Quote:In What Respect The Eucharist Is A Sacrament

But pastors should carefully observe that in this mystery there are many things to which sacred writers have from time to time attributed the name of Sacrament. For, sometimes, both the consecration and the Communion; nay, frequently also the body and blood itself of our Lord, which is contained in the Eucharist, used to be called a Sacrament. Thus St. Augustine says that this Sacrament consists of two things, �� the visible species of the elements, and the invisible flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. And it is in the same sense that we say that this Sacrament is to be adored, meaning the body and blood of our Lord.

This is signified simply by "This is my body; this is my blood" in persona Christi.

Are you sure you are not confusing the Sacrament with the Sacrifice?  The effect of the Sacrament is the transubstantiation: the conversion to the body and blood.  This is clearly signified by "this is my body; this is my blood".  For all, or for many, or for Fred and Rita doesn't change this.

The Sacrament is separate from the Sacrifice which the Catechism explains:

Quote:Distinction of Sacrament and Sacrifice

They should teach, then, in the first place, that the Eucharist was instituted by Christ for two purposes: one, that it might be the heavenly food of our souls, enabling us to support and preserve spiritual life; and the other, that the Church might have a perpetual Sacrifice, by which our sins might be expiated, and our heavenly Father, oftentimes grievously offended by our crimes, might be turned away from wrath to mercy, from the severity of just chastisement to clemency. Of this thing we may observe a type and resemblance in the Paschal lamb, which was wont to be offered and eaten by the children of Israel as a sacrament and a sacrifice.

Nor could our Saviour, when about to offer Himself to God the Father on the altar of the cross, have given any more illustrious indication of His unbounded love towards us than by bequeathing to us a visible Sacrifice, by which that bloody Sacrifice, which was soon after to be offered once on the cross, would be renewed, and its memory daily celebrated with the greatest utility, unto the consummation of ages by the Church diffused throughout the world.

But (between the Eucharist as a Sacrament and a Sacrifice) the difference is very great; for as a Sacrament it is perfected by consecration; as a Sacrifice, all its force consists in its oblation. When, therefore, kept in a pyx, or borne to the sick, it is a Sacrament, not a Sacrifice. As a Sacrament also, it is to them that receive it a source of merit, and brings with it all those advantages which have been already mentioned; but as a Sacrifice, it is not only a source of merit, but also of satisfaction. For as, in His Passion, Christ the Lord merited and satisfied for us; so also those who offer this Sacrifice, by which they communicate with us, merit the fruit of His Passion, and satisfy.

For all/many seems to belong more properly to the Sacrifice of the Mass, not the Sacrament of the Eucharist.  The Sacrifice is not a Sacrament and as such has no notion of "validity" - a Sacrifice is either accepted by God or not.  Obviously "this is my body; this is my blood" belongs properly to the consecration.
Reply
#92
(12-22-2010, 11:34 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: ripmarcel, you can put up all the smoke and mirrors you want.  You can say someone was insulting or whatever, and maybe they were, but that doesn't mean there isn't a point to discuss.

You can repeat yourself ad nauseum, but that does not make an argument.  It's clear your mind is made up and no one will convince you.  Fine, I'm not an apologist nor do I pretend to be.   As I've said, I don't care about convincing you, but I am interested in hearing your arguments and our dissecting of arguments as a group so we have more insight into the issue.

But you should realize on your side that repeating things over and over and not addressing points of contention makes your argument fairly worthless.  There is no discussion when that happens.  Nothing is achieved, it's simply advertising of a position.  OK, we know your position and reasons for it.  If that's all you want to say, message received.

But if you want to discuss things, then you need to answer challenges and such regardless if you feel offended in how they were presented.  While I may have been offensive to you in some manner, there is nothing ad hominem that I can see in my statements.  They are relevant to the point at hand, and so are my questions for you.

If you won't or can't answer them, OK, fair enough.  But please stop repeating the same things over and over like people are going to believe you are correct when you won't defend those arguments.

OK, I'll give you the short version--straight from my narcissistic mind, and with help from those little green men from Mars.

Forget everything I wrote about Pius V and what happened in the Church before VCII. I accept the proposition that, outside of “de fide definita” pronouncements, everything else is of no import to issues of law regarding the formulation this “new” liturgy. Let’s move on and agree that all those in Church authority—and laymen, too—should concentrate on strict adherence to the constitution on the liturgy that was solemnly proclaimed by the fathers of VCII. Specifically:

In keeping with the Council’s directive to undertake a careful revision, but to also preserve the Latin, this "new" sacramental form (not the attendant words) should be recited in Latin—the universal and official language of the Church—so that there is no possibility that the true, Catholic meaning of the sacrament is corrupted. However, recognizing that there may be certain circumstances where the faithful would benefit by translating the Latin into the local vernacular, a careful translation could be authorized.

What happened: There was callous and total disregard regard for the Council’s directive that the use of the Latin language “be preserved;” and worse, instead of care being taken in translating the form of the sacrament, a cabal of neo-modernist clerics produced a deliberate mistranslation designed to not offend heretics and other enemies of Holy Mother Church and to impart the Church’s quasi-official endorsement to the heresy of Universal Salvation.

Bottom line: “For all” is derived from heresy. Its use induces Catholics into accepting heresy; therefore, a sacramental form incorporating those words cannot possibly be Catholic (read: valid).
 
Over and out.  But you can contact me on the same Bat Channel, same Bat Time.
Reply
#93
The problem with that is the boneheads who had the authority to approve what a 2nd year high schooler studying Latin wouldn't approve, approved it.  If we go by a strict reading of what you cited, "a careful translation could be authorized."  Well, it was authorized by those who had the authority to do so.

You can try to say "bad motive in translation renders the Consecration doubtful or invalid" which is what it seems you are saying, but I don't think that it will go very far unless you can cite some precedent or give some clear reasoning.  Bad motives abound in the Church.  Someone may want to become a priest because it's an "easy job" (har), and that doesn't invalidate his orders if he receives them.
Reply
#94
I fear that I’m becoming like a broken record, but I must persist.  This is an important issue.

(12-23-2010, 04:21 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Likewise "for all" can be explained and understood as "for all of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles."

It could only be explained and understood that way if it were worded as such.  As it is, it’s just “for all” as opposed to “for many.”  I can’t tell you to hand me all the playing cards and then get frustrated because I meant just the face cards.  Unless one is more specific, “all” means “all.”

(12-23-2010, 04:21 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: It has to be understood in this context just as "for many" is understood in the same context; otherwise, "for many" can be understood to mean just the Jews.

But I don’t see how it can mean that.  It was clear as early as Saint Paul that the Christian religion was meant for the Gentiles as well.  That controversy ended thousands of years ago, and it’s a given for anyone at Mass.  I think we are assuming, for the purposes of this discussion, that nothing in Catholic theology is erroneous.  What Christ meant by “for many” is what the Church has always taught He meant.

(12-23-2010, 04:21 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: You will also note it says for this reason for many was chosen - it doesn't say "for all" would invalidate the Sacrament.  It explains "for many" was chosen because it is more fitting.

It is the singular fitting choice.  “For all” is unfitting and incorrect because it refers to a different sacrament.

(12-23-2010, 04:21 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Finally, as the Catechism states about those words: they declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion.  They do not signify the effect of the Sacrament.

Here is where we disagree.  The effect of the sacrament is the fruit and advantage of His Passion.  Christ died so that all might be redeemed, and so that Christians could consume the Bread of Angels.  The latter part is the sacrament in question—the efficacy of the sacrifice.

(12-23-2010, 04:21 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: This is signified simply by "This is my body; this is my blood" in persona Christi.

Right.  “This is my blood” is the minimalist version.  Because it carries no modifier, it is the sacramental blood of Christ.  There’s nothing to contradict this, because the orations of the Mass point ably to the efficacy of the sacramental blood FOR MANY:
ROMAN MISSAL Wrote:and for all here present, as also for all faithful Christians, living or dead

(The Eucharist is Christ’s gift to believing Christians, not just anyone.)
ROMAN MISSAL Wrote:grant that we may be made partakers of His Divinity Who vouchsafed to become partaker of our humanity … 

(“We,” not “everyone.”)
ROMAN MISSAL Wrote:may this mingling and consecration of the Body and Blood or our Lord Jesus Christ avail us who receive It unto life everlasting

(The recipients of the sacrament, not all of humankind.)
ROMAN MISSAL Wrote:that as many of us as at this altar shall partake of and receive the Most Holy Body and Blood of Thy Son may be filled with every heavenly blessing and grace

(Again: the sacramental recipients, not everyone on the planet.  Still of a lot unbaptized people out there.)

So there’s plenty enough signification of the EFFICACY FOR MANY outside of the actual form—enough so that “This is my Blood” suffices on its own.  The rule that must be obeyed, however, if you are going to expand upon “This is my Blood,” is that any additional words in the form have to further confirm the efficacy.  That is what De Defectibus says: one must have harmony in the wording, not incongruity.  If your additional words are signifying the graces of baptism, then you’re not signifying the graces of the Eucharist and you aren’t passing the muster of “signifying the grace which it effects.”

(12-23-2010, 04:21 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Are you sure you are not confusing the Sacrament with the Sacrifice?  The effect of the Sacrament is the transubstantiation: the conversion to the body and blood.  This is clearly signified by "this is my body; this is my blood".
 
I’m not confusing the two.  The question is whether or not “for all” signifies the graces of the sacrament.  The graces of the Eucharist (the partaking of Christ’s Divinity) are for the believing Christian, not for just anyone.  If the graces of the Eucharist are “for all,” then why does there appear to have been a large number of people who lived and died without ever receiving the Eucharist?

(12-23-2010, 04:21 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: For all, or for many, or for Fred and Rita doesn't change this.

“For Buddha and for Julius Caesar” would change it.  Those persons lived out their lifespans before the coming of Christ, and never received the Eucharist.  How would saying “for you and for Buddha and for Julius Caesar” properly signify the Eucharist?

(12-23-2010, 04:21 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Obviously "this is my body; this is my blood" belongs properly to the consecration.

So, too, do the words which modify blood—and this is the heart of my contention.  The Roman Rite employs a longer form.  All the words of that longer form must correctly refer to the sacramental blood.  Do you suggest that De Defectibus is saying that pro multis doesn’t belong to the consecration?
Reply
#95
(12-22-2010, 12:37 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote: Do Canadian Masses in French have «pour vous et pour beaucoup»?  If so, then you might find some reassurance in attending French vernacular Masses.

Hey Gil - it's "pour vous et pour la multitude" in French.
Reply
#96
(12-27-2010, 03:34 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: Hey Gil - it's "pour vous et pour la multitude" in French.

Now that one actually has some weasel room.  ;D

"For all," unfortunately, is still stuck.
Reply
#97
(12-25-2010, 04:35 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: The problem with that is the boneheads who had the authority to approve what a 2nd year high schooler studying Latin wouldn't approve, approved it.  If we go by a strict reading of what you cited, "a careful translation could be authorized."  Well, it was authorized by those who had the authority to do so.

You can try to say "bad motive in translation renders the Consecration doubtful or invalid" which is what it seems you are saying, but I don't think that it will go very far unless you can cite some precedent or give some clear reasoning.   Bad motives abound in the Church.  Someone may want to become a priest because it's an "easy job" (har), and that doesn't invalidate his orders if he receives them.

Yes, it was authorized, but it was anything but "careful."  And "could" doesn't mean "should."  (...the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing law and rubrics, deserve severe reproof... We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of vernacular in the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice."  -Mediator Dei, Pius XII)

And I challenge your assertion that someone with bad motive could receive valid orders.  Can someone with bad motive be party to valid sacramental marriage; or can someone with bad motive receive valid absolution in a confessional?  Bad motive = Bad act  (Matt 6)

And now I'll add this to my argument:  The N.O. Mass is invalid because of a defect of intent.  In the TLM, we have a "priest," ordained to "offer sacrifice," and acting in persona Christi to re-present "the same sacrifice as that of the Cross."  In the N.O. Mass, we have a "presbyter," ordained to "preside" over a "gathering of the people," for the purpose of celebrating a "memorial of the Lord's Supper."  One, we know for sure, is a sacrifice; the other appears to be a meal, very much like what can be found in many Protestant services.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
Reply
#98
(12-28-2010, 08:26 PM)ripmarcel Wrote:
(12-25-2010, 04:35 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: The problem with that is the boneheads who had the authority to approve what a 2nd year high schooler studying Latin wouldn't approve, approved it.  If we go by a strict reading of what you cited, "a careful translation could be authorized."  Well, it was authorized by those who had the authority to do so.

You can try to say "bad motive in translation renders the Consecration doubtful or invalid" which is what it seems you are saying, but I don't think that it will go very far unless you can cite some precedent or give some clear reasoning.   Bad motives abound in the Church.  Someone may want to become a priest because it's an "easy job" (har), and that doesn't invalidate his orders if he receives them.

Yes, it was authorized, but it was anything but "careful."  And "could" doesn't mean "should."  (...the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing law and rubrics, deserve severe reproof... We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of vernacular in the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice."  -Mediator Dei, Pius XII)

And I challenge your assertion that someone with bad motive could receive valid orders.  Can someone with bad motive be party to valid sacramental marriage; or can someone with bad motive receive valid absolution in a confessional?  Bad motive = Bad act  (Matt 6)

Depends on "bad motive".  If I'm getting married solely because someone is rich and I can live off of them, yeah, it's a valid marriage.

You'd have to give me an example of a "bad motive" for going to Confession.  I find it difficult to detect a bad motive in wanting to receive absolution - oh maybe if it were a sexual kink or something, but the problem there isn't the motive as much as the lack of repentance that is necessary for a valid absolution.

Quote:And now I'll add this to my argument:  The N.O. Mass is invalid because of a defect of intent.  In the TLM, we have a "priest," ordained to "offer sacrifice," and acting in persona Christi to re-present "the same sacrifice as that of the Cross."  In the N.O. Mass, we have a "presbyter," ordained to "preside" over a "gathering of the people," for the purpose of celebrating a "memorial of the Lord's Supper."  One, we know for sure, is a sacrifice; the other appears to be a meal, very much like what can be found in many Protestant services.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

The intent to Consecrate is different than the intent to Sacrifice.  In fact, it is listed as a grave sin for a priest to Consecrate outside of the Sacrifice of the Mass, so we know it is valid Body and Blood regardless of the disposition of the Sacrifice itself.

What you would have in your scenario is a valid Consecration with an ineffective Sacrifice; the same that happens at Orthodox Churches all around the world.  They have valid Sacraments but the grace is withheld due to schism.
Reply
#99
I think, though I am not certain, that I read somewhere that " to do what the Church does" is a  standard that is set pretty low. I was under the impression that the Sacrifice and Sacrament  were the same? I am confused.  ???
Reply
(12-29-2010, 04:46 PM)Justin Wrote: I think, though I am not certain, that I read somewhere that " to do what the Church does" is a  standard that is set pretty low. I was under the impression that the Sacrifice and Sacrament  were the same? I am confused.  ???

When asking where the Sacrifice takes place in the Mass, it is the theological consensus it takes place as part of and/or during the Consecration.  However, the Sacrament is not the Sacrifice.  For example, one can receive the Sacrament of Communion outside of Mass - there is no Sacrifice there.  The Sacrifice is the oblation made by the Body and Blood.

Consecrating outside of the Sacrifice of the Mass, or consecrating only the body and not the blood (or vice versa) is possible and is a violation that is very grave.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congre...um_en.html

Quote:1. Graviora delicta

[172.] Graviora delicta against the sanctity of the Most August Sacrifice and Sacrament of the Eucharist are to be handled in accordance with the ‘Norms concerning graviora delicta reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’,[280] namely:

b) the attempted celebration of the liturgical action of the Eucharistic Sacrifice or the simulation of the same;[282]

d) the consecration for sacrilegious ends of one matter without the other in the celebration of the Eucharist or even of both outside the celebration of the Eucharist.[284]

This situation historically arises when a consecration is made for Necromancy or within a Black Mass.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)