The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
(12-29-2010, 04:59 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(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.
Thanks Quis and duh on my part. Of course somebody communicating on his death bed would be an example where the sacrifice wouldn't  occur.  Well at least my ignorance gave you an opportunity to perform a spritual work of mercy!  ;D
Reply
(12-29-2010, 03:04 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(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.

The Sacrifice isn't just a part of the Mass; the Mass is the Sacrifice. And integral to the Mass--that Sacrifice--we have the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.

"It is only in the Roman (or Gallican) rite that the Eucharistic service can be called Mass." (Fortescue)

Q. What is the Mass?
A. The Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ.
Q. What is a sacrifice?
A sacrifice is the offering of an object by a priest to God alone, and the consuming of it to acknowledge that He is the Creator and Lord of all things.
Q. Is the Mass the same sacrifice as that of the Cross?
A. The Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross.

Do away with the sacrifice (or intent to sacrifice) and still have a valid sacrament?  I think not.  Besides, if there is no necessity for sacrifice, then there is no necessity for a priest; and if that is true, then it follows that Luther and the Protestants were right after all.

"I am speaking of that abominable Canon which is a confluence of slimy lagoons; they have made of the mass a sacrifice; they have added to it offertories.  The mass is not a sacrifice, it is not the act of a sacrificing high priest.  Let us regard it as a sacrament, or a testament.  Let us call it a blessing, or eucharist, or Lord's Table, or Lord's Supper, or the memorial of the Lord.  Or give it any title we like, provided that it is not sullied by the term sacrifice, or re-enactment.  With the Canon we discard all that implies an Oblation, so that we are left with what is pure and Holy."
Reply
You're missing the point that the body and blood can be confected outside of Mass, albeit illicitly.  In fact, only one of the Body or Blood can be confected, and without both, there is no Sacrifice.

We're not discussing the efficacy of the Sacrifice.  We're talking about the validity of the Sacrament.  Those are two different things.

ETA:  If you want to say the efficacy of the Sacrifice in the NOM is less than that of the TLM, you won't get a lot of argument from me.  That is much different than saying the Consecration is invalid.
Reply
"[i Wrote:Questioning the Validity[/i], by Patrick Omlor (available at http://www.the-pope.com/qtv.html)"]
The Three Elements

92.  St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, "We can consider three things in this sacrament: namely, that which is sacrament only, and this is the bread and wine; that which is both reality and sacrament, to wit, Christ's true body; and lastly that which is reality only, namely, the effect of this sacrament."  (Summa Th., III, Q. 73, Art. 6).

93.  Now, what is "the effect of this sacrament," the reality of the Holy Eucharist?  "Now . . . the reality of the sacrament is the unity of the mystical body, without which there can be no salvation."  (Summa Th., III, Q. 73, Art. 3).

94.  The key idea in what is to follow is the unique relationship between the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist and the Mystical Body.

Changing "for many" to "for all" does in fact change the substance of the form. "Sacraments of the New Law, being sensible signs which cause invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they cause and cause the grace which they signify" [Apostolicae Curae].  I repeat what St. Thomas teaches above, "the reality of the [Holy Eucharist] is the unity of the mystical body", not just the making present of Christ's body and blood. Now, the phrase "for all" is a reference to the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice, which everyone here understands. But here is the key idea: changing the reference from the sacrifice's efficacy to its sufficiency REMOVES that which makes the words of consecration signify the grace which they cause. It removes the reference to the Mystical Body of Christ. Therefore, it invalidates the sacrament.

If the reality of the sacrament is the unity of the mystical body, then "This is my Body. This is my Blood." isn't enough to signify that reality. It makes reference to the Head of the Mystical Body, but it makes no reference to the members of the Mystical Body, which is "you and many", or simply "you" as is the case in some other legitimate liturgies.
Reply
St. Thomas also said:

Quote: but the form of this sacrament implies merely the consecration of the matter, which consists in transubstantiation, as when it is said, "This is My body," or, "This is the chalice of My blood."  III Q 78 A 1

Those were not changed, therefore the form is not changed according to St. Thomas.

Read the whole article.  He is very clear on his position for the form.  If you disagree, fine, but don't twist St. Thomas to fit your conception of what the form is.

http://newadvent.org/summa/4078.htm
Reply
The dispute hinges upon the question, what is the substance of the form? (Changing those words to mean something different will invalidate the sacrament.) St. Thomas maintains that the substance of the form is the whole thing: "This is the chalice of My blood, of the new and eternal testament, the Mystery of Faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins."

St. Thomas, when regarding the shortened phrase, "This is the chalice of My blood," says that those words "denote" the change of the matter. He goes on to say that the words which follow do belong to the integrity of the form. This is from Article 3:

Quote:I answer that, There is a twofold opinion regarding this form. Some have maintained that the words "This is the chalice of My blood" alone belong to the substance of this form, but not those words which follow. Now this seems incorrect, because the words which follow them are determinations of the predicate, that is, of Christ's blood. Consequently they belong to the integrity of the expression.

And on this account others say more accurately that all the words which follow are of the substance of the form down to the words, "As often as ye shall do this," which belong to the use of this sacrament, and consequently do not belong to the substance of the form. Hence it is that the priest pronounces all these words, under the same rite and manner, namely, holding the chalice in his hands. Moreover, in Luke 22:20, the words that follow are interposed with the preceding words: "This is the chalice, the new testament in My blood."

Consequently it must be said that all the aforesaid words belong to the substance of the form; but that by the first words, "This is the chalice of My blood," the change of the wine into blood is denoted, as explained above (Article 2) in the form for the consecration of the bread; but by the words which come after is shown the power of the blood shed in the Passion, which power works in this sacrament, and is ordained for three purposes.

It is possible that the Summa is not sufficient to resolve the matter. In Article 1, St. Thomas states that a priest using merely "This is my Body. This is my Blood," would confer the sacrament. But in Article 3, he states that the words which follow "This is my blood," belong to the integrity of the form. Is St. Thomas saying that you can change the substance of the form to mean something else and still confer a valid sacrament?

It makes more sense when you keep in mind the reality of the sacrament: not just having Christ's body and blood present with us, but the "unity of the mystical body." So the substance of the form must in some way signify the unity of the mystical body, which "for all" does not.
Reply
No, that's not the case.

If you asked him what is needed for validity he would say: this is my body; this is my blood

If you asked him what this substance is, he would say:  all the aforesaid (i.e., the whole thing) belongs to the substance of the form

Substance is not the same as validity or meaning for St. Thomas.  If we say it is, we're assigning meanings to his words that he didn't intend.  It is clear he didn't intend them or he would be contradicting himself.  When you say substance equals meaning, that is something you are proposing; it is not a given, and I would argue that it is incorrect.

His comments about belonging to the integrity of the expression and the substance are what are restated in the Catechism of Trent.    They serve to limit and clarify and express the fruits of the Sacrament.  They are not necessary to confect the Sacrament.  If they were, De defectibus couldn't give an allowance for dropping words.

Quote:If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid

I'll ask you what I asked others:  If your understanding is correct, exactly what words can be taken away from the Consecration of the Blood and the Consecration remain valid?  After all, we know by de defectibus that words can be taken away without changing the meaning and thus the Sacrament is valid.

HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: MYSTERIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM

By your criteria it is impossible even to drop "et" or "in" because you read all of the words going to the integrity of the expression as going to the validity, therefore none can be dropped.  But then de defectibus contradicts itself because it would be allowing for what is impossible.

But, I'll bite.  Give me the shortest version you think has the same meaning and is therefore valid by your criteria of "substance" as "belonging to the integrity of the expression".
Reply
(12-29-2010, 06:28 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: You're missing the point that the body and blood can be confected outside of Mass, albeit illicitly.  In fact, only one of the Body or Blood can be confected, and without both, there is no Sacrifice.

We're not discussing the efficacy of the Sacrifice.  We're talking about the validity of the Sacrament.  Those are two different things.

ETA:  If you want to say the efficacy of the Sacrifice in the NOM is less than that of the TLM, you won't get a lot of argument from me.  That is much different than saying the Consecration is invalid.

No, I'm not missing the point.  If there can be a sacrament without the sacrifice, then we don't need a priest, and anyone, given the intention to do what the Church does, can consecrate.  But given that the formula for consecration is an integral part of the sacrifice, we do need a priest to offer that sacrifice, and in the course of doing so, consecrate and consume that sacrificial offering.  it follows, then, that if there is no sacrifice, there is no sacrament.  (And that's why Luther wanted to destroy the sacrificial aspect of the Mass, to transform it from the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ to exactly what we have today in the N.O.--a "memorial of the Lord's Supper," or a "gathering of the people" to share a symbolic meal of ordinary bread and wine.)

No sacrifice, no Mass.  No Mass, no transubstantiation.  No transubstantiation, no sacrament.

Thanks for the interesting discussion.  And I'll leave you with this:  The N.O. Mass is invalid.  It is invalid because the Mass has been redefined by the N.O. Church in order to complete Luther's work of denying the sacrificial essence of the liturgy; and, it is also likely invalid because the formula for consecration has been changed in a substantive way, thus failing the Church's own three-pronged test for validity.
Reply
You're just plain wrong based on the facts.  It's real simple:

Can only the body or blood be confected?

Yes.

Is there a Sacrifice with only one confected?

According to most theologians, no.

Then clearly there can be Consecration without Sacrifice, and further, the efficacy of the Sacrifice is independent of the Consecration.

Another problem is your saying "no Mass no transubstantiation" which is wrong.  Consecration can take place outside of Mass, but it is illicit and a grave sin.

In return, I'll leave you with this:  You can repeat until you're blue in the face that the NO is invalid, but you're reasoning is completely broken.  So, whatever.  Believe what you want, but realize it makes no sense.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)