The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
#41
(12-18-2010, 11:32 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(12-18-2010, 11:19 AM)Stubborn Wrote: Trent seems clear enough......the Vulgate is free from error in doctrine and morals.

Why worry about what St. Jerome did, did not do or why he did what he did? Bestter to be glad he did what he did and be done with it no?

Because I'm an inquisitive person.  I don't trust things blindly.  If the Church teaches the vulgate is free of error in doctrine and morals, I want to know why it teaches it.  If I don't have the answer it remains an open question in my mind.  There isn't one Catholic teaching I accept because the Church says so, and this one won't be the first.  I accept Catholic teaching because in every instance, I've used reason and found the Catholic teaching to be true.  But, unlike Scott Hahn, I don't say, 'well, the Church has been right every time before, it must be right this time too' and then drop it.  The church has to prove it to me, each and every time.  And based on its track record, I fully expect it will prove it to me, or already has proven it and I'm just not aware of it.  But to me, the Church's word alone is not good as gold.
Is not the very definition of Faith based on the teaching authority of the Church and not what we reason it to be?
Reply
#42
(12-18-2010, 12:12 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote:
(12-17-2010, 03:15 AM)Stubborn Wrote: Why not indeed. Regardless what the latin says, the NO service, along with the mistranslation, is said in the vernacular anyway. The vernacular says "for all" for the last 45 years already but the latin says "pro multis", and NOers have no problem with that? Folks, at best, the consecration at the NO is doubtful. For Catholics, that means you are bound by Church law to avoid it like the blasphemy it may well be - it DOES NOT mean you go and hope for the best.

As I understand it, a year from now the NO Bishops, being right on top of this mistranslation situation, are going to jump right in there after voting to make the vernacular match the latin....what a joke. This alone should serve to prove that the words of consecration have no more meaning in the NO service that anything else in the NO.

Fr. Wathen explains The new form of Consecration  in the NO in clear detail and it should be a must read for whoever attends the NO *before* they go to their next NO mass.

This is what I don't think you guys have clearly explained: how can something being doubtful be the same as something blasphemous? That's not the same thing at all.

First off, when you attend the NO, the vernacular is purposely mistranslated from the latin (unless you believe that for the last 45 years that Church authorities are ignorant or incompetent) - So:
a) The mistranslation renders the NO transubstantiation, at best, doubtful - remember, the NO you attend is said in the vernacular, no latin.
b) The new form of Consecration itself renders itself doubtful at best since it is now merely a "narration".
c) Since the consecration at best, is doubtful, per Church Law, we are to avoid it because it is now the occasion of sin.

Reply
#43
(12-18-2010, 12:37 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-18-2010, 12:12 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: This is what I don't think you guys have clearly explained: how can something being doubtful be the same as something blasphemous? That's not the same thing at all.

First off, when you attend the NO, the vernacular is purposely mistranslated from the latin (unless you believe that for the last 45 years that Church authorities are ignorant or incompetent) - So:
a) The mistranslation renders the NO transubstantiation, at best, doubtful - remember, the NO you attend is said in the vernacular, no latin.
b) The new form of Consecration itself renders itself doubtful at best since it is now merely a "narration".
c) Since the consecration at best, is doubtful, per Church Law, we are to avoid it because it is now the occasion of sin.

Yeah, I'd vote for incompetence!

OK... doubtfulness and the occasion of sin. I hear you. The article you reference makes a lot of sense. But I would make a distinction between that and blasphemy per se. It seems to me blasphemy needs to be a tad more obvious to be blasphemous. I think it's a wee bit of a stretch to call "for all" blasphemy, nothwithstanding the implications if that were true.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02595a.htm
Reply
#44
(12-18-2010, 12:42 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote:
(12-18-2010, 12:37 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-18-2010, 12:12 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: This is what I don't think you guys have clearly explained: how can something being doubtful be the same as something blasphemous? That's not the same thing at all.

First off, when you attend the NO, the vernacular is purposely mistranslated from the latin (unless you believe that for the last 45 years that Church authorities are ignorant or incompetent) - So:
a) The mistranslation renders the NO transubstantiation, at best, doubtful - remember, the NO you attend is said in the vernacular, no latin.
b) The new form of Consecration itself renders itself doubtful at best since it is now merely a "narration".
c) Since the consecration at best, is doubtful, per Church Law, we are to avoid it because it is now the occasion of sin.

Yeah, I'd vote for incompetence!

OK... doubtfulness and the occasion of sin. I hear you. The article you reference makes a lot of sense. But I would make a distinction between that and blasphemy per se. It seems to me blasphemy needs to be a tad more obvious to be blasphemous. I think it's a wee bit of a stretch to call "for all" blasphemy, nothwithstanding the implications if that were true.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02595a.htm

In this case, strictly because of the seriousness of the crime, it is safe to consider it a blasphemy......................that is my opinion, I cannot speak authoritatively.

IOW, when *the correct form, (*the correct form = the same form that has been used since Pope St. Pius V declared what the correct form actually to be used is) is NOT used, it lawfully must be considered doubtful................because this is the most central part of the Holy Sacrifice, we are justified to call this doubtful consecration, blasphemy. Again, I am no authority, yet this seems as clear as glass to me and I think to all who would actually take the time to look into the matter just a little.
Reply
#45
You're making a very large assumption considering "for all" to render it doubtful.  Even those who consider it a grave scandal agree that it shouldn't change the validity of the Consecration.

For it to be invalid, the substance of the Consecration would have to be changed.  St. Thomas claims the substance of the form is: "This is My body,"  "This is the chalice of My blood."  That hasn't been changed in a significant way.

ST III Q 78 A 1
Reply
#46
(12-18-2010, 01:19 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: You're making a very large assumption considering "for all" to render it doubtful.  Even those who consider it a grave scandal agree that it shouldn't change the validity of the Consecration.

For it to be invalid, the substance of the Consecration would have to be changed.  St. Thomas claims the substance of the form is: "This is My body,"  "This is the chalice of My blood."  That hasn't been changed in a significant way.

ST III Q 78 A 1

I am not smart enough to make such an assumption.....................

De Defectibus Decree of the Council of Trent
V. 1. DEFECTS may arise in respect of the formula, if anything is wanting to complete the actual words of consecration. The words of consecration, which are the formative principle of this Sacrament, are as follows: Hoc est enim Corpus meum; and: Ric est enim calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti; mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. If any omission or alteration is made in the formula of concecration of the Body and Blood, involving a change of meaning, the consecration is invalid. An addition made without altering the meaning does not invalidate the consecration, but the Celebrant commits a mortal sin.
Reply
#47
John Salzas argument though he says it is not certain.    http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives...multis.htm
Reply
#48
(12-18-2010, 01:28 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-18-2010, 01:19 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: You're making a very large assumption considering "for all" to render it doubtful.  Even those who consider it a grave scandal agree that it shouldn't change the validity of the Consecration.

For it to be invalid, the substance of the Consecration would have to be changed.  St. Thomas claims the substance of the form is: "This is My body,"  "This is the chalice of My blood."  That hasn't been changed in a significant way.

ST III Q 78 A 1

I am not smart enough to make such an assumption.....................

De Defectibus Decree of the Council of Trent
V. 1. DEFECTS may arise in respect of the formula, if anything is wanting to complete the actual words of consecration. The words of consecration, which are the formative principle of this Sacrament, are as follows: Hoc est enim Corpus meum; and: Ric est enim calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti; mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. If any omission or alteration is made in the formula of concecration of the Body and Blood, involving a change of meaning, the consecration is invalid. An addition made without altering the meaning does not invalidate the consecration, but the Celebrant commits a mortal sin.

Right, the question is whether the meaning is changed.  That's the loophole the Modernists can (successfully) use.  For all - all who are in a state of sanctifying grace which is the same as "the many".

If we start debating "all" we can as easily debate "many" and make a claim that "many" may refer to anyone who calls himself a Christian.  The meaning of any sentence has to be understood in the context of what it is taught to mean.

Most of the crap they change is full of double-speak.  It is valid if "all" means what they say it does, yet everyone hearing "all" will be brainwashed into thinking everyone is saved.  So they get the validity while still poisoning the faithful.  Satan's not an idiot.

Reply
#49
Tanquerey stated that it was disputed whether the words, "of the new and everlasting covenant..." were necessary for a valid consecration. The argument against their necessity included an appeal to ancient Eastern liturgies which did not use the words; the argument for their necessity, however, included the position of the Thomists (cf. A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, vol. II, pp. 285-286).

I'm busy right now, but I can post the quote later on.

Okay, here it is:

"3. It is very probable, contrary to Scotus, that the words: "Who the day before He suffered..." are not necessary for validity because without these the priest is still speaking in the person of Christ; and furthermore, these words do not designate the conversion of the bread and of the wine.

4. There is a dispute as to whether the words: "of the new and eternal testament..." are required for a valid consecration.

a. May of the Thomists say that they are required because several of these words are contained in the Gospels and that the remaining words have been handed down to us through Tradition; because the meaning of the proposition or theme is not complete until after these words have been pronounced.

b. Other theologians say that they are not required because no Evangelist reports them in their entirety, in fact, some of these words are given by no Evangelist; because certain words are not found in the Greeks Liturgies; because, without them, the meaning of the proposition is sufficiently complete and adequately signifies transubstantiation."

- Very Rev. Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, vol. II, sec. 1096, pp. 285-286.


And here is Herve:

Quoad cetera verba "novi et aeterni... remissionem peccatorum" controvertitur.

Juxta multos haec verba pertinent quidem ad formae integritatem et perfectionem, non autem ad essentiam.  Nullus enim e scriptoribus sacris ea integra refert; imo verba "aeterni" et "mysterium fidei" ab omnibus omittuntur; multa etiam ex eis desiderantur in liturglis orientalibus, in quibus tamen calicis consecratio ut valida habetur.  Insuper non omnia verba scripturistica sunt formae essentialia, siquidem verba "quod pro vobis datur, tradetur" desunt in quibusdam liturgiis ac praesterim in liturgia romana.  Denique eo ipso quod sanguis, vi verborum, separatus a corpore efficitur, sufficientur ejus effusio et virtus in remissionem peccatorum.

Non pauci tamen haec verba dicunt essentialia.  Christus enim, aiunt, ita transubstantiationem fecit ut esset sacrificium; proinde transsubstantiatio etiam nunc perficitur non simpliciter ut Christus praesens fiat in altari sed etiam et primario, ut Ipse offeratur et immoletur pro salute hominum.  Ergo in forma consecrationis sive panis sive vini reperiri debent verba aliqua quae significant Christum praesentum fieri in victimam sacrificalem.  Atqui haec verba: "novi et... peccatorum" eaque sola significant sanguinem Christ prout offertur in sacrificium. Ergo sunt verba essentialia.


In praxi, ne sacramentum periculo nullitatis exponatur, haec verba sub gravi semper sunt pronuntianda, et si omissa fuerint, forma integra sub conditione erit repetenda.

Google translation:

"In regard to the rest of the words 'the new and eternal ... the forgiveness of sins' there is a controversy.

According to many, indeed, these are the words pertain to the integrity and perfection of form, but not to the essence.   For no one from the writer of the sacred whole it matters little; the bottom the words, "the eternal, "and"the mystery of faith" are omitted from all there are many of them also expected in a liturglis the east, in which nevertheless the consecration of the cup is held to be valid.  Moreover, all things are not the words of the scriptural are the forms of the essential, if indeed the words, "that is given for you, he shall be delivered" some are wanting in the liturgy of the praesterim, and in the Liturgy of the Roman.  In short, the very fact that the blood of, force of the words, separated from the body is made, will be sufficient and the power of the shedding of his for the remission of sins.

Not a few, however, these are the words they say the substance.  For Christ, they say, so he made that transubstantiation, the sacrifice was, then, even now that transubstantiation is perfected, so that Christ not simply be made in the present but also the altar, and primarily, as He Himself be offered and they may sacrifice for the salvation of men.  Therefore, in the form of the consecration of bread or of wine, or ought to be found any words which signify Christ who is present for the victim to be made sacrificial.  And these be the words: "I know, and of sins ..." and it alone signify the blood of Christ, as it is offered for the sacrifice. Therefore they are the words of the substance.

Put into practice in, lest the sacrament of the danger of the nullity of is explained to, "these words are always subject to the severe be pronounced, and if it have been omitted, the form of the whole must be repeated on a condition, it will be."

- Canon J.M. Herve, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae, vol. IV, sec. 172, pp. 204-205.
Reply
#50
(12-18-2010, 01:19 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: You're making a very large assumption considering "for all" to render it doubtful.  Even those who consider it a grave scandal agree that it shouldn't change the validity of the Consecration.

For it to be invalid, the substance of the Consecration would have to be changed.  St. Thomas claims the substance of the form is: "This is My body,"  "This is the chalice of My blood."  That hasn't been changed in a significant way.

ST III Q 78 A 1

There are really two questions here: 1) within the context of the sacramental form, do the words "for all" and "for many" impart the same meaning; and, 2) what is the authentic and approved form of the sacrament?

As to the first, it should be obvious that the answer is no, and that that answer is validated by the Roman Catechism (an authoritative source) in it's explanation of the reason for the choice of "for many."  As to the second, and with respect to St. Thomas, the papal bull De Defectibus tells us, definitively and authoritatively, that the complete form of consecration for the wine is far more than "This is the chalice of My blood."  Should this form be shortened or changed in any significant way, the Holy Father cautions, there is no scarament.

If you, or anyone here, can point to another authoritative source through which the so-called "short form" was promulgated, then please point to it now.  I say that St, Thomas (and others who have referred to a short or "essential" form), is not an authoritative source of the Church on this matter and cannot, therefore, be used to question or countermand a solemn pronouncement contained in a Papal bull.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)