The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
#51
(12-18-2010, 06:32 PM)ripmarcel 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

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." 

I know what the Catechism says, but I will ask you to cite it here, in context, so we can discuss it.  Further, the CDF, another authoritative source, said that the meaning is the same within the liturgy.

Quote: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.

Let's read De Defectibus in context:

Quote:If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament

The shortening only makes it invalid if it doesn't mean the same thing which is common sense, and another way of expressing what St. Thomas says: it has to change in substance.  The substance of the Consecration is what St. Thomas says it is, and I doubt you will find a pre-V2 theologian that definitively says otherwise;  If you do, please cite it, and I will concede the point as far as that authority is relevant.
Reply
#52
(12-18-2010, 07:52 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: The shortening only makes it invalid if it doesn't mean the same thing which is common sense, and another way of expressing what St. Thomas says: it has to change in substance.


What De Defectibus is saying (since the short form is clearly valid on its own) is that since the Roman Rite employs additional words, it is necessary for those additional words to harmonize with the substance.  If a priest were to say “this is my blood, the blood of Dionysus and the blood of the bull slain by Mithras,” we can (hopefully) agree that he would not be effecting a valid consecration—even though he would technically be retaining the short form.

Further, the reason that he would not be effecting a valid consecration by using "for all" is because the form of a sacrament must refer to the graces that it effects.  Now “for all” is truly Christian to the core, but there’s a snag: it refers to the sacrament of baptism.  Christ died so that everyone could be redeemed, and that offer is open to all.  But since not everyone who lives and dies is baptized, “for many” refers to Christ’s gift to the Christian: the Eucharist.  This is the difference between sufficiency and efficacy (already mentioned on this thread), and it is also the difference of “not meaning the same thing” which De Defectibus addresses.

To answer Bakuryokuso’s question, the blasphemy indictment is a reference to 1 Corinthians 11:27—“whosoever shall drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.”  The sacrament is for Christians in a state of grace; to say “for all” can only imply otherwise and is therefore blasphemous.  Again I'll ask it: can non-Christians receive the sacrament?  The answer to that question still hasn’t changed.  Pro multis.
Reply
#53
Missale Romanum

.....we have decided to add three new Canons to this Prayer. In this way the different aspects of the mystery of salvation will be emphasized and they will procure richer themes for the thanksgiving. However, for pastoral reasons, and in order to facilitate concelebration, we have ordered that the words of the Lord ought to be identical in each formulary of the Canon. Thus, in each Eucharistic Prayer, we wish that the words be pronounced thus............

Snip from: The New Form of Consecration
The reader will observe that the Pope is careful not to refer to the words quoted above as the "Form of Consecration," instead, they are described as "the words of the Lord," which must mean the words of the Lord as they are quoted in the "Narratio", the account of the Lord's Supper. Neither here nor anywhere else in his Apostolic Constitution does the Pontiff refer to the mystery of Transubstantiation. From beginning to end, his main emphasis is on the "readings" of the new "missal," with which the people will "nourish themselves day by day.

    Pope Paul says: "We have ordered that the words of the Lord ought to be, etc." How is that the Pope may order what the "words of the Lord ought to be?"

    Few seem to have noticed the two main reasons the Pope gives for so radical an alteration in the very center of the "mass," but they are there, big as life, "for pastoral reasons, and in order to facilitate concelebration." How many people know to this day what these "pastoral reasons" are, and how the complete emasculation of the Form of Consecration serves to "facilitate concelebration?" Perhaps it will help if they recall that the word "pastoral" in the code language of the Revolution means, "for the people," that is, "for the sake of the 'Renewal" or the Revolution itself." Again, the abandonment of the Form of Consecration and its reduction to a mere narrative can only be understood by realizing that, in many "concelebrated 'masses'" many of the "concelebrants," both "Catholic" and Protestant, certainly do not believe in the power of Transubstantiation. Thanks to this "slight" adjustment, they may use any of the four "Eucharistic Prayers" without the risk of such a marvel occurring.
Reply
#54
Stubborn, I think you're reading too much into "ought to be".  De defectibus and the Catechism say what they "ought" to be as well, and those, too, are by order of the Pope.  And the original Latin has "pro multis" which is what the Pope is talking about, anyhow.  He wasn't part of the USCCB translation team.
Reply
#55
(12-20-2010, 05:07 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Stubborn, I think you're reading too much into "ought to be".  De defectibus and the Catechism say what they "ought" to be as well, and those, too, are by order of the Pope.  And the original Latin has "pro multis" which is what the Pope is talking about, anyhow.  He wasn't part of the USCCB translation team.

It may seem like I'm reading too much into what ought to be, however, the vernacular, not latin, has been the norm and still is. Since what "ought to be" said in the vernacular ("for many") is not what is being said over the chalice, the sacrament is invalid per De defectibus.

The vernacular does not say "for many". It says "for all". Do NO priests who say the mass in the vernacular say "for all" or "for many"?

Aside from that, the form has been changed, not just "all" / "many". Which once again, per De defectibus render the sacrament either invalid or a sin. I don't see how there is any way around that - unless one thinks they can convince everyone that there is no difference in meanings between "all" and "many".
Reply
#56
(12-20-2010, 05:21 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-20-2010, 05:07 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Stubborn, I think you're reading too much into "ought to be".  De defectibus and the Catechism say what they "ought" to be as well, and those, too, are by order of the Pope.  And the original Latin has "pro multis" which is what the Pope is talking about, anyhow.  He wasn't part of the USCCB translation team.

It may seem like I'm reading too much into what ought to be, however, the vernacular, not latin, has been the norm and still is. Since what "ought to be" said in the vernacular ("for many") is not what is being said over the chalice, the sacrament is invalid per De defectibus.

The vernacular does not say "for many". It says "for all". Do NO priests who say the mass in the vernacular say "for all" or "for many"?

I'm pointing out your intellectual dishonesty.  Paul VI's words were about the promulgated Latin, not the crappy translations that were done by the Bishops of each country.  You're making it sound like, purposefully I would guess, he's talking about the translated versions.

Quote:Aside from that, the form has been changed, not just "all" / "many". Which once again, per De defectibus render the sacrament either invalid or a sin. I don't see how there is any way around that - unless one thinks they can convince everyone that there is no difference in meanings between "all" and "many".

Because De defectibus is in align with Aquinas in that it is only invalid if the form is substantially changed.  The substance of the form is found in "This is my body; this is my blood."  That was not changed in the New Mass.  For other changes that don't affect the substance, De defectibus says it is a grave sin.

Or do you think Christ invalidly confected at the Last Supper since what He said differs in inerrant Scripture from the form we have from Tradition?

The substance of the Sacramental form is in "this is my body; this is my blood".  If you don't understand this, re-read the section on the Eucharist in the Roman Catechism, and you will find it to be so.
Reply
#57
Here.

Matthew: For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
Mark:  And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.
Luke: In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.
1 Cor:  In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

So, in Luke and 1 Cor we have an invalid Mass reflected, right?

Or are Matthew and Mark invalid because they don't mention the chalice?

Or all we all screwed because in Luke, Christ only meant He shed His Blood for the Apostles present at the time?

If you can tell me why there are "invalid" confections in the Gospels and Epistle of Paul according to your logic, then I'll start to believe that "for all" makes the confection invalid.


Reply
#58
(12-20-2010, 08:57 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: I'm pointing out your intellectual dishonesty.  Paul VI's words were about the promulgated Latin, not the crappy translations that were done by the Bishops of each country.  You're making it sound like, purposefully I would guess, he's talking about the translated versions.


No, I am saying that regardless of what the "official" latin version is, the whole world is saying the words in the vernacular, not latin.

The pope decreed the words "pro multis" ("for many"), but the clergy say "for all". Why do priests all over the world throw doubt into the changed formula by saying "for all"? I don't care what is official, I am saying what is real. Real = "for all".

(12-20-2010, 08:57 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Because De defectibus is in align with Aquinas in that it is only invalid if the form is substantially changed.  The substance of the form is found in "This is my body; this is my blood."  That was not changed in the New Mass.  For other changes that don't affect the substance, De defectibus says it is a grave sin.

Or do you think Christ invalidly confected at the Last Supper since what He said differs in inerrant Scripture from the form we have from Tradition?

The NO form was changed from the pre-V2 form, which matched Scripture. How can one compare the two forms and not see immediately that the form and meaning in the NO was changed is beyond me.

(12-20-2010, 08:57 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: The substance of the Sacramental form is in "this is my body; this is my blood".   If you don't understand this, re-read the section on the Eucharist in the Roman Catechism, and you will find it to be so.

The substance? The Councils of Florence disagrees with you - as I previously posted. The TLM followed the form established from Florence precisely.

For this is my body might suffice, but the NO has a new form for the wine, that is not what is said below:

...relying on the teaching and authority of the apostles Peter and Paul, has always been wont to use in the consecration of the Lord's body and blood, we concluded that it should be inserted in this present text. It uses this form of words in the consecration of the Lord's body: For this is my body. And of his blood: For this is the chalice of my blood, of the new and everlasting covenant, which will be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins . Council of Florence
Reply
#59
(12-20-2010, 09:35 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-20-2010, 08:57 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: I'm pointing out your intellectual dishonesty.  Paul VI's words were about the promulgated Latin, not the crappy translations that were done by the Bishops of each country.  You're making it sound like, purposefully I would guess, he's talking about the translated versions.


No, I am saying that regardless of what the "official" latin version is, the whole world is saying the words in the vernacular, not latin.

The pope decreed the words "pro multis" ("for many"), but the clergy say "for all". Why do priests all over the world throw doubt into the changed formula by saying "for all"? I don't care what is official, I am saying what is real. Real = "for all".

I'll let anyone reading this decide; walking you through what you said probably won't help...

Quote:
(12-20-2010, 08:57 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Because De defectibus is in align with Aquinas in that it is only invalid if the form is substantially changed.  The substance of the form is found in "This is my body; this is my blood."  That was not changed in the New Mass.  For other changes that don't affect the substance, De defectibus says it is a grave sin.

Or do you think Christ invalidly confected at the Last Supper since what He said differs in inerrant Scripture from the form we have from Tradition?

The NO form was changed from the pre-V2 form, which matched Scripture. How can one compare the two forms and not see immediately that the form and meaning in the NO was changed is beyond me.

It doesn't match Scripture.  Look it up in the DR yourself if you don't like my quotes.  We know the authentic form from Tradition.  Scripture confirms it only if you put all the versions together.

Quote:
(12-20-2010, 08:57 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: The substance of the Sacramental form is in "this is my body; this is my blood".   If you don't understand this, re-read the section on the Eucharist in the Roman Catechism, and you will find it to be so.

The substance? The Councils of Florence disagrees with you - as I previously posted. The TLM followed the form established from Florence precisely.

For this is my body might suffice, but the NO has a new form for the wine, that is not what is said below:

...relying on the teaching and authority of the apostles Peter and Paul, has always been wont to use in the consecration of the Lord's body and blood, we concluded that it should be inserted in this present text. It uses this form of words in the consecration of the Lord's body: For this is my body. And of his blood: For this is the chalice of my blood, of the new and everlasting covenant, which will be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins . Council of Florence

"Teaching and authority" refers to Apostolic Tradition - this must be the case because Peter's epistles do not contain the words of Consecration.  The form doesn't come from Scripture.  It's also clear because references to the authority of Peter and Paul mean in Church-speak the authority of the Apostles: jurisdiction, Holy Orders, and Tradition.

Roman Catechism:

Quote:Of these words the greater part are taken from Scripture; but some have been preserved in the Church from Apostolic tradition.

Thus the words, this is the chalice, are found in St. Luke and in the Apostle; but the words that immediately follow, of my blood, or my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for you and for many to the remission of sins, are found partly in St. Luke and partly in St. Matthew. But the words, eternal, and the mystery of faith, have been taught us by holy tradition, the interpreter and keeper of Catholic truth.

As far as the form goes, no one is arguing that isn't the form.   The question is: does "for all" significantly change the form of the Sacrament?

Really, the council of Florence didn't mean "form" in the "form and matter" sense.  But, let's pretend it does for the moment.

From the RC again:

Quote:Not All The Words Used Are Essential

Although in the Evangelist the words, Take and eat, precede the words (This is my body), they evidently express the use only, not the consecration, of the matter. Wherefore, while they are not necessary to the consecration of the Sacrament, they are by all means to be pronounced by the priest, as is also the conjunction for in the consecration of the body and blood. But they are not necessary to the validity of the Sacrament....

Concerning this form no one can doubt, if he here also attend to what has been already said about the form used in the consecration of the bread. The form to be used (in the consecration) of this element, evidently consists of those words which signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the blood of our Lord. since, therefore, the words already cited clearly declare this, it is plain that no other words constitute the form.

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.

Those words (pro multis) are "additional" to "declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion".  They do not serve to "signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the blood of our Lord".  The worlds that serve to signify that are "this is my blood", and that is the substantial part of the Sacrament as St. Thomas says, and that is what De defectibus means would render the Sacrament invalid if changed.

Reply
#60


The Catechism of Trent says there is a reason to not use "for all":

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.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)