The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
#61
Sure, there's a reason.  And a good one.  That's why the translation is scandalous and a load of crap and why B16 forced them to change it.

But that's a lot different than rendering the Sacrament invalid.
Reply
#62
(12-20-2010, 11:54 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Sure, there's a reason.  And a good one.  That's why the translation is scandalous and a load of crap and why B16 forced them to change it.

But that's a lot different than rendering the Sacrament invalid.

Whether valid or not is one thing, and is subject to the scrutiny of theologians - know of any good ones still alive? 

However, if nothing else, I believe it is worthy, even our right to question these changes that were made for no reason other than for "pastoral reasons".

Considering the changes overall have been the cause of unprecedented destruction, I believe one can be perfectly justified saying this change of form renders the Sacrament doubtful.

Reply
#63
The reasons for changing the words can't render something invalid.  Only changes to the form itself can render it invalid.

Sure, question the changes, but questioning the validity is something else.

Quote:Whether valid or not is one thing, and is subject to the scrutiny of theologians - know of any good ones still alive? 

They don't have to be alive.  St. Thomas was a good theologian, and I already cited that the substantial part for him is: "This is my blood".

Quote:Considering the changes overall have been the cause of unprecedented destruction, I believe one can be perfectly justified saying this change of form renders the Sacrament doubtful.

I believe the moon is made of green cheese, but that doesn't make it so.  There are theological "rules" that have to be applied.  Proper form, matter, and intent render a valid Sacrament.  You have to have proof of at least doubt for one of those to doubt the Sacrament's validity.

Matter is easy to check - is it wine and unleavened bread?  You're good.

Intent is not so easy to check in the NO; it is implied that the priest has it, but in the TLM it is explicit.  So, maybe on a case-by-case basis this is cause for concern in the NO.  However, it is a cause for concern in general because an evil priest can intentionally not confect the hosts even in the TLM.

But the form is valid by the arguments I gave, and that's what we're talking about.  If you have any other arguments for why it is doubtful based on form and citing theologians or Church documents, keep them coming and we will see how this pans out.
Reply
#64
(12-18-2010, 10:38 AM)Melkite Wrote:
Quote:Their circulation with other Latin versions led to increasing uncertainties as to a standard text and caused the Fathers of the Council of Trent to declare that the Vulgate alone was to be held as "authentic in public readings, discourses, and disputes, and that nobody might dare or presume to reject it on any pretence" (Sess. IV, decr. de editione et usu sacrorum librorum). By this declaration the Council, without depreciating the Hebrew or the Septuagint or any other version then in circulation and without forbidding the original texts, approved the Vulgate and enjoined its public and official use as a text free from error in doctrine and morals.


Ok, so was trent saying that the vulgate was error free and just remained silent on the septuagint and hebrew version, or was it saying that the vulgate alone contains no theological errors?  If the latter, how would St. Jerome have kept theological errors out, even with having studied in the holy land, since at the time the jews were already apostate?  I still don't understand how he could have made a theologically error free translation without having a theologically error free source to translate from.

Reread what I cited:  "without depreciating the Hebrew or the Septuagint "  In other words, they did not comment directly on the Hebrew or Septuagint, and considering they allowed them to be used still, one can assume they believed there were no errors.

The Jews were apostate, but they knew the Hebrew and scrupulously kept their Scriptures intact - and good Jews still do; they don't monkey with the Word of God.  Their errors are not in their Scriptures, but how they read them.

Another thing to remember is he had multiple sources and could compare them for consensus, etc.
Reply
#65
(12-20-2010, 12:14 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Intent is not so easy to check in the NO; it is implied that the priest has it, but in the TLM it is explicit.  So, maybe on a case-by-case basis this is cause for concern in the NO.  However, it is a cause for concern in general because an evil priest can intentionally not confect the hosts even in the TLM.

But the form is valid by the arguments I gave, and that's what we're talking about.  If you have any other arguments for why it is doubtful based on form and citing theologians or Church documents, keep them coming and we will see how this pans out.

I will continue to look based on what I already said regarding all the other changes were made for no good reason, changing the form of consecration should follow suit.

St. Thomas may well be right, but Florence was very explicit, and they did not say the same thing that St. Thomas said.

Reply
#66
(12-20-2010, 12:50 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-20-2010, 12:14 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Intent is not so easy to check in the NO; it is implied that the priest has it, but in the TLM it is explicit.  So, maybe on a case-by-case basis this is cause for concern in the NO.  However, it is a cause for concern in general because an evil priest can intentionally not confect the hosts even in the TLM.

But the form is valid by the arguments I gave, and that's what we're talking about.  If you have any other arguments for why it is doubtful based on form and citing theologians or Church documents, keep them coming and we will see how this pans out.

I will continue to look based on what I already said regarding all the other changes were made for no good reason, changing the form of consecration should follow suit.

St. Thomas may well be right, but Florence was very explicit, and they did not say the same thing that St. Thomas said.

OK, well, let's look at what Florence said in its entire context.

Quote:However, since no explanation was given in the aforesaid decree of the Armenians in respect of the form of words which the holy Roman church, 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 .

"Form" here is not the form of the Sacrament as in "form and matter".  It is "form of the words".  The Armenian "form of the words" is

This is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for many for the expiation and forgiveness of sins.

The decree of the Armenians said they needed to mix water with the wine as the other Churches do.  Since the wording of the Sacrament wasn't addressed there, and differs slightly in verbiage though not in meaning,  they spelled out here what the Latin Church uses.


Reply
#67
I think this priest (SSPX) has been following this thread........................... He explains it as I've always understood it. Doubtful = stay away.







Edited to show the priest is from SSPX, not FSSP
Reply
#68
OK, I'll watch it when I have time.
Reply
#69
It's Fr. Cooper. I highly recommend hearing his talks.
Reply
#70
(12-20-2010, 02:18 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: It's Fr. Cooper. I highly recommend hearing his talks.

Ya, I REALLY like him.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)