The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
#71
I maintain that there is no "short" or "essential" form of the sacrament; there is only the one form, and that one form, having been solemnly proclaimed by the Church, cannot be shortened or changed in a any significant way.  And that is why the Holy Father wrote them that way in De Defectibus and why those words have been separated and highlighted in approved missals in use throughout the pre-VCII Church.  The form for the sacrament is what the Pius V said it is--nothing more, nothing less.

Let's drop all the pretense: 1) "for many" and "for all" do not mean the same thing;  2) the words "pro multis" cannot be translated in any language to mean "for all;" and, 3) the words "pro multis" are an integral part of the sacramental form (again, we know that from Church authority); and, 3) in all the years since the promulgation of De Defectibus, the form of the sacrament was never disputed... that is until Bugnini and his Protestant henchmen decided what had been done for centuries was no longer good enough for Catholics.

"For all" implies universal salvation, a theological concept antithetical to Catholic teaching. No matter a Catholic's opinion on the validity issue, those words should not be used in the Catholic Mass, because as the Roman Catechism states, they do not impart the true meaning of Christ's actions.

Reply
#72
1) No one disagrees they are different.

2) You can maintain it all you want, now provide an argument for it.

Let's approach it from a different way:

According to de defectibus, what type of changes/errors would be mortal sin and not invalidate the Sacrament?
Reply
#73
(12-20-2010, 05:44 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: 1) No one disagrees they are different.

2) You can maintain it all you want, now provide an argument for it.

Let's approach it from a different way:

According to de defectibus, what type of changes/errors would be mortal sin and not invalidate the Sacrament?

DeDefectibus:
"Defects on the part of the form may arise if anything is missing from the complete wording required for the act of consecrating.  Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are: Hoc est enim Corpus meum, and Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei: qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.  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.  If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin."

We've been through this before, but I'll play along:  Since "for many" is part of the "complete wording required for the act of consecrating," and since "for many" and "for all" don't have the same meaning, then the use of "for all" invalidates the sacrament.

Now, I'm curious.  Can you name another sacrament that has a so-called "short form"?  Can you point to an authorized pre-VCII missal that contains a short form for the sacrament--or even one that has a notation alluding to a shortened form?  And can you tell me why I can't seem to find  a single pre-VCII source that authorizes priests to use a shortened form (perhaps in an emergency)?
Reply
#74
I think this is easier if we just diagram the controversial part of the sentence.  “For all” modifies “my blood.”  That’s not in dispute.  So, then, the question: was Christ’s blood shed for all?

One obvious answer is YES—of course, Jesus shed His blood for all, so that all might be redeemed.  So if people want to avail themselves of His salvific sacrifice, then it’s theirs to have.  There are plenty of bible quotes on the subject, Selah.  The offer is open to everyone.  And if anyone wants it, then the sacrament they need to seek out is BAPTISM, so that they can be incorporated into His mystical body and have the promise of salvation.  But this discussion is about the sacrament of the Eucharist.  Can “for all” be applied to the Eucharist?

The answer to that question is NO.  The Eucharist is Christ’s gift to the believing Christian: “that we may be made partakers of Thy Divinity.”  Even if, by some incredible glorious miracle, it turned out that universal salvation was absolutely true—even if we were to grant Fr. Karl Rahner’s theory that everyone is an “anonymous Christian,” and that everyone gets baptized by desire in their final moment (even Saladin and Abe Foxman!), then there would still be saints in heaven who lived and died on the planet without having received the Eucharist.  So there’s just no way whatsoever that the sacramental Blood of Christ in the Eucharist can be said to have been shed for all.  And that’s important.

The Church’s official sacramental theology is that the form of a sacrament must “signify the grace which it effects.”  The graces of baptism and Eucharist are different: one effects redemption, and the other effects the partaking of Christ’s Divinity.  If “for all” is used for the Eucharistic sacrifice, then it changes the meaning of the words which modify the form and does not effect a valid consecration.  According to De Defectibus.

Sufficiency and efficacy—not the same thing!

:deadhorse:
Reply
#75
Very good, Gilgamesh.
Reply
#76
(12-21-2010, 01:52 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote: So there’s just no way whatsoever that the sacramental Blood of Christ in the Eucharist can be said to have been shed for all.  And that’s important.

If the Eucharist is a re-enactment of the crucifixion though... I mean, are there two bloods of Christ?

(12-21-2010, 01:52 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote: The Church’s official sacramental theology is that the form of a sacrament must “signify the grace which it effects.”  The graces of baptism and Eucharist are different: one effects redemption, and the other effects the partaking of Christ’s Divinity. If “for all” is used for the Eucharistic sacrifice, then it changes the meaning of the words which modify the form and does not effect a valid consecration.

So in other words, in Montreal, transubstantiation occurs in French masses but not in English masses regardless that the intention of the priests are identical?
Reply
#77
(12-21-2010, 01:52 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote: If “for all” is used for the Eucharistic sacrifice, then it changes the meaning of the words which modify the form and does not effect a valid consecration.  According to De Defectibus.

If even the SSPX doesn't come to your conclusion (that "for all" = invalid consecration) then I can't imagine that it's correct. I just can't imagine that the SSPX and the conciliar church are wrong about this.

SSPX FAQ Wrote:The words of consecration, especially of the wine, have been tampered with. Has the “substance of the sacrament” (cf., Pope Pius XII quoted in PRINCIPLE 5) been respected?  This is even more of a problem in Masses in the vernacular, where pro multis (for many) has been deliberately mistranslated as "for all". While we should assume that despite this change the consecration is still valid, nevertheless this does add to the doubt.

http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q5_novusordo.htm
Reply
#78
(12-21-2010, 06:37 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote:
(12-21-2010, 01:52 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote: If “for all” is used for the Eucharistic sacrifice, then it changes the meaning of the words which modify the form and does not effect a valid consecration.  According to De Defectibus.

If even the SSPX doesn't come to your conclusion (that "for all" = invalid consecration) then I can't imagine that it's correct. I just can't imagine that the SSPX and the conciliar church are wrong about this.

SSPX FAQ Wrote:The words of consecration, especially of the wine, have been tampered with. Has the “substance of the sacrament” (cf., Pope Pius XII quoted in PRINCIPLE 5) been respected?  This is even more of a problem in Masses in the vernacular, where pro multis (for many) has been deliberately mistranslated as "for all". While we should assume that despite this change the consecration is still valid, nevertheless this does add to the doubt.

http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q5_novusordo.htm

Well, since we're now using the SSPX as a source to argue sacramental theology...

THE PROBLEM OF THE LITURGICAL REFORM  (SSPX, 2001)
CHAPTER 1
FROM SACRIFICE TO MEMORIAL MEAL
"5. A comparison of the missal revised by St. Pius V and the missal of Paul VI at first shows certain likenesses between the two orders of Mass; an opening rite, Kyrie Eleison, Gloria, readings and Credo, preparation of the offerings on the altar, Preface and Sanctus, Consecration, Pater Noster, distribution of Communion. A closer analysis reveals, however, that despite the material appearances remaining the same, the structure of the Eucharistic liturgy has been changed at its very foundations. In place of the sacrificial structure of the traditional missal—oblation, consecration, consummation— the new missal has substituted the structure of the Jewish meal—berakah or blessing of the food, thanksgiving for gifts received, and the breaking and partaking, of bread."

No  SACRIFICE  =  No SACRAMENT
Reply
#79
(12-21-2010, 06:22 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: If the Eucharist is a re-enactment of the crucifixion though... I mean, are there two bloods of Christ?

No.  The Church teaches that Christ shed His blood once and for all on the cross.  The sacrifice at Calvary was dynamic, in that it was both sufficient for all to be redeemed (1 Timothy 2:5-6, which you’ve already quoted) and efficacious for the Christian believers to partake of His body and blood—“except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you” (John 6:53).  Those bible passages refer to different aspects of the same sacrifice.

It is always the same blood of Christ, but the sacramental blood in the Eucharistic chalice pertains especially to the efficacy of the sacrifice.  The graces of the baptismal sacrifice also flow from the blood of Christ—but in the sense of the sufficiency.  Two aspects of the sacrifice; two sacraments; one blood. 

The Catechism of Trent, I believe, has already been quoted on this, but perhaps it bears repeating:

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. … 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.”

(12-21-2010, 06:22 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: So in other words, in Montreal, transubstantiation occurs in French masses but not in English masses regardless that the intention of the priests are identical?

Presumably yes, because more than just intent is required for a sacrament.  Matter and form are essential as well.  If the form is defective, it doesn’t matter if the matter and intent are there.  You need all three.  You can’t baptize someone with oil instead of water, and you can’t say “I baptize Sarah Silverman in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost” if you’re baptizing someone named Tenzin Gyatso.

Do Canadian Masses in French have «pour vous et pour beaucoup»?  If so, then you might find some reassurance in attending French vernacular Masses.  But then there’s the whole other problem of whether or not the Novus Ordo clergy are ordained by valid bishops, since the 1968 form of episcopal consecrations is controversial as well!  Keep on scratching the surface and the entire thing gets to be like an Oliver Stone movie or something.  This would all be quite amusing, of course—it would be like a really good puzzle, if only it weren’t for the fact that the Catholic Church and the Catholic faith are on the line.  Personally, I have no answer for why such demonstrably bad changes were made in the first place.  I'm too thick and provincial to understand.  I give up trying.

(12-21-2010, 06:37 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: If even the SSPX doesn't come to your conclusion (that "for all" = invalid consecration) then I can't imagine that it's correct. I just can't imagine that the SSPX and the conciliar church are wrong about this.

The SSPX could always be wrong.  A skeptic might suggest that the Lefebvrists are often inclined to do a good bit of fence-sitting and thumb-twiddling, since they can seem rather skittish about following all the way through on some of their conclusions.  Would they really enjoy the same popularity among “traditionalist” Catholics if they denied the legitimacy of the pope, or if they came out unequivocally against the validity of consecrations at Novus Ordo Masses?  We all know the answer to that one.  Some cows are too sacred to slaughter.  Doing the “doubtful & dubious” dance is much easier, and nobody’s feelings get too hurt.  (It’s not just the conciliar church that likes butts in the pews and envelopes in the baskets).  Seek first the truth, and scrutinize everyone equally as if they all had an agenda—because they probably do.   “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”   
Reply
#80
(12-20-2010, 11:49 PM)ripmarcel Wrote:
(12-20-2010, 05:44 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: 1) No one disagrees they are different.

2) You can maintain it all you want, now provide an argument for it.

Let's approach it from a different way:

According to de defectibus, what type of changes/errors would be mortal sin and not invalidate the Sacrament?

DeDefectibus:
"Defects on the part of the form may arise if anything is missing from the complete wording required for the act of consecrating.  Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are: Hoc est enim Corpus meum, and Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei: qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.  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.  If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin."

We've been through this before, but I'll play along:  Since "for many" is part of the "complete wording required for the act of consecrating," and since "for many" and "for all" don't have the same meaning, then the use of "for all" invalidates the sacrament.

You're making a circular argument by assuming something that is not proven to prove your argument, and you're not answering the question.  I will restate it.

Can you give me a concrete example of a type of change or error that would result in mortal sin but not an invalidation of the Sacrament?

Quote:Now, I'm curious.  Can you name another sacrament that has a so-called "short form"?  Can you point to an authorized pre-VCII missal that contains a short form for the sacrament--or even one that has a notation alluding to a shortened form?  And can you tell me why I can't seem to find  a single pre-VCII source that authorizes priests to use a shortened form (perhaps in an emergency)?

I've never claimed there was a "short form".  What I've claimed is that as long as the meaning is not changed, the Sacrament is valid - same as De defectibus states.

But to address your concern, it clearly implies it can be shortened without changing the meaning:

"If the priest were to shorten ... 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"

That means the contrary is also true:

if the priest were to shorten... the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did mean the same thing [the Sacrament would be valid].
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)