The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
#81
(12-21-2010, 01:52 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote: 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!

Apparently there are theologians that disagree with you.  The Sacrifice is inherent in the Consecration, so if the Consecration is effected, the Sacrifice follows.

From the CE:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm

Quote:After the elimination of the Offertory and Communion, there remains only the Consecration as the part in which the true sacrifice is to be sought. In reality, that part alone is to be regarded as the proper sacrificial act which is such by Christ's own institution. Now the Lord's words are: "This is my Body; this is my Blood." The Oriental Epiklesis cannot be considered as the moment of consecration for the reason that it is absent in the Mass in the West and is known to have first come into practice after Apostolic times (see EUCHARIST). The sacrifice must also be at the point where Christ personally appears as High Priest and human celebrant acts only as his representative. The priest does not however assume the personal part of Christ either at the Offertory or Communion. He only does so when he speaks the words: "This is My Body; this is My Blood", in which there is no possible reference to the body and blood of the celebrant.

Further, the CE states the words of Institution are:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

Quote:The words of Institution

The Church's Magna Charta, however, are the words of Institution, "This is my body — this is my blood", whose literal meaning she has uninterruptedly adhered to from the earliest times.

And

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05584a.htm

Quote:In proceeding to verify the form, which is always made up of words, we may start from the dubitable fact, that Christ did not consecrate by the mere fiat of His omnipotence, which found no expression in articulate utterance, but by pronouncing the words of Institution: "This is my body . . . this is my blood", and that by the addition: "Do this for a commemoration of me", He commanded the Apostles to follow His example.


Reply
#82
(12-21-2010, 09:36 PM)ripmarcel Wrote:
(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

The SSPX statement doesn't say "there is no Sacrifice".  You're misrepresenting it.  What it is saying is the liturgical structure changed from Sacrificial to Commemorative.  The Sacrifice itself is found in the Consecration.
Reply
#83
(12-22-2010, 10:09 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Apparently there are theologians that disagree with you.  The Sacrifice is inherent in the Consecration, so if the Consecration is effected, the Sacrifice follows.

All of the excerpts you've quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia are sound.  Unlike ripmarcel, I actually don’t deny the validity of the short form.  But our discussion is about whether any additional words in the form can invalidate it.  If your contention is that any additional words are superfluous as far as validity is concerned, then you appear to contradict St. Pius V in De Defectibus.

Here’s something I said earlier in the thread:
(12-20-2010, 01:38 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote: 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.

In case I’m misunderstanding you, Quis, is it your argument that a priest who changes the form of the Roman Rite to include these occultist words would still be effecting a valid sacrament?  If we agree that he wouldn’t be, then we can proceed to the propriety of “for all.”  If we disagree, however, then we need to re-examine article 20 of De Defectibus and you can kindly show me how I’m reading it wrong

(12-22-2010, 10:09 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: From the CE:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm
Quote:After the elimination of the Offertory and Communion, there remains only the Consecration as the part in which the true sacrifice is to be sought. In reality, that part alone is to be regarded as the proper sacrificial act which is such by Christ's own institution. Now the Lord's words are: "This is my Body; this is my Blood." The Oriental Epiklesis cannot be considered as the moment of consecration for the reason that it is absent in the Mass in the West and is known to have first come into practice after Apostolic times (see EUCHARIST). The sacrifice must also be at the point where Christ personally appears as High Priest and human celebrant acts only as his representative. The priest does not however assume the personal part of Christ either at the Offertory or Communion. He only does so when he speaks the words: "This is My Body; this is My Blood", in which there is no possible reference to the body and blood of the celebrant.

Further, the CE states the words of Institution are:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm
Quote:The words of Institution

The Church's Magna Charta, however, are the words of Institution, "This is my body — this is my blood", whose literal meaning she has uninterruptedly adhered to from the earliest times.

And

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05584a.htm
Quote:In proceeding to verify the form, which is always made up of words, we may start from the dubitable fact, that Christ did not consecrate by the mere fiat of His omnipotence, which found no expression in articulate utterance, but by pronouncing the words of Institution: "This is my body . . . this is my blood", and that by the addition: "Do this for a commemoration of me", He commanded the Apostles to follow His example.

Since you believe (as I do) that all of the above is true, then how do we explain De Defectibus?  Why did St. Pius V lay out the entire form of the Roman Rite and say that a corruption of it would not achieve a valid sacrament?

The only answer is that any form (such as the Roman Rite) which contains more words than “This is my body ... this is my blood” must have all of the additional words refer correctly to the sacrament.  A sacramental form must “signify the grace which it effects.”  The question at hand is whether using “for all” does this.  If you contend that it does, then I feel like De Defectibus and Apostolicae Curae must’ve been written for naught.  Why would the Church lay down rules of sacramental theology only to blithely ignore them?
Reply
#84
(12-22-2010, 09:53 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(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].

You most certainly did claim that there was a short form; you didn't do it directly, but you said as much when you referred to St. Thomas' theological OPINION on the matter.  (And that isn't the first time; I've seen you use Aquinas' opinion in other threads here.)

Here are the facts:  1) the Latin words "pro multis," which translate into English as "for many," were proclaimed by the highest authority of the Church to be part of the complete words of consecration; 2)  that same authority stated that if the meaning of those words were changed in a significant manner, the sacrament would not be confected;  3)  in the context of the sacramental form, and as explained in the Roman Catechism (another authoritative source of the Church), we learn that the words "for many" were chosen because they impart the true meaning of Christ's actions; and, 4) there is no authoritative source of the Church that has, definitively, proclaimed otherwise.

Given the above, and barring a definitive statement from an authoritative source to the contrary, I am left to conclude that when the words "for all" are used by a priest, there is no sacrament.  As for your question about what changes might be sinful, but not invalidating, I'll not offer an opinion, since it is neither central to the real issue, nor is it my place to judge the potential sinfulness of another man's actions.

You (or anyone else out there) show me an authentic and authoritative source of the Church that speaks with magisterial precision on this issue and states, unequivocally, that Pius V was wrong about what constitutes the one and only, and complete, form of the sacrament, or that translating "pro multis" as "for all" is not a substantive change in meaning of the form of the sacrament, then I'll admit to the validity of the N.O. sacrament using the words "for all."

"It is obvious that the New Order Mass has no intention of presenting the Faith taught by the Council of Trent.  But it is to this Faith that Catholic conscience is bound forever."  (Ottaviani Intervention)

"All these reforms, indeed, have contributed and are still contributing to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, t[b]o the abolition of the Sacrifice of the Mass [/b]and of the sacraments, to the disappearance of religious life, to a naturalist and Teilhardian teaching in universities, seminaries and catechistics; a teaching derived from Liberalism and Protestantism, many times condemned by the solemn Magisterium of the Church." (Abp Lefebvre (RIP), 1974)

Reply
#85
(12-22-2010, 10:12 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(12-21-2010, 09:36 PM)ripmarcel Wrote:
(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

The SSPX statement doesn't say "there is no Sacrifice".  You're misrepresenting it.  What it is saying is the liturgical structure changed from Sacrificial to Commemorative.  The Sacrifice itself is found in the Consecration.

Of course the SSPX statement doesn't say that there's no sacrifice.  I assumed that; just like the SSPX wants you to assume that there is.  But I'm not into assumptions on this issue, I'm into fact, and the fact is that "for all" doesn't have the same theological meaning as "for many," and that fact leads me to conclude that the use of the words "for all" invalidates the sacrament.  Besides, why would a Catholic knowingly attend a Mass where there is doubt as to the validity of the sacrament, when he can attend a TLM and be comforted in the knowledge that he assisted at a real Catholic Mass?
Reply
#86
(12-22-2010, 05:46 PM)ripmarcel Wrote:
(12-22-2010, 09:53 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(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].

You most certainly did claim that there was a short form; you didn't do it directly, but you said as much when you referred to St. Thomas' theological OPINION on the matter.  (And that isn't the first time; I've seen you use Aquinas' opinion in other threads here.)

This "short form" concept is something of your own creation.  There is no concept of it whatsoever for anyone except you.  The question is what changes to the form would invalidate it.  Would dropping a word?  Would adding a word? Would changing a word?

De defectibus states that if any of those things change the meaning then it's invalid, otherwise it is valid.

Now, please stop ignoring my question.  Give me an example of a change that you believe results in mortal sin but not the invalidation of the Sacrament.

Quote:Here are the facts:  1) the Latin words "pro multis," which translate into English as "for many," were proclaimed by the highest authority of the Church to be part of the complete words of consecration; 2)  that same authority stated that if the meaning of those words were changed in a significant manner, the sacrament would not be confected;  3)  in the context of the sacramental form, and as explained in the Roman Catechism (another authoritative source of the Church), we learn that the words "for many" were chosen because they impart the true meaning of Christ's actions; and, 4) there is no authoritative source of the Church that has, definitively, proclaimed otherwise.

2) It doesn't say "significant manner".  One could tack on "mareseatoatsanddoeseatoatsandlittlelambseativy" and it would still be valid because the meaning isn't changed.

3) Exactly, "for many" was chosen because it imparts the meaning of Christ's actions;

4) If you read the section of the Roman Catechism I cited, it clearly explains that while all those words are part of the Form of Consecration, the only parts that go to validity are the Words of Institution. See the section: "Not All The Words Used Are Essential"

Quote:Given the above, and barring a definitive statement from an authoritative source to the contrary, I am left to conclude that when the words "for all" are used by a priest, there is no sacrament.  As for your question about what changes might be sinful, but not invalidating, I'll not offer an opinion, since it is neither central to the real issue, nor is it my place to judge the potential sinfulness of another man's actions.

You mean to say that you're willing to judge the validity of the Sacrament on "for all" but in no other way?  Doesn't that seem intellectually dishonest?  It also seems a little backwards to me because it is much easier to say "action X is sinful" rather than "Sacrament Y is invalid".  In fact, stating an action is sinful is allowed, making statements about validity is normally reserved to a bishop.  It seems to me that you're willing to do what is generally reserved, but not willing to do what is allowed.  That's odd....

Quote:You (or anyone else out there) show me an authentic and authoritative source of the Church that speaks with magisterial precision on this issue and states, unequivocally, that Pius V was wrong about what constitutes the one and only, and complete, form of the sacrament, or that translating "pro multis" as "for all" is not a substantive change in meaning of the form of the sacrament, then I'll admit to the validity of the N.O. sacrament using the words "for all."

We don't have to because Pius V's catechism clarifies what is meant by the form and what is required for validity.

As for "for all" goes, the Catechism also explains that it has a true meaning with regard to the Sacrament even though it is unclear on who the "all" are.

As for you, I hate to burst your carefully constructed narcissistic bubble, but  I really don't care what you believe.  I'm not trying to convince you of anything.  I want to discern the truth about the matter through argument.  You can believe in little men from mars for all I care.  This is an exercise in theological debate, not apologetics.  At least for me.
Reply
#87
(12-22-2010, 02:16 PM)Gilgamesh Wrote:
(12-22-2010, 10:09 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Apparently there are theologians that disagree with you.  The Sacrifice is inherent in the Consecration, so if the Consecration is effected, the Sacrifice follows.

All of the excerpts you've quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia are sound.  Unlike ripmarcel, I actually don’t deny the validity of the short form.  But our discussion is about whether any additional words in the form can invalidate it.  If your contention is that any additional words are superfluous as far as validity is concerned, then you appear to contradict St. Pius V in De Defectibus.

Let's start with the basics and go to an extreme.  The question is: can any words be added to the Consecration without invalidating the Sacrament?

If I add "supercalifragilisticexpialodocious" to the end of the words fo Consecration, does it invalidate the Sacrament?

I answer, no, it doesn't, because it doesn't change the meaning.  What do you think?
Quote:Here’s something I said earlier in the thread:
(12-20-2010, 01:38 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote: 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.

In case I’m misunderstanding you, Quis, is it your argument that a priest who changes the form of the Roman Rite to include these occultist words would still be effecting a valid sacrament?  If we agree that he wouldn’t be, then we can proceed to the propriety of “for all.”  If we disagree, however, then we need to re-examine article 20 of De Defectibus and you can kindly show me how I’m reading it wrong

We agree he wouldn't be, on the other hand, see above.  Not all words added inherently invalidate the Sacrament.  If we understand each other, then sure, let's go on to "for all".

Quote:Since you believe (as I do) that all of the above is true, then how do we explain De Defectibus?  Why did St. Pius V lay out the entire form of the Roman Rite and say that a corruption of it would not achieve a valid sacrament?

The only answer is that any form (such as the Roman Rite) which contains more words than “This is my body ... this is my blood” must have all of the additional words refer correctly to the sacrament.  A sacramental form must “signify the grace which it effects.”  The question at hand is whether using “for all” does this.  If you contend that it does, then I feel like De Defectibus and Apostolicae Curae must’ve been written for naught.  Why would the Church lay down rules of sacramental theology only to blithely ignore them?

I don't mean to be presumptuous, but it may be that you're misunderstanding the meaning of those words if you don't understand the point of them.

There is codification of a Sacrament, what the Church says the form and matter are.  Then there is validity of the Sacrament.  If there is not this distinction, can you explain this to me:

How can leavened and unleavened bread be confected with the proper matter is stated to be unleavened bread?
How can you explain the consecrations in the inerrant Bible where Christ did not say "for many" - he left it out or said "for you"?

There is: this is what the form is and there is: these are the changes to the form that invalidate it, and these are changes that don't invalidate it but make it sinful

A perfect example is leavened vs. unleavened bread.  If a Latin rite priest confects leavened bread, it is a mortal sin, but it is still valid.  He is going against the rules of the Church, but the actual material required for validity is still there.

"De defectibus" Wrote:5. If the bread has begun to mold, but it is not corrupt, or if it is not unleavened according to the custom of the Latin Church, the Sacrament is valid but the celebrant is guilty of grave sin.

That's the point of de defectibus - to answer questions about all kinds of defects, not just validity.  For the form of the Eucharist, it is clear that it has to change the meaning of the Sacrament just as a defect in matter has to change the matter in its essence: wheat bread.  The meaning is "this is my body; this is my blood" it has nothing to do with "take and eat," etc.  The example you gave above invalidates the Sacrament by the addition of Mithras because it is no longer done in persona Christi, not because words were added (or subtracted).

Look at it this way.  Here is what additions or subtractions can be made without invalidating the matter:

Quote:3. If the bread is not made of wheat flour, or if so much other grain is mixed with the wheat that it is no longer wheat bread, or if it is adulterated in some other way, there is no Sacrament.

At the very least, if we draw a metaphor, mingling other words in with the form would not necessarily invalidate it, also as shown by my examples above.  It has to be enough to change what it is.  In the case of the form, if the the words of Institution - this is my body, this is my blood - refer to Christ and are unadulterated in meaning this is the body and blood of Christ Himself, then it is valid; that's my contention.  Because some "rice" got in with the "wheat" does not make it invalid - the wheat is still there.
Reply
#88
(12-22-2010, 09:32 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(12-22-2010, 05:46 PM)ripmarcel Wrote:
(12-22-2010, 09:53 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(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].

You most certainly did claim that there was a short form; you didn't do it directly, but you said as much when you referred to St. Thomas' theological OPINION on the matter.  (And that isn't the first time; I've seen you use Aquinas' opinion in other threads here.)

This "short form" concept is something of your own creation.  There is no concept of it whatsoever for anyone except you.  The question is what changes to the form would invalidate it.  Would dropping a word?  Would adding a word? Would changing a word?

De defectibus states that if any of those things change the meaning then it's invalid, otherwise it is valid.

Now, please stop ignoring my question.  Give me an example of a change that you believe results in mortal sin but not the invalidation of the Sacrament.

Quote:Here are the facts:  1) the Latin words "pro multis," which translate into English as "for many," were proclaimed by the highest authority of the Church to be part of the complete words of consecration; 2)  that same authority stated that if the meaning of those words were changed in a significant manner, the sacrament would not be confected;  3)  in the context of the sacramental form, and as explained in the Roman Catechism (another authoritative source of the Church), we learn that the words "for many" were chosen because they impart the true meaning of Christ's actions; and, 4) there is no authoritative source of the Church that has, definitively, proclaimed otherwise.

2) It doesn't say "significant manner".  One could tack on "mareseatoatsanddoeseatoatsandlittlelambseativy" and it would still be valid because the meaning isn't changed.

3) Exactly, "for many" was chosen because it imparts the meaning of Christ's actions;

4) If you read the section of the Roman Catechism I cited, it clearly explains that while all those words are part of the Form of Consecration, the only parts that go to validity are the Words of Institution. See the section: "Not All The Words Used Are Essential"

Quote:Given the above, and barring a definitive statement from an authoritative source to the contrary, I am left to conclude that when the words "for all" are used by a priest, there is no sacrament.  As for your question about what changes might be sinful, but not invalidating, I'll not offer an opinion, since it is neither central to the real issue, nor is it my place to judge the potential sinfulness of another man's actions.

You mean to say that you're willing to judge the validity of the Sacrament on "for all" but in no other way?  Doesn't that seem intellectually dishonest?  It also seems a little backwards to me because it is much easier to say "action X is sinful" rather than "Sacrament Y is invalid".  In fact, stating an action is sinful is allowed, making statements about validity is normally reserved to a bishop.  It seems to me that you're willing to do what is generally reserved, but not willing to do what is allowed.  That's odd....

Quote:You (or anyone else out there) show me an authentic and authoritative source of the Church that speaks with magisterial precision on this issue and states, unequivocally, that Pius V was wrong about what constitutes the one and only, and complete, form of the sacrament, or that translating "pro multis" as "for all" is not a substantive change in meaning of the form of the sacrament, then I'll admit to the validity of the N.O. sacrament using the words "for all."

We don't have to because Pius V's catechism clarifies what is meant by the form and what is required for validity.

As for "for all" goes, the Catechism also explains that it has a true meaning with regard to the Sacrament even though it is unclear on who the "all" are.

As for you, I hate to burst your carefully constructed narcissistic bubble, but  I really don't care what you believe.  I'm not trying to convince you of anything.  I want to discern the truth about the matter through argument.  You can believe in little men from mars for all I care.  This is an exercise in theological debate, not apologetics.  At least for me.

Well, have fun with your version of a theological debate.  In my world, though, such a debate doesn't include insults and allusions to insanity.  By the way, the N.O. Mass is invalid when the words "for all" are used.  I know it, and you know it, but you are afraid to admit it.

Matthew 26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
Reply
#89
ripmarcel, you can put up all the smoke and mirrors you want.  You can say someone was insulting or whatever, and maybe they were, but that doesn't mean there isn't a point to discuss.

You can repeat yourself ad nauseum, but that does not make an argument.  It's clear your mind is made up and no one will convince you.  Fine, I'm not an apologist nor do I pretend to be.  As I've said, I don't care about convincing you, but I am interested in hearing your arguments and our dissecting of arguments as a group so we have more insight into the issue.

But you should realize on your side that repeating things over and over and not addressing points of contention makes your argument fairly worthless.  There is no discussion when that happens.  Nothing is achieved, it's simply advertising of a position.  OK, we know your position and reasons for it.  If that's all you want to say, message received.

But if you want to discuss things, then you need to answer challenges and such regardless if you feel offended in how they were presented.  While I may have been offensive to you in some manner, there is nothing ad hominem that I can see in my statements.  They are relevant to the point at hand, and so are my questions for you.

If you won't or can't answer them, OK, fair enough.  But please stop repeating the same things over and over like people are going to believe you are correct when you won't defend those arguments.

Reply
#90
Quis, thank you for the clarifications.  I’m glad that we concur on the fundamentals.  We can quickly dispense with a lot of our quibbling:

(12-22-2010, 09:56 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: If I add "supercalifragilisticexpialodocious" to the end of the words fo Consecration, does it invalidate the Sacrament?

I answer, no, it doesn't, because it doesn't change the meaning.

Agreed.

(12-22-2010, 09:56 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Not all words added inherently invalidate the Sacrament.

Agreed.

(12-22-2010, 09:56 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: There is codification of a Sacrament, what the Church says the form and matter are.  Then there is validity of the Sacrament.


Agreed.

(12-22-2010, 09:56 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: At the very least, if we draw a metaphor, mingling other words in with the form would not necessarily invalidate it, also as shown by my examples above.  It has to be enough to change what it is.

Agreed.  Phew!  And yet:

(12-22-2010, 09:56 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: In the case of the form, if the the words of Institution - this is my body, this is my blood - refer to Christ and are unadulterated in meaning this is the body and blood of Christ Himself, then it is valid; that's my contention.

Not agreed upon.  I’m sorry.  The crux of the matter remains this: the form of a sacrament must “signify the grace which it effects.”  The graces of Christ’s sacrifice FOR ALL flow into the sacrament of baptism.  The graces of Christ’s sacrifice FOR MANY flow into the sacrament of the Eucharist.  That’s why the change in the wording changes the meaning.  If you’re a priest at a Roman Rite altar, the wording of your sacramental form must refer correctly to the sacramental blood in the chalice, not to the baptismal waters in the font.  Although you would be making a theologically correct statement by using “for all,” you would fail in correctly signifying the Eucharist, which is the particular efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice—the fruits of His Passion, His gift to the Christian believer.

I put it this way to poor old gIgas on a different thread:
(09-26-2010, 04:52 PM)Gilgamesh Wrote: If you want to go on a missionary crusade, then feel free to preach it, brother, to the entire world that Jesus died on the cross for their sins.  If, however, you are a Roman Rite priest at an altar saying the words of consecration at Mass, then your words must correctly pertain to the sacrament being confected.  Christ used “for many” at the Last Supper for a specific reason—because he was referring to the elect.

Hopefully that suffices in clarifying things from my end.

If you contend that the words of a sacramental form don’t have to signify the grace which it effects, then you must suppose that Anglicans still have valid Holy Orders, ex opere operato.  The signification is crucial.  Correct?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)