The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
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.

Messages In This Thread
Re: The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all" - by SouthpawLink - 12-18-2010, 02:25 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)