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


Messages In This Thread
Re: The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all" - by Historian - 12-18-2010, 07:52 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)