The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
(12-18-2010, 07:52 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: 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.

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.

Further, the reason that he would not be effecting a valid consecration by using "for all" is because the form of a sacrament must refer to the graces that it effects.  Now “for all” is truly Christian to the core, but there’s a snag: it refers to the sacrament of baptism.  Christ died so that everyone could be redeemed, and that offer is open to all.  But since not everyone who lives and dies is baptized, “for many” refers to Christ’s gift to the Christian: the Eucharist.  This is the difference between sufficiency and efficacy (already mentioned on this thread), and it is also the difference of “not meaning the same thing” which De Defectibus addresses.

To answer Bakuryokuso’s question, the blasphemy indictment is a reference to 1 Corinthians 11:27—“whosoever shall drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.”  The sacrament is for Christians in a state of grace; to say “for all” can only imply otherwise and is therefore blasphemous.  Again I'll ask it: can non-Christians receive the sacrament?  The answer to that question still hasn’t changed.  Pro multis.

Messages In This Thread
Re: The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all" - by Gilgamesh - 12-20-2010, 01:38 AM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)