The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
(12-20-2010, 09:35 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-20-2010, 08:57 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: I'm pointing out your intellectual dishonesty.  Paul VI's words were about the promulgated Latin, not the crappy translations that were done by the Bishops of each country.  You're making it sound like, purposefully I would guess, he's talking about the translated versions.

No, I am saying that regardless of what the "official" latin version is, the whole world is saying the words in the vernacular, not latin.

The pope decreed the words "pro multis" ("for many"), but the clergy say "for all". Why do priests all over the world throw doubt into the changed formula by saying "for all"? I don't care what is official, I am saying what is real. Real = "for all".

I'll let anyone reading this decide; walking you through what you said probably won't help...

(12-20-2010, 08:57 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Because De defectibus is in align with Aquinas in that it is only invalid if the form is substantially changed.  The substance of the form is found in "This is my body; this is my blood."  That was not changed in the New Mass.  For other changes that don't affect the substance, De defectibus says it is a grave sin.

Or do you think Christ invalidly confected at the Last Supper since what He said differs in inerrant Scripture from the form we have from Tradition?

The NO form was changed from the pre-V2 form, which matched Scripture. How can one compare the two forms and not see immediately that the form and meaning in the NO was changed is beyond me.

It doesn't match Scripture.  Look it up in the DR yourself if you don't like my quotes.  We know the authentic form from Tradition.  Scripture confirms it only if you put all the versions together.

(12-20-2010, 08:57 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: The substance of the Sacramental form is in "this is my body; this is my blood".   If you don't understand this, re-read the section on the Eucharist in the Roman Catechism, and you will find it to be so.

The substance? The Councils of Florence disagrees with you - as I previously posted. The TLM followed the form established from Florence precisely.

For this is my body might suffice, but the NO has a new form for the wine, that is not what is said below:

...relying on the teaching and authority of the apostles Peter and Paul, has always been wont to use in the consecration of the Lord's body and blood, we concluded that it should be inserted in this present text. It uses this form of words in the consecration of the Lord's body: For this is my body. And of his blood: For this is the chalice of my blood, of the new and everlasting covenant, which will be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins . Council of Florence

"Teaching and authority" refers to Apostolic Tradition - this must be the case because Peter's epistles do not contain the words of Consecration.  The form doesn't come from Scripture.  It's also clear because references to the authority of Peter and Paul mean in Church-speak the authority of the Apostles: jurisdiction, Holy Orders, and Tradition.

Roman Catechism:

Quote:Of these words the greater part are taken from Scripture; but some have been preserved in the Church from Apostolic tradition.

Thus the words, this is the chalice, are found in St. Luke and in the Apostle; but the words that immediately follow, of my blood, or my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for you and for many to the remission of sins, are found partly in St. Luke and partly in St. Matthew. But the words, eternal, and the mystery of faith, have been taught us by holy tradition, the interpreter and keeper of Catholic truth.

As far as the form goes, no one is arguing that isn't the form.   The question is: does "for all" significantly change the form of the Sacrament?

Really, the council of Florence didn't mean "form" in the "form and matter" sense.  But, let's pretend it does for the moment.

From the RC again:

Quote:Not All The Words Used Are Essential

Although in the Evangelist the words, Take and eat, precede the words (This is my body), they evidently express the use only, not the consecration, of the matter. Wherefore, while they are not necessary to the consecration of the Sacrament, they are by all means to be pronounced by the priest, as is also the conjunction for in the consecration of the body and blood. But they are not necessary to the validity of the Sacrament....

Concerning this form no one can doubt, if he here also attend to what has been already said about the form used in the consecration of the bread. The form to be used (in the consecration) of this element, evidently consists of those words which signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the blood of our Lord. since, therefore, the words already cited clearly declare this, it is plain that no other words constitute the form.

The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion.

Those words (pro multis) are "additional" to "declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion".  They do not serve to "signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the blood of our Lord".  The worlds that serve to signify that are "this is my blood", and that is the substantial part of the Sacrament as St. Thomas says, and that is what De defectibus means would render the Sacrament invalid if changed.


Messages In This Thread
Re: The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all" - by Historian - 12-20-2010, 10:16 AM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)