The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
#79
(12-21-2010, 06:22 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: If the Eucharist is a re-enactment of the crucifixion though... I mean, are there two bloods of Christ?

No.  The Church teaches that Christ shed His blood once and for all on the cross.  The sacrifice at Calvary was dynamic, in that it was both sufficient for all to be redeemed (1 Timothy 2:5-6, which you’ve already quoted) and efficacious for the Christian believers to partake of His body and blood—“except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you” (John 6:53).  Those bible passages refer to different aspects of the same sacrifice.

It is always the same blood of Christ, but the sacramental blood in the Eucharistic chalice pertains especially to the efficacy of the sacrifice.  The graces of the baptismal sacrifice also flow from the blood of Christ—but in the sense of the sufficiency.  Two aspects of the sacrifice; two sacraments; one blood. 

The Catechism of Trent, I believe, has already been quoted on this, but perhaps it bears repeating:

If we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. … With reason, therefore, were the words ‘for all’ not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation.”

(12-21-2010, 06:22 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: So in other words, in Montreal, transubstantiation occurs in French masses but not in English masses regardless that the intention of the priests are identical?

Presumably yes, because more than just intent is required for a sacrament.  Matter and form are essential as well.  If the form is defective, it doesn’t matter if the matter and intent are there.  You need all three.  You can’t baptize someone with oil instead of water, and you can’t say “I baptize Sarah Silverman in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost” if you’re baptizing someone named Tenzin Gyatso.

Do Canadian Masses in French have «pour vous et pour beaucoup»?  If so, then you might find some reassurance in attending French vernacular Masses.  But then there’s the whole other problem of whether or not the Novus Ordo clergy are ordained by valid bishops, since the 1968 form of episcopal consecrations is controversial as well!  Keep on scratching the surface and the entire thing gets to be like an Oliver Stone movie or something.  This would all be quite amusing, of course—it would be like a really good puzzle, if only it weren’t for the fact that the Catholic Church and the Catholic faith are on the line.  Personally, I have no answer for why such demonstrably bad changes were made in the first place.  I'm too thick and provincial to understand.  I give up trying.

(12-21-2010, 06:37 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: 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.

The SSPX could always be wrong.  A skeptic might suggest that the Lefebvrists are often inclined to do a good bit of fence-sitting and thumb-twiddling, since they can seem rather skittish about following all the way through on some of their conclusions.  Would they really enjoy the same popularity among “traditionalist” Catholics if they denied the legitimacy of the pope, or if they came out unequivocally against the validity of consecrations at Novus Ordo Masses?  We all know the answer to that one.  Some cows are too sacred to slaughter.  Doing the “doubtful & dubious” dance is much easier, and nobody’s feelings get too hurt.  (It’s not just the conciliar church that likes butts in the pews and envelopes in the baskets).  Seek first the truth, and scrutinize everyone equally as if they all had an agenda—because they probably do.   “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”   
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all" - by Gilgamesh - 12-22-2010, 12:37 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)