The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
(12-21-2010, 01:52 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote: I think this is easier if we just diagram the controversial part of the sentence.  “For all” modifies “my blood.”  That’s not in dispute.  So, then, the question: was Christ’s blood shed for all?

One obvious answer is YES—of course, Jesus shed His blood for all, so that all might be redeemed.  So if people want to avail themselves of His salvific sacrifice, then it’s theirs to have.  There are plenty of bible quotes on the subject, Selah.  The offer is open to everyone.  And if anyone wants it, then the sacrament they need to seek out is BAPTISM, so that they can be incorporated into His mystical body and have the promise of salvation.  But this discussion is about the sacrament of the Eucharist.  Can “for all” be applied to the Eucharist?

The answer to that question is NO.  The Eucharist is Christ’s gift to the believing Christian: “that we may be made partakers of Thy Divinity.”  Even if, by some incredible glorious miracle, it turned out that universal salvation was absolutely true—even if we were to grant Fr. Karl Rahner’s theory that everyone is an “anonymous Christian,” and that everyone gets baptized by desire in their final moment (even Saladin and Abe Foxman!), then there would still be saints in heaven who lived and died on the planet without having received the Eucharist.  So there’s just no way whatsoever that the sacramental Blood of Christ in the Eucharist can be said to have been shed for all.  And that’s important.

The Church’s official sacramental theology is that the form of a sacrament must “signify the grace which it effects.”  The graces of baptism and Eucharist are different: one effects redemption, and the other effects the partaking of Christ’s Divinity.  If “for all” is used for the Eucharistic sacrifice, then it changes the meaning of the words which modify the form and does not effect a valid consecration.  According to De Defectibus.

Sufficiency and efficacy—not the same thing!

Apparently there are theologians that disagree with you.  The Sacrifice is inherent in the Consecration, so if the Consecration is effected, the Sacrifice follows.

From the CE:

Quote:After the elimination of the Offertory and Communion, there remains only the Consecration as the part in which the true sacrifice is to be sought. In reality, that part alone is to be regarded as the proper sacrificial act which is such by Christ's own institution. Now the Lord's words are: "This is my Body; this is my Blood." The Oriental Epiklesis cannot be considered as the moment of consecration for the reason that it is absent in the Mass in the West and is known to have first come into practice after Apostolic times (see EUCHARIST). The sacrifice must also be at the point where Christ personally appears as High Priest and human celebrant acts only as his representative. The priest does not however assume the personal part of Christ either at the Offertory or Communion. He only does so when he speaks the words: "This is My Body; this is My Blood", in which there is no possible reference to the body and blood of the celebrant.

Further, the CE states the words of Institution are:

Quote:The words of Institution

The Church's Magna Charta, however, are the words of Institution, "This is my body — this is my blood", whose literal meaning she has uninterruptedly adhered to from the earliest times.


Quote:In proceeding to verify the form, which is always made up of words, we may start from the dubitable fact, that Christ did not consecrate by the mere fiat of His omnipotence, which found no expression in articulate utterance, but by pronouncing the words of Institution: "This is my body . . . this is my blood", and that by the addition: "Do this for a commemoration of me", He commanded the Apostles to follow His example.


Messages In This Thread
Re: The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all" - by Historian - 12-22-2010, 10:09 AM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)