The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
(12-22-2010, 10:09 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Apparently there are theologians that disagree with you.  The Sacrifice is inherent in the Consecration, so if the Consecration is effected, the Sacrifice follows.

All of the excerpts you've quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia are sound.  Unlike ripmarcel, I actually don’t deny the validity of the short form.  But our discussion is about whether any additional words in the form can invalidate it.  If your contention is that any additional words are superfluous as far as validity is concerned, then you appear to contradict St. Pius V in De Defectibus.

Here’s something I said earlier in the thread:
(12-20-2010, 01:38 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote: 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.

In case I’m misunderstanding you, Quis, is it your argument that a priest who changes the form of the Roman Rite to include these occultist words would still be effecting a valid sacrament?  If we agree that he wouldn’t be, then we can proceed to the propriety of “for all.”  If we disagree, however, then we need to re-examine article 20 of De Defectibus and you can kindly show me how I’m reading it wrong

(12-22-2010, 10:09 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: 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.

Since you believe (as I do) that all of the above is true, then how do we explain De Defectibus?  Why did St. Pius V lay out the entire form of the Roman Rite and say that a corruption of it would not achieve a valid sacrament?

The only answer is that any form (such as the Roman Rite) which contains more words than “This is my body ... this is my blood” must have all of the additional words refer correctly to the sacrament.  A sacramental form must “signify the grace which it effects.”  The question at hand is whether using “for all” does this.  If you contend that it does, then I feel like De Defectibus and Apostolicae Curae must’ve been written for naught.  Why would the Church lay down rules of sacramental theology only to blithely ignore them?

Messages In This Thread
Re: The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all" - by Gilgamesh - 12-22-2010, 02:16 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)