The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
#84
(12-22-2010, 09:53 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(12-20-2010, 11:49 PM)ripmarcel Wrote:
(12-20-2010, 05:44 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: 1) No one disagrees they are different.

2) You can maintain it all you want, now provide an argument for it.

Let's approach it from a different way:

According to de defectibus, what type of changes/errors would be mortal sin and not invalidate the Sacrament?

DeDefectibus:
"Defects on the part of the form may arise if anything is missing from the complete wording required for the act of consecrating.  Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are: Hoc est enim Corpus meum, and Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei: qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.  If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament.  If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin."

We've been through this before, but I'll play along:  Since "for many" is part of the "complete wording required for the act of consecrating," and since "for many" and "for all" don't have the same meaning, then the use of "for all" invalidates the sacrament.

You're making a circular argument by assuming something that is not proven to prove your argument, and you're not answering the question.  I will restate it.

Can you give me a concrete example of a type of change or error that would result in mortal sin but not an invalidation of the Sacrament?

Quote:Now, I'm curious.  Can you name another sacrament that has a so-called "short form"?  Can you point to an authorized pre-VCII missal that contains a short form for the sacrament--or even one that has a notation alluding to a shortened form?  And can you tell me why I can't seem to find  a single pre-VCII source that authorizes priests to use a shortened form (perhaps in an emergency)?

I've never claimed there was a "short form".  What I've claimed is that as long as the meaning is not changed, the Sacrament is valid - same as De defectibus states.

But to address your concern, it clearly implies it can be shortened without changing the meaning:

"If the priest were to shorten ... the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing"

That means the contrary is also true:

if the priest were to shorten... the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did mean the same thing [the Sacrament would be valid].

You most certainly did claim that there was a short form; you didn't do it directly, but you said as much when you referred to St. Thomas' theological OPINION on the matter.  (And that isn't the first time; I've seen you use Aquinas' opinion in other threads here.)

Here are the facts:  1) the Latin words "pro multis," which translate into English as "for many," were proclaimed by the highest authority of the Church to be part of the complete words of consecration; 2)  that same authority stated that if the meaning of those words were changed in a significant manner, the sacrament would not be confected;  3)  in the context of the sacramental form, and as explained in the Roman Catechism (another authoritative source of the Church), we learn that the words "for many" were chosen because they impart the true meaning of Christ's actions; and, 4) there is no authoritative source of the Church that has, definitively, proclaimed otherwise.

Given the above, and barring a definitive statement from an authoritative source to the contrary, I am left to conclude that when the words "for all" are used by a priest, there is no sacrament.  As for your question about what changes might be sinful, but not invalidating, I'll not offer an opinion, since it is neither central to the real issue, nor is it my place to judge the potential sinfulness of another man's actions.

You (or anyone else out there) show me an authentic and authoritative source of the Church that speaks with magisterial precision on this issue and states, unequivocally, that Pius V was wrong about what constitutes the one and only, and complete, form of the sacrament, or that translating "pro multis" as "for all" is not a substantive change in meaning of the form of the sacrament, then I'll admit to the validity of the N.O. sacrament using the words "for all."

"It is obvious that the New Order Mass has no intention of presenting the Faith taught by the Council of Trent.  But it is to this Faith that Catholic conscience is bound forever."  (Ottaviani Intervention)

"All these reforms, indeed, have contributed and are still contributing to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, t[b]o the abolition of the Sacrifice of the Mass [/b]and of the sacraments, to the disappearance of religious life, to a naturalist and Teilhardian teaching in universities, seminaries and catechistics; a teaching derived from Liberalism and Protestantism, many times condemned by the solemn Magisterium of the Church." (Abp Lefebvre (RIP), 1974)

Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all" - by ripmarcel - 12-22-2010, 05:46 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)