The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
#87
(12-22-2010, 02:16 PM)Gilgamesh Wrote:
(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.

Let's start with the basics and go to an extreme.  The question is: can any words be added to the Consecration without invalidating the Sacrament?

If I add "supercalifragilisticexpialodocious" to the end of the words fo Consecration, does it invalidate the Sacrament?

I answer, no, it doesn't, because it doesn't change the meaning.  What do you think?
Quote: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

We agree he wouldn't be, on the other hand, see above.  Not all words added inherently invalidate the Sacrament.  If we understand each other, then sure, let's go on to "for all".

Quote: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?

I don't mean to be presumptuous, but it may be that you're misunderstanding the meaning of those words if you don't understand the point of them.

There is codification of a Sacrament, what the Church says the form and matter are.  Then there is validity of the Sacrament.  If there is not this distinction, can you explain this to me:

How can leavened and unleavened bread be confected with the proper matter is stated to be unleavened bread?
How can you explain the consecrations in the inerrant Bible where Christ did not say "for many" - he left it out or said "for you"?

There is: this is what the form is and there is: these are the changes to the form that invalidate it, and these are changes that don't invalidate it but make it sinful

A perfect example is leavened vs. unleavened bread.  If a Latin rite priest confects leavened bread, it is a mortal sin, but it is still valid.  He is going against the rules of the Church, but the actual material required for validity is still there.

"De defectibus" Wrote:5. If the bread has begun to mold, but it is not corrupt, or if it is not unleavened according to the custom of the Latin Church, the Sacrament is valid but the celebrant is guilty of grave sin.

That's the point of de defectibus - to answer questions about all kinds of defects, not just validity.  For the form of the Eucharist, it is clear that it has to change the meaning of the Sacrament just as a defect in matter has to change the matter in its essence: wheat bread.  The meaning is "this is my body; this is my blood" it has nothing to do with "take and eat," etc.  The example you gave above invalidates the Sacrament by the addition of Mithras because it is no longer done in persona Christi, not because words were added (or subtracted).

Look at it this way.  Here is what additions or subtractions can be made without invalidating the matter:

Quote:3. If the bread is not made of wheat flour, or if so much other grain is mixed with the wheat that it is no longer wheat bread, or if it is adulterated in some other way, there is no Sacrament.

At the very least, if we draw a metaphor, mingling other words in with the form would not necessarily invalidate it, also as shown by my examples above.  It has to be enough to change what it is.  In the case of the form, if the the words of Institution - this is my body, this is my blood - refer to Christ and are unadulterated in meaning this is the body and blood of Christ Himself, then it is valid; that's my contention.  Because some "rice" got in with the "wheat" does not make it invalid - the wheat is still there.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all" - by Historian - 12-22-2010, 09:56 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)