The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
(12-22-2010, 09:32 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(12-22-2010, 05:46 PM)ripmarcel Wrote:
(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?

"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.)

This "short form" concept is something of your own creation.  There is no concept of it whatsoever for anyone except you.  The question is what changes to the form would invalidate it.  Would dropping a word?  Would adding a word? Would changing a word?

De defectibus states that if any of those things change the meaning then it's invalid, otherwise it is valid.

Now, please stop ignoring my question.  Give me an example of a change that you believe results in mortal sin but not the invalidation of the Sacrament.

Quote: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.

2) It doesn't say "significant manner".  One could tack on "mareseatoatsanddoeseatoatsandlittlelambseativy" and it would still be valid because the meaning isn't changed.

3) Exactly, "for many" was chosen because it imparts the meaning of Christ's actions;

4) If you read the section of the Roman Catechism I cited, it clearly explains that while all those words are part of the Form of Consecration, the only parts that go to validity are the Words of Institution. See the section: "Not All The Words Used Are Essential"

Quote: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 mean to say that you're willing to judge the validity of the Sacrament on "for all" but in no other way?  Doesn't that seem intellectually dishonest?  It also seems a little backwards to me because it is much easier to say "action X is sinful" rather than "Sacrament Y is invalid".  In fact, stating an action is sinful is allowed, making statements about validity is normally reserved to a bishop.  It seems to me that you're willing to do what is generally reserved, but not willing to do what is allowed.  That's odd....

Quote: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."

We don't have to because Pius V's catechism clarifies what is meant by the form and what is required for validity.

As for "for all" goes, the Catechism also explains that it has a true meaning with regard to the Sacrament even though it is unclear on who the "all" are.

As for you, I hate to burst your carefully constructed narcissistic bubble, but  I really don't care what you believe.  I'm not trying to convince you of anything.  I want to discern the truth about the matter through argument.  You can believe in little men from mars for all I care.  This is an exercise in theological debate, not apologetics.  At least for me.

Well, have fun with your version of a theological debate.  In my world, though, such a debate doesn't include insults and allusions to insanity.  By the way, the N.O. Mass is invalid when the words "for all" are used.  I know it, and you know it, but you are afraid to admit it.

Matthew 26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

Messages In This Thread
Re: The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all" - by ripmarcel - 12-22-2010, 11:21 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)