The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
#90
Quis, thank you for the clarifications.  I’m glad that we concur on the fundamentals.  We can quickly dispense with a lot of our quibbling:

(12-22-2010, 09:56 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: 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.

Agreed.

(12-22-2010, 09:56 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Not all words added inherently invalidate the Sacrament.

Agreed.

(12-22-2010, 09:56 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: There is codification of a Sacrament, what the Church says the form and matter are.  Then there is validity of the Sacrament.


Agreed.

(12-22-2010, 09:56 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: 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.

Agreed.  Phew!  And yet:

(12-22-2010, 09:56 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: 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.

Not agreed upon.  I’m sorry.  The crux of the matter remains this: the form of a sacrament must “signify the grace which it effects.”  The graces of Christ’s sacrifice FOR ALL flow into the sacrament of baptism.  The graces of Christ’s sacrifice FOR MANY flow into the sacrament of the Eucharist.  That’s why the change in the wording changes the meaning.  If you’re a priest at a Roman Rite altar, the wording of your sacramental form must refer correctly to the sacramental blood in the chalice, not to the baptismal waters in the font.  Although you would be making a theologically correct statement by using “for all,” you would fail in correctly signifying the Eucharist, which is the particular efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice—the fruits of His Passion, His gift to the Christian believer.

I put it this way to poor old gIgas on a different thread:
(09-26-2010, 04:52 PM)Gilgamesh Wrote: If you want to go on a missionary crusade, then feel free to preach it, brother, to the entire world that Jesus died on the cross for their sins.  If, however, you are a Roman Rite priest at an altar saying the words of consecration at Mass, then your words must correctly pertain to the sacrament being confected.  Christ used “for many” at the Last Supper for a specific reason—because he was referring to the elect.

Hopefully that suffices in clarifying things from my end.

If you contend that the words of a sacramental form don’t have to signify the grace which it effects, then you must suppose that Anglicans still have valid Holy Orders, ex opere operato.  The signification is crucial.  Correct?
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all" - by Gilgamesh - 12-23-2010, 01:37 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)