The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
(12-23-2010, 01:37 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote: 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.


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


(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.


(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?

Correct, but let's see what Apostolicae Curae says about the invalidity of the orders, and then I will refer this back to your first statement.

Quote:25. But the words which until recently were commonly held by Anglicans to constitute the proper form of priestly ordination namely, "Receive the Holy Ghost," certainly do not in the least definitely express the sacred Ordel of Priesthood (sacerdotium) or its grace and power, which is chiefly the power "of consecrating and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord" (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, de Sacr. Ord. , Canon 1) in that sacrifice which is no "bare commemoration of the sacrifice offered on the Cross" (Ibid, Sess XXII., de Sacrif. Missae, Canon 3).

26. This form had, indeed, afterwards added to it the words "for the office and work of a priest," etc.; but this rather shows that the Anglicans themselves perceived that the first form was defective and inadequate. But even if this addition could give to the form its due signification, it was introduced too late, as a century had already elapsed since the adoption of the Edwardine Ordinal, for, as the Hierarchy had become extinct, there remained no power of ordaining

Without rendering a judgment because it is too late, the Pope makes clear it is possible for the signfication to occur under much different words.  I'm sure some would argue "for the office and work of a priest" is not the same obvious meaning as "of consecrating and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord" but the Pope allows that it may in fact suffice.

So, yes, it is about what it signifies and if alternate wording can signify the same thing.  The answer to the latter is, we find from the Encylical above and other places, and in agreement with de defectibus, yes, alternate wording can signify the same thing.  The words do not literally need to be the same exact words, but they have to have the same meaning.

Does "for many" and "for all" signify the same thing with respect to the context in which they are used?  We cannot ignore the context; if we did, "this is my blood" taken out of context can refer to the speaker and not in persona Christi.  The Catechism does not ignore the context in its explanation either:

Quote:The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore ('our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.

With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine.

Likewise "for all" can be explained and understood as "for all of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles."  It has to be understood in this context just as "for many" is understood in the same context; otherwise, "for many" can be understood to mean just the Jews.

The change to "for all" leads to more error for those who misunderstand or distort the meaning; agreed on that.  However, the intended meaning in context is the same as "for all".  A further argument is in some Gospels Christ said "for you" yet the Eucharist is clearly understood to mean "for you and your followers" i.e., those who would follow the Apostles in Sanctity.

You will also note it says for this reason for many was chosen - it doesn't say "for all" would invalidate the Sacrament.  It explains "for many" was chosen because it is more fitting.

Finally, as the Catechism states about those words: they declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion.  They do not signify the effect of the Sacrament.  The Catechism explains what is signified by this Sacrament:

Quote:In What Respect The Eucharist Is A Sacrament

But pastors should carefully observe that in this mystery there are many things to which sacred writers have from time to time attributed the name of Sacrament. For, sometimes, both the consecration and the Communion; nay, frequently also the body and blood itself of our Lord, which is contained in the Eucharist, used to be called a Sacrament. Thus St. Augustine says that this Sacrament consists of two things, �� the visible species of the elements, and the invisible flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. And it is in the same sense that we say that this Sacrament is to be adored, meaning the body and blood of our Lord.

This is signified simply by "This is my body; this is my blood" in persona Christi.

Are you sure you are not confusing the Sacrament with the Sacrifice?  The effect of the Sacrament is the transubstantiation: the conversion to the body and blood.  This is clearly signified by "this is my body; this is my blood".  For all, or for many, or for Fred and Rita doesn't change this.

The Sacrament is separate from the Sacrifice which the Catechism explains:

Quote:Distinction of Sacrament and Sacrifice

They should teach, then, in the first place, that the Eucharist was instituted by Christ for two purposes: one, that it might be the heavenly food of our souls, enabling us to support and preserve spiritual life; and the other, that the Church might have a perpetual Sacrifice, by which our sins might be expiated, and our heavenly Father, oftentimes grievously offended by our crimes, might be turned away from wrath to mercy, from the severity of just chastisement to clemency. Of this thing we may observe a type and resemblance in the Paschal lamb, which was wont to be offered and eaten by the children of Israel as a sacrament and a sacrifice.

Nor could our Saviour, when about to offer Himself to God the Father on the altar of the cross, have given any more illustrious indication of His unbounded love towards us than by bequeathing to us a visible Sacrifice, by which that bloody Sacrifice, which was soon after to be offered once on the cross, would be renewed, and its memory daily celebrated with the greatest utility, unto the consummation of ages by the Church diffused throughout the world.

But (between the Eucharist as a Sacrament and a Sacrifice) the difference is very great; for as a Sacrament it is perfected by consecration; as a Sacrifice, all its force consists in its oblation. When, therefore, kept in a pyx, or borne to the sick, it is a Sacrament, not a Sacrifice. As a Sacrament also, it is to them that receive it a source of merit, and brings with it all those advantages which have been already mentioned; but as a Sacrifice, it is not only a source of merit, but also of satisfaction. For as, in His Passion, Christ the Lord merited and satisfied for us; so also those who offer this Sacrifice, by which they communicate with us, merit the fruit of His Passion, and satisfy.

For all/many seems to belong more properly to the Sacrifice of the Mass, not the Sacrament of the Eucharist.  The Sacrifice is not a Sacrament and as such has no notion of "validity" - a Sacrifice is either accepted by God or not.  Obviously "this is my body; this is my blood" belongs properly to the consecration.

Messages In This Thread
Re: The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all" - by Historian - 12-23-2010, 04:21 AM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)