The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
I fear that I’m becoming like a broken record, but I must persist.  This is an important issue.

(12-23-2010, 04:21 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Likewise "for all" can be explained and understood as "for all of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles."

It could only be explained and understood that way if it were worded as such.  As it is, it’s just “for all” as opposed to “for many.”  I can’t tell you to hand me all the playing cards and then get frustrated because I meant just the face cards.  Unless one is more specific, “all” means “all.”

(12-23-2010, 04:21 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: 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.

But I don’t see how it can mean that.  It was clear as early as Saint Paul that the Christian religion was meant for the Gentiles as well.  That controversy ended thousands of years ago, and it’s a given for anyone at Mass.  I think we are assuming, for the purposes of this discussion, that nothing in Catholic theology is erroneous.  What Christ meant by “for many” is what the Church has always taught He meant.

(12-23-2010, 04:21 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: 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.

It is the singular fitting choice.  “For all” is unfitting and incorrect because it refers to a different sacrament.

(12-23-2010, 04:21 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: 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.

Here is where we disagree.  The effect of the sacrament is the fruit and advantage of His Passion.  Christ died so that all might be redeemed, and so that Christians could consume the Bread of Angels.  The latter part is the sacrament in question—the efficacy of the sacrifice.

(12-23-2010, 04:21 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: This is signified simply by "This is my body; this is my blood" in persona Christi.

Right.  “This is my blood” is the minimalist version.  Because it carries no modifier, it is the sacramental blood of Christ.  There’s nothing to contradict this, because the orations of the Mass point ably to the efficacy of the sacramental blood FOR MANY:
ROMAN MISSAL Wrote:and for all here present, as also for all faithful Christians, living or dead

(The Eucharist is Christ’s gift to believing Christians, not just anyone.)
ROMAN MISSAL Wrote:grant that we may be made partakers of His Divinity Who vouchsafed to become partaker of our humanity … 

(“We,” not “everyone.”)
ROMAN MISSAL Wrote:may this mingling and consecration of the Body and Blood or our Lord Jesus Christ avail us who receive It unto life everlasting

(The recipients of the sacrament, not all of humankind.)
ROMAN MISSAL Wrote:that as many of us as at this altar shall partake of and receive the Most Holy Body and Blood of Thy Son may be filled with every heavenly blessing and grace

(Again: the sacramental recipients, not everyone on the planet.  Still of a lot unbaptized people out there.)

So there’s plenty enough signification of the EFFICACY FOR MANY outside of the actual form—enough so that “This is my Blood” suffices on its own.  The rule that must be obeyed, however, if you are going to expand upon “This is my Blood,” is that any additional words in the form have to further confirm the efficacy.  That is what De Defectibus says: one must have harmony in the wording, not incongruity.  If your additional words are signifying the graces of baptism, then you’re not signifying the graces of the Eucharist and you aren’t passing the muster of “signifying the grace which it effects.”

(12-23-2010, 04:21 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: 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".
I’m not confusing the two.  The question is whether or not “for all” signifies the graces of the sacrament.  The graces of the Eucharist (the partaking of Christ’s Divinity) are for the believing Christian, not for just anyone.  If the graces of the Eucharist are “for all,” then why does there appear to have been a large number of people who lived and died without ever receiving the Eucharist?

(12-23-2010, 04:21 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: For all, or for many, or for Fred and Rita doesn't change this.

“For Buddha and for Julius Caesar” would change it.  Those persons lived out their lifespans before the coming of Christ, and never received the Eucharist.  How would saying “for you and for Buddha and for Julius Caesar” properly signify the Eucharist?

(12-23-2010, 04:21 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Obviously "this is my body; this is my blood" belongs properly to the consecration.

So, too, do the words which modify blood—and this is the heart of my contention.  The Roman Rite employs a longer form.  All the words of that longer form must correctly refer to the sacramental blood.  Do you suggest that De Defectibus is saying that pro multis doesn’t belong to the consecration?

Messages In This Thread
Re: The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all" - by Gilgamesh - 12-27-2010, 01:22 AM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)