The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
(12-29-2010, 03:04 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(12-28-2010, 08:26 PM)ripmarcel Wrote:
(12-25-2010, 04:35 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: The problem with that is the boneheads who had the authority to approve what a 2nd year high schooler studying Latin wouldn't approve, approved it.  If we go by a strict reading of what you cited, "a careful translation could be authorized."  Well, it was authorized by those who had the authority to do so.

You can try to say "bad motive in translation renders the Consecration doubtful or invalid" which is what it seems you are saying, but I don't think that it will go very far unless you can cite some precedent or give some clear reasoning.   Bad motives abound in the Church.  Someone may want to become a priest because it's an "easy job" (har), and that doesn't invalidate his orders if he receives them.

Yes, it was authorized, but it was anything but "careful."  And "could" doesn't mean "should."  (...the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing law and rubrics, deserve severe reproof... We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of vernacular in the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice."  -Mediator Dei, Pius XII)

And I challenge your assertion that someone with bad motive could receive valid orders.  Can someone with bad motive be party to valid sacramental marriage; or can someone with bad motive receive valid absolution in a confessional?  Bad motive = Bad act  (Matt 6)

Depends on "bad motive".  If I'm getting married solely because someone is rich and I can live off of them, yeah, it's a valid marriage.

You'd have to give me an example of a "bad motive" for going to Confession.  I find it difficult to detect a bad motive in wanting to receive absolution - oh maybe if it were a sexual kink or something, but the problem there isn't the motive as much as the lack of repentance that is necessary for a valid absolution.

Quote:And now I'll add this to my argument:  The N.O. Mass is invalid because of a defect of intent.  In the TLM, we have a "priest," ordained to "offer sacrifice," and acting in persona Christi to re-present "the same sacrifice as that of the Cross."  In the N.O. Mass, we have a "presbyter," ordained to "preside" over a "gathering of the people," for the purpose of celebrating a "memorial of the Lord's Supper."  One, we know for sure, is a sacrifice; the other appears to be a meal, very much like what can be found in many Protestant services.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

The intent to Consecrate is different than the intent to Sacrifice.   In fact, it is listed as a grave sin for a priest to Consecrate outside of the Sacrifice of the Mass, so we know it is valid Body and Blood regardless of the disposition of the Sacrifice itself.

What you would have in your scenario is a valid Consecration with an ineffective Sacrifice; the same that happens at Orthodox Churches all around the world.  They have valid Sacraments but the grace is withheld due to schism.

The Sacrifice isn't just a part of the Mass; the Mass is the Sacrifice. And integral to the Mass--that Sacrifice--we have the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.

"It is only in the Roman (or Gallican) rite that the Eucharistic service can be called Mass." (Fortescue)

Q. What is the Mass?
A. The Mass is the unbloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ.
Q. What is a sacrifice?
A sacrifice is the offering of an object by a priest to God alone, and the consuming of it to acknowledge that He is the Creator and Lord of all things.
Q. Is the Mass the same sacrifice as that of the Cross?
A. The Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross.

Do away with the sacrifice (or intent to sacrifice) and still have a valid sacrament?  I think not.  Besides, if there is no necessity for sacrifice, then there is no necessity for a priest; and if that is true, then it follows that Luther and the Protestants were right after all.

"I am speaking of that abominable Canon which is a confluence of slimy lagoons; they have made of the mass a sacrifice; they have added to it offertories.  The mass is not a sacrifice, it is not the act of a sacrificing high priest.  Let us regard it as a sacrament, or a testament.  Let us call it a blessing, or eucharist, or Lord's Table, or Lord's Supper, or the memorial of the Lord.  Or give it any title we like, provided that it is not sullied by the term sacrifice, or re-enactment.  With the Canon we discard all that implies an Oblation, so that we are left with what is pure and Holy."

Messages In This Thread
Re: The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all" - by ripmarcel - 12-29-2010, 06:22 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)