The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
No, that's not the case.

If you asked him what is needed for validity he would say: this is my body; this is my blood

If you asked him what this substance is, he would say:  all the aforesaid (i.e., the whole thing) belongs to the substance of the form

Substance is not the same as validity or meaning for St. Thomas.  If we say it is, we're assigning meanings to his words that he didn't intend.  It is clear he didn't intend them or he would be contradicting himself.  When you say substance equals meaning, that is something you are proposing; it is not a given, and I would argue that it is incorrect.

His comments about belonging to the integrity of the expression and the substance are what are restated in the Catechism of Trent.    They serve to limit and clarify and express the fruits of the Sacrament.  They are not necessary to confect the Sacrament.  If they were, De defectibus couldn't give an allowance for dropping words.

Quote:If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid

I'll ask you what I asked others:  If your understanding is correct, exactly what words can be taken away from the Consecration of the Blood and the Consecration remain valid?  After all, we know by de defectibus that words can be taken away without changing the meaning and thus the Sacrament is valid.

HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: MYSTERIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM

By your criteria it is impossible even to drop "et" or "in" because you read all of the words going to the integrity of the expression as going to the validity, therefore none can be dropped.  But then de defectibus contradicts itself because it would be allowing for what is impossible.

But, I'll bite.  Give me the shortest version you think has the same meaning and is therefore valid by your criteria of "substance" as "belonging to the integrity of the expression".
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all" - by Historian - 12-30-2010, 03:10 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)