"For all" versus "For many"
#31
1. Christ died for all men, but that is irrelevant to the sacrament of the Eucharist. St. Thomas says that the reality of the sacrament of the Eucharist is the *unity of the Mystical Body of Christ.* Do "all men" belong to the Mystical Body? No. That is why the sacramental form is "for many."

2. Pope Leo XIII, in Apostolicae Curae, says, "It is well known that the sacraments of the New Law, being sensible signs which cause invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they cause and cause the grace which they signify." Do the words "for all" signify the unity of the Mystical Body? No. Therefore the sacramental form that that priest persists in using is defective.

3. It is also blasphemous because it is altering Christ's own words as given in sacred scripture. Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul say variously "for you," and "for many," but nowhere does Our Lord say "for all." Novus Ordites--always so proud of being more scriptural--are here mutilating the words of Christ in the central act of the most holy rite of the religion.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)