About “pro multis”

[giuseppeTO]

The Roman Catechism (of the dogmatic Council of
Trent), written substantially by St. Charles Borromeo and promulgated by Pope St. Pius V, has to say about this question [Part II: The Sacraments, The Eucharist, Explanation of the Form Used in the Consecration of the Wine]:

    The additional words "for you and for many" are taken, some 
    from Matthew, some from Luke [Matt. xxvi.28, Luke xxii.20], 
    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 has 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 [Heb. ix.28]
    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; not for the world do I pray, but for those whom thou 
    hast given me, because they are thine" [John xvii.9].

    Thus, this dogmatic Council made it clear that the words "pro multis" (for many) were deliberately part of the Apostolic Tradition.

 

[MikeDunphy]

Ha, well, you haven’t arrived in blogdom if you haven’t been misunderstood, usually intentionally, so I welcome myself to the club. For the record, I’m not a universalist nor did I quote a person who was a universalist. We both believe simply that no repented sin goes unforgiven. I don’t see how that’s controversial, and it’s certainly orthodox, but then controversy is sort of the currency that makes the threads go round.

Thanks for adding that last paragraph of explanation in your blog entry. It still leaves me wondering what you mean, though. You say you and your correspondent “would like to see the correct translation in the Mass, one that derives from the literal sense of Scripture”. What Jesus said literally at the Last Supper is that He would shed His blood “for many”. You seem to be indicating, however, that you want to take what Jesus said literally at some other time, paraphrase it, and then pretend our Lord literally said that paraphrase at the Last Supper.

Jesus said what He said. The traditional teaching of the Church is that Jesus was talking about those who would actually be saved when He said He was shedding His blood “for many”. You can read this in the section of the Roman Catechism which Giuseppe quoted. You can also see this, if you read the gospel record of our Lord’s words at the Last Supper (Matthew 26:20-35, Mark 14:18-25, Luke 22:14-39, and especially John 13-17, where our Lord is quoted at greater length). Jesus speaks to and for his faithful followers, not the world at large:
“I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for the ones you have given me … I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you”.(John 17:9,20,21)

The Roman Catechism says “the many” refers to the elect. At the Last Supper our Lord talks about how the elect should act and what they should expect:
Let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant (Luke 22:26)
I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another. (John 13:34)

When He does talk about the world at the Last Supper, it is not in terms of having come to save the world:
“If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you.” (John 15:18-19)

What you will not find at the Last Supper accounts is Jesus saying that He came to save the whole world. This is not to deny the truth of whosebob’s quote from 1 John, it is just that in these quotes, Jesus and John were teaching different lessons.

P.S. tsorama**,** is your correspondent Scott Carson?

 

[MikeDunphy]

I am not sure I understand the issue here. Jesus did die for all of humanity, not just some it of it. If he only died for some, then do we need another Savior?

The issue is, what did Jesus say at the Last Supper, when the wine became His Precious Blood? You can read the Gospels in a large number of different translations, both Catholic and Protestant, and consistently see that Jesus said He was shedding His Blood “for many”. The Roman Catechism says that Jesus deliberately said “for many” rather than “for all”. The new Mass in Latin, like the traditional Mass before it, says that Jesus said “for many”. The Divine Liturgies of the east and the saints of both east and west say that Jesus said “for many”. But the ICEL translators changed our Lord’s words to “for all”, and a variety of false and contradictory justifications have been offered over the years for the change.

It now appears that the Holy Father will insist on an accurate translation of our Lord’s words in the consecration, and that has caused a bit of excitement amoung some.

The one Savior is sufficient, but unfortunately, due to the perverse willfulness of man, not all are saved.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The Roman Catechism (of the dogmatic Council of
Trent…Thus, this dogmatic Council made it clear that the words “pro multis” (for many) were deliberately part of the Apostolic Tradition.

The Roman Catechism was an exercise of the ordinary magisterium well after the close of the Council of Trent, and was not an act of the Council of Trent. Many seem to want to elevate this catechism as if it were a dogmatic pronouncement. It wasn’t.

 

[Walking_Home]

Is the Roman Catechism talked about above the one discussed in the following.

newadvent.org/cathen/13120c.htm

Roman Catechism

This catechism differs from other summaries of Christian doctrine for the instruction of the people in two points: it is primarily intended for priests having care of souls (ad parochos), and it enjoys an authority equalled by no other catechism. The need of a popular authoritative manual arose from a lack of systematic knowledge among pre-Reformation clergy and the concomitant neglect of religious instruction among the faithful.

The Reformers had not been slow in taking advantage of the situation; their popular tracts and catechisms were flooding every country and leading thousands of souls away from the Church. The Fathers of Trent, therefore, “wishing to apply a salutary remedy to this great and pernicious evil, and thinking that the definition of the principal Catholic doctrines was not enough for the purpose, resolved also to publish a formulary and method for teaching the rudiments of the faith, to be used by all legitimate pastors and teachers” (Cat. praef., vii). This resolution was taken in the eighteenth session (26 February, 1562) on the suggestion of St. Charles Borromeo; who was then giving full scope to his zeal for the reformation of the clergy. Pius IV entrusted the composition of the Catechism to four distinguished theologians: Archbishops Leonardo Marino of Lanciano and Muzio Calini of Zara, Egidio Foscarini, Bishop of Modena, and Francisco Fureiro, a Portuguese Dominican. Three cardinals were appointed to supervise the work. St. Charles Borromeo superintended the redaction of the original Italian text, which, thanks to his exertions, was finished in 1564. Cardinal William Sirletus then gave it the final touches, and the famous Humanists, Julius Pogianus and Paulus Manutius, translated it into classical Latin. It was then published in Latin and Italian as “Catechismus ex decreto Concilii Tridentini ad parochos Pii V jussu editus, Romae, 1566” (in-folio). Translations into the vernacular of every nation were ordered by the Council (Sess. XXIV, “De Ref.”, c. vii). The Council intended the projected Catechism to be the Church’s official manual of popular instruction. The seventh canon, “De Reformatione”, of Sess. XXIV, runs: "That the faithful may approach the Sacraments with greater reverence and devotion, the Holy Synod charges all the bishops about to administer them to explain their operation and use in a way adapted to the understanding of the people; to see, moreover, that their parish priests observe the same rule piously and prudently, making use for their explanations, where necessary and convenient, of the vernacular tongue; and conforming to the form to be prescribed by the Holy Synod in its instructions (catechesis) for the several Sacraments:
I

 

[Brendan]

The Roman Catechism was an exercise of the ordinary magisterium well after the close of the Council of Trent, and was not an act of the Council of Trent. Many seem to want to elevate this catechism as if it were a dogmatic pronouncement. It wasn’t.

I presume that you understand that the Ordinary Magisterium, when the Pope and Bishops teach in unison, is also an infallible organ of the Church.

In fact, it is the PRIMARY method of infallible teaching. They very large majority of what the Church holds to be absolutly true has been declared so by the Ordinary Magisterium

cormacburke.or.ke/node/601

 

[Irish_High_King]

From the Catechism of Trent:

Form To Be Used In The Consecration Of The Wine
With regard to the consecration of the wine, which is the other element of this Sacrament, the priest, for the reason we have already assigned, ought of necessity to be well acquainted with, and well understand its form. We are then firmly to believe that it consists in the following words: This is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many, to the remission of sins. Of these words the greater part are taken from Scripture; but some have been preserved in the Church from Apostolic tradition.
Thus the words, this is the chalice, are found in St. Luke and in the Apostle; but the words that immediately follow, of my blood, or my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for you and for many to the remission of sins, are found partly in St. Luke and partly in St. Matthew. But the words, eternal, and the mystery of faith, have been taught us by holy tradition, the interpreter and keeper of Catholic truth.
Concerning this form no one can doubt, if he here also attend to what has been already said about the form used in the consecration of the bread. The form to be used (in the consecration) of this element, evidently consists of those words which signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the blood of our Lord. since, therefore, the words already cited clearly declare this, it is plain that no other words constitute the form.
They moreover express certain admirable fruits of the blood shed in the Passion of our Lord, fruits which pertain in a most special manner to this Sacrament. Of these, one is access to the eternal inheritance, which has come to us by right of the new and everlasting testament. Another is access to righteousness by the mystery of faith; for God hath set forth Jesus to be a propitiator through faith in his blood, that he himself may be just, and the justifier of him, who is of the faith of Jesus. Christ. A third effect is the remission of sins.

LINK
Emphasis mine.

 

[Irish_High_King]

**Explanation Of The Form Used In The Consecration Of The Wine **

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.
Beneath the words of this consecration lie hid many other mysteries, which by frequent meditation and study of sacred things, pastors will find it easy, with the divine assistance, to discover for themselves.

LINK
Emphasis mine.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I presume that you understand that the Ordinary Magisterium, when the Pope and Bishops teach in unison, is also an infallible organ of the Church.

Are you implying that the Roman Catechism is infallible? If so, was everything proclaimed at Vatican II infallible, and is the Catechism of the Catholic Church equally infallible?

When the ordinary magisterium professes a teaching pertaining to doctrine or morals, and that teaching is also taught universally, it is indeed teaching infallibly. But showing that a particular magisterial statement is infallible is much more complex than simply citing a catechism, I think. Catechisms, by their very nature, contain sententia de fide, sententia certa, and sententia communis, sententia pia, only the first of which is infallible and the latter two being in the field of free opinion. Catechisms simply do not intend to teach as though everything within it was infallible de fide truths.

Canon law explains more precisely (canon 749)…

§2 The College of Bishops also possesses infallibility in its teaching … when the Bishops, dispersed throughout the world but maintaining the bond of union among themselves and with the successor of Peter, together with the same Roman Pontiff authentically teach matters of faith or morals, and are agreed that a particular teaching is definitively to be held.

Moreover, the same canon asserts:

§3 No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly demonstrated.

Thus, one needs to manifestly demonstrate that the College of Bishops are agreed that this particular teaching is to be definitively held (sententia de fide tenenda).

If the Roman Catechism was speaking strictly as regards efficacy, then there is no contention. But if it was speaking also as regard sufficiency, then it departed from Scripture and traditional Catholic doctrine, which I find rather doubtful.

The question, answered beautifully by St. Thomas Aquinas above, is whether the words pro multis can be authentically interpreted as meaning “f**or all.” St. Thomas’ answer: yes. I doubt the Roman Catechism was attempting to refute St. Thomas Aquinas on this point.

John Paul II, just like St. Thomas, sees two senses in which “pro multis” can be understood. Observe:

The body and the blood of Christ are given for the salvation of man, of the* whole* man and of* all* men. This salvation is* integral and at the same time universal*, because no one, unless he freely chooses, is excluded from the saving power of Christ’s blood: “qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur”. It is a sacrifice offered for "many’', as the Biblical text says (Mk 14:24;* Mt* 26:28; cf.* Is* 53:11-12); this typical Semitic expression refers to the multitude who are saved by Christ, the one Redeemer, yet at the same time it implies the totality of human beings to whom salvation is offered: the Lord’s blood is “shed for you and for all”, as some translations legitimately make explicit. Christ’s flesh is truly given “for the life of the world” (Jn 6:51; cf.* 1 Jn* 2:2). [John Paul II, *Letter to Priests, 13 Mar 2005]

The letter above from Pope John Paul II to all the priests of the universal Church was also an exercise of the ordinary magisterium. Nonetheless, one should not presume it to be infallible.

Thus, as St. Thomas affirmed (as I’ve already cited above), “*…**** the expression pro vobis et pro multis effundetur is taken concerning the shedding as regards sufficiency or as regards efficacy. If, as regards sufficiency, thus it was shed for all, not only for many; but if *as regards the efficacy which it has only in the elect, it does not seem that there should be a distinction between the Apostles and the others.” In 4 Sent., dist. 8, q. 2, art. 2, obj. C:7.]

 

[MikeDunphy]

Dave, you quote St. Thomas twice. The first quote is an objection, the second quote is St. Thomas’s reply to that same objection. If the work you are quoting is like his Summa, in his objections he presents views that are not his own.

It would be helpful to be able to read the whole article.

St. Thomas described that it could indeed mean that Christ’s blood was shed for all. While admittedly this is an incorrect translation of* ‘pro multis*,’ it is a theologically correct intepretation*, *depending upon if one has in mind sufficiency, not efficacy.

“In addition, the expression pro vobis et pro multis effundetur is taken concerning the shedding as regards sufficiency or as regards efficacy. If, as regards sufficiency, thus it was shed for all, not only for many; but if as regards the efficacy which it has only in the elect, it does not seem that there should be a distinction between the Apostles and the others.” [In 4 Sent., dist. 8, q. 2, art. 2, obj. C:7.]

 

[MikeDunphy]

Dave, you quote St. Thomas twice. The first quote is an objection, the second quote is St. Thomas’s reply to that same objection. If the work you are quoting is like his Summa, in his objections he presents views that are not his own.

In his Summa Theologica, St. Thomas has a similar paired objection and reply:
Objection 8. Further, as was already observed (48, 2; 49, 3), Christ’s Passion sufficed for all; while as to its efficacy it was profitable for many. Therefore it ought to be said: “Which shall be shed for all,” or else “for many,” without adding, “for you.”
…
Reply to Objection 8. The blood of Christ’s Passion has its efficacy not merely in the elect among the Jews, to whom the blood of the Old Testament was exhibited, but also in the Gentiles; nor only in priests who consecrate this sacrament, and in those others who partake of it; but likewise in those for whom it is offered. And therefore He says expressly, “for you,” the Jews, “and for many,” namely the Gentiles; or, “for you” who eat of it, and “for many,” for whom it is offered.

According to St. Thomas, our Lord said “for many” because he was talking about the efficacy of His sacrifice. People may object that He should have said “for all”, but what He did say is “for many”.

This is clearer in the Fathers St. Thomas quotes in his Catena Aurea.

For Matthew 26:28, he quotes Remigius:
And it is to be noted, that He says not, For a few, nor, For all, but, “For many;” because He came not to redeem a single nation, but many out of all nations.

For Mark 14:24, Pseudo-Jerome:
It goes on: “Which is shed for many.”
Pseudo-Jerome: For it does not cleanse all.

 

[MikeDunphy]

Mike, take a sarcasm pill an re-read. BTW, it seems that you also didn’t notice and failed to copy the last part in which this blogger friend says:

Many cheered the translation precision of “for many” for the phrase “pro multis” which in turn is a translation from the Greek for “the multitude,” which, without any stretch of the imagination means, “all.”

As you suggest, I misread the part I quoted; I read it as flakey rather than sarcastic. I did see the second part, but omitted it since I didn’t think it added much. But since you mention it…

Pro multis means “for many”, *not *“the many”. The “the” that the unnamed blogger thinks is before “many” or “multitude” does not exist. And *many *does not mean all. Philip Goddard, in and pro multis**περι πολλων writes:

in Liddell and Scott’s standard Greek Lexicon, the article on πολλων extends to over two columns of small print and lists many nuances of meaning with extensive quotations from Greek literature to support the corresponding English meanings given. Nowhere, however, in Greek literature do either Liddell and Scott or the many later editors of their Lexicon record any passage where the word bears the meaning “all”.

In the second paragraph, the blogger starts out interpreting “that sins may be forgiven” in way consistent with other translations of Matthew 26:28, namely that “it gives the purpose of this sacrifice”. For comparison, see the New American Bible and the Douay-Rheims. But then at the end he puts an emphasis on the word may, as if Jesus had said that sins may or may not be forgiven. That is an ambiguity in English due to the wording selected by the ICEL translators of the Mass. The two translations I just mentioned do not have that ambiguity. People can also check this word-by-word translation from the Greek to see that the blogger is placing considerable weight on a word that does not exist in the original.

Also, if you notice he links to Amy Welborn, Curt Jester and many more solidly Catholic sites. He’s hardly a liberal who thinks all saved.

For what he writes that is good and true, I applaud him. But he still has some errors in his thinking about what pro multis means.

 

[bear06]

From Catholic Answers:

Q: I was told that the Council of Trent and Summa Theologiae specifically include the words “for you and for many” in the formula for consecrating the Eucharist. Since the current rite of Mass says “for you and for all,” would this invalidate the consecration?

A: There are several misconceptions here. The words “for you and for many” only appear in translations of the current rite of Mass, not in the original Latin. The current Latin edition has the phrase pro vobis et pro multis, which means “for you and for many” or “for you and for the multitude.” The phrase pro vobis et pro multis is the same as it was previously; only the translation is different.

The Council of Trent did not specify the words. It was the so-called Catechism of the Council of Trent (actually written after the Council), or Roman Catechism, which dealt with the specific words of consecration. This work, while esteemed and venerable, is not infallible. No pope or council ever issued a dogmatic definition that the Roman Catechism is without error.

The same goes for Thomas Aquinas. In his Summa Theologiae (III:78:3), Aquinas does include the phrase pro vobis et pro multis in the words of consecration, just as we do today. However, Aquinas is speaking to what the approved formula of consecration was in the Latin Rite and was not addressing other approved formulas of consecration.

Throughout the history of the Church, there have been at least 89 variations of the formula of consecration approved by the Church (see Likoudis and Whitehead, The Pope, the Council, and the Mass, 109). Many of these entirely exclude the phrase in question. For example, the canon of Hippolytus, which dates back to the beginning of the third century, gives the following as the words of consecration for the cup: “And likewise, taking the cup, he said: ‘This is my Blood, which is shed for you. When you do this, make memory of me.’” More to the point, St. Paul himself omits the phrase and gives the words of consecration as: “In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me’” (1 Cor. 11:25).

Ultimately, when a matter has not been settled infallibly, prior writings and writers cannot be used to attack a later practice that has been approved by the Holy See. And the translation of the phrase pro vobis et pro multis as “for you and for all” has been approved. This principle is something that Aquinas specifically endorsed. In his Questiones Quodlibetales, he stated: “We must abide rather by the pope’s judgment than by the opinion of any of the theologians, however well versed he [sic] may be in divine Scripture” (IX:8).

John Henry Newman adds: “Before it [the Church] speaks, the most saintly may mistake; and after it has spoken, the most gifted must obey” (Letters of John Henry Newman, 236).

catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9812qq.asp

Really, it would seem we could just go around and around about which theologians we’re going to listen to. My argument, Mike, was that I’ve yet to hear anyone who says all men are saved point to the “for all” translation as their reasoning. You tried to give me the big “a-ha!” and I merely pointed out that this guy didn’t even believe that all men were saved. He was being sarcastic.

Now how about pizza?

 

[USMC]

USMC:

according to the Council of Florence (not USMC) the New Mass is invalid

itsjustdave:

mmmm…according to St. Alphonsus and St. Thomas, “pro multis” can be omitted without affected the validity of the consecration. Omitting pro multis would be illicit, but not invalidating.

Dave, I have to admit to being more than a little disappointed in you. You seek to undermine the teachings of a council – the dogmatic Council of Florence - by pointing to the opinions of theologians? You know better than that. The teachings of the infallible magisterium are the proximate rule of faith, and are not to be questioned or doubted based on the opinions of theologians, no matter who they are.

As you know, the council of Florence taught us what the words of consecration are. It also told us what would happen if any of those words were removed, or changed into another word that did not have the same meaning.

The Council of Florence, Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5, Part 1: "The words of Consecration, which are the FORM of this Sacrament, are these: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. Now if one were to remove, or change anything in the FORM of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the sacrament."

That should settle it for a Catholics, but unfortunately, in todays crisis many seek to find a way around this official teaching of the Church.

It is beyond any question that words have been removed from the Novus Ordo Mass. The words “mystery of faith” were purposefully excluded from the form of consecration of the new mass. According to the Council of Florence, this invalidates the mass.

In addition, in the vernacular the words “for many” have been mistranslated to “for all”, which only adds to the problem since all and many have different meanings.

Without any doubt, according to the above teaching of the council of Florence, the new Mass is invalid. Not according to my teaching, but that of the council of Florence.

The reason some attempt to find a way to get around the clear words of the council of Florence is because they think it is impossible for the Church to approve as valid a “mass” that is invalid. Possibly as an act of mercy on the part of God, towards those who believed this, He allowed something almost unbelievable to happen. God allowed John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger to approve as valid as “mass” that has no words of consecration at all. **Every single word is excluded from the “mass”, yet it was approved as valid. ** I won’t get into the details here, since we are all familiar with the Anaphora Rite of Addai and Mari, which was approved by Rome, yet has not words of consecration.

continue

 

[USMC]

continuation

But let me also address the quotes you provided from St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus.

St. Alphonsus: “What is the form of the consecration of the Eucharist? … Although the truer and more common opinion is that of St. Bonaventure, Suarez, Bellarmine, and others that the essential (words) are only these: This is the chalice of my Blood (or) This is my Blood (or words equivalent to these); nevertheless, whoever left out or changed any of the remaining words would sin gravely. …” [Alphonsus Liguori, Theologia Moralis, bk. 6, tract. 3, ch. 1, nos. 220-221.]

Based on the quote you provided, it was the opinion of St. Alphonsus that the only words necessary for the consecration of the precious blood were “this is the chalice of my Blood”. But notice, he says that that if anyone removed, or changed any of the other words, he would commit a mortal sin. Therefore, based on the quote you provided, the priest who says the new mass commits a mortal sin at the moment of consecration.

You also provided several quotes from St. Thomas in which you attempted to undermine the teaching of the Council of Florence by showing that it was the opinion of St. Thomas that the only words necessary for the consecration of the precious Blood were “this is the chalice of my Blood”. But you must be misunderstanding what St. Thomas meant, for he addresses the question directly.

In the Summas, Pt III, Q 78, A3, he answer the following question: ** Whether this is the proper form for the consecration of the wine: “This is the chalice of My blood,” etc.?** The following is his answer:

St. Thomas: I answer that, **There is a twofold opinion **regarding this form. Some have maintained that the words “This is the chalice of My blood” alone belong to the substance of this form, but not those words which follow. Now this seems incorrect, because the words which follow them are determinations of the predicate, that is, of Christ’s blood. Consequently they belong to the integrity of the expression.

And on this account **others say more accurately **that all the words which follow are of the substance of the form down to the words, “As often as ye shall do this,” which belong to the use of this sacrament, and consequently do not belong to the substance of the form. Hence it is that the priest pronounces all these words, under the same rite and manner, namely, holding the chalice in his hands…

So, in your attempt to undermine the teachings of the Council of Florence, you brought forward the words of St. Alphonsus who taught that anyone who removed or changed any of the words of consecration (the Novus Ordo mass has done both) would thereby commit a mortal sin; and the words of St. Thomas, who, in reality, agreed with the Council of Florence and taught the contrary of what you asserted.

But the question really comes down to this. Do we believe the teaching of the council of Florence or don’t we? That is the question. The proximate rule of faith is what the Church teaches, not the opinion of this or that theologian. The Church is infallible, not every theologian. And the following is what the Church has stated, once and for all:

Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5, Part 1: "The words of Consecration, which are the FORM of this Sacrament, are these: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. Now if one were to remove, or change anything in the FORM of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the sacrament."

That should settle it for a Catholic.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…According to St. Thomas, our Lord said “for many”…

Correct. I have not stated otherwise. However, St. Thomas does indeed describe that “pro multis” can be interpreted in two senses, “for all” and “for many” depending upon if it regards sufficiency or it regards efficacy. If we are speaking correct translation, “pro multis” = “for many.” If we are speaking about correct theological interpretation of Christ’s redemptive act, “pro multis” can mean “for many” or “for all” depending upon if one regards sufficiency of efficacy, according to St. Thomas Aquinas (and John Paul II).

Observe…

What was the seventh objection in his Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, which St. Thomas was commenting on? [cf. post #41 above]: “In addition, the expression pro vobis et pro multis effundetur is taken concerning the shedding as regards sufficiency or as regards efficacy. If, as regards sufficiency, thus it was shed for all, not only for many; but if as regards the efficacy which it has only in the elect, it does not seem that there should be a distinction between the Apostles and the others.” [Super Sent., lib. 4 d. 8 q. 2 a. 2 qc. 3 arg. 7] In Latin, “Praeterea, quod dicitur: pro vobis et pro multis effundetur, aut accipitur de effusione quantum ad sufficientiam, aut quantum ad efficaciam. Si quantum ad sufficientiam, sic pro omnibus effusus est, non solum pro multis; si autem quantum ad efficaciam, quam habet solum in electis, non videtur distinguendum fuisse inter apostolos et alios.”

If you read it carefully, you will not that the objection has nothing to do with “for all” as regards sufficiency. That’s a given. On the contrary, the objection has to do with how one is to understand “the elect” with regard to efficacy. Is there to be a distinction between Apostles and the others? That’s the question.

Thus, In response St. Thomas wrote in his Commentary to the Sentences of Peter Lombard, [cf. post #41]: “To the seventh objection it is to be said that the Blood of Christ was poured out for all as regards sufficiency, but for the elect only as regards efficacy.” [Super Sent., lib. 4 d. 8 q. 2 a. 2 qc. 3 ad 7]. In the Latin: “Ad septimum dicendum, quod sanguis Christi effusus est pro omnibus quo ad sufficientiam, sed pro electis tantum quo ad efficaciam.”

Thus he agrees with the interpretation of “for all” as regards sufficiency. However, St. Thomas goes on to explain, how one is to understand “for the elect”, explaining two senses of “for you” and “for many.” He explains that the distinciton is between Jews (for you) and Gentiles (for many), or an alternative interpretation being the Apostles (meaning priests) (for you) and others (for many). The “others” referring to those prayed for by the priests, who receive the “effect” of the sacrament

St. Thomas explained: “**lest it should be thought to have been poured out only for the elect Jews, to whom the promise had been made, therefore He says for you who (are) of the Jews, and for many, that is, for the multitude of the Gentiles, or through the Apostles He designates priests, by whose mediation through the administration of the sacraments the effect of the sacrament reaches others, who also pray for themselves and for others” **[ibid.]. In Latin, “et ne putaretur effusus pro Judaeis tantum electis, quibus promissio facta fuerat, ideo dicit, vobis, qui ex Judaeis, et **multis, scilicet multitudine gentium. Vel per apostolos sacerdotes designat, quibus mediantibus ad alios effectus passionis per dispensationem sacramentorum pervenit, qui etiam pro seipsis et pro aliis orant.”

While I did in deed post the objection, I also posted in #41 the “ad 7” which is St. Thomas Aquinas’ reply to the objection, which is clear from his words, “Ad septimum dicendum…”

For a better understanding of “pro multis” and its validity, regardless of its value as a translation, you can also refer to the article I posted in #40 above:

"The Sacramental Validity of ‘For You and For All’"
*Living Tradtion, *No. 89, September 2000
by Msgr. John F. McCarthy, J.C.D., S.T.D.

I gather that Msgr. McCarthy’s theological credentials gives him more credibility on the subject than either you or I. I don’t know of your education level, but I’m only a student of theology, seeking my M.A, so until shown otherwise, I defer to Msgr. McCarthy’s expertise.

While USMC may think I’m some dolt for agreeing with Msgr. McCarthy’s scholarship, we all know full well that USAF guys are much smarter than the Marines.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continuation

But let me also address the quotes you provided from St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus.

The reason I quoted St. Alphonsus is because you quoted him. Appearantly, even though you quoted him as an authority, your thesis is that his teaching was heretical with regard to the valid form of consecration. Is this your thesis? Was St. Alphonsus (d. 1787) a heretic who opposed what you suppose was the authentic teachings of Florence? Is it your contention that you are better equipped to understand Catholicsm that St. Alphonsus, more educated in Catholic theology such that your understand of the teachings of Florence is more accurate than St. Alphonsus, and the whole host of authorities he cited on the matter?

St. Alphonsus: … nevertheless, whoever left out or changed any of the remaining words would sin gravely. …" [Alphonsus Liguori, Theologia Moralis, bk. 6, tract. 3, ch. 1, nos. 220-221.]

Yes. And if you could resist your Lefebvrist bias for one moment, you’d understand the reason it was considered a grave sin is because it would be contrary to the liturgical norms as approved and promulgated by the Roman Pontiff.

The Roman Pontiff established the liturgical norms. For those who act illicitly, contrary to these norma in accord with canon law (eg. the non-incardinated priests of the schismatic Lefebvrest movement) they commit a grave sin.

You are aware that St. Alphonsus was a doctor of Catholicism, AFTER the Council of Florence, right? Can you provide the list of those who rebutted his heretical views which you suppose are contrary to Catholic dogma? Hmmmm?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

According to St. Pius X…

**What is the form of the sacrament of the Eucharist? **

A: The form of the sacrament of the Eucharist consists of the words used by Jesus Christ Himself: “This is My Body: This is My Blood.”
Catechism of St. Pius X]

Eeeeeeek! Another heretical assertion!!! Perhaps one should consider joining the Society of St. Pius I, the REAL remnant, hmmm?

 

[USMC]

Dave,

In your anger and name-calling you passed over my point which was, and is: Do you believe the following words from the council of Florence.

The Council of Florence, Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5, Part 1: “The words of Consecration, which are the FORM of this Sacrament, are these: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. Now if one were to remove, or change anything in the FORM of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the sacrament.”

Do you believe those clear word or don’t you? If not, why not?

My second question is this (if you have the courage to reply):

Do you believe that the Anaphora Rite of Addai and Mari, which was approved by John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger as valid, yet which has no words of consecration, is a valid Mass?

Looking forward to your reply.

(BTW, I am not a member of the SSPX. I attend Mass at an SSPX Church from time to time (it has actually been a while), but am not a member of the group. I’m sure you will ignore this statement (which I have told you several times in the past), since, in order to attempt to discredit my points, you would like to pretend that I am a member of that vilified group who is keeping the faith in the midst of the current crisis.)

Now, please don’t attempt to divert this thread into a discussion on the SSPX to get around answering my two simple questions, which are:

1.) Do you believe the clear and unambiguous teachings of the council of Forence; and

2.) Do you belive that the Anaphora Rite of Addai and Mari, which has no words of consecration, yet was approved by Rome, is a valid Mass?

 

[LilyM]

USMC - I cannot BELIEVE that you are arguing against the very clear words of the Catechism of Pope Pius X. Obviously according to your logic the sainted Pius himself was a heretic! Guilty of grave sin and of allowing error to be taught by the Church! You can’t seriously accept this.