"Cup" vs "Chalice" in the New Translation

[AJV]

You’re right; that’s not the problem. The English “this” seems to be the bigger problem. For example in the Latin “Accipite et munducate ex hoc omnes: hoc est enim Corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur” the “hoc” refers not to the bread but the Body (“corpus” is neuter, “panem” is masculine); this means transubstantiation has occurred; “this” is no longer bread but the Body of Christ. If it were still bread, the Latin would be “hic.” There is also an artificial “this” (Take this…) in the English which further complicates the reference.

This argument has been introduced in various traditionalist apologetics, particularly against the vernacular in the Mass, but it is quite specious. See St. Thomas in the Summa q. 78 on the explanation, meaning and appropriateness of the word “This”. And even without that, the Church has pronounced other forms such as "This bread is my Body"to also be valid, which several Scholastic doctors were divided on.

 

[ProVobis]

This argument has been introduced in various traditionalist apologetics, particularly against the vernacular in the Mass, but it is quite specious. See St. Thomas in the Summa q. 78 on the explanation, meaning and appropriateness of the word “This”. And even without that, the Church has pronounced other forms such as "This bread is my Body"to also be valid, which several Scholastic doctors were divided on.

Yes, I’ve seen that form as well. I didn’t say it wasn’t valid. I said the Latin demonstrative is more specific. In fact there are eight forms of “this” just in the singular alone to convey this precision both of case and gender. Its use is also prevalent in the Canon outside of the consecration, even added in some vernaculars.

“Hic panis est Corpus Meum” or just “Hic est Corpus Meum” would be a strange construction and could easily lead to a belief in consubstantiation. But what you say also begs the question is something like “Haec est caro mea” This is my flesh valid per De Defectibus since the deviation may not be significant in the translation but is in the Latin.

 

[ProVobis]

I’m assuming there the same (possibly a plural annotation in Latin grammar)

Possibly. I couldn’t find it in any of my Latin dictionaries so I’m guessing it wasn’t codified by Cicero and other classicists but was added in the Christianized Latin to provide some distinction. But why in the plural form is a good question.

 

[ProVobis]

I’m assuming there the same (possibly a plural annotation in Latin grammar)

Possibly. I couldn’t find it in any of my Latin dictionaries so I’m guessing it wasn’t codified by Cicero and other classicists but was added in the Christianized Latin to provide some distinction. But why in the plural form is a good question. Perhaps it is comparable to interpreted differences such as littera (letter of the alphabet) and litterae (epistles) or mos (habit) and mores (character).