Pro Multis vs Baptismal Formula

  • Thread starter Thread starter Louis_IX
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Louis_IX

Guest
I find it strange that the Church is very particular about the form of wording for a valid Baptism: “In the name of the father, Son and Holy Spirit” but is more lenient with the consecration of the precious Blood: …. For all (pro multis).

If you change any of the words in the Baptism formula, even if they convey the same meaning “In the name of the Creator ….” The baptism is invalid.

If it is ok to be ambiguous with pro multis (“for many” or “for all”) then why can’t we do that for baptism as well (In the name of the Father (or Creator). Is not the Eucharist the summit and source of our faith and stands above the other 6 sacraments and thus deserves a non ambiguous translation?

I am just curious as to what other think about this.
 
Louis IX:
I find it strange that the Church is very particular about the form of wording for a valid Baptism: “In the name of the father, Son and Holy Spirit” but is more lenient with the consecration of the precious Blood: …. For all (pro multis).

If you change any of the words in the Baptism formula, even if they convey the same meaning “In the name of the Creator ….” The baptism is invalid.

If it is ok to be ambiguous with pro multis (“for many” or “for all”) then why can’t we do that for baptism as well (In the name of the Father (or Creator). Is not the Eucharist the summit and source of our faith and stands above the other 6 sacraments and thus deserves a non ambiguous translation?

I am just curious as to what other think about this.
Click to expand...
I read recently that the US Bishops had more or less unanimously decided that the “More Effective” translation of Pro Multis was For All, whatever more effective means.
 
Methinks there’s a lot of difference between Father, Son and Holy Spirit and Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer. Not to mention ambiguity…
 
i thought the vital words of concecration were “this is my body”, “this is (the cup of) my blood”, coupled with an epiclesis.
I mean, eastern churches dont nessesarilly say “for many” or “for all” in their anaphorae (right term and pluralized correctly?), do they? and they have vaild eucharist.
 
Louis IX:
I find it strange that the Church is very particular about the form of wording for a valid Baptism: “In the name of the father, Son and Holy Spirit” but is more lenient with the consecration of the precious Blood: …. For all (pro multis).

If you change any of the words in the Baptism formula, even if they convey the same meaning “In the name of the Creator ….” The baptism is invalid.

If it is ok to be ambiguous with pro multis (“for many” or “for all”) then why can’t we do that for baptism as well (In the name of the Father (or Creator). Is not the Eucharist the summit and source of our faith and stands above the other 6 sacraments and thus deserves a non ambiguous translation?

I am just curious as to what other think about this.
Click to expand...
That is because Christ Himself specified the words of Baptism. The Consecration uses the words of Christ from the institution narrative. However Christ did not say Consecrate like this " ", as was pointed out the words of Consecration are very few.
 
40.png
AJV:
Methinks there’s a lot of difference between Father, Son and Holy Spirit and Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer. Not to mention ambiguity…
Click to expand...
I agree with you also, because Creator and Redeemer are both titles that can be attributed to Jesus as well as the Father. So there is definite ambiguity. It’s too bad that the “Last Gospel” isn’t read at Mass. It would enforce this point about Jesus being the Creator as well.
John 1 1-4
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.** All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made.** In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
Click to expand...
Sustainer can also be vey ambiguous as well in that no where in scripture is the Holy Ghost referred to as “sustainer” but there are several passages where God the Father is.
Psalms 54: 23 Cast thy care upon the Lord, and he shall sustain thee: he shall not suffer the just to waver for ever.
Click to expand...
Wisdom 16:21 For thy sustenance shewed thy sweetness to thy children, and serving every man’s will, it was turned to what every man liked.
Click to expand...
And keep in mind that almost all protestant denominations baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (Spirit if you prefer) and that is why baptism in a protestant church is considered valid.

The for many/for all debate will go on, however, the Church has said that either is valid. But that for all/for many does not change the formula whereas Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer does.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top