Pope Benedict XVI is explaining the good faith of these Jews based on their interpretation of the Old Testament, which is based on human reason alone. Remember that St. Paul said, “And no one can say ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except in the Holy Spirit.” (1 Cor. 12:3) Without this gift of the Holy Spirit, the unaided human reason can and in many cases will come to the conclusion that the Old Testament does not point to Christ.
Maria
I am not sure I understand since your meaning since:
St. Jn 7: 41-42 Others said: This is the Christ. But some said: Doth the Christ come out of Galilee? Doth not the scripture say: That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem the town where David was?
St Jn 13:18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen. But that the scripture may be fulfilled: He that eateth bread with me, shall lift up his heel against me.
St. Jn 17:12While I was with them, I kept them in thy name. Those whom thou gavest me have I kept; and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition, that the scripture may be fulfilled.
St Jn 19:24 They said then one to another: Let us not cut it, but let us cast lots for it, whose it shall be; that the scripture might be fulfilled, saying: They have parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture they have cast lot. And the soldiers indeed did these things
St Jn 19:28 Afterwards, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, said: I thirst.
St Lk. 4:21 And he began to say to them: This day is fulfilled this scripture in your ears.
…there are many more passages which clearly point indicate that the Old Testament points to Christ. As a Catholic, Priest, Pontiff, etc, should explain it a such.
There are two valid theological opinions on what is essential for transubstantiation: 1) Only “This is My Body/This is My Blood” are essential; this was the opinion held by St. Pius X. 2) The whole formula is essential for transubstantiation; this opinion was held by St. Thomas Aquinas.
I agree that the second opinion is more likely the correct opinion. However, I do not understand it the way you are understanding it. In other words, I understand it to mean that the long form is whatever formula has been approved by the Church for use in a rite.
So for example, in the Tridentine Rite, the long form would be:
In the Byzantine Rite, the long form would be:
In the Armenian Rite, the long form would be:
In the Ethiopian (Ge’ez) Rite, Anaphora of the Apostles, the long form would be:
In the vernacular Pauline Rite, the long form would be:
You see, the long form opinion can’t mean that only the Tridentine formula is the valid one because that would mean that the Eastern rites are invalid. It can only mean that the long form required for transubstantiation is whatever form has been duly approved for use in a particular rite.
I’m not sure I’m explaining this very well.
Maria
No I think I follow you quite well. I agree with you and that St. Thomas that the whole formula is correct and also I would take from what Christ himself said in St Mt 26: 26-28, St Mk 14:22-24, St Lk :22:19-20, etc. This is sufficient to conclude that the whole formula is required and not a partial one.
Thank you for your kind response.
