Words of consecration & Eucharistic Miracle

[mgrfin]

I have a full understanding of the latin phrase ‘pro multis’.

Pro, is the latin preposition meaning ‘for, in behalf of, in return for’
Multus, latin meaning ‘many’. The ablative is ‘multis’.

So ‘pro multis’ means ‘for many’.

Saying ‘for all’ doesn’t substantially change the meaning of the phrase. The essential part is “This is the chalice of my blood”, the rest is added on. For the phrase ‘this is the chalice of my blood’ is analolgus to: “This is my body”.

Saying ‘for all’ does not change the words of consecration. They effectively bring about the action commanded.

I have no problem admitting to either translation. I am surprised that you are not demanding that the latin and latin only can be used, as if Jesus spoke in latin.

Jesus didn’t speak in latin or english, and either phrase are effective in bringing about the action signified, that is transubstantiation. We don’t know exactly the words of Jesus in Aramaic, but what we have is sufficient for the Eucharist.

peace

 

[stmaria]

I have a full understanding of the latin phrase ‘pro multis’.

 

[Sure]

mgrfin;3231546:

Since you have a degree in Theology, can you tell me what Pope Pius V is talking about in De Defectibus

?

maryimmaculatechapel.com/version2/defectibus.html
“DE DEFECTIBUS”

ON DEFECTS THAT MAY OCCUR IN THE CELEBRATION OF MASS
V - Defects of the form
20. Defects on the part of the form may arise if anything is missing from the complete wording required for the act of consecrating. Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are:
HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, and HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: MYSTERIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM
If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin."

What in your opinion, according to De Defectibus, would cause a defect in the form or do you believe that Pope Pius was mistaken and there can never be a defect in the form?

I

So, then you believe that the ordinary form of the Mass is invalid? Yes or No?

If you believe that it is valid as the Church says it is, please explain how in light of what you have posted.

Thanks!

 

[stmaria]

stmaria;3232318:

So, then you believe that the ordinary form of the Mass is invalid? Yes or No?

If you believe that it is valid as the Church says it is, please explain how in light of what you have posted.

Thanks!

I believe that it is valid. Not as reverent, in my opinion, as the TLM but valid. I am simply asking a man with a degree in Theology to explain the meaning of this section of* De Defectibus*.

 

[SFD]

mgrfin:

I have a full understanding of the latin phrase ‘pro multis’.

Pro, is the latin preposition meaning ‘for, in behalf of, in return for’
Multus, latin meaning ‘many’. The ablative is ‘multis’.

So ‘pro multis’ means ‘for many’.

So the correct translation of ‘pro multis’ is ‘for many’.

mgrfin:

Saying ‘for all’ doesn’t substantially change the meaning of the phrase. The essential part is “This is the chalice of my blood”, the rest is added on. For the phrase ‘this is the chalice of my blood’ is analolgus to: “This is my body”.

Saying ‘for all’ does not change the words of consecration. They effectively bring about the action commanded.

You are doing your own theology here. You have no qualifications nor do you have the authority to do so. On top of that, you are assuming the essential form of the sacrament is something different than De Defectibus and the Council of Trent tells us it is.

Let me ask you this:

What is the “mystery of Faith”?

Is it the consecration that is effected?

Or is it the fact that “Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again”?

Here’s the “Memorial Acclamation” from the Novus Ordo Missae:

Let us proclaim the mystery of faith: Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again.

SFD

 

[AJV]

You are doing your own theology here. You have no qualifications nor do you have the authority to do so. On top of that, you are assuming the essential form of the sacrament is something different than De Defectibus and the Council of Trent tells us it is.

No, I think you’ll find that a number of theologians explain that the “essential form” is Hoc est [enim] Corpus Meum and the “integral form” is the whole thing.

As for De Defectibus, I feel the English trasnlation is misleading. IThe one posted on this thread says

“If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not **mean **the same thing…”

The more precise translation should replace “mean” with “signify” which had a different meaning. As St. Thomas explains while holding for the long form:

by the first words, “This is the chalice of My blood,” the change of the wine into blood is signified

Let me ask you this:

What is the “mystery of Faith”?

Is it the consecration that is effected?

A valid question, but I think even the mystery of faith is not altogether in the Traditional Mass. For example, the one I hear most often is that it is the miracle of transubstantiation. On the other hand, some theologians assert with St. Thomas that ti refers to power of the Previous Blood to justify by grace throguh faith. And as Innocent III writes, some even mistakenly felt that it was mystical only. Of course all these are in the context of transubstantiation, but nonetheless.

Or is it the fact that “Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again”?

A truly sad mistranslation of the Latin that does carry this implication.

 

[stmaria]

What is the meaning of “Mystery of Faith”?

AJV;3233189]
A valid question, but I think even the mystery of faith is not altogether in the Traditional Mass. For example, the one I hear most often is that it is the miracle of transubstantiation

On the other hand, some theologians assert with St. Thomas that ti refers to power of the Previous Blood to justify by grace throguh faith. And as Innocent III writes, some even mistakenly felt that it was mystical only. Of course all these are in the context of transubstantiation, but nonetheless.

Pope Paul wrote an encyclical called *Mysterium Fidei *
It clearly refers to transubstantiation.

" Let us proclaim the Mystery of Faith: Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again"
A truly sad mistranslation of the Latin that does carry this implication.

I have a copy of the *Book of Common Prayer *revised 1974. It is very similiar to the Novus Ordo in that it has several optional “Eucharistic Prayers”.
In Eucharistic Prayer II, immediately following the words of the Anglican Consecration it says:

" Therefore we proclaim the Mystery of Faith: Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again"
The Anglican Church does not believe in transubstantiation. To them the words “Mystery of Faith” indeed mean that the mystery of faith is that Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again. Catholics that attend the OF have been led to believe this also.
"

 

[AJV]

Pope Paul wrote an encyclical called *Mysterium Fidei * It clearly refers to transubstantiation.

Which may only be interpreted as one of its possible meanings since it does not have an equivocal one as the interpretation of various Popes and theologians through the history of the Church has shown. Le Brun gives a very nice synopsis in his explanation of the Mass

I have a copy of the *Book of Common Prayer *revised 1974. It is very similiar to the Novus Ordo in that it has several optional “Eucharistic Prayers”.
In Eucharistic Prayer II, immediately following the words of the Anglican Consecration it says:

" Therefore we proclaim the Mystery of Faith: Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again"
The Anglican Church does not believe in transubstantiation. To them the words “Mystery of Faith” indeed mean that the mystery of faith is that Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again. Catholics that attend the OF have been led to believe this also.
"

“Mystery of Faith” has been interpreted by Anglicans and Protestants before in a completely non-transubstantiation context. As Foxe wrote in the diatribe against the Canon " and these words you have added declaring the cup to be but a mystical representation of the blood". Taylor wrote “those words are left in their canon, as if on purpose …to prevent the literal and natural understanding of the other words” And certainly they weren’t alone since even Durandus wrote about it in the Rationale- “some infer that the Body and Blood of Christ are not present in the sacrament of the altar but it is only an image, an appearance, a figure…”

Though I do appreciate the point about those attending the English OF Mass being confused.

 

[SFD]

No, I think you’ll find that a number of theologians explain that the “essential form” is Hoc est [enim] Corpus Meum and the “integral form” is the whole thing.

Then cite them. What are their arguments?

AJV:

As for De Defectibus, I feel the English trasnlation is misleading. The one posted on this thread says

“If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not **mean **the same thing…”

The more precise translation should replace “mean” with “signify” which had a different meaning. As St. Thomas explains while holding for the long form:

Where is the mind of the Church on this question?

An authority of great weight supporting the “entire form” is the preceptive passage contained in Part V of De Defectibus in Celebratione Missarum Occurrentibus, which is incorporated in the official rubrics accompanying the Roman Missal. In his Bull Quo Primum (1570) Pope St. Pius V ordered that this Missal be used in the Latin Rite “in perpetuity,” and the aforementioned “De Defectibus” always appears in the introductory pages of legitimate altar missals. The critical passage from Part V of De Defectibus reads:
De Defectibus:

The words of Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these: Hoc est enim corpus meum. And: Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Now if one were to omit, or to change anything in the form of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of the words the [new] wording would fail to mean [signify] the same thing, he would not consecrate the Sacrament. If in fact he were to add something that did not change the meaning, it is true he would consecrate, but he would sin gravely.

This precept begins by setting forth the consecration form in its entirety. It then warns that if anything (aliquid) in this form just defined should be altered in any way whatsoever involving a change in meaning of the originally specified words, then the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist containing the true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ would not be produced, and hence the priest-celebrant would celebrate no Mass at all. De Defectibus does not single out the introductory words of the form, “This is the chalice of my blood,” and state that if only those words are changed in meaning the consecration is invalid. It therefore is evident that this official injunction in Missale Romanum supports the “entire form” position and implicitly denies the claim of the “short form” apologists.

As it would appear that De Defectibus is part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, its authority is on a level well above that of the speculative opinions advanced by various theologians. Although one cannot claim the passage cited from De Defectibus is a definition by the Church on this matter, nevertheless it is certain from it that the “Mind of the Church” is that the entire form must be treated as though it is all essential, inasmuch as the penalty of mortal sin attaches to anyone who would dare to add something to the form, even though the addition would not nullify or interfere with the meaning of anything contained in the given proper form.

AJV:

A valid question, but I think even the mystery of faith is not altogether in the Traditional Mass. For example, the one I hear most often is that it is the miracle of transubstantiation. On the other hand, some theologians assert with St. Thomas that ti refers to power of the Previous Blood to justify by grace throguh faith. And as Innocent III writes, some even mistakenly felt that it was mystical only. Of course all these are in the context of transubstantiation, but nonetheless.

A truly sad mistranslation of the Latin that does carry this implication.

So it’s a mistranslation that does not signify what the correct translation does? How is that just ‘sad’? It’s wrong and completely changes the meaning and understanding!

SFD

 

[Sure]

Sure;3232351:

I believe that it is valid. Not as reverent, in my opinion, as the TLM but valid. I am simply asking a man with a degree in Theology to explain the meaning of this section of* De Defectibus*

.

How can it possibly be valid given what you posted in De Defectibus??? It would seem there are two options, either De Defectibus does not apply and it is valid or De Defectibus does apply and it is invalid. Which is it???

 

[mgrfin]

mgrfin;3231546:

Since you have a degree in Theology, can you tell me what Pope Pius V is talking about in De Defectibus

?

maryimmaculatechapel.com/version2/defectibus.html
“DE DEFECTIBUS”

ON DEFECTS THAT MAY OCCUR IN THE CELEBRATION OF MASS
V - Defects of the form
20. Defects on the part of the form may arise if anything is missing from the complete wording required for the act of consecrating. Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are:
HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, and HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: MYSTERIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM
If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin."

What in your opinion, according to De Defectibus, would cause a defect in the form or do you believe that Pope Pius was mistaken and there can never be a defect in the form?

I

I am flattered that you are asking my opinion.

The link provided substantially covers the matter of defect of matter and form.

Of course, I believe there can be a defect in both matter and the form.

The link refers to Latin. Now, I don’t know if the Pius V even considered that the form could be in another language other than Latin. Between you and me, I think it would shock the Pope at first to think of another language other than Latin.

But, Latin is not required. God speaks more than Latin. Now, the argument brought forward concerns ‘for many’ and ‘for all’. I think that such words in either case does not change the form of the sacrament.

Now, what would say, if instead of “This is the Chalice…”, “This is the cup…”, would you think the meaning of the form is substantially changed?

peace

 

[maryj]

I am never so confused as when I come to the Traditional Catholicism threads. Being a lurker here is very confusing . Maybe my lenten sacrifice should be to come here more often and try to understand the “words” that go on here. Sorry for the interuption, carry on.

 

[otjm]

It’s a mistranslation. Period.

SFD

I did not say that it wasn’t, if you read my post carefully. I said that it is theologically correct, which is a different statement. It is subject to misunderstanding and is not a literal translation. There are those who hold that it is wrong (theologically) and that is incorrect. Christ did die for all; scripture tells us that; also, not all accept His saving act, and Scripture also tells us that.

I am not trying to defend the use of all in the Eucharistic prayer; I am only addressing the issue of its theological correcness or wrongness.

In short, I still accept a tennet of the Church, that the Holy Spirit will prevent the Church from errors in matters of faith and morals. I do not posit that it was a wise or correct translation; I only address the issue of it being theologically wrong.

 

[otjm]

Why is it so hard for you guys to admit that this is a mistranslation? It’s like saying the new translation of “peace on earth good will to men” is the same as the correct translation. “peace on earth to men of good will”.They mean completely the opposite

No, they do not mean “completely opposite”. They mean something different.

Completely opposite would be something like “No peace on earth”, or “to men of bad will”. Good will to men implies that it (peace) is to all men; peace to mend of good will is a subset of all men and is not opposite, but is less extensive.

As to the fact that it is a mistranslation, you are correct.

 

[mgrfin]

I doubt if SFD accepts English as a valid language for the Sacrifice of the Mass, and specifically for the words of Consecration.

Standing to his left is about 99 percent of the Catholic faithful.

If he could, he would burn Archbishop Bugnini at the stake as a ‘manifest heretic’, and Pope Pius IX, Pius XII, Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI.

peace

 

[stmaria]

=mgrfin;3234165]

I am flattered that you are asking my opinion.

The link provided substantially covers the matter of defect of matter and form.

Of course, I believe there can be a defect in both matter and the form.

Pope Pius V says that if there is a defect in either matter or form the consecration is invalid. Doesn’t he? Would you care to explain what you mean?

The link refers to Latin. Now, I don’t know if the Pius V even considered that the form could be in another language other than Latin. Between you and me, **I think it would shock the Pope **at first to think of another language other than Latin.

It would shock Pope Pius V if it were in the vernacular. Have you ever read Quo Primum?
It would also shock Pope Pius XII who said, "It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; "

Even Pope John XXXIII would be shocked.
Pope John XXIII - *Veterum Sapientia *February 22, 1962

"Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all.
Nor must we overlook the characteristic nobility of Latin formal structure. Its “concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity” makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression… For these reasons the Apostolic See has always been at pains to preserve Latin, deeming it worthy of being used in the exercise of her teaching authority "as the splendid vesture of her heavenly doctrine and sacred laws… Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority… There would, moreover, be no language which could serve as a common and constant norm by which to gauge the exact meaning of other renderings… But Latin is indeed such a language. It is set and unchanging. it has long since ceased to be affected by those alterations in the meaning of words which are the normal result of daily, popular use… Finally, the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular… In the exercise of their paternal care they shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in** the liturgy,** or through prejudice makes light of the Holy Sees will in this regard or interprets it falsely.”

But, Latin is not required. God speaks more than Latin. Now, the argument brought forward concerns ‘for many’ and ‘for all’. I think that such words in either case does not change the form of the sacrament.

Latin is required in the Latin Rite. “For many” and “For all” do not mean the same thing. But I will yield to you since you have a degree in theology.

Now, what would say, if instead of “This is the Chalice…”, “This is the cup…”, would you think the meaning of the form is substantially changed

I don’t think the form is substantially changed by using “cup”. Christ used the word “cup”. Christ also used the words “for many”

 

[mgrfin]

So, you would allow for variations in translation?

Would accept the words:

“This is my Body”

“This is my Blood”

solely for the words of consecration?

Languages other than Latin for the Latin Rite weren’t permitted until Vatican 2. The changes came after that, legally and legitimattely. Latin in not essential to the words of consecration, despite Papal utterances to the contrary. After all, the Eastern churches had laguages other than Latin, and their language did not affect the validity of the sacrament.

peace

PS Dont put so much stock in degrees in theology. Martin Luther had one, and so did Doctors of the Church who erred from time to time.

 

[stmaria]

No, they do not mean “completely opposite”. They mean something different.

Completely opposite would be something like “No peace on earth”, or “to men of bad will”. Good will to men implies that it (peace) is to all men; peace to mend of good will is a subset of all men and is not opposite, but is less extensive.

As to the fact that it is a mistranslation, you are correct.

But only one translation is correct. Right? One is based on the theology of universal salvation and one is base on Truth. Peace will be granted only to men of good will and not to all men.
Why do you think this mistranslation is allowed the New Catholic Bibles? It is also allowed in the OF.
It is like allowing “for all” instead of the correct “for many”

 

[SFD]

No, they do not mean “completely opposite”. They mean something different.

Completely opposite would be something like “No peace on earth”, or “to men of bad will”. Good will to men implies that it (peace) is to all men; peace to mend of good will is a subset of all men and is not opposite, but is less extensive.

As to the fact that it is a mistranslation, you are correct.

Actually, it’s not a mistranslation…it must have been deliberate “mistranslation”. It was a deliberate CHANGE as it is impossible that the authorities who approved the NEW wording did not know it was NEW.

SFD

 

[stmaria]

How can it possibly be valid given what you posted in De Defectibus??? It would seem there are two options, either De Defectibus does not apply and it is valid or De Defectibus does apply and it is invalid. Which is it???

Good question. I believe that Pope Paul VI was a valid Pope and as Pope Pius XII said, " the sacred liturgy, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See." Therfore Pope Paul had the right to make the change. But I could be wrong. Are the words merely discipline that can be changed? The Council of Trent says the words’ " for you and for many" were joined together by the Holy Spirit. Validity is beyond my knowledge.
It really doesn’t affect me. I go to the Traditional Mass where the words have not been changed. And if I go to the OF it doesn’t affect me. I believe that it is valid but if it isn’t, I am receiving in good faith. It is the priest that is committing a sin.