St. Thomas on the consecration form

[gladius_veritatis]

From Ludwig Ott (via the fingertips of creimann):

 

The words of institution demonstrate, at least with a high degree of probability, that at the Last Supper Jesus effected the transmutation by the words: "This is My Body," "This is My Blood," and not by a mere act of will...."(Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott, 1957, Book Four, Part 3, "The outward signs of the Eucharist".)

 

Now, why would this learned Doctor of Theology offer this idea in a manner that only speaks of a "high degree of probability", if it had already been settled definitively (I am assuming 1957 was after the now-decades-old, yet-to-be produced, official decision on the matter)?

 

[mortaliumanimos]

I only present the opinion on this matter from the great work of Rev. Dr. Nicholas Gihr The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (p.669):

 

" Three evangelists (Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19 f.) and the Apostle of the Gentiles, Paul (I Cor. 11:23-26), have informed us of the act of consecration.  These four holy authors though not in perfect accord as to the very words, yet agree perfectly as to the matter itself: all relate what the Saviorur did at the solemn moment and what priests were to do in His name and in commemoration of Him unto the end of the world.  Not one of them has ommitted anything essentially necessary for the accomplishment of the consecration and of the sacrifice; but with regard to accessories, the statements of the evangelists are not equally complete.  Let us compare the liturgical formula at the consecration of the host and of the chalice with the biblical text, and we shall find that the Canon contains several words (in sanctas ac venerabiles manus suas, et elevatis oculis in coelum ad te Deum Patrem suum omnipotentem...aeterni testamenti...mysterium fidei) that are wanting in Holy Scripture.  These additions of the liturgy have emanated from a divine and apostolic tradition and are, therefore, as incontestably true and certain as are the words of the inspired authors."

 

And after this passage there is a footnote for the oft quoted passage from the Summa IIIa, q.78, a.3 ad 9 which I shall just provide here for convenience sake and I am also going under the assumption that this is an acceptable translation from the Latin:

 

Reply to Objection 9. The Evangelists did not intend to hand down the forms of the sacraments, which in the primitive Church had to be kept concealed, as Dionysius observes at the close of his book on the ecclesiastical hierarchy; their object was to write the story of Christ. Nevertheless nearly all these words can be culled from various passages of the Scriptures. Because the words, "This is the chalice," are found in Lk. 22:20, and 1 Cor. 11:25, while Matthew says in chapter 26:28: "This is My blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins." The words added, namely, "eternal" and "mystery of faith," were handed down to the Church by the apostles, who received them from our Lord, according to 1 Cor. 11:23: "I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you."

[gladius_veritatis]

I only present the opinion on this matter from the great work of Rev. Dr. Nicholas Gihr The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (p.669):

 

 

Thank you very kindly, mortaliumanimos.  Unfortunately, Dr. Gihr was apparently not up to speed on the matter at hand (never mind the fact that this is one of the most authoritative works ever penned on the Holy Sacrifice). 

[mortaliumanimos]

You're welcome.  What do you mean "not up to speed"? Do you mean that he was not a theologian? I have not read this book in toto but it would seem that this work is more devotional in nature rather than an in depth theological explanation of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. 

[gladius_veritatis]

 What do you mean "not up to speed"?

It is a tongue-in-cheek remark, as I have been busily debating the short form/long form issue with some who think (erroneously) the matter is a closed theological argument - in other threads in this forum.

 

Imo, the work is far more than just "devotional", my friend, and Dr. Gihr was definitely a theologian.  Thanks again.

[mortaliumanimos]

 Okay. These matters are a bit over my head.

[Kephapaulos]

Btw, Alex, who is in your avatar?

[mortaliumanimos]

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre from the 50's I believe.  

[HMiS]

The Ethiopian rite has no "for many" and is yet valid. Therefore "for all", though an error, will probably not invalidate consecration.

 

Again, no Catholic can say, the Ethiopian rite is invalid, or are we then - like the sedevacantists did with their essays on the Pontificale Romanum of 1968 (which notably resembles - actually in the spiritum principalem - the Ethiopian Catholic rite) - again at a senseless debate about whether Ethiopian schismatics have valid sacraments and Holy Orders?

[brogan]

Nope, no one is saying their sacraments are invalid. I explained why in my last post which I am reposting now.

I believe that "for you" alone can signify the entirity of the elect. There has never been a statement by any Saint or theologian saying that the ancient eastern canon's which only mention "for you" do not properly signify the elect yet maintain their validity. I explained why I thought it was possible for the only the words "for you" to signify the entire elect in another previous post.

I do not know why you are even talking about this though if you are then going to also argue for the short canon theory. If the short canon theory is correct then what is said afterwords is irrelavent insofar as validity.

Is that you're point here? Are you saying that the short canon must be true becuase there exists a lack of uniformity as to what is the long canon?

I would say that a common element in all valid consecration forms is the signification of the Mystical Body of Christ. This signification exists in all valid forms mentioning the entire elect and no other group.

You have presented no argument whatsoever that "for you" in the ancient Eastern canon was not signifying the entire elect.

If God was speaking to the entire elect and he used the word "you" to refer to them His use of the word you would properly signify this group in it's entirity. This is not hard, it is simple logic. It is possible to refer to an entire group as "you" so long as you are addressing the entire group in question when making such an utterance.

You can argue for the short canon. There is nothing wrong with that. Alphonsus is on your side amoung others. Of course St. Thomas and Pius V would disagree with you.  It is the only arguement which I think holds any water for maintaining the validity with the new translations. But it is still only a maybe. The short canon might be all that is needed but not definently so.