St. Thomas on the consecration form

[gladius_veritatis]

But Mr Patrick Omlor thought he could thereby prove that the new form of consecration in the vernacular Novus Ordo Missae versions is invalid, because they lack "the mystery of the faith" in the form.

His point about mysterium fidei is primarily to demonstrate the probable invalidity of the NOM in Latin (i.e., that the NOM is universally invalid, not just in the vernacular "translations"). 

 

The vernacular forms' probable invalidity is sufficiently covered by the other issues - for all, etc. -, although this issue (the absence of mysterium fidei) adds fuel to the fire.

[gladius_veritatis]

Integrity of the Expression

On the one hand as we see in the above table, St. Thomas divides the words of Consecration into words that signify the change of wine into blood (the shorter form) and words that show the power of the blood (the determining words). It is clear that the shorter form is sufficient for Consecration, since:

• the form must signify what it effects [S.T. III.78.2]  
• the effect of the Eucharist is the change of the matter [S.T. III.78.1], in this case that of wine into blood, and  
• the words of the shorter form "This is the cup of My Blood" sufficiently signify the change of wine into blood [S.T. III.78.1, III.78.3].

The colorful portion is erroneous/misleading, particularly since St. Thomas himself teaches that the principal effect (which is exactly what he means when he talks of the res sacramenti) of the Holy eucharist is "the union of the members of the Mystical Body". 

 

This 'effect' spoken of above is the effect of the words of consecration themselves, not the effect of the Sacrament - i.e, this is what is effected by the use of the proper form (Our Lord is made truly present).  Ask yourself: how can the effect of the Eucharist be the Eucharist?  This is essentially what this man is saying here.

 

Sorry for so many posts in a row, but there is a lot of incorrect information in what you posted.

[HMiS]

Of course gladius. There is seemingly no discussion possible with you, as you constantly repeat yourself. I know what Mr Omlor wrote, and concerning mystery of faith and sacramental validity of the Mass it wholly theological CRAP.

 

I am taking Mr Omlor for the theologian able to express St. Thomas Aquinas' singular occasion in which he uses "integrity". Sorry. Mr Omlor has written fine pieces, but he isn't a Thomist nor an academic theologian for that.

 

"For all" is theologically speaking a fraudulent passage and - according to the Catechism of Trent - a grave error, as it would actually imply, that there is such a thing as universal salvation (though the Holy See says one cannot interpret it this way now and that the for all express the theoretical power of the Cross). It must be avoided, is illicit (and not used therefore in many vernacular Novus Ordo translations, like the ones in use in France, Québec and Poland), but does not in itself invalidate the Consecration!

 

Here a quotation from a generally negative website, but which has good footnotes and proofs!

 

Unfortunately for our opponents they are wrong again. Many Liturgies did not use the consecratory formula that our opponents said that must be used in order for there to be a valid consecration.

Here are a couple of Old Liturgies finds of recent history of Egyptian liturgies. The Sacramentary of Serapion, written about 353-356 AD by Serapion, Bishop of Thmuis, a colleague of both St. Athanasius, and of St. Anthony gives us an ancient liturgical text, and following that a Deir Balizeh manuscript that goes back to the third century:

We have offered also the cup, the likeness of the blood, because the Lord Jesus Christ, taking a cup after supper, said to his disciples, ‘Take ye, drink, this is the new covenant, which is my blood, which is being shed for you for remission of sins.’”

Likewise after supper he took the cup, and when he had blessed it and had drunk, he gave it to them saying, Take, drink all of it. This is my blood which is being shed for you unto remission of sins.” [9]

The following Oriental Liturgies in use today (and also way before Vatican II ) have the following consecrations, the Catholic Ethiopian Rite and the Liturgy of the Abyssinian Jacobites:

And likewise also the cup giving thanks, he blessed it, and hallowed it, and gave it to his disciples, and said unto them, Take, drink, this is my blood (pointing and bowing profoundly), which is shed for you for the remission of sins.”

Take, drink this cup: my blood it is, which is shed for you for the remission of sin.

Whitehead and Likoudis in the same book give us further points:

A study done by Dom Leclerq finds that there have been no fewer than 89 variations in the formulas for consecration in the history of the Church. Of these variations there are a number where not only the phrase "for many' but other words of the "Tridentine' form of the consecration are not to be found.

Scholars studying the Eastern rites can point to many anaphoras, or Eucharistic prayers, which do not include the “for many.” The “For many” is included in the contemporary liturgy of almost all of the Eastern rites or churches today (except the Ethiopian); but the fact that it has not always and everywhere been included in rites whose validity the Catholic Church has never questioned or doubted, amply demonstrates that it is not essential for validity. And whether it is essential has been precisely the question we are concerned with there. [10]

What are the valid words of institution, then, with all these variations allowed in the Church? There has never been a definitive ruling from the Church on the matter. However, with all the variations allowed, it seems most likely to be the phrase, “This is my Body” or “This is the cup (or chalice) of my Blood” are the phrases essential to the consecration. That is what most theologians will infer. No theologian worth his theological salt would ever make the phrase that our opponents have made:

Hence, officially, the Consecration formula must contain the words "and for many," and not "for all," that last words in the Consecration are "for the remission of sins," not "for the forgiveness of sins."

 

The fact is, if this was true, many Christians for centuries in the past and present, were unknowingly just worshipping bread and wine, thus committing sacrilege and were not even partaking of the Real Body and Blood of Christ. They didn’t fit ‘Pope’ Hammer’s supposedly authoritative ruling on the matter. The mere thought of this is laughable, were it not so pitiful of a thought.

Dr. Ludwig Ott, in the authoritative [pre-Vatican 2] Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, gives us the true Catholic view on the matter:

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, or by the blessing or thanksgiving, as many theologians, notably of the early period of Scholasticism, for example Innocent III (De sacro altaris mysterio IV 6) assumed. According to the mandate of Christ: “Do this in commemoration of Me,” The Church must similarly complete the consecration, as did Christ, by the words of consecration.[11]

 

Maybe all those Liturgists of the Early Church, and Church Fathers were ‘Catholic’ heretics who just didn’t get it? ‘Pope’ Hammer was surely needed in those days to correct all those Church Fathers and the Liturgies. Well, how about St. Thomas Aquinas, who did in fact mention the importance of using the phrase “For Many”. At least he agreed with our opponents on its necessity for a valid consecration, right? As shown by Shawn in Url 6 of his Treatise, who quotes from St. Thomas Aquinas himself. Let us See:

"In this Sacrament something is present by force of conversion, and something by natural concomitance. By force of conversion there is present that which is the immediate term into which conversion is made. Such under the species of bread is the Body of Christ, into which the substance of bread is converted by the words, This is my body. Such again under the species of wine is the Blood of Christ, when it is said, This is the chalice of my blood." [13]

[7] ibid., p. 101, quoting Kilmartin, Edward J., S.J., “The Sacrificial Meal of the New Covenant,” in Paulist Press Doctrinal Pamphlet series, 1965, page 4.

[8] Email forwarded to me by John Loughnan, whose author is Mike Malone, July 2, 2000.

[9] The Pope, The Council, and the Mass, p, 111, quoting from Kucharek, Casimir, The Byzantine Slavic Liturgy of St. John Chrysostem, Alleluia Press, Allendale, New Jersey, 1971, pages 97-98.

[10] The Pope, The Council and the Mass, pp. 109, 111. [11] Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., Rockford, Il. , 1974, p. 393.

[12] ibid., p. 393.

[13] St. Thomas Aquinas: Summa Contra Gentiles _ Book IV Section 63 (circa AD 1260)

[HMiS]

If for many is not necessary, then for all does not invalidate (though being an erroneous translation and a fraud).

 

I won't even touch upon the "mystery of the faith" objection Mr P Omlor raises, as it is theologically untenable. Sacramental rites are valid universally. Even a made up own made self written liturgy with the correct Maronite rite or Syrian rite words of consecration, is valid. Even if the priest puts on a clown's nose.

 

That might be sad. As we do know, that there are unendless sacrileges going on then.

 

But the sacramental validity of the sacraments in themselves and in itself is not the prime thing: it's the doctrine and the prayers surrounding the essential forms.

 

But "pro multis", while being an icon of Traditionalism, is important, but not the core of our resistance to Neo-Modernism and the post-Vatican II changes.

 

It seems for many sedes it must be, that all 'novus ordo sacraments' are invalid to prove the Novus Ordo and its hierarchy are wrong. That's nonsense. All modernist bishops were validly consecrated clergymen, who celebrated magnificent Tridentine Pontifical Masses beforehand. It's a larger problem. A total problem.

[brogan]

What is necessary is that the entire elect (the members of the Mystical Body of Christ)  are mentioned in the canon. The new translation does not mention this group.

 Thomas explained that when Christ said for you he was speaking to the Jews and when he said many he was referring to the gentiles.

The ancient approved canon's were referring to the entire elect when they used simply "for you". They were combining the you and many into simply "you".  This  "you"  in the  ancient approved  Canons was referring to both the  former jew and gentile members of the elect.

The "for you" in this new translation cannot be referring to the elect because it goes on to say "and for all" after saying "for you." Only part of the elect (the non-gentile part) could possibly be being signified when "for you" is said along with another specified group. If the entire elect was being signified with "for you" in this new translation then  it is definitely heresy to add on any other group after they are mentioned.

The grace being effected (the Mystical Body) is therefore not being signified in this translation. This works the same in  every sacramental form. You cannot say  "I baptize half of you and the devil, ect ect" and expect that person to have actually just been baptized.

The fact that "for all" is said is very important. Either you have to say that "for you" in the new translation is not referring to the entire elect (and therefore the grace is not being signified) or you have to say that the entire elect is signified with "for you" but then a group who is not part of the Mystical Body is also being mentioned.

Either way it is invalid, so long as you believe that the signification of the (members of the) Mystical Body is necessary for validity.

Therefore you have two choices:
A) The entire elect is signified in the new translation by the simple mentioning of the word "you". If you say this then you must admit that the "for all" group is not part of the elect. Yet in the new translation the exact same thing is being said of the "for you" and the "for all" groups.

I baptize you and the Devil in the name of the Father..."

Invalid

B) Only part of the Elect is being signified by the use of "for you" in the new translation. If this is the case then the entire elect has not been mentioned and you have no Sacrament for that reason.

"I baptize half of you in the name of the Father...."

Invalid

[HMiS]

Brogan,

 

No your arguments do not hold. The "for you" does then not aptly express the "elect" either. But WHAT is the grace conferred? The purpose of the Cross, or the transsubstantiation? I think the latter is the grace, as that is what happens and must be done in order to have a sacrifice and the true presence.

 

Only "for you" would then not suffice either, but the Church has always thought this "omission" in Oriental rites does not invalidate the Consecration - which is a position proposed de fide by the Catholic Magisterium! (Nobody may say the Eastern rites are invalid - at least those rites of the Eastern Catholics.) 

 

Well, in the end: the Novus Ordo translations in French, Polish and other forms don't have the "for all", but still "for many".

 

 

[gladius_veritatis]

It seems for many sedes it must be, that all 'novus ordo sacraments' are invalid to prove the Novus Ordo and its hierarchy are wrong. That's nonsense.

Mate, I personally would not care if they reverted tomorrow to using the pre-Pius XII Mass (Holy Week, in particular), Office, and rubrics (or if the sacramental issue was totally "off-limits" in the discussions about SV).  They would still be public heretics, and the most wretched of men.

 

I find it ironic in the extreme that you - a totally self-instructed, pretty recent convert, who is a theological and ecclesiastical zero (as am I, btw) - make statements about Omlor's lack of theological expertise (when his work has been praised by many men, sede and non-sede alike, with years of theological training, some holding doctorates), and then follow them directly with a statement about the "theological untenability" of his claims - and in such a way that you sound like someone who is (pretending to be) well-trained theologically (when, in reality, you have likely - not certainly, but likely - not even had proper philosophical training, much less theological).

 

I have no problem with the statements in and of themselves, HMiS, but some of them are offered far too assuredly for one in your lowly position - as to both age and education in these matters.  Do not misread me as saying I am supremely qualified, as I have only had a certain limited training, and I am just as prone as anyone else to use words that are not cautious enough.  These matters have not been settled, and we will not settle them definitively here, but there is no harm in trying to help each other understand some of these concepts better.  God speed.

[gladius_veritatis]

I won't even touch upon the "mystery of the faith" objection Mr P Omlor raises, as it is theologically untenable.

  This is a nice side-step, O theological "master"!    Btw, why do you not just quit patronizing Omlor in any way, and just say what you ought to think he is - a con-artist hack?   I say "ought to think" because you do not agree with a single point he raises (as far as I can tell); why have any appreciation for him?

[gladius_veritatis]

But WHAT is the grace conferred? The purpose of the Cross, or the transsubstantiation? I think the latter is the grace, as that is what happens and must be done in order to have a sacrifice and the true presence.

And in this point you depart from Saint Thomas, and possibly every theologian who ever lived.  Can you supply even one quotation (of a pre-V2 theologian) who says the grace conferred is trans-substantiation?  It is through the trans-substantiated species that the principal grace (res sacramenti) is conferred - the purpose of the Cross, the union of the members of the Mystical Body through the remission of their sins, is achieved (per Saint Thomas Aquinas himself - and no pre-V2 theologian has disagreed with him on that point, from what I have actually seen). 

 

The trans-substantiated species is necessary to have the Sacrifice, but it is not the reason for the Sacrifice.  You seem to be combining the two in the above idea.

[gladius_veritatis]

Well, in the end: the Novus Ordo translations in French, Polish and other forms don't have the "for all", but still "for many".

In the end, the world is not just France and Poland (nor a few other places, too) - even though many Frenchmen would claim that France is indeed the world, or at least its center.