St. Thomas on the consecration form

[HMiS]

Yeah, yeah. But all the elect cannot be meant: "for you" indicated merely the apostles gathered in the room, and could not signify anyone else. If I am talking to you and not specifying I mean your whole family, yet say "for you" (and Aramaic is very definitive). If you reason like you do, that "for you" could also specify the elect, the apostles could also think, that by that all humanity, all Jews, all Galileans, all inhabitants of the Roman Empire or something like that was meant.

 

And it is the constant teaching, that the "for all" is not essential for a valid consecration, proven from St. Thomas Aquinas, the Catechism of St. Pius X, and many other sources.

 

And yet, even if it would, this would mean nothing, as many vernacular and the Latin version of the Novus Ordo (the Latin one only being promulgated in 1969), all have "for many".

 

It's an arbitrary question. You just continue to think like you do, giving the burden on me to prove something, which is not to be proven by me, but disproven by you.

 

If the Ethiopian rite would add something like "for all", it would not be invalid, as the grace of the Sacrament is the remission of sins and the transubstantiation. But as for the Body the "which shall be delivered for you" is not essential, it neither is for the sacred Blood. 

[gladius_veritatis]

 And it is the constant teaching, that the "for all" is not essential for a valid consecration, proven from St. Thomas Aquinas, the Catechism of St. Pius X, and many other sources.

Do you mean "for many" here, HMiS?  The black is patently false.  The blue is absurd.  The olive is tenuous at best (as this catechism is not a treatise on sacramental theology, but a work written to be understandable by children).  

 

There are many and weighty authorities on both sides of this unsettled argument.  The Catechism of Trent (which was written primarily for priests, the teachings of which, specifically those on the Sacraments, are guaranteed to be orthodox by the Council itself) and De defectibus - printed in the very Missals used at the altar for over four hundred years (which sounds kind of "constant" to me) - are just two such weighty authorities.

 

You just continue to think like you do, giving the burden on me to prove something, which is not to be proven by me, but disproven by you.

 

That is an interesting way of admitting you cannot prove it.  It is not something the Church has actually declared either way upon, HMiS, despite your efforts (and those of your fellow obfuscators) to act as if it is.  The long form/short form controversy has been going for centuries, has many adherents on both sides, and the sooner you admit that undeniable fact, we might be able to actually get somewhere in this debate. 

 

If the Ethiopian rite would add something like "for all", it would not be invalid, as the grace of the Sacrament is the remission of sins and the transubstantiation.

 

And if this grace is falsely signified, as being "for all"?  Is it not signifying universal salvation?  And you really think such a gross heresy, in the very words of consecration, does not effect validity?  The only reason it does not come to the point of such outright heresy in the NOM is that it is all left as a mere "maybe" in the vernacular "translations".  "...for you and for all, so that sins may be forgiven."

[brogan]

We both agree that the Mystical Body must be specified in order for the Sacrament to be confected. You say that the Mystical Body is specified with the words "This is My Body" and "This is the Chalice of My Blood". You are talking about the Person of Christ being specified, that is what you mean by the Mystical Body.

I am talking the side that all the members of the Mystical Body must be specified.

The Church  has not ruled on this issue. There are many Theologians on either side. That fact  is all I am trying to prove to you.


 

You just continue to think like you do, giving the burden on me to prove something, which is not to be proven by me, but disproved by you.

 

You don't seem to understand something here. The burden of proof is on you. I asked you to prove that the entirety of the elect could not be being specified by the words "for you".  If you could do so then the short canon would have to suffice for validity. If you take the stance that "for you" cannot be referring to the entirety of the Elect then the short canon theorists are necessarily correct. So why hasn't the church ruled on this issue if it is so obvious that "for you" cannot mean the entire elect?

Also (and this is sort of just another way of saying what I said above), if the Mystical Body which must be specified was in actuality specified by the mere words "This is My Body" then there would be no reasons to hold to the full canon as being necessary for validity. Yet the Church has not ruled on this issue so therefore, yes, it is your obligation to prove this.

Now the reason that the Church does eventually rule in favor of one side or another is because, guided by the Holy Ghost, She sees the argumentation for particular side to be correct.
 
 I would say it is simple logic, the word "you" can be referring to a many. (Note that I did not say that it was referring to a many in this case. Only that it could be referring to a many in this case. You see I, like the Church, do not know whether or not the Short cannon suffices for validity.) You said "oh no He was speaking to the apostles when he said "for you"" That does not prove anything. The form is not merely quoting Christ. The words of consecration are not part of some reenactment. It is an actual participation in the One Sacrifice. How do you know what group "for you" must only be referring to in such a setting?

I want to make this completely clear. All I am saying now is that if you are right that "for you" cannot specify the entirety of the elect then the entire short canon vrs long canon debate is over. That is why the burden of proof is on you to prove that "for you" cannot specify the entire elect.

[Mark]

 

 

I have always noticed, even when young, that the words in the Missal "THIS IS MY BODY", and, "THIS IS MY BLOOD" always stood out in much larger letters and red bolding compared to all the rest of the words of the consecration.

 

I think these are the essential words for consecration, since the priest, who is acting in the person of Christ, is declaring that "this is My body...this is My blood". The reason is that it appears the Oriental Churches leave out some of the words the Latin Rite does, and also, the words - 'This is my body...this is my blood" are the only constant words of the consecration in all the Gospels, though what follows these words differs.

 

 

 

 

[Kephapaulos]

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre from the 50's I believe.  

Is that really His Excellency Marcel Lefebvre? He looks kind of different there.

[Kephapaulos]

I am sure we can all at least agree on the fact that the words of consecration for the Roman rite should be thus:

 

HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM.

 

HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI, MYSTERIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM.

[DominusTecum]

Of course, they can and should be. That is irrelevant, though, because the issue at stake is whether all of that is necessary for validity, or whether the short form will suffice.

[Kephapaulos]

I know, Eric, but we are getting no where it seems with all the squabbling about the issue.

[HMiS]

 And you really think such a gross heresy, in the very words of consecration, does not effect validity? 

 

It must not necessarily be heresy, it might also be misinterpretation or wanting to "soften" the text, or to indicate, that the theoretical power and purpose of the Cross was to redeem all men. If you deny the latter, you are a Jansenist or a Calvinist believing in predestination. All men are destined for eternal happiness with God though only many (I would say a minority sad enough) reaches it truly.

 

While objectively the translations are erroneous, they are not heretical, as they do not univocally doubt or reject the doctrine, that hell exists.

 

It does not necessarily mean Irenism.

 

And yes, it is "merely" the translations.

 

And "for you" only (as in the Ethiopian rite) can also be interpreted as if Our Lord meant only the apostles, all humanity etc. etc. It is ambiguous.

 

St. Thomas indeed has indicated, that the following words after "My Blood" are facultative, as they explain what was said, but not the entire meaning.

 

I posted an article on the "for all" from a good website proving that "for all" does not invalidate the Mass, because it is not necessary. "With the power to redeem all" would neither invalidate the Consecration. Signification of the sacrament must be changed. And OUr Lord offered Himself at the Cross for many, but He did not say that. So all we need for the valid sacrifice, is the signification of what the bread and wine have become!

[gladius_veritatis]

I have always noticed, even when young, that the words in the Missal "THIS IS MY BODY", and, "THIS IS MY BLOOD" always stood out in much larger letters and red bolding compared to all the rest of the words of the consecration.

This is a great point, Mark.  However, in older Missals for laymen, the entire form (down to "...in remissionem peccatorum.") is in bold type, and is set apart - this is also exactly what you see in older altar Missals.

 

This was changed only recently, and adds credence to the theory that this whole matter is yet another shenanigan of the modernists and their unwitting accomplices.