Regarding the Words of Consecration of the Wine

[Amator Veritatis]

In the previous thread regarding the SSPX and the FSSP, a member of the forums inquired as to the place in the Roman Catechism, that is, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, in which could be found the reasons that Our Lord did use and the Church has consistently used [i]pro multis[/i], i.e., for many, rather than [i]pro omnibus[/i], i.e., for all. Because the Roman Catechism is written in a different manner than the Catechism of the Catholic Church, there is no paragraph reference to determine the location of these considerations. The place in which these teachings may be found, however, is in the section on the Sacraments. Within this section, the reference is more specifically found in the section on the Holy Eucharist. Under the heading [i]Form of the Eucharist[/i], can be found the references previously cited. Below are included these references with an online version of the Catechism for reference.

Explanation Of The Form Used In The Consecration Of The Wine
Since these very words of consecration are replete with mysteries and most appropriately suitable to the subject, they demand a more minute consideration.

The words: This is the chalice of my blood, are to be understood to mean: This is my blood, which is contained in this chalice. The mention of the chalice made at the consecration of the blood is right and appropriate, inasmuch as the blood is the drink of the faithful, and this would not be sufficiently signified if it were not contained in some drinking vessel.

Next follow the words: Of the new testament. These have been added that we might understand the blood of Christ the Lord to be given not under a figure, as was done in the Old Law, of which we read in the Epistle to the Hebrews that without blood a testament is not dedicated; but to be given to men in truth and in reality, as becomes the New Testament. Hence the Apostle says: Christ therefore is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of his death, they who are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

The word eternal refers to the eternal inheritance, the right to which we acquire by the death of Christ the Lord, the eternal testator.

The words mystery of faith, which are subjoined, do not exclude the reality, but signify that what lies hidden and concealed and far removed from the perception of the eye, is to be believed with firm faith. In this passage, however, these words bear a meaning different from that which they have when applied also to Baptism. Here the mystery of faith consists in seeing by faith the blood of Christ veiled under the species of wine; but Baptism is justly called by us the Sacrament of faith, by the Greeks, the mystery of faith, because it embraces the entire profession of the Christian faith.

Another reason why we call the blood of the Lord the mystery of faith is that human reason is particularly beset with difficulty and embarrassment when faith proposes to our belief that Christ the Lord, the true Son of God, at once God and man, suffered death for us, and this death is designated by the Sacrament of His blood.

Here, therefore, rather than at the consecration of His body, is appropriately commemorated the Passion of our Lord, by the words. which shall be shed for the remission of sins. For the blood, separately consecrated, serves to place before the eyes of all, in a more forcible manner, the Passion of our Lord, His death, and the nature of His sufferings.

The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore ('our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.

[i]With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation.[/i] And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine. (emphasis added)

Beneath the words of this consecration lie hid many other mysteries, which by frequent meditation and study of sacred things, pastors will find it easy, with the divine assistance, to discover for themselves.

[url="http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tsacr-e.htm"]http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/mast...ent/tsacr-e.htm[/url]


Please note that this is merely one section of the [i]Form of the Eucharist[/i]. It serves solely as an explanation regarding the proper form of the Sacrament for the Consecration of the wine. If one wished to investigate the issue more fully, at least as regards in what consists the actual form of the Consecration of the wine itself or as regards the Consecration of the host, he would simply need to peruse the entries immediately preceding the one here cited.

Edited March 8, 2006 by Amator Veritatis

[cmotherofpirl]

why is this in debate?

[Era Might]

Scripture uses "For all" and "For many" interchangeably.

For example, Romans 5:18 reads:

[quote]In conclusion, just as through one transgression condemnation came upon all, so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all. [/quote]

Does "all" here mean everyone is actually saved? No; "many" will be saved, but not "all".

The very next verse reads:

[quote]For just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous. [/quote]

Were only "many" made sinners? No, all were made sinners.

In Hebrew, there was the concept of "the all which are many". Hence, the flexibility in language. This is why the translation "for all" does not present a problem.

Besides this, the words of institution do not have to conform exactly to the Scriptural text. The old Roman Canon, for example, puts the phrase "mystery of faith" in the words of institution, even though Christ never uttered them himself.

Edited March 8, 2006 by Era Might

[Paphnutius]

While the words of consecration were written in Latin, I believe that there is little difference in the Hebrew between many and all. I would also recommend reading "God is Near Us" by the then Cardinal Ratzinger. He illustrates a wonderful point that both phrases: "for many" vs. "for all" expresses the dual fold reality of salvation. The cup was shed for all so that all might be saved, but only "many" will partake of it. That is an oversimplification, however.

[journeyman]

I like simple . . . only many will partake because we have free will . . . and some will choose to turn away from the Lord

[Donna]

Did anyone even read what Trent put forth? It's a damned shame, because there in a nutshell is the Faith.

Ho hum. A Catechism attached to an infallible council headed by a Sainted Pope.

Era Might, it almost looks like it doesn't suffice that Pius V/Trent promulgated "words of institution, even though Christ never uttered them Himself"...but that Paul VI et al *are* good enough for you.

It looks like some in this thread deal just as bad as the rad-trads who interpret things to their own lights.

Good night y'all.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Donna' date='Mar 13 2006, 01:46 AM']Era Might, it almost looks like it doesn't suffice that Pius V/Trent promulgated "words of institution, even though Christ never uttered them Himself"...but that Paul VI et al *are* good enough for you.

[right][snapback]909949[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

?

I never said I had a problem with "Mystery of Faith" being added to the Words of Institution. But they are NOT part of Christ's words. My point was not that this is a bad thing, just that we can't criticize Paul VI for not conforming exactly to the Scriptural text when the Tridentine Missal doesn't either.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Donna' date='Mar 13 2006, 01:46 AM']Ho hum. A Catechism attached to an infallible council headed by a Sainted Pope.
[right][snapback]909949[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The Council of Trent did not exhaust the Church's faith. The Magisterium has decided that "for all" is a legitimate usage. This is not set against Trent's words, because "For all" is still used in the Latin edition of the Roman Missal. As Paph noted, they complement one another.

[Donna]

Post 1: Maybe I read you wrong.

Post 2: Trent was reinstituting the bulwark and fortress of language (Latin) and forms "mysterium fide". About the rest, you cannot be serious. Compliment? Not after the fruits of Cramner and Luther's reform of the Roman Rite.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Donna' date='Mar 13 2006, 02:12 AM']Post 2: Trent was reinstituting the bulwark and fortress of language (Latin) and forms "mysterium fide". About the rest, you cannot be serious. Compliment? Not after the fruits of Cramner and Luther's reform of the Roman Rite.
[right][snapback]909976[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Justify it however you want. The old Roman Canon still puts words in Christ's mouth.

And yes, I am serious. The Church has decided that "for all" is a legitimate usage. It's not our place to tell her otherwise.

[Donna]

btw Era, *I* think it was ICEL who decided the "for all". Further, I think to save face, this was then legitimized.

I thought that as an adult catachumen, nothing seemed plainer.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Donna' date='Mar 13 2006, 02:16 AM']btw Era, *I* think it was ICEL who decided the "for all". Further, I think to save face, this was then legitimized.

I thought that as an adult catachumen, nothing seemed plainer.
[right][snapback]909979[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

As I mentioned, the Latin version of the Roman Missal still reads "for many".

It doesn't matter how "for all" arose. The Holy See has decided that it is a legitimate usage, and that's that.

Edited March 13, 2006 by Era Might

[Donna]

You might then like Cramner's consecration; you might find it pious and edifying. I'm serious. And seeing the similarity between that and something else you know of wouldn't shake your faith.

[Era Might]

Maybe I would. If pagan philosophers can contribute something positive to Christianity, why not Protestant Christians?

Edited March 13, 2006 by Era Might

[Guest JeffCR07]

This is a ridiculous discussion. Ad hominems are flying everywhere.

First, did ICEL have a lot to do with changing "pro multis" to "pro orbis"? Yes. Did the living magisterium of the church view that change as doctrinally and theologically valid? Yes.

That is where the dogmatics of the discussion end. If you two would like to argue about which is more edifying, or more reverent, have at it. But if anyone says that one is valid and the other [i]invalid[/i], then that person has shown themselves to have a faulty theology of both Tradition and Church Authority.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Era Might]

Jeff,

Who are you talking about? Me and Donna?

I don't think either of us questioned the validity of anything. I certainly didn't.

As for which is more "fitting", it doesn't really matter to me. I have no preference.

Edited March 15, 2006 by Era Might

[Desert Walker]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 8 2006, 04:06 PM']In Hebrew, there was the concept of "the all which are many". Hence, the flexibility in language. This is why the translation "for all" does not present a problem.
[right][snapback]906810[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes it does present a problem. Today, especially in this culture, we do not possess the mentalities associated with the Hebrew language. In OUR culture "for all" literally means ALL people, ALL spirits, everyone. "For many" means exactly what it sounds like it means: many, but NOT all.

Failure to see this fact of conrete social reality is simply the failure to remove one's mind from abstraction to what is actually taking place in practice.

It's astonishingly weird how we must consider existence through two lenses now: the "pragmaverse" and the "abstractaverse" (pardon the invention of words). It's even weirder how hard it is for some to realize that words actually have meaning in concrete reality, and that not all people are educated in the etymological roots of those words, and are thus incapable of making the necessary distinctions.

Why should such an exercise be forced on people who lack the training to even be aware of the need to engage in the exercise? Why not just say it like it is?

[Desert Walker]

Both the Novus Ordo Mass and the Tridentine Mass are extremely valid Holy Sacrifices. There is no question about it.

The only doubts begin to arise when you consider which ritual actually contributes more grace to the interior life of the Church. There IS a reality here!

And in case you haven't noticed, old Ratzinger has wondered the same thing. The implementation of liturgical reform through Novus Ordo was frought with administrative corruption, bungling, and apparently ZERO prayerful reflection about the effects on the faithful of the introduction of such a vastly different ritual form.

I think in the near future (heck its happening now in some places) you will see some "progressive" backtracking on the rite.

[Amator Veritatis]

Perhaps further discussion on the words of Consecration might be directed to the other thread regarding the SSPX and FSSP, of which I am the author. Having recognised that a discussion regarding the Consecration had arisen on the other thread, I made a post comparing the two without actually drawing many conclusions and none of my own. In any event, perhaps this discussion would be better moved there to prevent excessive threads and divided commentary.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Desert Walker' date='Mar 15 2006, 12:21 PM']Why should such an exercise be forced on people who lack the training to even be aware of the need to engage in the exercise?  Why not just say it like it is?
[right][snapback]912385[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The People of God aren't stupid.

If you want to play that card, "for many" could suggest to the faithful that some are predestined to hell, since the blood was only shed "for many".

The answer here is not to attack "for all", but to provide proper catechesis, just as we should provide proper catechesis vis a vis "for many" and any other element of the Sacred Liturgy which can be misconstrued.