CCF #7

[post]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catholicmonarchist We must first understand that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass have always been for the real application of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ and His grace to the sanctified faithful only and efficacy of salvation. Is the Church by saying for all (men) saying that the Mass has efficacy for the salvation of all not just the elect or just sufficiency for the salvation of all? I believe the Church has always taught that by for you and for many Christ instituted His Sacrifice in the unbloody manner strictly speaking only for the efficacy of salvation for many but not for the efficacy of the salvation of all men therefore, though the Mass has the ability to be efficant for all, the reality is as Christ stated that it is only efficant for many.

That is my understanding as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catholicmonarchist But we also have to remember that the Church has taught that valid Consecrations only need the words "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood".

Are you sure about that? I have seen that opinion ascribed to St. Thomas Aquinas, based on his comments in the Summa Theologica, Part III, question 78, article 1, however, if one continues reading on through article 3, one sees that "This is the chalice of My blood" is just a figure of speech where the first few words stand for the whole formula of consecration of the Precious Blood.

It is also the teaching of the Catechism of the Council of Trent that the form of the sacrament consists of the whole formula of consecration, not just the first few words.

That being said, I do believe the Eucharist has more than one valid form. The churches of the east celebrated the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom for centuries without condemnation from Rome, despite the different form. Note that both Eastern Catholics and "Eastern Orthodox" say "for many" rather than "for all". In fact, I have read that no liturgy recognized by Rome in all the centuries prior to Vatican II ever claimed that our Lord said that His blood is shed "for all".

It is the introduction of these new words, foreign to the Gospels and to the constant teaching of the Church, that troubles me. If "pro multis" were omitted entirely, while its absence would be a break with the past, at least it would not be a contradiction of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. As the Mass is now translated,at the most solemn part of the Mass, when the Priest is speaking in persona Christi to make Christ truly present, rather than using Jesus' actual words, the priest is forced to use the words ICEL has substituted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catholicmonarchist And also i believe that for a priest to say "for you and for all" in the Pauline rite would make the Mass at least illicit because first it is not the correct meaning of the Latin in English and second it has led the faithful to error.

I don't know whether substituting "for all" for "for many" renders the Mass invalid, illicit, or just a bad translation. But if it is any of those, it ought to be fixed.