Fidelity to the Word
Our Lord and His Holy Apostles at the Last Supper

A blog dedicated to Christ Jesus our Lord and His True Presence in the Holy Mystery of the Eucharist

the Lord Jesus, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread, and giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye and eat, this is My Body which shall be delivered for you; this do for the commemoration of Me. In like manner also the chalice...

1 Cointhians 11:23-25

Friday, March 24, 2006

Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition

Three more posts today on Catholic Forums -- probably should have waited a day and taken time to phrase things better.

[the first post] [the thread]

(Still trying to catch up two weeks later. This is why you have 171 posts to my 16).

Originally Posted by ThomasMore1535
Oh, really? Even though Paul VI approved the ICEL translation that has "for all"? The burden is on you to prove that Paul VI did not approve the new translation. Please stop trying to shift the burden of proof. ... The quoted response, though anonymous, is a statement by the Holy See itself, and the Holy See does not issue statements save by the approval of the Holy Father. That is the norm. The burden is on you to show that Paul VI did not approve this, not the other way around.
Show me where the rules are that state that the Holy Father personally approves all articles in Notitiae and all translations of the Mass and I'll have something to comment on.

Originally Posted by ThomasMore1535
You say that "holy scripture and holy tradition" are more reliable than the words of an anonymous writer. What you're really saying is, your notion of holy scripture and holy tradition are more reliable than the words of an article published by the Holy See
If I were making statements on my own authority, I would say you were wise to trust Notitiae and ICEL over some unknown person on the internet. But I have have given you links you can just click on to check whether the Notitiae article's linguistic claims are correct (they are not). I have given you a reference to the Roman Catechism which is certainly at least as authoritative as Notitiae. Someone else even posted some of the relevent text from the Catechism. It should be mentioned that the new Catechism touches on this subject, quoting our Lord's words at the Last Supper four times, at #610, #613, #1365, and #1846. Every single time, the new catechism also quotes our Lord as having said for many.

I am not just giving you my interpretation of Holy Scripture. Look up Matthew 26:28 in your own personal copy of the Bible. I have no way of knowing which version you have, but I am confident that if you will just pick it up and read, it will tell you that at the Last Supper our Lord said that He was shedding His blood for many.

I am not just giving you my interpretation of Holy Tradition. I have mentioned two catechisms, here is a third:

Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas:
The third Sacrament is the Holy Eucharist. Its matter is wheaten bread and wine from the grape mixed with a little water so that the water becomes part of the wine. The water signifies the faithful who are incorporated into Christ. Other than wheaten bread and wine from the grape cannot be the matter for this Sacrament. The form of this Sacrament is the very words of Christ, "This is My Body," and "This is the chalice of My Blood of the new and eternal testament; the mystery of faith; which shall be shed for you and for many, to the remission of sins." These words spoken by the priest in the person of Christ brings into being this Sacrament. The minister of this Sacrament is the priest; and no one else can consecrate this matter into the Body of Christ.

I have given you a few quotes from the Fathers of the Curch, here are more quotes from Fathers and Doctors and Saints:

[in my next post, this one is growing too long]


I have given you a few quotes from the Fathers of the Curch, here are more quotes from Fathers and Doctors and Saints:

Starting with two more from the Catena Aurea:
And it is to be noted, that He says not, For a few, nor, For all, but, “For many;” because He came not to redeem a single nation, but many out of all nations.

[Our Lord said His blood is shed for many] "For it does not cleanse all."

Blessed Theodoret of Cyrrhus:
It should be noted, of course, that he bore the sins of many, not of all: not all came to faith, so he removed the sins of the believers only.

For this reason, when about to undergo His sufferings, that He might declare to Abraham and those with him the glad tidings of the inheritance being thrown open, [Christ], after He had given thanks while holding the cup, and had drunk of it, and given it to the disciples, said to them: "Drink ye all of it: this is My blood of the new covenant, which shall be shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of this vine, until that day when I will drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."

St. Cyril of Jerusalem:
And thy cup intoxicateth me, as very strong [Psalm 23:5]. Thou seest that cup here spoken of, which Jesus took in His hands, and gave thanks, and said, This is My blood, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

For though the Angels and Martha ministered to Him, yet did He not come to be ministered unto, but to minister; yea, His ministry extended so far, that He fulfilled even what follows, “And to give his life a ransom for many,” they, that is, who believed on Him; and gave it, i. e. to death.

St. John Cassian:
And He said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee, for strength is made perfect in weakness." And this feeling even our Lord expressed when He prayed in the character of man which He had taken, that He might give us a form of prayer as other things also by His example; saying thus: "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will but as Thou wilt," though certainly His will was not discordant with His Father's will, "For He had come to save what was lost and to give His life a ransom for many;" as He Himself says: "No man taketh my life from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it again."

St. Alphonsus De Liguori:
The words for you and for many are used to distinguish the virtue of the Blood of Christ from its fruits: for the Blood of Our Savior is of sufficient value to save all men but its fruits are applied only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault... This is the explanation of St. Thomas, as quoted by [Pope] Benedict XIV.

[too long again, more quotes follow]


Saint Augustine:
A goat, for instance, was offered for sin, a ram, anything; the victim itself which was offered for sin was called "sin." A sacrifice for sin then was called "sin;" so that in one place the Law says, "That the Priests are to lay their hands upon the sin." "Him" then, "who knew no sin, He made sin for us;" that is, "He was made a sacrifice for sin." Sin was offered, and sin was cancelled. The Blood of the Redeemer was shed, and the debtor's bond was cancelled. This is the "Blood, That was shed for many for the remission of sins."

St. John Chrysostom:
“And He took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; This is my blood of the New Testament, Which is shed for many, for the remission of sins.”

And how were they not confounded at hearing this? Because He had before told unto them many and great things touching this. Wherefore that He establishes no more, for they had heard it sufficiently, but he speaks of the cause of His passion, namely, the taking away of sins. And He calls it blood of a New Testament, that of the undertaking, the promise, the new law. For this He undertook also of old, and this comprises the Testament that is in the new law. And like as the Old Testament had sheep and bullocks, so this has the Lord’s blood. Hence also He shows that He is soon to die, wherefore also He made mention of a Testament, and He reminds them also of the former Testament, for that also was dedicated with blood. And again He tells the cause of His death, “which is shed for many for the remission of sins;” and He saith, “Do this in remembrance of me.” Seest thou how He removes and draws them off from Jewish customs. For like as ye did that, He saith, in remembrance of the miracles in Egypt, so do this likewise in remembrance of me. That was shed for the preservation of the firstborn, this for the remission of the sins of the whole world. For, “This,” saith He, “is my blood, which is shed for the remission of sins.”

St. Cyprian:
For, taking the cup on the eve of His passion, He blessed it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, "Drink ye all of this; for this is my blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many, for the remission of sins. I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day in which I shall drink new wine with you in the kingdom of my Father." In which portion we find that the cup which the Lord offered was mixed, and that that was wine which He called His blood. Whence it appears that the blood of Christ is not offered if there be no wine in the cup, nor the Lord's sacrifice celebrated with a legitimate consecration unless our oblation and sacrifice respond to His passion. But how shall we drink the new wine of the fruit of the vine with Christ in the kingdom of His Father, if in the sacrifice of God the Father and of Christ we do not offer wine, nor mix the cup of the Lord by the Lord's own tradition?

Originally Posted by ThomasMore1535
You're saying that the consecration words in English are "scripturally inaccurate"? Well, then, you have to say that the consecratory words of the Tridentine Rite are also scripturally inaccurte, since they contain the phrase "mysterium fidei," which is nowhere found in Sacred Scripture. And it's a fact that early canons like the Canon of Hyppolytus did not have the "mysterium fidei" in it. Now, I have no problem with the "myterium fidei" being in the words of consecration. But you cannot claim that the "for all" is Scripturally inaccurate while at the same time claiming that the "mysterium fidei" is just fine and dandy, which I assume is your position.
The phrase "scripturally inaccurate" comes from your own post. I object to for "for all" because it is not true; it is not what Jesus said. Not everything Jesus said was recorded in the New Testament. We have the Roman Catechism, plus Popes Innocent III, Eugene IV, and Pius V to tell us that Jesus did use the expression "Mystery of Faith", which was handed down from the Apostles. [I don't have time to provide references for the Popes now, but I can post them later, if you want].

The Bible is clear, however, that Jesus said "for many" rather than "for all". That is why, as you guessed, I believe that "Mysterium Fidei" is fine and dandy, while "pro omnibus" is not.

Originally Posted by ThomasMore1535
"For many" and "for all" are interchangeable. Look at the ancient canons. They contain many variations on Our Lord's words, but this has never been viewed as a problem. "All" and "many" in this case are interchangeable. Rome has spoken; the case is closed.
Looking at the other canons is a reasonable suggestion, and one which I hope to comply with next week.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home