On the Catholic Youth Alliance website, Sir Jon Pothington-Smythe wrote:
quote:
So what we have, I think, is this - Christ's Blood CAN save ALL, but it WILL only save the MANY who cooperate with grace. I read something once about distinguishing the virtue of the Blood (sufficient to save all) with the fruit of the Blood (will only save many).
How anyone could use the distinction between the sufficiency and the efficacy of Christ's passion to support the view that the meaning of the words has not changed is beyond me. This distinction is in fact an argument for the changing of the meaning because the traditional form of consecration conveys the sense of efficacy, whereas the new form clearly conveys sufficiency. Thus clearly the meaning has changed.
The aspect of sufficiency is explained here by St. Thomas Aquinas: "Christ by His Passion delivered us from our sins causally - that is, by setting up the cause of our deliverance, from which cause all sins whatsoever, past, present, or to come, could be forgiven: just as if a doctor were to prepare a medicine by which all sicknesses can be cured even in the future." (Summa Th., III, Q. 49, Art. 2) However, the distinction between the sufficiency and efficacy is explained by this quote from the Council of Trent: "But, though He died for all, yet all do not receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated." (Session VI, Ch. 3)
The fact that Christ refers to "many" rather than "all" should make it sufficiently clear that in the words of consecration He is referring to the efficacy of His Passion rather than the sufficiency, since not all men are saved. But if this is not enough to convince you, St. Thomas Aquinas gives this reply to the objection that Christ could not have been referring to the efficacy in the words of consecration (because, so the objector says, the syntax of the sentence would be incorrect if this were so.)
Reply Obj. 8. The blood of Christ's Passion has its efficacy not merely in the elect among the Jews, to whom the blood of the Old Testament was exhibited, but also in the Gentiles ... And therefore He says expressly, FOR YOU, the Jews, AND FOR MANY, namely the Gentiles ...
As you can see, St. Thomas refers to the efficacy of Christ's Passion (and refers specifically to the elect amongst the Jews) and he ignores the sufficiency aspect - thereby implying that the proper sense of the words of consecration is the sense of efficacy. Furthermore, there is another quote later on (in my reply to Johnno) from The Catechism by Decree of the
Holy Council of Trent, which proves this still further.
On the other hand, the new "consecration" instead implies the sense of sufficiency. I can provide a detailed argument if anyone cares to object to this assertion, but it suffices to say that the phrase "for all men" by its universality cannot possibly convey the efficacy of Christ's Passion, since all men are not saved. Thus, it is proven that the traditional form refers to the efficacy and the new form to the sufficiency. The two forms convey different meanings, and are therefore invalid according to St. Thomas Aquinas. Please spare me the usual "but St. Thomas Aquinas' view is merely an opinion" thing; I won’t even bother to reply to it.
quote:
Good points, Eva - also, in question 78 (3) of part III, St. Thomas discusses the form for the consecration of the wine. He admits two opinions, but supports that latter that the substance of the form are the words from "Hic est enim" down to (not including) "as often as you shall do these things".......
You have admitted here that St. Thomas includes "of the new and everlasting testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins" in the form of the Sacrament. Why then, do you claim that question 78 contradicts this? In question 78, St. Thomas replies to the following objections:
Objection 1: He replies to those who claimed that the transubstantiation was effected by Christ's taking the bread and blessing it, and that the words of consecration have nothing to do with it.
Objection 2: He replies to those who claimed that "Take ye all and eat of this" is part of the form of the Sacrament.
Objection 3: He replies to those who claimed that some mention must be made in the form of the Minister and the act he is performing.
Objection 4: He replies to those who claimed that the words of Consecration must include the parts of the Mass that refer to Christ Himself, otherwise if the priest was simply to pronounce the words "For this is my body" without the preceding passages of the Canon, it would seem as though the priest was referring to his own body rather than the Body of Christ.
So as we can see, nowhere in this question does St. Thomas rebut the fact that "of the new and everlasting testament...(and so on)" is part of the form. He is replying to other objections, and therefore it suffices to use "For this is the chalice of My Blood" in place of the entirety of the form, since he has already made it clear that "of the new and everlasting testament..." is part of the form, and since this has nothing to do with the objections he is answering. Therefore, we must infer that he is referring to the entirety of the form when he says "This is the chalice of My Blood". You, on the other hand, are inferring that he has contradicted himself. It seems a little strange that St. Thomas does not make this clearer, but I can understand why he abbreviates the form, since referring to the complete form mid-sentence would make several sentences in the question unnecessarily complicated and confusing.
quote:
...Yet he (St. Thomas) maintains that the change (transubstantiation) is effected with the first words of the consecration, while the rest clarify and confirm the three-fold power of Christ's blood in the redemptive process.
No he doesn't. This is what St. Thomas says: "Consequently it must be said that all the aforesaid words belong to the substance of the form; but that by the first words, THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, the change of the wine into blood is denoted..."
He says that the initial words denote the change of the wine into blood. By this he simply means that these are the words of the consecration that refer to the changing of wine into blood. Nowhere does he say that these are the only words necessary; in fact by his saying that "of the new and everlasting testament....." is part of the form, he is by that fact saying that it is necessary. One cannot twist the meaning of the word "denote" to make it mean "effectuate". "Denote" simply means to refer to or to indicate. The two words have very distinct meanings and so the meaning of St. Thomas' quote should be clear.
quote:
Accordingly it must be held that if the priest were to pronounce only the aforesaid words with the intention of consecrating this sacrament, this sacrament would be valid because the intention would cause these words to be understood as spoken in the person of Christ, even though the words were pronounced without those that precede. The priest, however, would sin gravely in consecrating the sacrament thus, as he would not be observing the rite of the Church.
I just want to make it clear to whomever is reading this, that this quote is part of St. Thomas' reply to the fourth objection in question 78. Therefore, in this quote he is saying that a Consecration would be valid but sinful if the priest was to consecrate by only pronouncing the words of consecration, without saying them as part of the Mass. He is not referring to pronouncing the words "This is the chalice of My Blood" without pronouncing the rest of the form for the consecration of the wine. I know you weren't suggesting that Mary, but just wanted to make that clear in case anyone inferred that from this quote.
quote:
This MANY could be understood as all (I think I read somewhere that it's a Hebraism for MANY to stand for ALL), as in MANY are called but few are chosen. In fact, ALL are called to be saved.
St. Augustine says the word MANY "is sometimes used in Scripture for ALL," ("The City of God," Book XX, Ch. 23) This does not mean, however, that this is always the case. And in fact the Church has specifically clarified this matter. I refer you to The Catechism by Decree of the Holy Council of Trent, page 227 (in the 1934 translation by John A. McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P.). Under the heading Explanation of the Form Used in the Consecration of the Wine, reads the following: "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."
"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."
If this is not enough, Pope Benedict XIV, in Book II, Chapter XV, par. 11 of his work De Sacrosancto Missae Sacrificio, quotes St. Thomas Aquinas and confirms the validity of his interpretation of the words "for many".
Here, again, is the quote from St. Thomas: "Reply Obj. 8. The blood of Christ's Passion has its efficacy not merely in the elect among the Jews, to whom the blood of the Old Testament was exhibited, but also in the Gentiles ... And therefore He says expressly, FOR YOU, the Jews, AND FOR MANY, namely the Gentiles ..."
And here is what the Holy Father says about it: "Therefore We say that the Blood of Christ was shed for all, shed for all however AS REGARDS SUFFICIENCY (Benedict's emphasis), and for the elect only AS REGARDS EFFICACY (again Benedict's emphasis), as the Doctor Thomas explains correctly: 'The blood of Christ's Passion has its efficacy not merely in the elect among the Jews, ... but also in the Gentiles ... And therefore He says expressly, for you, the Jews, and for many, namely the Gentiles ...'"
Labels: St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica
