1P5 Article: The New Rite of Consecration is Valid.

[Lavenderson]

Meanwhile, "for you and many" is described as an accidental and additional element of the form used to signify a theological truth, namely those whom the blood will be applied to:

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'm sorry but its not obvious to me that this quote attributes an accidental aspect to these words.

However, for the sake of argument, I will assume that the meaning of the phrase "for you and for many" is necessary to signify for validity. Would "for you and for all" fail to signify this meaning? No, because for all can be used in a variety of senses: it could mean for all absolutely, for all kinds of men, or for all those whom are part of the elect (such as if I address a room with "Howdy Y'all" - I am addressing all for whom I am greeting, not all people absolutely). Can we exclude the meaning of "for all absolutely" as certainly false, such as to render the matter unambiguous? Yes, as the Church has already clarified that "The Apostolic See, after due examination of the translation into the vernacular of a Sacramental formula submitted to it, when it deems that it expresses exactly the sense intended by the Church, it approves and confirms it, while at the same time decreeing that the sense of the translation must be understood according to the mind of the Church expressed in the original Latin text."

Does understanding "for all" to mean "for all absolutely" accord with the mind of the Church expressed in the original Latin text? No, and as such must be rejected, as the CDF clarified. Therefore the true meaning of "for you and for all" is "for you and for all of the elect", which signifies the exact same meaning as "for you and for many".

This is a perfectly standard and natural exegetical meaning for the word "all", and is veritably Thomistic. Observe how St. Thomas interprets 1 Timothy 2:4 -

The words of the Apostle, "God will have all men to be saved," etc. can be understood in three ways. First, by a restricted application, in which case they would mean, as Augustine says (De praed. sanct. i, 8: Enchiridion 103), "God wills all men to be saved that are saved, not because there is no man whom He does not wish saved, but because there is no man saved whose salvation He does not will." Secondly, they can be understood as applying to every class of individuals, not to every individual of each class; in which case they mean that God wills some men of every class and condition to be saved, males and females, Jews and Gentiles, great and small, but not all of every condition. Thirdly, according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 29), they are understood of the antecedent will of God; not of the consequent will. This distinction must not be taken as applying to the divine will itself, in which there is nothing antecedent nor consequent, but to the things willed.

Based on the Church officially clarifying "for all" to be understood as written in the original Latin, if their logic for why this isn't completely absurd is rooted in those writings of St.Thomas, at the moment I have no argument against the vernacular NOs validity regarding this particular point. If the Summa has anything on still feeling "icky" about the whole situation let me know.

That was fun. I'll be back.

[Justin Martyr]

I found a scholarly article on the topic that goes into it, with plenty of quotations from pre-conciliar theologians.

http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt89.html

[Lavenderson]

I found a scholarly article on the topic that goes into it, with plenty of quotations from pre-conciliar theologians.

http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt89.html

Bookmarked. However I hope its not lost that this change was an objectively bad idea

[Michael Wilson]

J.M.

ME:    If Christ is speaking of the "efficacy" of His Passion in the words of institution; and if He said for "All", then the consequence is that all men are saved.

YOU:
No, because the effects of Christ Passion are not exclusive to salvation. It also is the efficient cause of all graces, which are given to all men. This much is de fide, unfortunately, and is one of the chinks in the church's theology which is abused to get around without directly denying EENS (along with the validity of sacraments outside the Church). I accept all of these dogmas with divine and catholic faith, of course; but they do make it harder to defend EENS from those who want to work around it.

Not if Our Lord is speaking of the 'efficacy of His Passion unto salvation'; in other words, the Catechism and St. Thomas explain that Our Lord here is referring to the number of those who are ultimately saved. We confess that Christ died for all men; that He wills the salvation of all men; and He provides all men with abundant, even super-abundant graces to be saved; however, not all men will be saved: as His Passion would be 'efficacious' for some, but not for all.
The J.P. II quote? That is not it; I will stick to the first topic, then J.P. II. My apologies for not responding sooner, and also I have not had time to read the other posts after your response, so I don't know if anyone else has addressed this already.

[Michael Wilson]

J.M.

The use of "for all" does not alter the meaning necessary for the form to be valid, as it does not change the meaning in regard to intending to effect a change of the wine into the Precious Blood, nor does it change what is affirmed about the effects of the Precious Blood; namely the securing of our eternal heritage, justification by grace, and the removal of sins which are the impediments to both of these things.

It does change the "necessary signification of the form" i.e. The grace that bestowed on the elect, will result in their salvation.
If Our Lord is here designating the 'efficacy' of His Passion which will bring about the salvation of many; then changing the wording to "all men" or "all" will necessarily change the signification of Our Lord's words to the efficacy of His Passion for the salvation of all men.

Your quotation had OBJ 8 and the reply removed from the rest of the context. Just because it more fitting to use pro multis (as even the post-conciliar Church affirms, hence why they forced the translations to change), does not mean "for all" would invalidate the form; just like how "The Sevant of God is Baptized" instead of "I baptize thee" and "May God forgive you" instead of "I absolve thee" are both valid forms.

I will repost the obj. 8 and reply to show that it is not taken "out of context":

Objection 8. Further, as was already observed (III:48:2; III:49:3), Christ's Passion sufficed for all; while as to its efficacy it was profitable for many. Therefore it ought to be said: "Which shall be shed for all," or else "for many," without adding, "for you."

St. Thomas here raises the issue of the "efficacy" vs. "sufficiency"; and responds as follows:

Reply to Objection 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; nor only in priests who consecrate this sacrament, and in those others who partake of it; but likewise in those for whom it is offered. And therefore He says expressly, "for you," the Jews, "and for many," namely the Gentiles; or, "for you" who eat of it, and "for many," for whom it is offered.

The sacrament is "efficacious" ultimately only for the 'elect", and not for all men, not even for those who partake of it, and who latter fall away.
St. Thomas has stated in various places, that the words that follow "This Is My Blood" are indeed part of the "substance" of the Sacrament, here for example in his commentary on St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians 11.6:

"In regard to these words which the Church uses in the consecration of the Blood, some think that not all of them are necessary for the form, but the words "This is the chalice of My Blood" only, not the remainder which follows...But this does not seem suitable; for all which follows is a determination of the predicate: Hence it all pertains to the meaning or signification of the same statement. And because, as has often been said, it is by signifying that the forms of the Sacraments have their effect, the whole (sentence) belongs to the effecting power of the form".

The "effect" signified here is the salvation of the "many" i.e. The "elect" through the application of the graces of the Passion of our Divine Redeemer.
The effect of the sacrament, must be signified by the form, therefore a "form" in which the words have been changed to give a false signification will no longer signify its proper "effect" and will therefore be invalid.
Which is exactly what Pope Leo XIII taught in his Encyclical on the invalidity of Anglican Orders:

24. In the examination of any rite for the effecting and administering of Sacraments, distinction is rightly made between the part which is ceremonial and that which is essential, the latter being usually called the "matter and form". All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify. Although the signification ought to be found in the whole essential rite, that is to say, in the "matter and form", it still pertains chiefly to the "form"; since the "matter" is the part which is not determined by itself, but which is determined by the "form". And this appears still more clearly in the Sacrament of Order, the "matter" of which, in so far as we have to consider it in this case, is the imposition of hands, which, indeed, by itself signifies nothing definite, and is equally used for several Orders and for Confiirmation.

If the change of the words of the form no longer denotes the "effect" of the sacrament, or denotes a different effect, it is hard not to at least doubt, that the sacrament is still valid. 

[Michael Wilson]

J.M.

Interestingly, St. Thomas mentions the Mysterium Fidei explicitly when he's discussing the substantial part of the form, yet we know the Eastern Rites are valid in spite of their lack of the Mysterium Fidei. One has to wonder if it's the meaning the words are meant to signify that really matters, rather than the words themselves. But anyway.

The "words" signify the "real presence" :

Reply to Objection 5. The word "mystery" is inserted, not in order to exclude reality, but to show that the reality is hidden, because Christ's blood is in this sacrament in a hidden manner, and His Passion was dimly foreshadowed in the Old Testament.

Reply to Objection 6. It is called the "Sacrament of Faith," as being an object of faith: because by faith alone do we hold the presence of Christ's blood in this sacrament. Moreover Christ's Passion justifies by faith. Baptism is called the "Sacrament of Faith" because it is a profession of faith. This is called the "Sacrament of Charity," as being figurative and effective thereof.

They belong to the validity because they express the truth of the real presence; not that the forms that do not contain these words are not valid, as there are such forms, but that the deliberate suppression of these words in the N.O.M. Are a tacit denial of the real presence, as Pope Leo stated in "Apostolicae Curae" as regards to the deliberate suppressions made by the heretics in the rite of Orders, which signified their denial of the Catholic doctrine of the priesthood:

...For once a new rite has been initiated in which, as we have seen, the Sacrament of Order is adulterated or denied, and from which all idea of consecration and sacrifice has been rejected, the formula, "Receive the Holy Ghost", no longer holds good, because the Spirit is infused into the soul with the grace of the Sacrament, and so the words "for the office and work of a priest or bishop", and the like no longer hold good, but remain as words without the reality which Christ instituted.

It is not the mere absence of "Mysterium Fidei" in a consecratory form which renders it invalid, but rather the deliberate suppression of the expression by the innovators in Rome. Which also goes along with the deliberate suppression of the adoration of the priest of the sacred species immediately after pronouncing the words of Consecration first of the bread and then of the wine, as was done in the traditional rite; all in the name of making the rite more acceptable to Protestants.

[Michael Wilson]

J.M.

However, as Michael Wilson pointed out, these vernacular rites were not promulgated by the particular churches, but were formally approved and promulgated by the Apostolic See itself which acts on behalf of the Universal Church. If any of these rites are doubtfully valid, then both the the Universal Church and the particular church of Rome have defected; which is impossible, as it is a dogma of the faith that both the Universal Church and the particular church of Rome will remain indefectible until the end of time.

I wish I could say something as intelligently stated by Lavenderson!
But I hold that because the N.O.M. Is not valid and not even a Catholic Mass, but a Protestant Supper as it defined itself in the original General Introduction to the Roman Missal, article #7:

The Lord's Supper or Mass is a sacred meeting or assembly of the People of God, met together under the presidency of the priest, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.[4] Thus the promise of Christ, "where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them," is eminently true of the local community in the Church" (Mt. 18, 20).

And the foreword to the "Critical Study" of the N.O.M. By Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, stated quite bluntly:

the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The "canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.

The "Critical Study" itself point to the fact that words of Consecration in the context of the N.O.M. No longer of themselves have the power to effect Transubstantiation:

18 The words of Consecration as inserted in the context or the Novus Ordo can be valid by virtue of the minister's intention. They could also not be valid because they are no longer so ex vi verborum, or, more precisely, by virtue of the modus signifcandi they had in the Mass up to the present time.
Will priests of the near future who have not received the traditional formation, and who rely on the Novus Ordo with the intention of "doing what the Church does" consecrate validly? One may be allowed to doubt it.

The words "of their own force" or signification, no longer signify what they are supposed to effect.
The invalidity or doubtfulness of the N.O.M. Does not cast a doubt on the indefectibility of the Church, which by Divine law and providence can never fail; but it certainly does cast a serious doubt on the validity or legitimacy of the occupants of the Roman See after the death of Pius XII.

[Justin Martyr]

J.M.

ME:    If Christ is speaking of the "efficacy" of His Passion in the words of institution; and if He said for "All", then the consequence is that all men are saved.

YOU:
No, because the effects of Christ Passion are not exclusive to salvation. It also is the efficient cause of all graces, which are given to all men. This much is de fide, unfortunately, and is one of the chinks in the church's theology which is abused to get around without directly denying EENS (along with the validity of sacraments outside the Church). I accept all of these dogmas with divine and catholic faith, of course; but they do make it harder to defend EENS from those who want to work around it.

Not if Our Lord is speaking of the 'efficacy of His Passion unto salvation'; in other words, the Catechism and St. Thomas explain that Our Lord here is referring to the number of those who are ultimately saved. We confess that Christ died for all men; that He wills the salvation of all men; and He provides all men with abundant, even super-abundant graces to be saved; however, not all men will be saved: as His Passion would be 'efficacious' for some, but not for all.
The J.P. II quote? That is not it; I will stick to the first topic, then J.P. II. My apologies for not responding sooner, and also I have not had time to read the other posts after your response, so I don't know if anyone else has addressed this already.

I concede this point, and concede arguendo that the signification of this is essential for validity. I've decided to focus on just the phrase "for all" itself. From my edit in a preceding post:

However, for the sake of argument, I will assume that the meaning of the phrase "for you and for many" is necessary to signify for validity. Would "for you and for all" fail to signify this meaning? No, because for all can be used in a variety of senses: it could mean for all absolutely, for all kinds of men, or for all those whom are part of the elect (such as if I address a room with "Howdy Y'all" - I am addressing all for whom I am greeting, not all people absolutely). Can we exclude the meaning of "for all absolutely" as certainly false, such as to render the matter unambiguous? Yes, as the Church has already clarified that "The Apostolic See, after due examination of the translation into the vernacular of a Sacramental formula submitted to it, when it deems that it expresses exactly the sense intended by the Church, it approves and confirms it, while at the same time decreeing that the sense of the translation must be understood according to the mind of the Church expressed in the original Latin text."

Does understanding "for all" to mean "for all absolutely" accord with the mind of the Church expressed in the original Latin text? No, and as such must be rejected, as the CDF clarified. Therefore the true meaning of "for you and for all" is "for you and for all of the elect", which signifies the exact same meaning as "for you and for many".

This is a perfectly standard and natural exegetical meaning for the word "all", and is veritably Thomistic. Observe how St. Thomas interprets 1 Timothy 2:4 -

The words of the Apostle, "God will have all men to be saved," etc. can be understood in three ways. First, by a restricted application, in which case they would mean, as Augustine says (De praed. sanct. i, 8: Enchiridion 103), "God wills all men to be saved that are saved, not because there is no man whom He does not wish saved, but because there is no man saved whose salvation He does not will." Secondly, they can be understood as applying to every class of individuals, not to every individual of each class; in which case they mean that God wills some men of every class and condition to be saved, males and females, Jews and Gentiles, great and small, but not all of every condition. Thirdly, according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 29), they are understood of the antecedent will of God; not of the consequent will. This distinction must not be taken as applying to the divine will itself, in which there is nothing antecedent nor consequent, but to the things willed.

J.M.

However, as Michael Wilson pointed out, these vernacular rites were not promulgated by the particular churches, but were formally approved and promulgated by the Apostolic See itself which acts on behalf of the Universal Church. If any of these rites are doubtfully valid, then both the the Universal Church and the particular church of Rome have defected; which is impossible, as it is a dogma of the faith that both the Universal Church and the particular church of Rome will remain indefectible until the end of time.

I wish I could say something as intelligently stated by Lavenderson!
But I hold that because the N.O.M. Is not valid and not even a Catholic Mass, but a Protestant Supper as it defined itself in the original General Introduction to the Roman Missal, article #7:

The Lord's Supper or Mass is a sacred meeting or assembly of the People of God, met together under the presidency of the priest, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.[4] Thus the promise of Christ, "where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them," is eminently true of the local community in the Church" (Mt. 18, 20).

No Protestant would every dare to state that the Lord's Supper is celebrated under the presidency of a sacerdos, as to them it is considered a blasphemy to assert that any one is a priest of the new covenant aside from Christ; but that aside, Cardinal Ottaviani is not an authority to quote in your favor, as we shall see.

And the foreword to the "Critical Study" of the N.O.M. By Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, stated quite bluntly:

the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The "canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.

The "Critical Study" itself point to the fact that words of Consecration in the context of the N.O.M. No longer of themselves have the power to effect Transubstantiation:

18 The words of Consecration as inserted in the context or the Novus Ordo can be valid by virtue of the minister's intention. They could also not be valid because they are no longer so ex vi verborum, or, more precisely, by virtue of the modus signifcandi they had in the Mass up to the present time.
Will priests of the near future who have not received the traditional formation, and who rely on the Novus Ordo with the intention of "doing what the Church does" consecrate validly? One may be allowed to doubt it.

Cardinal Ottaviani, after the promulgation of the Pauline reforms, had this to say in 1970:

I have rejoiced profoundly to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and especially the doctrinal precisions contained in his discourses at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe, no one can any longer be genuinely scandalized. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your "Doctrinal Note" [on the Pauline Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae wide diffusion and success.

And here is what he had to say about the "Ottaviani Intervention", in late 1969:

I regret only that my name has been misused in a way I did not wish, by publishing a letter that I wrote to the Holy Father without authorizing anyone to publish it.

The words "of their own force" or signification, no longer signify what they are supposed to effect.
The invalidity or doubtfulness of the N.O.M. Does not cast a doubt on the indefectibility of the Church, which by Divine law and providence can never fail; but it certainly does cast a serious doubt on the validity or legitimacy of the occupants of the Roman See after the death of Pius XII.

And this is where such discussions inevitably lead, to the real meat of the issue: how does one identify a true Pope? I leave such a discussion for other threads focused on that topic.

[Bonaventure]

Nishant,

Sorry but it is a weak article.

[Michael Wilson]

I missed J.M's response:

No Protestant would every dare to state that the Lord's Supper is celebrated under the presidency of a sacerdos, as to them it is considered a blasphemy to assert that any one is a priest of the new covenant aside from Christ; but that aside, Cardinal Ottaviani is not an authority to quote in your favor, as we shall see.

But a Protestant would say that the priest merely "presides" over the assembly and that the Mass is merely a commemoration of the Last Supper, and not the "unbloody renewal of the bloody sacrifice of Mt. Calvary"; and that Our Lord's presence is merely a "spiritual" one, not His real physical presence.
There are real historical reasons to doubt the note signed by Cardinal Ottaviani in which he ostensibly
gives his O.K. To the N.O.M. Based on some discourse given by Paul VI; said discourse which did nothing to correct the evident deficiencies of the N.O.M. Which persist even to this day.
Which of course leads inevitably to the question of the legitimacy of the Conciliar Popes.