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

[Michael Wilson]

Right, but He still did shed His precious blood for all; what was required for sufficiency, regardless of it not being efficacious for some, or perhaps even for many. Think of His Sacrifice as being for (as many as will receive it), so at the moment, it was for an indefinite sum, of all the living, dead, and yet to come. To maintain otherwise was condemned at Trent. It is a Calvinist heresy.

There are two aspects to the Redemption; 1. The "objective" Redemption i.e. Our Lord died for all men and His merits are infinite.
2. The "subjective" Redemption; the merits of Our Lord must be applied to sinners. Not all men will receive the fruits of the Redemption, because they fail to respond to the calls of grace.

The Koine Greek and the Latin "pro multis" does not connotate a sum, by limit or by unlimit. It simply denotes an undefined but very large number. For example, "the multitude" is of the same root. Ergo, like I mentioned in the other post about the sparrows.. it does not define a sum, or it wouldn't make sense. Thus, it was a perfect translation, and should not have been altered.

Yes, that is why Our Lord here spoke of the "subjective" Redemption. There are words in both the Hebrew and Aramaic that He could have used to indicate "all men", yet He did not, as not all men will enjoy the fruits of His Redemption i.e. Eternal Salvation.
Here is the Catechism explaining this:

he 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. 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.

[Michael72]

If you're talking to me, I am aware, but it would seem perhaps you are not, or the author of that piece, whom selectively truncated the Catechism for her purpose, was being disingenuous! Her article, from which you're pasting, in which she retorts B16, appears on traditioninaction and on cmri.org. She does not appropriately reference the source, for the source is not the Council itself, it is the Catechism, and in the Catechism of the exact same paragraph, she deliberately omits this line:


"we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all"

"Form Of The Eucarist", "Explanation Of The Form Used In The Consecration Of The Wine":
Catechism / From the Decree of the Council of Trent For Parish Priests /Issued by Order of St. Pius V, Supreme Pontiff
http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/cattrent.htm

And, in the Trent document itself:

CANON vil—lIf anyone saith that grace, as far as God's part is concerned, is not given through the said sacraments always, and to all men, even though they receive them rightly, but (only) sometimes, and to some persons; let him be ana- thema.

https://archive.org/details/canonsdecreesofs0000coun/page/54/mode/2up

I was quoting the Catechism of the Council of Trent, not some article about it.

The Precious Blood is sufficient for all to be saved, but only efficient for many.

The Church teaches that the Sacraments signify what they effect, and effect what they signify.

With regards to the Sacrament of Holy Communion, the effect of the Sacrament is the union of the members of the Mystical Body of Christ with Christ the head.

But not "all" are members of the Mystical Body, only "many".

Therefore the words "for you and for all men" fail to signify the effect of this Sacrament, and renders it invalid.

In Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul's accounts of the institution of this Sacrament by our Lord at the last supper, they all say "for many", "not for all."

No approved rite of Mass in all of Church history has ever said "for all". Not one.

[Jmartyr]

 I know we are talking about bishops, but the N.O. had a doubtfully valid consecration formula before the latest changes,imho . Where the validity of sacraments is concerned and a doubt arises, the safest course is to be followed has been condemned.  Theologians were divided on what constitutes the bare minimum of a valid consecration of the Eucharist.

[Justin Martyr]

The N.O. had a doubtfully valid consecration formula before the latest changes. Where the validity of sacraments is concerned and a doubt arises, the safest course is to be followed has been condemned.  Theologians were divided on what constitutes the bare minimum of a valid consecration of the Eucharist.

The Latin text hasn't ever been changed as far as I know, you must be referring to the English

The only forms required for validity, as far as I'm aware, are HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM and HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI. Objections on the basis of translating pro multis as "for all" or the Mysterium Fidei having been moved prove too much, as it would render some of the Eastern Rites doubtfully valid as well. The Photian Schismatics don't even have to intention to consecrate during the consecration, but instead during the Epiclesis, yet the Church has never doubted the validity of their sacraments.

[Michael Wilson]

J.M.
There are two opinions among theologians on what is essential in the form of the Consecration; there are some who hold that the words: "This is My Body" and "This is my Blood", are alone sufficient. Against this opinion, is that there are no Consecratory forms that only include these words. St. Thomas and the Catechism of the Council of Trent (and other theologians), hold that the words that follow "This is my blood...." are also necessary, because these denote the application of the fruits of the Passion i.e. Our Lord did not just consecrate His Body and Blood at the Last Supper, but Consecrated His Body and Blood, that was to be shed, in order that men in partaking of this sacrament, might receive the fruits of His Passion.
Here is St. Thomas in III. Q. 78, A. 3.

Article 3. Whether this is the proper form for the consecration of the wine: "This is the chalice of My blood," etc.?
Objection 1. It seems that this is not the proper form for the consecration of the wine. "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 unto the forgiveness of sins." For as the bread is changed by the power of consecration into Christ's body, so is the wine changed into Christ's blood, as is clear from what was said above (76, 1,2,3). But in the form of the consecration of the bread, the body of Christ is expressly mentioned, without any addition. Therefore in this form the blood of Christ is improperly expressed in the oblique case, and the chalice in the nominative, when it is said: "This is the chalice of My blood."
I answer that, There is a twofold opinion regarding this form. Some have maintained that the words "This is the chalice of My blood" alone belong to the substance of this form, but not those words which follow. Now this seems incorrect, because the words which follow them are determinations of the predicate, that is, of Christ's blood. Consequently they belong to the integrity of the expression.

And on this account others say more accurately that all the words which follow are of the substance of the form down to the words, "As often as ye shall do this," which belong to the use of this sacrament, and consequently do not belong to the substance of the form. Hence it is that the priest pronounces all these words, under the same rite and manner, namely, holding the chalice in his hands. Moreover, in Luke 22:20, the words that follow are interposed with the preceding words: "This is the chalice, the new testament in My blood."

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, as explained above (Article 2) in the form for the consecration of the bread; but by the words which come after is shown the power of the blood shed in the Passion, which power works in this sacrament, and is ordained for three purposes. First and principally for securing our eternal heritage, according to Hebrews 10:19: "Having confidence in the entering into the holies by the blood of Christ"; and in order to denote this, we say, "of the New and Eternal Testament." Secondly, for justifying by grace, which is by faith according to Romans 3:25-26: "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood . . . that He Himself may be just, and the justifier of him who is of the faith of Jesus Christ": and on this account we add, "The Mystery of Faith." Thirdly, for removing sins which are the impediments to both of these things, according to Hebrews 9:14: "The blood of Christ . . . shall cleanse our conscience from dead works," that is, from sins; and on this account, we say, "which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins."

That other rites do not contain the exact same words, is beside the point, as they are express the same truth.

[Justin Martyr]

J.M.
There are two opinions among theologians on what is essential in the form of the Consecration; there are some who hold that the words: "This is My Body" and "This is my Blood", are alone sufficient. Against this opinion, is that there are no Consecratory forms that only include these words. St. Thomas and the Catechism of the Council of Trent (and other theologians), hold that the words that follow "This is my blood...." are also necessary, because these denote the application of the fruits of the Passion i.e. Our Lord did not just consecrate His Body and Blood at the Last Supper, but Consecrated His Body and Blood, that was to be shed, in order that men in partaking of this sacrament, might receive the fruits of His Passion.
Here is St. Thomas in III. Q. 78, A. 3.

Article 3. Whether this is the proper form for the consecration of the wine: "This is the chalice of My blood," etc.?
Objection 1. It seems that this is not the proper form for the consecration of the wine. "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 unto the forgiveness of sins." For as the bread is changed by the power of consecration into Christ's body, so is the wine changed into Christ's blood, as is clear from what was said above (76, 1,2,3). But in the form of the consecration of the bread, the body of Christ is expressly mentioned, without any addition. Therefore in this form the blood of Christ is improperly expressed in the oblique case, and the chalice in the nominative, when it is said: "This is the chalice of My blood."
I answer that, There is a twofold opinion regarding this form. Some have maintained that the words "This is the chalice of My blood" alone belong to the substance of this form, but not those words which follow. Now this seems incorrect, because the words which follow them are determinations of the predicate, that is, of Christ's blood. Consequently they belong to the integrity of the expression.

And on this account others say more accurately that all the words which follow are of the substance of the form down to the words, "As often as ye shall do this," which belong to the use of this sacrament, and consequently do not belong to the substance of the form. Hence it is that the priest pronounces all these words, under the same rite and manner, namely, holding the chalice in his hands. Moreover, in Luke 22:20, the words that follow are interposed with the preceding words: "This is the chalice, the new testament in My blood."

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, as explained above (Article 2) in the form for the consecration of the bread; but by the words which come after is shown the power of the blood shed in the Passion, which power works in this sacrament, and is ordained for three purposes. First and principally for securing our eternal heritage, according to Hebrews 10:19: "Having confidence in the entering into the holies by the blood of Christ"; and in order to denote this, we say, "of the New and Eternal Testament." Secondly, for justifying by grace, which is by faith according to Romans 3:25-26: "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood . . . that He Himself may be just, and the justifier of him who is of the faith of Jesus Christ": and on this account we add, "The Mystery of Faith." Thirdly, for removing sins which are the impediments to both of these things, according to Hebrews 9:14: "The blood of Christ . . . shall cleanse our conscience from dead works," that is, from sins; and on this account, we say, "which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins."

That other rites do not contain the exact same words, is beside the point, as they are express the same truth.

Thank you very much for this, it's quite helpful.

Presuming the opinion of St. Thomas to be true (which is almost always a safe bet), it is nevertheless the case that the CDF and the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (what a mouthfull!) has stated at least twice that when pro multis is rendered "for all" in some approved translations, that it is to be understood in a Catholic sense (i.e., that Christ shed his blood for all men, though His Previous Blood is only applied to many) rather than in a Universalist sense; and that one is to understand any approved translations in light of the official Latin (rather than the other way around).

The reform of the liturgy, carried put in accordance with the Constitution of the Second Vatican Council; has also introduced certain modifications in the very essence of the sacramental rites. These new words, just as the others, were to be translated into the vernacular in such a way as to express the original meaning according to the characteristic genius of the various languages. From this certain difficulties have arisen which come to light when such translations are submitted by the Episcopal Conferences for the approval of the Apostolic See. In this situation the S. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith again reminds those concerned that the translation of the essential formulas in the rites of the Sacraments must tender faithfully the original sense of the Latin typical text. Bearing this in mind it makes known:

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.

With the approbation of the Holy Father granted in an Audience to the Cardinal Prefect on 25 January 1974.

Your Eminence / Your Excellency,

In July 2005 this Congregation for the Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, by agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote to all Presidents of Conferences of Bishops to ask their considered opinion regarding the translation into the various vernaculars of the expression pro multis in the formula for the consecration of the Precious Blood during the celebration of Holy Mass (ref. Prot. n. 467/05/L of 9 July 2005).

The replies received from the Bishops' Conferences were studied by the two Congregations and a report was made to the Holy Father. At his direction, this Congregation now writes to Your Eminence / Your Excellency in the following terms:

1. A text corresponding to the words pro multis, handed down by the Church, constitutes the formula that has been in use in the Roman Rite in Latin from the earliest centuries. In the past 30 years or so, some approved vernacular texts have carried the interpretive translation "for all", "per tutti", or equivalents.

2. There is no doubt whatsoever regarding the validity of Masses celebrated with the use of a duly approved formula containing a formula equivalent to "for all", as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already declared (cf. Sacra Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Declaratio de sensu tribuendo adprobationi versionum formularum sacramentalium, 25 Ianuarii 1974, AAS 66 [1974], 661). Indeed, the formula "for all" would undoubtedly correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord's intention expressed in the text. It is a dogma of faith that Christ died on the Cross for all men and women (cf. John 11:52; 2 Corinthians 5,14-15; Titus 2,11; 1 John 2,2).

3. There are, however, many arguments in favour of a more precise rendering of the traditional formula pro multis:

a. The Synoptic Gospels (Mt 26,28; Mk 14,24) make specific reference to "many" ([Greek word transliterated as polloin])) for whom the Lord is offering the Sacrifice, and this wording has been emphasized by some biblical scholars in connection with the words of the prophet Isaiah (53, 11-12). It would have been entirely possible in the Gospel texts to have said "for all" (for example, cf. Luke 12,41); instead, the formula given in the institution narrative is "for many", and the words have been faithfully translated thus in most modern biblical versions.
b. The Roman Rite in Latin has always said pro multis and never pro omnibus in the consecration of the chalice.
c. The anaphoras of the various Oriental Rites, whether in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, the Slavic languages, etc., contain the verbal equivalent of the Latin pro multis in their respective languages.
d. "For many" is a faithful translation of pro multis, whereas "for all" is rather an explanation of the sort that belongs properly to catechesis.
e. The expression "for many", while remaining open to the inclusion of each human person, is reflective also of the fact that this salvation is not brought about in some mechanistic way, without one's willing or participation; rather, the believer is invited to accept in faith the gift that is being offered and to receive the supernatural life that is given to those who participate in this mystery, living it out in their lives as well so as to be numbered among the "many" to whom the text refers.
f. In line with the Instruction Liturgiam authenticam, effort should be made to be more faithful to the Latin texts in the typical editions.

4. The Bishops' Conferences of those countries where the formula "for all" or its equivalent is currently in use are therefore requested to undertake the necessary catechesis of the faithful on this matter in the next one or two years to prepare them for the introduction of a precise vernacular translation of the formula pro multis (e.g, "for many", "per molti", etc.) in the next translation of the Roman Missal that the Bishops and the Holy See will approve for use in their country.

With the expression of my high esteem and respect, I remain, Your Eminence/Your Excellency,

Devotedly Yours in Christ,

Francis Card. Arinze
Prefect

So I don't see how the older English translation could be considered doubtfully valid on these grounds unless one is of the opinion the Roman Curia is simply lying about the intended meaning.

Of course, it's a moot point anyway if one believes that revised rite of ordination to be doubtfully valid 

[andy]

I personally follow Fr. Hesse opinion, that NO said strictly to the book in Latin is valid while translations using "for all" are doubtful (some like Polish always used "for many").

As far as when Transubstantiation takes place, my personal opinion is that, it is when a priest says "This is my Body" provided that the rest is completed as in the book. Since God is beyond time, this is imo a quite probable answer.

Another question is whether a Consecration outside of the Mass is valid or not.  If I remember correctly, Fr. Hesse argued that it is not.

[Justin Martyr]

Another question is whether a Consecration outside of the Mass is valid or not.  If I remember correctly, Fr. Hesse argued that it is not.

This latter point is controverted. St. Thomas says it is valid, however other theologians I've read say it is not.

[andy]

Another question is whether a Consecration outside of the Mass is valid or not.  If I remember correctly, Fr. Hesse argued that it is not.

This latter point is conroverted. St. Thomas says it is valid, however other theologians I've read say it is not.

I do not want to misrepresent, so this is the link to Fr. Hesse reasoning (the "outside mass" piece starts about 36:40 - ~46:00)

[andy]

I personally follow Fr. Hesse opinion, that NO said strictly to the book in Latin is valid while translations using "for all" are doubtful

so when I listened to Fr. Hesse again, it seems his opinion is even stronger.

[Michael Wilson]

Presuming the opinion of St. Thomas to be true (which is almost always a safe bet), it is nevertheless the case that the CDF and the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (what a mouthfull!) has stated at least twice that when pro multis is rendered "for all" in some approved translations, that it is to be understood in a Catholic sense (i.e., that Christ shed his blood for all men, though His Previous Blood is only applied to many) rather than in a Universalist sense; and that one is to understand any approved translations in light of the official Latin (rather than the other way around).

The ICEL originally stated that the words "for all" were a correct translation of "Pro Multis", because (using the authority of Dr. Joachim Jeremias, an expert in semitic languages), that Our Lord was using Aramaic when He pronounced the words of Consecration, and since there is no word for "ALL" in Aramaic, He was constrained to use the word "Many", but that He really meant for all:
Quoted from Patrick Henry Omlor, "The Robber Church", pg. 111,

Line 65: Pro Multis,
Neither Hebrew nor Aramaic possess a word for 'all', The word 'rabbim' or 'multitude' thus served also in the inclusive sense for the whole, even though the corresponding Greek and Latin appear to have an exclusive sens, i.e. 'the many' rather than 'the all'. C.F. J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (New York, 1966). pp. 179-182m 229.

So after affirming that Our Lord really meant to say 'for all' in the 'inclusive sense' i.e. All men, he was constrained to say 'for many', because of the lack of a proper word in the Aramaic.
This is a total falsehood; on page 115 Mr. Omlor will quote from a work on the Aramaic language the following:

A series of volumes entitled 'Porta linguarum Orientalum' (The Gateway of oriental Languages) has been published in Wiesbaden, Germany, by Otto harrassowitz. Included as No. V in this series is a valuable little text, published in 1961, having been authored by Franz Rosenthal. This particular text, which bears the title, "A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic", devotes an entire section to an explanation of the use of the ancient Aramaic word for "all", "every'', 'every-one'; etc. In the process of illustrating the uses of this particular word--which is the same word (kol) mentioned above, a variation of which is (kolla): "everyone"--this grammar text even furnishes as an example the expression in Aramaic for "all mankind" !

So contrary to what the ICEL originally claimed i.e. That Our Lord really meant to say "for all men" in the words of institution, instead of "for many", He had to use "for many", because there was no word "for all'' in the Aramaic language; there are several words for "all" in the Aramaic language that Our Lord could have used, if He wanted to say: "All" in the institution. 
Also, the ICEL expressly affirms by this false explanation, that the two words do not convey the same signification.
Now we move to the new "explanation":

2. There is no doubt whatsoever regarding the validity of Masses celebrated with the use of a duly approved formula containing a formula equivalent to "for all", as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already declared (cf. Sacra Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Declaratio de sensu tribuendo adprobationi versionum formularum sacramentalium, 25 Ianuarii 1974, AAS 66 [1974], 661). Indeed, the formula "for all" would undoubtedly correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord's intention expressed in the text. It is a dogma of faith that Christ died on the Cross for all men and women (cf. John 11:52; 2 Corinthians 5,14-15; Titus 2,11; 1 John 2,2).

So Our Lord could have said "All"; but He preferred to say "Many"; but He meant "all"? And this is the "correct" interpretation of the text; so lets consult an authoritative source on the "correct" interpretation of the text:
Summa III Q. 78 A. 3; obj.8

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."
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.

St. Thomas here is explaining that Our Lord is not referring to the "sufficiency" of His Passion, as the explanation of the  CDWDS is stating; and the Catechism of the Council of Trent will expand on:

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. 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.

So St. Thomas and the Catechism of the Council of Trent affirm that Our Lord used the term: "Many" because He was referring to the 'efficacy' of His Passion, i.e. only some would cooperate with grace and be saved, not the 'sufficiency' i.e. He died for all men.
So this second explanation is just as bad as the first, as it affirms that even when the priest uses the correctly translated 'for many' in the words of consecration, he actually signifies 'all'; which gives the words a false signification and therefore puts the validity of the consecration in doubt.

[Justin Martyr]

Presuming the opinion of St. Thomas to be true (which is almost always a safe bet), it is nevertheless the case that the CDF and the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (what a mouthfull!) has stated at least twice that when pro multis is rendered "for all" in some approved translations, that it is to be understood in a Catholic sense (i.e., that Christ shed his blood for all men, though His Previous Blood is only applied to many) rather than in a Universalist sense; and that one is to understand any approved translations in light of the official Latin (rather than the other way around).

The ICEL...

But what is relevant is the meaning of the phrase as intended by the Roman See when it was approved.

But, in any case, I don't understand why translating it as "all" because of the Aramaic would reflect a defect of form, provided "all" is intended in the same sense as "many" (i.e., shed for all but only applied to many, as Trent says)

Now we move to the new "explanation":

2. There is no doubt whatsoever regarding the validity of Masses celebrated with the use of a duly approved formula containing a formula equivalent to "for all", as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already declared (cf. Sacra Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Declaratio de sensu tribuendo adprobationi versionum formularum sacramentalium, 25 Ianuarii 1974, AAS 66 [1974], 661). Indeed, the formula "for all" would undoubtedly correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord's intention expressed in the text. It is a dogma of faith that Christ died on the Cross for all men and women (cf. John 11:52; 2 Corinthians 5,14-15; Titus 2,11; 1 John 2,2).

So Our Lord could have said "All"; but He preferred to say "Many"; but He meant "all"? And this is the "correct" interpretation of the text; so lets consult an authoritative source on the "correct" interpretation of the text:

If you're interpreting the phrase of Our Lord to mean that the bled is shed only for many, than that is the position of the Jansenists. I'm down with this, but we'd have to consider Innocent X a manifest heretic and an anti-pope. Otherwise, it was already defined de fide that Christ shed his blood for all men. So the Sacred Scriptures and the words of Our Lord would have to be understood in light of the defined dogma.

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."
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.

St. Thomas here is explaining that Our Lord is not referring to the "sufficiency" of His Passion, as the explanation of the

This does not touch upon the issue. For one, the Objection is denying that "for you" should be said, hence why St. Thomas goes into the exegesis of "you" referring to jews and "many" to Gentiles.

Secondly, St. Thomas wrote back when limited atonement was an acceptable theological opinion (i.e., Christ's blood is sufficient to save all but was only shed for the sake of saving the elect). The Jansenist Controversy has happened since then, and it is at present de fide that Christ shed his blood for the sake of all men, meriting for all men the graces necessary to be saved.

CDWDS is stating; and the Catechism of the Council of Trent will expand on:

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. 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.

The Roman Catechism is correct, and this same sense, 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, is the sense in which the Church intended "for all" in the translations. And it is the sense of the words that is relevant, not the exact words themselves (otherwise the Eastern Rites would have invalid forms of baptism and penance).

So St. Thomas and the Catechism of the Council of Trent affirm that Our Lord used the term: "Many" because He was referring to the 'efficacy' of His Passion, i.e. only some would cooperate with grace and be saved, not the 'sufficiency' i.e. He died for all men.

True enough, but what is necessary for invalidity would be for this to be denied or implied as denied; on the contrary, as the CDF clarified, the meaning as given by St. Thomas and Trent is the same as the meaning intended in the vernacular translations that use "for all".

So this second explanation is just as bad as the first, as it affirms that even when the priest uses the correctly translated 'for many' in the words of consecration, he actually signifies 'all'; which gives the words a false signification and therefore puts the validity of the consecration in doubt.

If a priest understands the words "for many" as denying that Christ shed his blood for all men, but only for those whom would be saved (i.e., the Elect) and not merely that it is only effacious for many, such a man is expressly condemned as a heretic by Innocent X.

5. It is Semipelagian to say that Christ died or shed His blood for all men without exception.

Declared and condemned as false, rash, scandalous, and understood in this sense, that Christ died for the salvation of the predestined, impious, blasphemous, contumelious, dishonoring to divine piety, and heretical.

Ultimately, it seems that the issue here isn't with Vatican II and its fruits (which are only symptoms of the problem) but with the implicit condemnation of St. Augustine as a heretic in the Tridentine period; as I so staunchly maintain. The only reason ICEL and others were able to play around with the translation was due to the imprudent and non-traditional (little t) Bull of Innocent X.

[Michael Wilson]

S.J.
Thanks for your usual well thought out response; always a pleasure to discuss things on this level.
The ICEL (International Committee of the English Language), was an official organism of the Holy See, set up to translate the new rites to English. They are therefore giving us the official meaning intended by the authors.
The "switch", involves the implicit teaching of Vatican II and latter made explicit by Pope John Paul II in his "Trinitarian Encyclicals", that all men are saved. 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.
Re. Jansenism. I agree. The Jansenists denied that Our Lord died for all men i.e. The "sufficiency" aspect.
On St. Thomas: He was not arguing for "Limited Attonement" in this article or anywhere else. He is making the distinction between the two aspects of the merits of Christ's Passion: 1. Christ died for all men i.e. "Sufficiency" aspect. 2. Only "many" will be saved, because they cooperated with the Grace that Christ gained for them during His Passion and death i.e. "Efficacy".
St. Thomas:

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.

And your response:

this does not touch upon the issue. For one, the Objection is denying that "for you" should be said, hence why St. Thomas goes into the exegesis of "you" referring to jews and "many" to Gentiles.

I have to disagree; St. Thomas is discussing the difference between the 'sufficiency' of the Passion and its 'efficacy'; therefore He did not use the words 'for all' in this place (as the Catechism following St. Thomas, also teaches), rather "for many''

True enough, but what is necessary for invalidity would be for this to be denied or implied as denied; on the contrary, as the CDF clarified, the meaning as given by St. Thomas and Trent is the same as the meaning intended in the vernacular translations that use "for all".

The very words of the ICEL and the CDWDS stated that Our Lord was speaking of the "efficacy" of His Passion and death in the words of institution, which then would have Our Lord saying that all men are saved.

(cf. Sacra Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Declaratio de sensu tribuendo adprobationi versionum formularum sacramentalium, 25 Ianuarii 1974, AAS 66 [1974], 661). Indeed, the formula "for all" would undoubtedly correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord's intention expressed in the text. It is a dogma of faith that Christ died on the Cross for all men and women (cf. John 11:52; 2 Corinthians 5,14-15; Titus 2,11; 1 John 2,2).

The new "correct" interpretation is contrary to the old accepted interpretation as outlined by St. Thomas and the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
Finally, on the "priests intention": The priests interior intention cannot be known; if he is pronouncing the words of the form, as published by the ICEL and explained by the CDF, then he is pronouncing them with the meaning and intention of those who published said forms; which we have to assume, unless there would be an good reason to think otherwise, are those above given.   

[Justin Martyr]

S.J.
Thanks for your usual well thought out response; always a pleasure to discuss things on this level.,

Likewise

The ICEL (International Committee of the English Language), was an official organism of the Holy See, set up to translate the new rites to English. They are therefore giving us the official meaning intended by the authors.

Point conceded. For whatever reason I thought ICEL was under the USCCB. My only pushback would be that it is not the intended meaning of the authors which is relevant, but the intended meaning of the Holy See at the time of approval. An example would be the 12 Anathemas of St. Cyril at Ephesus, which if taken at face value and in a literalistic sense teach Miaphysitism, but were approved in a Dyophysite sense (as confirmed by Chalcedon and Constsntinople II).

The "switch", involves the implicit teaching of Vatican II and latter made explicit by Pope John Paul II in his "Trinitarian Encyclicals", that all men are saved.

I deny this.

Correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm not particularly familiar with his encyclicals, but I take it you're referring to this?

This invocation addressed to the Spirit to obtain the Spirit is really a constant selfinsertion into the full magnitude of the mystery of the Redemption, in which Christ, united with the Father and with each man, continually communicates to us the Spirit who places within us the sentiments of the Son and directs us towards the Father(136).

If so, I would ask where this is false? It is a practically unanimous teaching of the Fathers that Christ, in assuming human nature, likewise joined himself to every human insofar as they share and participate in said nature. Such participation is not salvific in and of itself, though is certainly necessary for us to be saved, as if the Word had not assumed our nature satisfaction could have never been made for our sins. I know Origen is very explicit on this point, as is Saint Athanasius.

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.

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.

Re. Jansenism. I agree. The Jansenists denied that Our Lord died for all men i.e. The "sufficiency" aspect.
On St. Thomas: He was not arguing for "Limited Attonement" in this article or anywhere else. He is making the distinction between the two aspects of the merits of Christ's Passion: 1. Christ died for all men i.e. "Sufficiency" aspect. 2. Only "many" will be saved, because they cooperated with the Grace that Christ gained for them during His Passion and death i.e. "Efficacy".
St. Thomas:

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.

For a start, if I remember correctly, St. Thomas did accept a kind of limited atonement latter in his life. But that's neither here nor there.

Secondly, it's unclear if St. Thomas is referring to the sufficiency of the Passion in itself or its sufficiency as related to its end; namely the salvation of all men, not just the elect. Even Calvin affirmed the former, which is why I brought up limited atonement.

Aside from that, I punt on the main point. I'd like to study St. Thomas and other theologians on this point before responding again.

And your response:

this does not touch upon the issue. For one, the Objection is denying that "for you" should be said, hence why St. Thomas goes into the exegesis of "you" referring to jews and "many" to Gentiles.

I have to disagree; St. Thomas is discussing the difference between the 'sufficiency' of the Passion and its 'efficacy'; therefore He did not use the words 'for all' in this place (as the Catechism following St. Thomas, also teaches), rather "for many''

Yeah I was firing from the hip on this point. I punt for the time being until I can study it more and get a better grasp on the subject.

True enough, but what is necessary for invalidity would be for this to be denied or implied as denied; on the contrary, as the CDF clarified, the meaning as given by St. Thomas and Trent is the same as the meaning intended in the vernacular translations that use "for all".

The very words of the ICEL and the CDWDS stated that Our Lord was speaking of the "efficacy" of His Passion and death in the words of institution, which then would have Our Lord saying that all men are saved.

(cf. Sacra Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Declaratio de sensu tribuendo adprobationi versionum formularum sacramentalium, 25 Ianuarii 1974, AAS 66 [1974], 661). Indeed, the formula "for all" would undoubtedly correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord's intention expressed in the text. It is a dogma of faith that Christ died on the Cross for all men and women (cf. John 11:52; 2 Corinthians 5,14-15; Titus 2,11; 1 John 2,2).

The new "correct" interpretation is contrary to the old accepted interpretation as outlined by St. Thomas and the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

No, because the efficacy applies to more than just those who are part of the elect; it applies to all grace.

Secondly, the "new interpretation" is not only intending to signify the sufficiency, but the sufficiency and efficiency in tandem (albeit with an emphasis on the former). One would have to demonstrate that pro multis was exclusively referring to the efficiency, and that the sacrament is doubtful when more theological meaning (sufficiency and efficiency) is intended to be signified.

Finally, on the "priests intention": The priests interior intention cannot be known; if he is pronouncing the words of the form, as published by the ICEL and explained by the CDF, then he is pronouncing them with the meaning and intention of those who published said forms; which we have to assume, unless there would be an good reason to think otherwise, are those above given.

True enough.

[Justin Martyr]

@Michael Wilson

Atfter a bit more reading, it looks like St. Thomas isn't in agreement with you (I intend to still investigate the manualists and denzinger though)

Art. 1: Whether this is the form of this sacrament: "This is My body," and "This is the chalice of My blood"?

OBJ 1: It seems that this is not the form of this sacrament: "This is My body," and, "This is the chalice of My blood." Because those words seem to belong to the form of this sacrament, wherewith Christ consecrated His body and blood. But Christ first blessed the bread which He took, and said afterwards: "Take ye and eat; this is My body" (Mt. 26:26). Therefore the whole of this seems to belong to the form of this sacrament: and the same reason holds good of the words which go with the consecration of the blood.

OBJ 2: Further, Eusebius Emissenus (Pseudo-Hieron: Ep. xxix; Pseudo-Isid.: Hom. iv) says: "The invisible Priest changes visible creatures into His own body, saying: 'Take ye and eat; this is My body.'" Therefore, the whole of this seems to belong to the form of this sacrament: and the same hold good of the works appertaining to the blood.

OBJ 3: Further, in the form of Baptism both the minister and his act are expressed, when it is said, "I baptize thee." But in the words set forth above there is no mention made either of the minister or of his act. Therefore the form of the sacrament is not a suitable one.

OBJ 4: Further, the form of the sacrament suffices for its perfection; hence the sacrament of Baptism can be performed sometimes by pronouncing the words of the form only, omitting all the others. Therefore, if the aforesaid words be the form of this sacrament, it would seem as if this sacrament could be performed sometimes by uttering those words alone, while leaving out all the others which are said in the mass; yet this seems to be false, because, were the other words to be passed over, the said words would be taken as spoken in the person of the priest saying them, whereas the bread and wine are not changed into his body and blood. Consequently, the aforesaid words are not the form of this sacrament.

On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): "The consecration is accomplished by the words and expressions of the Lord Jesus. Because, by all the other words spoken, praise is rendered to God, prayer is put up for the people, for kings, and others; but when the time comes for perfecting the sacrament, the priest uses no longer his own words, but the words of Christ. Therefore, it is Christ's words that perfect this sacrament."

I answer that, This sacrament differs from the other sacraments in two respects. First of all, in this, that this sacrament is accomplished by the consecration of the matter, while the rest are perfected in the use of the consecrated matter. Secondly, because in the other sacraments the consecration of the matter consists only in a blessing, from which the matter consecrated derives instrumentally a spiritual power, which through the priest who is an animated instrument, can pass on to inanimate instruments. But in this sacrament the consecration of the matter consists in the miraculous change of the substance, which can only be done by God; hence the minister in performing this sacrament has no other act save the pronouncing of the words. And because the form should suit the thing, therefore the form of this sacrament differs from the forms of the other sacraments in two respects. First, because the form of the other sacraments implies the use of the matter, as for instance, baptizing, or signing; but the form of this sacrament implies merely the consecration of the matter, which consists in transubstantiation, as when it is said, "This is My body," or, "This is the chalice of My blood." Secondly, because the forms of the other sacraments are pronounced in the person of the minister, whether by way of exercising an act, as when it is said, "I baptize thee," or "I confirm thee," etc.; or by way of command, as when it is said in the sacrament of order, "Take the power," etc.; or by way of entreaty, as when in the sacrament of Extreme Unction it is said, "By this anointing and our intercession," etc. But the form of this sacrament is pronounced as if Christ were speaking in person, so that it is given to be understood that the minister does nothing in perfecting this sacrament, except to pronounce the words of Christ.

Reply OBJ 1: There are many opinions on this matter. Some have said that Christ, Who had power of excellence in the sacraments, performed this sacrament without using any form of words, and that afterwards He pronounced the words under which others were to consecrate thereafter. And the words of Pope Innocent III seem to convey the same sense (De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), where he says: "In good sooth it can be said that Christ accomplished this sacrament by His Divine power, and subsequently expressed the form under which those who came after were to consecrate." But in opposition to this view are the words of the Gospel in which it is said that Christ "blessed," and this blessing was effected by certain words. Accordingly those words of Innocent are to be considered as expressing an opinion, rather than determining the point.

Others, again, have said that the blessing was effected by other words not known to us. But this statement cannot stand, because the blessing of the consecration is now performed by reciting the things which were then accomplished; hence, if the consecration was not performed then by these words, neither would it be now.

Accordingly, others have maintained that this blessing was effected by the same words as are used now; but that Christ spoke them twice, at first secretly, in order to consecrate, and afterwards openly, to instruct others. But even this will not hold good, because the priest in consecrating uses these words, not as spoken in secret, but as openly pronounced. Accordingly, since these words have no power except from Christ pronouncing them, it seems that Christ also consecrated by pronouncing them openly.

And therefore others said that the Evangelists did not always follow the precise order in their narrative as that in which things actually happened, as is seen from Augustine (De Consens. Evang. ii). Hence it is to be understood that the order of what took place can be expressed thus: "Taking the bread He blessed it, saying: This is My body, and then He broke it, and gave it to His disciples." But the same sense can be had even without changing the words of the Gospel; because the participle "saying" implies sequence of the words uttered with what goes before. And it is not necessary for the sequence to be understood only with respect to the last word spoken, as if Christ had just then pronounced those words, when He gave it to His disciples; but the sequence can be understood with regard to all that had gone before; so that the sense is: "While He was blessing, and breaking, and giving it to His disciples, He spoke the words, 'Take ye,'" etc.

Reply OBJ 2: In these words, "Take ye and eat," the use of the consecrated, matter is indicated, which is not of the necessity of this sacrament, as stated above (Q[74], A[7]). And therefore not even these words belong to the substance of the form. Nevertheless, because the use of the consecrated matter belongs to a certain perfection of the sacrament, in the same way as operation is not the first but the second perfection of a thing, consequently, the whole perfection of this sacrament is expressed by all those words: and it was in this way that Eusebius understood that the sacrament was accomplished by those words, as to its first and second perfection.

Reply OBJ 3: In the sacrament of Baptism the minister exercises an act regarding the use of the matter, which is of the essence of the sacrament: such is not the case in this sacrament; hence there is no parallel.

Reply OBJ 4: Some have contended that this sacrament cannot be accomplished by uttering the aforesaid words, while leaving out the rest, especially the words in the Canon of the Mass. But that this is false can be seen both from Ambrose's words quoted above, as well as from the fact that the Canon of the Mass is not the same in all places or times, but various portions have been introduced by various people.

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. Nor does the comparison with Baptism prove anything; for it is a sacrament of necessity: whereas the lack of this sacrament can be supplied by the spiritual partaking thereof, as Augustine says (cf. Q[73], A[3], ad 1).

Art. 3: Whether this is the proper form for the consecration of the wine: "This is the chalice of My blood," etc.?

OBJ 1: It seems that this is not the proper form for the consecration of the wine. "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 unto the forgiveness of sins." For as the bread is changed by the power of consecration into Christ's body, so is the wine changed into Christ's blood, as is clear from what was said above (Q[76], AA[1],2,3). But in the form of the consecration of the bread, the body of Christ is expressly mentioned, without any addition. Therefore in this form the blood of Christ is improperly expressed in the oblique case, and the chalice in the nominative, when it is said: "This is the chalice of My blood."

OBJ 2: Further, the words spoken in the consecration of the bread are not more efficacious than those spoken in the consecration of the wine, since both are Christ's words. But directly the words are spoken---"This is My body," there is perfect consecration of the bread. Therefore, directly these other words are uttered---"This is the chalice of My blood," there is perfect consecration of the blood; and so the words which follow do not appeal to be of the substance of the form, especially since they refer to the properties of this sacrament.

OBJ 3: Further, the New Testament seems to be an internal inspiration, as is evident from the Apostle quoting the words of Jeremias (31:31): "I will perfect unto the house of Israel a New Testament . . . I will give My laws into their mind" (Heb. 8:. But a sacrament is an outward visible act. Therefore, in the form of the sacrament the words "of the New Testament" are improperly added.

OBJ 4: Further, a thing is said to be new which is near the beginning of its existence. But what is eternal has no beginning of its existence. Therefore it is incorrect to say "of the New and Eternal," because it seems to savor of a contradiction.

OBJ 5: Further, occasions of error ought to be withheld from men, according to Is. 57:14: "Take away the stumbling blocks out of the way of My people." But some have fallen into error in thinking that Christ's body and blood are only mystically present in this sacrament. Therefore it is out of place to add "the mystery of faith."

OBJ 6: Further, it was said above (Q[73], A[3], ad 3), that as Baptism is the sacrament of faith, so is the Eucharist the sacrament of charity. Consequently, in this form the word "charity" ought rather to be used than "faith."

OBJ 7: Further, the whole of this sacrament, both as to body and blood, is a memorial of our Lord's Passion, according to 1 Cor. 11:26: "As often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord." Consequently, mention ought to be made of Christ's Passion and its fruit rather in the form of the consecration of the blood, than in the form of the consecration of the body, especially since our Lord said: "This is My body, which shall be delivered up for you" (Lk. 22:19).

OBJ 8: Further, as was already observed (Q[48], A[2]; Q[49], A[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."

OBJ 9: Further, the words whereby this sacrament is consecrated draw their efficacy from Christ's institution. But no Evangelist narrates that Christ spoke all these words. Therefore this is not an appropriate form for the consecration of the wine.

On the contrary, The Church, instructed by the apostles, uses this form.

I answer that, There is a twofold opinion regarding this form. Some have maintained that the words "This is the chalice of My blood" alone belong to the substance of this form, but not those words which follow. Now this seems incorrect, because the words which follow them are determinations of the predicate, that is, of Christ's blood. consequently they belong to the integrity of the expression.

And on this account others say more accurately that all the words which follow are of the substance of the form down to the words, "As often as ye shall do this," which belong to the use of this sacrament, and consequently do not belong to the substance of the form. Hence it is that the priest pronounces all these words, under the same rite and manner, namely, holding the chalice in his hands. Moreover, in Lk. 22:20, the words that follow are interposed with the preceding words: "This is the chalice, the new testament in My blood."

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, as explained above (A[2]) in the form for the consecration of the bread; but by the words which come after is shown the power of the blood shed in the Passion, which power works in this sacrament, and is ordained for three purposes. First and principally for securing our eternal heritage, according to Heb. 10:19: "Having confidence in the entering into the holies by the blood of Christ"; and in order to denote this, we say, "of the New and Eternal Testament." Secondly, for justifying by grace, which is by faith according to Rm. 3:25,26: "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood . . . that He Himself may be just, and the justifier of him who is of the faith of Jesus Christ": and on this account we add, "The Mystery of Faith." Thirdly, for removing sins which are the impediments to both of these things, according to Heb.

9:14: "The blood of Christ . . . shall cleanse our conscience from dead works," that is, from sins; and on this account, we say, "which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins."

Reply OBJ 1: The expression "This is the chalice of My blood" is a figure of speech, which can be understood in two ways. First, as a figure of metonymy; because the container is put for the contained, so that the meaning is: "This is My blood contained in the chalice"; of which mention is now made, because Christ's blood is consecrated in this sacrament, inasmuch as it is the drink of the faithful, which is not implied under the notion of blood; consequently this had to be denoted by the vessel adapted for such usage.

Secondly, it can be taken by way of metaphor, so that Christ's Passion is understood by the chalice by way of comparison, because, like a cup, it inebriates, according to Lam. 3:15: "He hath filled me with bitterness, he hath inebriated me with wormwood": hence our Lord Himself spoke of His Passion as a chalice, when He said (Mt. 26:39): "Let this chalice pass away from Me": so that the meaning is: "This is the chalice of My Passion." This is denoted by the blood being consecrated apart from the body; because it was by the Passion that the blood was separated from the body.

Reply OBJ 2: As was said above (ad 1; Q[76], A[2], ad 1), the blood consecrated apart expressly represents Christ's Passion, and therefore mention is made of the fruits of the Passion in the consecration of the blood rather than in that of the body, since the body is the subject of the Passion. This is also pointed out in our Lord's saying, "which shall be delivered up for you," as if to say, "which shall undergo the Passion for you."

Reply OBJ 3: A testament is the disposal of a heritage. But God disposed of a heavenly heritage to men, to be bestowed through the virtue of the blood of Jesus Christ; because, according to Heb. 9:16: "Where there is a testament the death of the testator must of necessity come in." Now Christ's blood was exhibited to men in two ways. First of all in figure, and this belongs to the Old Testament; consequently the Apostle concludes (Heb. 9:16): "Whereupon neither was the first indeed dedicated without blood," which is evident from this, that as related in Ex. 24:7,8, "when every" commandment of the law "had been read" by Moses, "he sprinkled all the people" saying: "This is the blood of the testament which the Lord hath enjoined unto you."

Secondly, it was shown in very truth; and this belongs to the New Testament. This is what the Apostle premises when he says (Rm. 9:15): "Therefore He is the Mediator of the New Testament, that by means of His death . . . they that are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance." Consequently, we say here, "The blood of the New Testament," because it is shown now not in figure but in truth; and therefore we add, "which shall be shed for you." But the internal inspiration has its origin in the power of this blood, according as we are justified by Christ's Passion.

Reply OBJ 4: This Testament is a "new one" by reason of its showing forth: yet it is called "eternal" both on account of God's eternal pre-ordination, as well as on account of the eternal heritage which is prepared by this testament. Moreover, Christ's Person is eternal, in Whose blood this testament is appointed.

Reply OBJ 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 OBJ 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.

Reply OBJ 7: As stated above (ad 2), the blood consecrated apart represents Christ's blood more expressively; and therefore mention is made of Christ's Passion and its fruits, in the consecration of the blood rather than in that of the body.

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; 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.

Reply OBJ 9: The Evangelists did not intend to hand down the forms of the sacraments, which in the primitive Church had to be kept concealed, as Dionysius observes at the close of his book on the ecclesiastical hierarchy; their object was to write the story of Christ. Nevertheless nearly all these words can be culled from various passages of the Scriptures. Because the words, "This is the chalice," are found in Lk.

22:20, and 1 Cor. 11:25, while Matthew says in chapter 26:28: "This is My blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins." The words added, namely, "eternal" and "mystery of faith," were handed down to the Church by the apostles, who received them from our Lord, according to 1 Cor. 11:23: "I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you."

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.

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.