Author Topic: Valid but illicit (Read 4091 times)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #5 on:** November 10, 2020, 09:05:37 AM »

Quote

Do you have the source for him saying masses said with "for all" were invalid? I'd like to save the source.

Thomas Aquinas (Saint, Doctor of the Church, the leading theologian on the Eucharist and probably the greatest mind the Church has ever had), says in his monumental, erudite, theological treatise, Summa Theologica: “We must see whether. a. change of words destroys the essential sense of the words , because then the Sacrament is clearly invalid.” (Summa Theologica, III ,Q.60,Art.8) (Emphasis added)
.
Pope Benedict XIV, commenting on the explicit refutation by St. Thomas of the argument that the words “for all men” ought to be used instead of “for many”, says:
.
“Therefore We say that the blood of Christ was shed for a ll; ho wev er, a s reg a rds sufficiency, and for the elect only, as regards efficacy, as Doctor Thomas explains correctly: ‘The blood of Christ’s Passion has its efficacy not merely in the elect among the Jews, but also in the Gentiles’ .... And therefore he says expressly, for you the Jews and for many, namely the Gentiles.” (Book II, Ch. XV, para. 11: De Sacrosancto Missae Sacrificio)
.
.
Comment: Of course +Benedict, being a Modernist, doesn't speak super clearly, but if "many" is essentially different in meaning than "all", then per St Thomas, the mass is invalid. Any normal person would agree.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Valid but illicit (Read 4091 times)

Pax Vobis

Re: Valid but illicit