http://athanasiuscm.blogspot.com/2008/05/garrigou-lagrange-op-on-pro-vobis-et.htmlGarrigou Lagrange, O.P. On pro vobis et multis
In a debate in my combox a Sedevacantist tried advancing the argument that the use of "For you and for all" invalidates the Eucharist. This argument has been refuted plenty of times but I thought it would be nice to use a pre-conciliar refutation of it from before the Novus Ordo was even conceived, written by Fr. Reginald Garrigou LaGrange, O.P., one of the most eminent anti-modernists of the early 20th century who worked for the Holy Office under Pope Benedict XV. This is an argument both for the form of the wine and the use of "for all".
De Eucharistia
REGINALDUS GARRIGOU - LAGRANGE O. P
ART. III. - UTRUM HAEC SIT CONVENIENS FORMA CONSECRATIONIS VINI : « HIC EST CALIX SANGUINIS MEI ETC. »
a.3- Whether this is the fitting form of the consecration of the wine “This is the chalice of my blood, etc.”State of the question: It is asked whether these words alone: “this is the chalice of my blood,” without other words adjoined are of the substance of this very form. So reckoned Alexander of Hales, St. Bonaventure, and Peter of Tarentasia.
St. Thomas however with many others responds: the following words as well are of the substance of the form, as pertaining to it’s integrity, up to, exclusively, “As many times as you do these things…”
The reason is that the last words are determinations of the predicate, namely, the blood of Christ, that is, “they pertain to the integrity of the same locution,” and in the same rite and manner are brought forth, while the priest holds the chalice in his hands.
For so is designated the power of the blood poured forth, by saying “This is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament: the mystery of faith, which for you and for many will be shed unto the remission of sins.”
That is the pouring out of the blood of Christ: 1. to attain eternal life; so is said “of the new and eternal testament”; 2. for the justice of grace which is through faith, so is said the mystery of faith ; 3. for the remission of sins.
With regards to the accidental variations in diverse orthodox liturgies, cf. Corbelet, Histoire du Sacrement de l’Eucharistie, t. I, p. 263 sq.
Question: With regards to the body of this very article, as Cajetan notes (in article 1um of this very question) there is a difficulty, namely, Whether St. Thomas wished to say that these words alone “This is the chalice of my blood,” do not suffice for validity?
It is disputed also amongst Thomists, for in the body of the article, St. Thomas says indeed, rejecting the prior opinion, that the following words are of the substance of the form; but a little later he says, they pertain to the integrity (but integrity is distinguished from essence).<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[1]<!--[endif]--> And in article 1 in the body and to the 4th he says simply: “These words ‘This is the chalice of my blood,” are the form of the sacrament.”
According to Billuart and many others, more probably, only the words, this is the chalice of my blood, or this is my blood, suffice for validity.
It is proved in the first place from the Fathers especially St. Justin, Apolog. 2,<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->
<!--[endif]--> and Damascene bk. 4, Concerning the Orthodox Faith, c. 14,<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[ii]<!--[endif]--> who say that the consecration is brought about in these words: this is my body and this is my blood.
Likewise the author Concerning the Lords Supper in St. Cyprian, and Innocent III in bk. 4 de Missa, c. 6.
Secondly, it is proved from the liturgies of the Greeks. The Greeks preserve the essential form, for they validly consecrate, as all confess. But they do not mention the words: of the new and eternal testament, etc.
Thirdly, it is proved by theological reason: Those words alone are essential which signify the real presence of the blood of Christ. But the aforesaid words independently from those following signify this real presence, no less than “this is my body,” in dependently from the following, that is handed over for you. Therefore the last words of the consecration of the wine are not for it’s essence, but for it’s integrity.
Gonet responds: this would suffice indeed for the Eucharist as sacrament but not as sacrifice, in which the pouring out of blood ought to be signified. But this does not seem certain, for from the very fact that the second consecration produces, by the power of the words the presence of the blood only, so that the body of Christ is not there save concomitantly, the sacramental pouring out of blood is already expressed, because the mass is sacramental and unbloody sacrifice.
Lastly, St. Thomas himself, in our question, a. 1 c. et ad 4 says, “if the priest would mention only the aforesaid words (this is my body and this is my blood, with the intention of confecting the sacrament, this sacrament would be accomplished.”
Indeed, in our article 3, St. Thomas says “through the first words ‘this is the chalice of my blood’ the very conversion into blood is signified. But through the words following, the power of the blood poured out in the passion is designated.” Therefore through the last words the very conversion is not signified, which was already effected by the prior words which signify it.
Moreover, as we have noted, a little while before, St. Thomas said: these words following pertain to the integrity of the form, and he generally distinguishes the integrity of a thing from its essence; e.g. the foot and hand pertain to the integrity of man, not to his essence.
Therefore probably St. Thomas would not deny, especially if he would have considered the liturgies of the Greeks, the position which is now considered more probable. Nevertheless, he holds that the subsequent words are not merely accidental, but pertain to the integrity of the formula.
Objection: St. Pius V commanded that the dissertation in which Catjean said, “Even if the intention of St. Thomas would be contrary, it does not matter” to be taken out of the Commetaries on the Summa of St. Thomas.
It is responded: The Supreme Pontiff commanded this dissertation to be expunged not as false in this part, but because Cajetan, did not speak reverently enough concerning St. Thomas. Cf. other things concerning this affair in Billuart in the same place.
Against the 8th: Why is for you and for many said? For you, namely the Jєωs, and for many others, namely for the gentiles.
It signifies likewise: “for you eating, and for the many for whom it is offered.”
For the many, also signifies, for all sufficiently, as is explained in the treatise concerning the one God, where there is treated concerning the universal salvific will, c.f. 1a q. 19, a. 6 ad 1,<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[2]<!--[endif]--> c.f. 1 Tim. 11:5: “Christ gave himself a ransom for all.” That is, for all sufficiently, for many efficaciously as St. Thomas explains in the Commentary on the Epistle to Timothy in the same place. Likewise St. Paul 2. Cor. 5:15, “Christdied for all;” Romans 5:18 “As by the sin of one it is all men unto condemnation, so also through the justice of one is is to all men unto justification of life.”
Against the 9th, It is said that the words “mystery of faith” are had from the oral tradition of the Lord, but it is not necessary that Christ himself pronounced these words.
Topic: Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange- "For all" Valid. (Read 3727 times)