pro multis: from the invalidity thesis of patrick omlor to authentic understanding of the...

7/25/2019 Pro Multis: From the Invalidity Thesis of Patrick Omlor to Authentic Understanding of the Eucharistic Word

1/318

Pro Multis:From the Invalidity Thesis of Patrick OmlorTo an Authentic Understanding of the Eucharistic Word.

Dedication:To my mother, Eugenie KussApril 11, 1920-March 20 , 2015

And toFather Lawrence Brey, her brotherJuly 12, 1927-November 27, 2006

Mira profunditas eloquiorum tuorum, quorum ecce ante nos superficiesblandiens parvulis: sed mira profunditas, deus meus, mira profunditas! horrorest intendere in eam, horror honoris et tremor amoris. Odi hostes eiusvehementer: o si occidas eos de gladio bis acuto, et non sint hostes eius! sicenim amo eos occidi sibi, ut vivant tibi.

(Wonderful is the depth of Thy words, whose surface lies before us, inviting the little ones. Buttheir depth is wonderful, O my God, wonderful is their depth. Entering into this depth is awe-

inspiring; an awesome honour, and an awesome love. I hate its enemies vehemently! Oh, ifThou wouldest slay them with Thy two-edged sword, that they be not its enemies ! For thusdo I love, that they should be slain unto themselves that they may live unto Thee.)

St Augustine, ConfessionsXII,14


2/318

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part I:Introduction: On a Personal Note

Part II:Omlor and his Authorities.

1. St. Thomas, and especially the Summa Theologiaea)Omlor, St. Thomas and the doctrine of grace: the distinction of sufficiency and efficacy

b) S.T. III q. 78 a3 ad 8c) Other texts from St. Thomas

2. The interpreters of St. Thomas

3. The Roman Catechism4. Pope Benedict XIV5. St. Alphonsus

Part III:Is Omlors reading of pro multis founded on Biblical Evidence?

1. The clue given by philology: a Semitism by which many has an inclusive sense

a) The explanation given by Max Zerwick, S.J. in Notitiaeb) Omlor responds to the Biblical argument: his critique of Joachim Jeremias.c) Franz Prosinger and the more recent critique of Joachim Jeremiasd) Many as a Biblical expression, whose hermeneutic has a philological foundatione) Examples of the usage of rabiim in the Old Testament cited by Joachim Jeremiasf) Examples from the OT of the substantive use of rabiim with the articleg) Texts using rabiim from the fourth Song of the Servant of Godh) A selection of texts cited by Jeremias as examples of the inclusive many in the

New Testamenti) Adjectival use of many in the New Testament

j) Various authors speak of a Semitism

k) From the entrypoll oiinTheologi sches Wrterbuch zum Neuen Testament writtenby Joachim Jeremias

l) Pope Benedict XVI in Jesus of Nazareth, vol. 2

2.The Theology of many asa Biblical Semitism

a) Creationb) Abrahamc) Mosesd) Isaiah, the Figure of the Suffering Servant, and its repercussion in the NewTestament, and in the Redemptive/Eucharistic consciousness of Jesus


3/318

e) St. Paulf) John and the theology of the elect

Part IV:The Theology behind the Invalidity Thesis is examined

1. The form of the sacrament

a) Is the sacramental form long or short?b) An erroneous translation of the Council of Trentc) Literalist fundamentalismd) Two contradictory explanationse) The ecclesiological foundation of the distinction between sacraments institutedin genere and those instituted in specie.Its relation withe Councils phraseSubsisti t in.

f) The history of the liturgy and of the sacramental formulaeg) The Maronites

h) Was St. Thomas a proponent of the necessity of the long form as Omlormaintains?i) Polisemy

j) Following the Pope blindly?k) The Res sacrament i shouldnot be present in the form merely as oneelement among others.l) How the res sacramenti is expressed

2. For whom did Christ die and for whom is the Eucharist offered: the relationChurch-world.

a) The simple violation of the words of Christb) For whom did Christ die?c) Omlor maintains that the Res Sacramenti ,which must be expressed in the formthe Sacrament, is not expressed in the controverted forumula.d) Is the res sacramentiin some relation to all men?e) The Church and mankindf) For whom is the Eucharist?g) For whom the sacrifice of the mass offered?h) The mass is offered for the members of the Churchi) The mass is offered for the members of the Church, but since all men are insome way associated with the Church, therefore the mass is offered for all men .

j) The argument for the validity of masses using the formulaein question

3. The later Omlor: the final shape and consequences of his thought. Hismisunderstanding of the efficacy of the sacrament His inattention to the abundanceexpressed expressed by many.

a) Long-formism, its mitigation, and its resurgence in the multiple long-formismattributed to Capisuccusb) A Thought Experimentc) Omlors disagreement with the Roman Catechismd) Res Sacramenti: the unity of the Churche) Omlors hidden Pelagianism, and the corresponding perverse image of God

f) Dare we hope for the salvation of all?


4/318

g) The relation between many and all: many is more, not less than allh) Many (greater than all) signifies the Church as a living reality, vivified by theSpirit of God.i) Omlor is on to something and yet does not escape from theliteralist/fundamentalist/magical understanding of the sacramental form.

j) The Sacrament of the Eucharist is only efficacious in those united to it by faithand charity: St. Thomas compared with Omlor.k) Omlor atomizes the Sacrament. Omlors discussion with McCarthy regarding

St. Thomas.l) Analyzing Omlors Criticism of McCarthy

Part V:The Value of the Churchs confirmation of a liturgical text.

1. The confirmation of the translations is a decisive fact.2. Conversely, the approval of an invalid form would indeed argue for sedevacantism.

Part VI:

The Church has asked that these translations be changed.Part VIIReprise and Summary

1. A Semitism expressing the Essential Self-consciousness of the People of God2. Omlor and St. Thomas: Sufficency and Efficacy3. The Eucharist is Work of the Holy Spirit.4. The words of Jesus are the form of the Eucharist.

Part VIII:

Traditionalism, Absolute Truth and the Prophetic Spirit

(In 1997 Omlor's collected works were published in book-form: The Robber Church, which Iwill abbreviate as TRC. (Currently available for download in .pdf format athttp://www.huttongibson.com/PDFs/huttongibson_robberchurch_book.pdf)

Introduction:On a Personal Note

In 1968 my uncle, Fr. Lawrence Brey, Catholic priest in the Diocese of Milwaukee Wisconsinwrote the foreword to the book of Patrick Omlor Questioning the Validity of the Mass usingthe New All-English Canon. Its grave theme is announced and reflected in Father Breysforeword:

Was October 22, 1967 the most ominous and frightening day in the two-thousandyear history of the Catholic Church, and certainly in the history of the Church inthe United States of America? Did that day see a legalized contradiction ofhitherto inviolate decrees and norms guarding the Canon of the Mass? Did it

possibly even bring a new era of darkness into the world, the extinguishing of the
http://www.huttongibson.com/PDFs/huttongibson_robberchurch_book.pdfhttp://www.huttongibson.com/PDFs/huttongibson_robberchurch_book.pdfhttp://www.huttongibson.com/PDFs/huttongibson_robberchurch_book.pdf


5/318

true sacrificial and sacramental Eucharistic Christ from the majority of ourchurches?

TRC, p.7

Omlor's thesis in a nutshell is this: that the rendering of the latin pro vobis et pro multis inremissionem peccatorum as for you and for all men so that sins may be forgivenrenders themass invalid inasmuch as this translation substantially violates the sacramental forminstituted by Our Lord.

My own family was (and is) influenced by this thesis. I was personally aware from a youngage of the arguments of Omlor and that they were the reasons why we did not attend mass inour parish church but rather in a Ukrainian Catholic Church in San Diego. I remember whenFr. Brey came to visit us and explained his thought to us and how my parents afterconsidering the matter decided to withdraw from our Parish and to attend in the Eastern Ritefor the sake of a valid mass.

These decisions led to a particular way of living the Catholic Faith, a particularly intense

consciousness of the value of the mass, and a particular vision of the state of the CatholicChurch.

In studying Omlor's arguments, however, I began to feel that I was not in agreement withthem. I understood that this would be an important matter for me, and would impinge on thedirection my life was going to take.In 1979 when I was 19, during a semester of study in Rome in my sophomore year at theUniversity of Dallas, assisted by Father James Lehrberger, O. Cist., the light by which I cameto understand the falsehood of Omlors invalidity argumentbecame the form of anexperience of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, a joyful experience, experience which I identify withmy priestly vocation.

Experience of the Gospel of the love of God the Father, the Gospel that: Jesus Christ died forthe salvation of the world, for the salvation of all men, and among them me, a sinner.

"Ah, what is man that you should spare a thouight for him, the son of man that you shouldcare for him?" (Psalm 8)

The key moment came in Fatima Portugal in the Bascilica of Our Lady of Fatima, whern I,attending Holy Mass, received Holy Communion . That step, I attribute to Gods grace,which also includes my rational reflection and my free will.

I was accompanied at that moment by Margaret Donoghue, who would become a Carmelitenun in Spain , and from whom I would first hear about the Legionaries of Christ, the order inwhich I have followed the priestly vocation, and by Julie Erkens, two fellow students at theUniversity of Dallas.

Another important figure at this juncture of my life was the new Pope Saint John Paul II whoI saw for the first time in January, at the moment of his return from his first trip to Mexicoentering St. Peters Bascilicain January 1979, and greeting a human mass of which I was

part. In later years, especially by the study of his writings, John Paul II would find hissignificance in my life and in this story.


6/318

Fr. Brey was the priest who baptized me. It was also from him that I had my first youthfulimpressions of the priesthood, by which I felt attracted to the priesthood. And I think thatfrom that time off I believe I carried the germ of the idea of the priesthood with me.

The closing word's of Fr. Brey's introduction to Omlor's Questioning the Validityareimpressive.

While considering the author's request that I write and sign this Foreward Iwavered and prayed and made no immediate decision. What finally decided thematter for me was my recollection of Our Lord's words: Everyone therefore thatshall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Fathere who is inheaven. But he that sahll deny me before men, I will also deny him before myFather who is in heaven." (Matthew 10,32-3) For the mass and its integrity and

particularly the Consecration and the Most Hloy Sacirfice and Sacrament of theBody and Blood of the Lord form the very heart and center of my priesthood andof the Faith I swore to profess, guard and defend "to the last breath of my life."

TRC, p. 13

In the penultimate paragraph Father Brey expresses what for him was thestatus quaestionis:

I have written this Foreward, but what, exactly, is my position? It is nota positionof unqualified and precipitous endorsementof Mr Patrick Omlor's arguments'sand conclusioms. Rather it is a call to intense mutual study of his thesis, and aserious examination of the very real mutilations introduced in the form ofconsecration and theri bearing on the validity of the Mass.If Mr. Omlor is wrongin his thesis and arguments, let him be refuted beyond the shadow of a doubt! Ifhe is correct may effective measures be taken immediately to restore the Mass,and place it back into the hands of the Magisterium. Or may God himself

intervene! If the matter remains in doubt, unsolved, then th only course of actionis to take thepars tutior, indeedthe "medium certum"

TRC, p. 13

I hope to have responded to this call for to study Omlor's thesis, which something especiallyimportant for those who have been led by it to doubt the validity of masses celebrated in thegreater part of the Catholic Church.

I wanted to center on the question ofpro multis, but it should also be noted that Omlor alsospecifically rejects the teaching of the Council regarding ecumenism and relgious liberty, and

his arguments in regard to the change regarding the word mysterium fideiled him to concludethat Paul VI could not have been a real Pope: expanding upon his arguments on the questionofpro multis.

It is clear to me that the elements which Omlor rejects form a coherent whole; one cannotpick them apart. Omlor calls that whole The Robber Church. In rejectingthe Robber ChurchOmlor is forced to outline what his own ecclesiology is. In this work we will try to show thecritical defects of that ecclesiology.

This work contains a refutation of Omlors invalidity thesis, demonstrating that this thesis isbased on sophistical reasoning, and compromises essential Catholic doctrine.


7/318

But beyond the invalidity thesis there is a distinct question which one must consider: is forall men a good translation, the right translation ofpro multis? The question is weighty; theChurch has spoken regarding this issue, and the Church has deemed the question to beweighty. The Church returns to a faithful rendering of the Lords Eucharistic word.

The issue has been clarified not so much by an abstract argument as by the unfolding ofhistory, of a story, of the story which is the story of the Church. This entails that the refutationof Omlors thesis is not mine. It is something that happened, something that I neverthelesswas involved in, and that I testify to. Something in which Gods grace had the chief role.Here we reflect on the content and meaning of that story, recognizing the hand of Godsgrace, looking towards the meaning of the story.

Part I:

Omlor and his authorities: Does the tradition of the Church support him?

My order of argumentation will be based on the internal logic of Omlors argumentation. Hebases his argument regarding on principally on authorities (principally the Catechism of theCouncil of Trent and St. Thomas) whom he believes teach authoritatively that pro multismeans the elect only, not all, and that the translationfor allthus suppresses a necessaryelement of the form of the sacrament inasmuch as the Church (the elect, not all) is no longerspecifically mentioned (or, to say the same thing in other words, the aspect of efficacy is nolonger specifically mentioned but merely the aspect of sufficiency) and that therefore the res

sacramentiof the Eucharist, the unity of the Church is no longer signified in the sacramentalform as it must be, with as consequence that the sacrament is no longer confected, becausewhat is not signified cannot be realized.

I believe that Omlor substantially misunderstands his authorities, which leads to, and isrelated to a misunderstanding the nature of the redemptive sacrifice of Christ, of theEucharistic sacrifice, and of the Church which takes her origin from Christ on the Cross andfrom the Eucharist.

The readings of Omlor evince a literalist\fundamentalist hermeneutics. We will analyse howthis hermeneutics is practiced, from there we can begin to analyze its causes andconsequences.

2. St.Thomas and in particular the Summa Theologiae

One could say that Omlors interpretation of the expressionpro multisbegan with his readingof the text from th Roman Catechism; yet in another sense it could be said to begin with St.Thomas.

The Eucharistic doctrine of Trent is grounded on the doctrine of St. Thomas. The Summa wasplaced on the altar at Trent. And it was the Eucharistic Theology of St. Thomas that wasprecisely necessary at Trent in order to confront the Protestant errors regarding the sacrifice ofthe mass. If the entire philosophical and theological structure of St. Thomass thought is heldin the greatest honor in the Catholic Church, his sacramental and Eucharistic theology haswithin that structure a special place of honor. Vatican II can also be considered to represent a

renewed and deepened reflection on the sacramental theology of St. Thomas.

The Summa represents the peak of the Eucharistic theology of St.Thomas, as Fr. Brey pointsout, and it is shortly after finishing the part of the Summa dealing with the Eucharist that St.


8/318

Thomas undergoes his wonderful mystical experience in which he hears the wordsBenescripsisti de me, Thoma!

It would be indeed strange if theRoman Catechismdid not respect and reflect the Eucharistictheology of St. Thomas.

But an important point here is that the Church holds St.Thomas in high regard preciselybecause of the value of his thought. His authority comes from the value of his thought, not theother way around.

This may seem so trivially true as hardly to be worth saying. Yet it takes us to the heart of themistakes that Omlor makes reading St. Thomas.

For Omlor St. Thomas is above all authority. We must accept what he says because he is St.Thomas. But St. Thomas never says this. He never says believe what I am saying because Iam Thomas. He pleads with us to read his arguments and evaluate them.

b) S.T. I I I q. 78 a3 ad 8

S.T. III q. 78 a3 ad 8is the fundamental text behind Omlors argument thatpro multisexpresses the aspect of efficacy as opposed to the aspect of sufficiency, the truth of efficacy asopposed to the truth of sufficiency, as if these aspects or truths were simply distinct anddisconnected.

My examination of the arguments in QTV began with an examination of S.T. III q. 78 a3 ad8.From the beginning it occurred to me that Omlors interpretation of this passage was curious,one-sided, tendentious, arbitrary.

Here is the text of objection and response

AG8

Praeterea, passio christi, ut supra habitum est, ad sufficientiam profuit omnibus,quantum vero ad efficaciam profuit multis. Debuit ergo dici quod effundetur proomnibus, aut pro multis, sine hoc quod adderetur pro vobis.

RA8

Ad octavum dicendum quod sanguis passionis christi non solum habet efficaciamin Iudaeis electis, quibus exhibitus est sanguis veteris testamenti, sed etiam ingentilibus; nec solum in sacerdotibus, qui hoc efficiunt sacramentum, vel aliis quisumunt, sed etiam in illis pro quibus offertur. Et ideo signanter dicit, pro vobisIudaeis, et pro multis, scilicet gentilibus, vel, pro vobis manducantibus, et promultis pro quibus offertur.

S.T. III q. 78 a.3

St. Thomas in the Summa does not address the question of whetherfor manyorfor all

should be used, but rather the question of why for youis added tofor many instead of usingmore simply with for manyor for all. The context is a question about the form of thesacrament and an article in which the proposition is defended that Hic est Calix sanguinismei,etc is conveniens forma consecrationis.


9/318


10/318

The only subtle error in the objection is that the objection posits that the words ofconsecration could refer to either sufficiency or efficacy. Omlor is telling us that tha Thomasresolves this error by saying that the word only refers to efficacy.

It is true that the response of St. Thomas only speaks of efficacy. Why does he do so?

Omlor holds that the translation infor allfalsifiesthe meaning of Christ. Not only is it a badtranslation, but that it expresses the direct opposite of what Christ meant, that it contradictswhat He meant.

To substantiate his opinion Omlor must explain it, he must tell us what Christ meant here, andhow it is contradicted by for all. The burden is on him.Omlor must spell out clearly whathe means by efficacy and sufficiency. He does not do this.

But the logic of his invalidity thesis shows that his understanding of the distinctionsufficiency/efficacy is not orthodox.

St. Thomas tells us that the form of the sacrament must speak of both sufficiency and

efficacy, because those two truths are connected, because Mass and Calvary are not twosacrifices but one, and because the Eucharist is not merely sacrament, but sacrament andsacrifice. Thus one is not dealing with an ipse dixit, but an argument. That is how St. Thomasdoes things.

The objection is verbalistic, but the response of St. Thomas is metaphysical, affirming theontological identity of the sacrifice of Calvary and the mass. The response is centered on the

blood of Christspassion,sanguis passionis Christi, and the efficacy thereof. That is why it isnot simply an answer, but a deep answer. Such answers are characteristic of St. Thomas.

c) Other texts from St. Thomas

St.Thomas does not say everything about efficacy and sufficiency in these few words. Whereare the other passages in which he speaks of the words of consecration and on the use of manyin the Bible? Let us start with a passage parallel to the passage parallel to that of the Summafrom the early work of St. Thomas Commentary on the Sentences of Peter Lombard

AG7

Praeterea, quod dicitur: pro vobis et pro multis effundetur, aut accipitur deeffusione quantum ad sufficientiam, aut quantum ad efficaciam.Si quantum ad sufficientiam, sic pro omnibus effusus est, non solum pro multis; si

autem quantum ad efficaciam, quam habet solum in electis, non videturdistinguendum fuisse inter apostolos et alios.

RA7

Ad septimum dicendum, quod sanguis christi effusus est pro omnibus quo adsufficientiam, sed pro electis tantum quo ad efficaciam; et ne putaretur effusus proJudaeis tantum electis, quibus promissio facta fuerat, ideo dicit, vobis, qui exJudaeis, et multis, scilicet multitudine gentium. Vel per apostolos sacerdotesdesignat, quibus mediantibus ad alios effectus passionis per dispensationem

sacramentorum pervenit, qui etiam pro seipsis et pro aliis orant.

I n I V Sententiarum, Dist. 8 Quaestio 2, art


11/318

The argument remains basically the same here. It is an argument for the co-presence of theaspects of efficiency and efficacy as expressive of the deep identity of cross and mass.

To these two passages specifically mentioned by Benedict XIV one can add two more. Thefirst is from the commentary of St. Thomas on the Gospel of Matthew:

In hac autem forma est aliquid simile cum veteri, aliquid dissimile.Simile in hoc, sicut habetur Ex. XXIV, 8, quod cum legisset Moyses legem,immolavit vitulos, et obtulit sanguinem, et dixit: hic est sanguis foederis domini.Sic iste sanguis oblatus est pro salute populi. Ad Hebr. IX, 7 dicitur, quod semelin anno pontifex solus introibat non sine sanguine, quem offert pro sua et populiignorantia.

Ostenditur autem differentia quantum ad quatuor. Primo in hoc quod sanguis illeest vitulorum, iste christi; ideo iste est efficax ad remittendum; ad Hebraeos IX,13: si enim sanguis hircorum et taurorum, et cinis vitulae conspersus inquinatos

sanctificat ad emundationem carnis, quanto magis sanguis christi emundabitconscientiam nostram ab operibus mortuis ad serviendum deo viventi? item illedicebatur sanguis testamenti, sed iste dicitur testamentum. Item accipiturtestamentum communiter et proprie. Communiter pro quocumque facto, quia itasolebat esse quod in omni facto adducebantur testes. Proprie dicitur testamentumquando aliquid legatur in morte, secundum quod dicit apostolus, quodtestamentum in morte testatoris firmatur.

Utroque modo competit hic, quia pactio fuit ibi; et fiebat sanguine, quia inconfoederatione pacis antiquitus ostendebant sanguinem, ideo dicebatur sanguisfoederis. Item secundum quod ad mortuos dicitur, sic erat quoddam pactum inter

deum et homines in veteri et in nova lege, sed differenter; quia primo detemporalibus, scilicet veteris legis, sicut patet quod promisit eis terramAmorrhaeorum, ideo fuit vetus, quia non innovabantur homines, sed magisinveterabantur; istud autem testamentum est de caelestibus et de supernis. Ideosupra IV, 17: agite poenitentiam, appropinquabit enim regnum caelorum.Ideo dicit novi testamenti; ibi vero dicebatur: hic est sanguis foederis quod pepigitdominus vobiscum super cunctis sermonibus his etc.. Ier. XXXI, 31: feriamdomui Israel et domui Iuda foedus novum.

Unde hic est enim sanguis meus novi testamenti, idest dedicatus ad novumtestamentum, in quo debemus habere fiduciam; ad Hebr. X, 19: habemus fiduciam

per sanguinem christi. Item pro morte competit; quia per mortem christiconfirmata est repromissio.

Item alia differentia, quia ista addit novi et aeterni testamenti, quod potest referrivel ad haereditatem aeternam, vel ad christum, qui aeternus Est.

Alia differentia est, quia in illa habetur: quod pepigit vobiscum; unde ad illossolum restrictum est illud testamentum; sed istud etiam ad gentes, is.C. LII, 15: ipse asperget, scilicet sanguine suo, gentes multas. Pro multis, et proomnibus, quia si consideretur sufficientia, ipse est propitiatio pro peccatis nostris;non pro nostris autem tantum, sed et pro totius mundi. Sed si consideremuseffectum, non habet effectum nisi in his qui salvantur, et hoc ex culpa hominum.Sed ecclesia addit, pro vobis, idest apostolis, quia ipsi ministri sunt huiussanguinis, et per istos derivatur ad gentes.


12/318

Super Evangelium Matthaei, cap. 26, lectio 4

And the following passage from his commentary on the First Letter to the Corinthians:

Dicunt ergo quidam, quod quaecumque formae horum verborum proferantur, quae

sunt scripta in canone sufficere ad consecrationem. Probabilius autem dici videturquod illis solis verbis perficitur consecratio, quibus ecclesia utitur ex traditioneapostolorum structa.

Evangelistae enim verba domini recitare intenderunt quantum pertinet ad rationemhistoriae, non autem secundum quod ordinantur ad consecrationemsacramentorum, quas in occulto habebant in primitiva ecclesia, propter infideles.Unde dionysius dicit in ultimo cap. Ecclesiasticae hierarchiae: perfectivasinvocationes non est fas in Scripturis exponere, neque mysticum ipsarum antefactas in ipsis ex deo virtutes ex occulto in communi adducere.Sed circa ista verba quibus ecclesia utitur in consecratione sanguinis, quidam

opinantur quod non omnia sint de necessitate formae sed solum quod dicitur hicest calix sanguinis mei, non autem residuum quod sequitur: novi et aeternitestamenti, mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem

peccatorum.

Sed hoc non videtur convenienter dici.

Nam totum illud quod sequitur est quaedam determinatio praedicati. Unde et adeiusdem locutionis sententiam seu significationem pertinet. Et quia, ut saepedictum est, formae sacramentorum significando efficiunt, totum pertinet ad vimeffectivam formae.

Nec obstat ratio quam inducunt, quia in consecratione corporis sufficit quoddicitur hoc est corpus meum, quia sanguis seorsum consecratus, specialiterrepraesentat passionem christi, per quam eius sanguis separatus est a corpore.Et ideo in consecratione sanguinis oportuit exprimere christi passionis virtutem,quae attenditur, primo quidem, respectu nostrae culpae quam christi passio abolet,secundum illud Apoc. I, 5: lavit nos a peccatis nostris in sanguine suo, et,quantum ad hoc, dicit qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem

peccatorum.

Effusus est siquidem sanguis in remissionem peccatorum, non solum pro multis,sed etiam pro omnibus, secundum illud I Io. II, 2: ipse est propitiatio pro peccatisnostris, non pro nostris autem tantum, sed etiam pro totius mundi. Sed quiaquidam se reddunt indignos ad recipiendum talem effectum, quantum adefficaciam dicitur esse effusus pro multis, in quibus habet effectum passio christi.

Dicit autem signanter pro vobis et pro multis, quia hoc sacramentum valet inremissionem peccatorum sumentibus per modum sacramenti, quod notatursignanter, cum dicitur pro vobis, quibus dixerat accipite. Valet etiam per modumsacrificii multis non sumentibus, pro quibus offertur; quod significatur cumdicitur: et pro multis.

Super I ad Cor. 11


13/318

There is indeed a tradition of interpretation of pro multis in reference the aspect of efficacy.This is witnessed to in St. Thomas in his interpretation of the "many" passages of the Bible.St. Thomas, referring to the different "many" passages of the New Testament regularlyappeals to the distinction "efficacy with respect to many, sufficiency with respect to all" inorder to explain them. In his Catena Aurea St. Thomas also includes citations of ChurchFathers who speak in this way. Here we present a collection of fragments of St. Thomas withthis sense:

1.Et ipse peccatum multorum, efficienter, quamvis omnium sufficienter, tulit,abstulit, et pro transgressoribus oravit.

In Isaiam, cap. 53[Reference to Is 53:12 ipse peccatum multorum tulit]

2.unde venit ministrare, et dare animam suam, idest vitam corporalem, redemptionem

pro multis. Non dicit pro omnibus, quia quantum ad sufficientiam, pro omnibus;quantum vero ad efficientiam, pro multis, scilicet pro electis.

Super Evangelium Matthaei, cap. 20, lectio 2[Reference to Mt. 20:28 dare animam suam redemptionem pro multis]

3.Nec dicit omnium, quia mors christi, etsi sit sufficiens pro omnibus, non tamenhabet efficaciam, nisi quantum ad salvandos. Non enim omnes subiiciuntur ei perfidem et bona opera.

Super ad Hebraeos, capitulus 9[Reference to Hb 9:28 Christus semel oblatus ad multorum exhaurienda peccatum]

4.

hic est sanguis novi testamenti, qui pro multis effundetur, scilicet efficaciter.Super ad Hebraeos, capitulus 10, lectio 3[Reference to Mt 26:28Hic est enim sanguis meus novi testamenti, qui pro multiseffundetur in remissionem peccatorum]

5.Beda.

Non autem dixit animam suam redemptionem dare pro omnibus, sed pro multis,idest qui credere voluerint.

Catena aureum in marcum, cap. 10, lec 7[Reference to Mk 10:45 daret animam suam redemptionem pro multis]


14/318

6.Sequitur qui pro multis effundetur.

Hieronymus.Non enim omnes emundat.

Catena aureum in marcum, cap. 14, lec 6[Reference to Mk 14:24Hic est sanguis mei novi testamenti, qui pro multiseffundetur]

7.Origenes in Matth.et daret animam suam redemptionem pro multis, scilicet qui crediderunt in eum:

Catena aureum in Mattheum, cap 20, lec. 4[Reference to Mt 20:28 dare animam suam redemptionem pro multis]

St. Thomas in thesepassages ascribes to "many" (Isaiah 53:12, Mt. 20:28, Mk 10:45,

Hebrews 9:28, and also in direct reference to the scriptural words of institution Mt 26:28, Mk14:24) a a meaning not in apparent disaccord with Omlor's thesis. Yet on the other hand, theaspect of sufficiency is mentionedin three of the four comments of St. Thomas. Only (if wedo not count the Patristic citations from the Catena Aurea) in his comment on Mt. 26:28,tucked into his commentary on the Letter to the Hebrews does he say simply: qui pro multiseffundetur, scilicet efficaciter.

There is furthermore one place in St. Thomas where he refers multis in the form ofconsecration to a group of the elect limited by human non-cooperation with grace.

Sed quia quidam se reddunt indignos ad recipiendum talem effectum, quantum ad

efficaciam dicitur esse effusus pro multis, in quibus habet effectum passio christi.

Super I ad Cor. 11

I think that the correct interpretation of the explanation of these passages of St. Thomas is thesimple one. Manyand allare conceptually different. (They are not, however, contradictory. IfI affirm that something is true in many cases this does not exclude that it may be true in allcases.) That is for me why St. Thomas offers an explanation: many will be savedefficaciously, yet Christ died for all and his grace is sufficient for the salvation of all. St.Thomas does not confront, and certainly of course does not deny what exegetes will later sayabout the presence of a Semitism and the related literary reference to the OT. It would be

anachronistic to expect this. His explanation is more doctrinal than exegetical. Though it mustbe said that St.Thomas intuits in a remarkable way where the exegesis eventually will lead.(Later when Cardinal Arinze explains the thinking of Pope Benedict XVI about this questionhe will say that the translation in for all men is rather a catechetical explanation ot theBiblical/liturgical word than a translation.) It seems to me that St. Thomas and theRomanCatechism, in these passages, are not so much proposing a scriptural exegesis of manyastaking advantage of the scriptural word in order to propound the doctrinal distinction ofsufficiency and efficacy.

It is important to note that this way of dealing with this Biblical many is uniform throughoutthese passages. There is no sense of a dissociation between a redemption of all on the cross,and a salvation of many through Eucharistic application; there is no implication that the Biblereserves many for the Eucharist. On the contrary there is the sense that both sufficiency and


15/318

efficacy are somehow co-present in the expression many. He associates manywith efficacy,but he shows himselfprepared to add but for all with regard to sufficiency.

Similarly, when in Notitiae the Vatican responds officially to the question of the translation ofpro multisasfor all (making specific reference to the teaching of the Catechism of theCouncil of Trent in this regard) it affirms that the teaching of the Catechism is not to beregarded as rejected. Which teaching? The teaching about the sufficiency and efficacy ofChrist's passion.

(question)An doctrina tradita circa hanc rem in "Catechismo Romano" ex Decreto ConciliiTridentini iussu S. Pii V edito" habenda sit ut superata?

(answer)Nullo modo habenda est ut superata doctrina "Catechismi Romani": distinctio circamortem Christi sufficientem pro omnibus, efficacem solum pro multis, valorem suumretinet.

Notitiae 6 (1970), nr. 50

Here is an official interpretation of precisely what is the teaching of the Roman Catechism inregard to this question and the affirmation that this teaching has not been superseded.

Passages such as these from St. Thomas and the text from the Roman Catechism make itpossible to understand how Omlor comes to his mistaken position. But we have also seen howin the longer passages referring to the words of consecration, even in the further develpmentof the passage given above from his commentary on First Corinthians,St. Thomas interpretsthe expressionpro vobis et pro multisin the universal sense, allowing for an inclusiveinterpretation of multiswhich would justify a translation in the sense of for all.And in the

passages in St. Thomas which speaks directly with regard to the form of consecration, Provobisrefers to the Apostles or to the Jews or to the priests , or to those present, or to thosewho receive the sacrament: to the aspect of efficiency, to the elect, in various analogicalsenses of the term;pro multis refers to the others to whom the apostles are sent with theirmission of sanctification, or to the Gentiles (who Biblically represent the universality of God's

plan of salvation), or to those for whom priests offer the Eucharistic sacrifice (who are morethan those who are present or receive the sacrament, who are [all] others, who are those forwhom the Eucharistic sacrifice is offered, who are the terminus a quoof the total unifyingaction of the Eucharist: "When I am lifted up from the earth I will attract all men [or things, inthe Vulgate] to myself" [Jn 12:32]).

How is this apparent inconsistency possible? For St. Thomas scriptural interpretation canwork at different levels. He explains the medieval notion of the four levels of meaning (S.T. Iq. 1, a. 10 Ut sacra Scriputa sub una littera habeat plures sensus). I believe that for the mindof St. Thomas there is nothing contradictory about affirming a certain polisemy (plurality ofsenses) regarding multis. He does in fact affirm different senses (it refers, for example, to thegentiles orthose for whom the Eucharist is offered).

He bases his exegesis on the Latin Vulgate. He forms a part of a tradition of exegesis basedon the Vulgate, which the Church approves, but without denying that there is much to learn

from the deeper study of original texts. The Latin expression multisdoes not have the nuanceof inclusiveness which the Semitic expression (underlying the Greek polloi) has. St. Thomas'sexegesis of multisis theologically sound but does not exclude a philologically deeper


16/318

explanation. It is anachronistic to expect St. Thomasto deal with science that in his time didnot exist or was not available to him.

St. Thomas is erudite. And thus we can find the following words of St. Thomas (or perhaps ofthe final author of the Supplement at the end of the Summa Theologiae) showing hisknowledge of Augustine and of Scripture.

2. Praeterea, Dan. XII dicitur multi de his qui dormiunt in pulvere evigilabunt. Sed haeclocutio quondam particulationem importat. Ergo non omnes resurgent.

With the response:

Dicendum quod Augustinus exponit multi idest omnes. Et hic modus loquendi frequenterinvenitur in sacra Scriptura.

S.T. Suppl. q. 75 a. 2

Without knowing the full philological background, St. Thomas, seems thus to be aware that

there is a way of speaking (modus loquendi) found in Scripture according to which manyshould be taken to mean all. Augustine in The City of God(20, 23) simply says that inScripture many sometimes means all. The Summagoes a step further, telling thus that it

frequentlymeans all. This all helps us to understand that there is indeed something specialabout Biblical many. This modus loquendi will be further investigated by scholars in thefuture.

Without the philological background it might appear logical that manyis to be distinguishedfrom all as is normal in a non-Biblical, non-Semitic context. (Although it must be noted thateven in languages like English manyand all are not contradictory concepts). It is not difficultto explain with a certain reflection on the history of exegesis and a common sense reading of

the Latin how St Thomas and the Roman Catechism relate multisto the elect, but this does notnullify everything which leads us to conclude that that multis may be legitimately (ifimperfectly) translated as all. St. Thomas realized that without a firm study of the literal senseof scripture, the construction of other levels of meaning has no solid basis and everything canfall into ambiguity and confusion. He would have approved thus of deeper studies ofscripture. He would not have rejected them a priori.

The inclusive nuance present in the Semitic expression for manynot only does not contradictour understanding of the concept of many, but helps to illuminate it. One is dealing not onlywith a philological question but with a Biblical question which will be addressed in Part II ofthis monograph. The Biblical theology of manywill finally illuminate this question in a

decisive way.

5. Others

There are other weighty authors, I believe many, who not only affirm the universal/inclusivesense ofpro multisin the words of consecration but who count St. Thomas in the Summa assupport or confirmation. Among them, the secure Ad. Tanquerey:

Qui vobis et pro multis effundeturquibus verbis significatur sanguinem Christi

effundi non solum pro Apostolis aut sacerdotibus, sed etiam pro omnibus aliis quicerto multi sunt. S Th III, q. 78 a. 3.

Ad. Tanquerey


17/318

Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae (specialis)ad mentem St. Thomae Aquinatis Hodiernis moribus accomodataTomus secundus, p. 388

The reference to the Summa is from Tanquerey himself.

Omlor also cites an article of James A. McInerney, O.P. published in The WandererDecember 18 1969 (TRC 117,131). I believe that this priest also uses the texts from theSumma in the same sense in that article.

Omlor also uses Innocent III as another papal witness to his interpretation ofpro multis, butin the passage which Omlor cites Innocent III simply says:

Qui pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Pro solis praedestinatis effususest, quantum ad efficientiam. Sed pro cunctis hominibus est effusus quantum ad

sufficientiam.

De Sacro Altaris Mysterio, Book IV, ch XLI

(cfr TRC p. 102 note p. 105; p 241, note p. 265)

Here is no more support for Omlor than by St. Alphonsus. The distinction sufficiency/efficacyis simply affirmed here.

Which authors thenshareOmlor's interpretation of St. Thomas regarding the words ofconsecration? It is quite clear that the Catechism of Trent, St. Alphonsus and Benedict XIVare all following St. Thomas, and the only reasonable conclusion is that noneof these

authorities can be held to be in support of Omlors theses.

2. The Roman Catechism

Now let us have a look at the text of theRoman Catechismwhich Omlor regards really asthe cornerstone.

Sed verba illa quae adducuntur: Pro Vobis & Pro Multis a Matthaeo, & Luca,

singula singulis sumpta sunt, quae tamen sancta Ecclesia Spiritus Dei instructasimul coniunxit: pertinet autem ad passionis fructum, atque utilitatem declarandam.

Nam si eius virtutem inspiciamus, pro omnium salute sanguinem a Salvatore effusumesse fatendum erit: si vero fructum, quem homines ex eo perceperint, cogitemus, nonad omnes, sed ad multos tantum eam utilitatem pervenire, facile intelligemus.

Cum igiturPro vobis, dixit: eos, qui aderant, vel delectos ex Iudaeorum populo,quales erant discipuli, excepto Iuda, quibuscum loquebatur, significat.Cum autem addidit,Pro multis, reliquos electos ex Judaeis aut gentibus intellegivoluit.

Recte ergo factum est, ut, pro universis non diceretur, cum hoc loco tantummodo defructibus passionis sermo esset, quae salutis fructu delectis solum attulit.


18/318

Atque huc spectant verba illa Apostoli:Christus semel oblatus est, ad multorum exhaureinda peccata.Et quod Domiunus apud Ioanne inquit:

Ego pro eis rogo, non pro mundo rogo, sed pro his, quos didisti mihi, quia tui sunt.

Plurima alia in huius consecrationis verbis latent mysteria; quae Pastores assiduarerum divinarum meditatione, & studio, ipsi per iuvante Domino facile affrequentur.

Catechismus Ex Decreto Sacrosancti Concilii Tridenti, iussu Pii V Pont.

Taken in isolation, the words:Recte ergo factum est, ut, pro universis non diceretur, cum hocloco tantummodo de fructibus passionis sermo esset, quae salutis fructu delectis solum attulit.seem to serve Omlor nicely. "Rightly was it done, so that the wordsfor allwould not be used,

because in this place there is only mention of the fruits of the passion."

The clause, ut, pro universis non diceretur, rightly construed, is a clause of result not a clauseof purpose. (There is a third option by which one might read it as occupying the middle

position of being neither a clause of result nor a clause, in such wise that it simply says thatnot usingpro universiswas rightly done.) The difference between these might not seemimportant at the first reading, but there is a real difference.

I consider the richest, deepest, most beautiful and significant reading to be the following:Rightly was it done, with as a result that for all was not used. To understand the sense of thisone needs to ask: What was done rightly? And the answer is that the joining together of thewordspro vobis en pro multiswas done rightly. It refers back to the Sed verba illa quaeadducuntur: Pro Vobis & Pro Multis a Matthaeo, & Luca, singula singulis sumpta sunt, quaetamen sancta Ecclesia Spiritus Dei instructa simul coniunxit. That conjoining of twordswasrightly done by the Church.

But this conjoining of words should not be thought of as the Church fiddling around in orderto come up with a usable (valid) sacramental formula. The central idea here is not thesacramental formula but the sacramental form.

Accordingly, the conjoining of words is the celebration of the Eucharist, which is work ofthe Holy Spirit and therefore the words quae tamen sancta Ecclesia Spiritus Dei instructa

simul coniunxithave their logical place, and the Catechism is not introducing the Holy Spirithere as a God of the Gaps who one inserts to shore things up when necessary.

What the text is saying is that the Church celebrates rightly (validly) conjoining these words:Recte ergo factum est. It is saying that the distinction efficacy/sufficiency belongs here, andbelongs to the the essence of the sacramental form. If the many speaks of efficacy, it belongsto a structure which speaks of both efficacy and sufficiency, by expressing their distinction.

The conjoining of the words produces the sacrament, and therefore it is the form of thesacrament, and the efficacy of the sacrament results from that conjoining.

Fructumand utilitatemin the first paragraph of my citation of the Catechism are notsynonymns.

The authors of the catechism, like St. Thomas, are sufficient masters of the art of writing tohave realized that words ought not to be multiplied without reason:fructumand utilitatemexpress the distinction of efficacy (fructum) and sufficiency (utilitatem), and this means theco-presenceof the aspects of sufficiency and efficacy in the words of consecration. The


19/318

Catechism here echoes the doctrine of St. Thomas (S.T. III, q. 79 a. 7) which distinguishesbetween the efficacy of Christs passion in many (efficacy corresponding to fructum in theCathechism) from a benefit of Christs passion for all (corresponding to the Catechismsutilitatem.)

Qui aderant refers to the apostles, thus Judas also. St. Thomas affirms that Jesus gave hisbody to Judas (ST III q. 81 a. 2 The apostles represent the Church, but they also representmankind (12 apostles, twelve tribes of Israel, twelve sons of Israel, who are the children of thePromise, which is universal: Gen 17:5 quia patrem multarum gentium constitui te(multarum=all, cfr. St. Augustine, The City of God, Book XX, ch. 23. Cfr. Gen 22:18benedicentur in semine tuo omnes gentes terrae).

The Biblical doctrine of election and the Biblical doctrine of the universality of salvation donot contradict each other. Our Lord as he addressed his apostles at the Last Supper addressedJudas also: Judas, whom Our Lord knew would betray him. The Gospels emphasize that Judaswas one of the twelve.

If Judas is included in what our Lord meant with vobis, how can it be denied that sufficiency

was part of his discourse?The Catechism does go on to say:cum hoc loco tantummodo de fructibus passionis sermoesset, quae salutis fructu delectis solum attulit. Bu what is meant by hoc loco?

Omlor ignores this crucial question.

He assumes that hoc loco, in this place, is to be taken as meaning in the form of thesacrament: the place spoken of is the form of the sacrament.

He assumes therefore that the Catechism means to say that the aspect of sufficiency has no

placein the form of the sacrament. But is this assumption legitimate?

Specifically, hoc loco refers to the expressionpro multis. Thereforepro multismeans theelect, and even the elect only.

In locating a place, however, one needs two things: 1. the frame of reference and 2. thecoordinates

We have the coordinates. The coordinates determine that one is speaking about the expressionpro multis; but which frame of reference do they correspond to?

The frame of reference is the context. Context is necessary to determine the sense of anexpression. But if it is to determine the sense of an expression context itself must be well-determined.

The formal context determining the sense of a word or expression is the sentence in which theword or expression is used.

This is so because a sentence is that which expresses a complete thought, and it is in thewhole that the parts find their well-determined sense.

This does not of course mean that one might need to look to the discourse as a whole in orderto find the sense of a sentence.


20/318

Therefore, I contend that the frame of reference which the Roman Catechism is referring towith this hoc locois notthe form of the sacrament, but rather the formula of the consecrationof wine.

The formula of consecration of the wine is a sentence, and a sentence is the verbalexpression of a complete thought. And a sentence, by expressing a complete thought, givesthe formal frame of reference within which the words with which a sentence is composedhave a determined meaning.

TheRoman Catechism, moreover, is speaking here precisely of the formula of the wine-consecration, and not of the form of the sacrament.

Let us examine the contrast between the formula of the consecration of the wine or breadtaken singularly with the form of the sacrament.

If the form of the sacrament consists of the consecratory words of the Lord spoken over breadand wine, it consists essentially of two sentences, not one.

When one has two sentences one has discourse; and one has entered the realm of thediscursive.

Which discourse is this? One can therefore speak in more general, and not less accurate, termsof the Lords discourse at the Last Supper: Which discourse is this? What was this discourseabout?

The words of Our Lord constituting the Eucharistic form constitute the nucleus or essence ofthe discourse of the Lord at the Last Supper.

Similarly, the words of consecration constitute the nucleus or essence of the Eucharistic

Prayers to which they belong.

This explains why liturgists often advise us not to obsess about the words of consecration, butto think also in terms of the whole of the Eucharistic prayer. The words of consecration givethe essence of the thing, but the Eucharistic Prayer gives the full context.

Not obsessing about the words of consecration is not the same as not caring about them.

In the Last Supper discourse. the Lord celebrates Passover. This Passover-discourse cannot bereduced to the Passover of the Jews, but the reason it cannot be reduced to the Passover of theJews is because it is the Passover of the Lord.

Similarly, and for essentially the same reason, the Passover Discourse of the Lord, must beheld to be extra-Biblical.

Why is that? Does not John give us at length, the discourse of the Lord at the Last Supper? Dothe synoptic Gospels not give us, on the other hand, the Institution of the Eucharist?

Nevertheless, we must affirm that the Passover Discourse of the Lord transcends the letter ofthe Bible.

A Discourse is a verbal thing somehow; but we cannot place a limit on the depth of themystery of the Word. The Word is more than the letter. The Passover Discourse of the Lord isSpirit Discourse: it passes beyond the letter because the Spirit passes beyond the letter.


21/318

Passover means Remembrance and Thanksgiving.

Omlor concludes that if in this place (hoc loco)pro multisrefers to the elect only, and thus toefficacy only, the aspect of sufficiency cannot be co-present in the form of the sacrament.

What we are discovering here is something more subtle than simply the consigning of theaspect of efficacy exclusively to the consecration of the wine and the aspect of sufficiencyexclusively to the consecration of the bread. One can say that the efficacy of the Passion is toits sufficiency as the consecration of the wine is to the consecration of the bread, but thisdistinction, represented by the whole, is also represented in the parts.

What one discovers here is what mathematicians call fractal structure: the underlyingstructure of the whole is already present in the part.

If one denies this, one can never express distinctions, because things can only be expressedone at a time.

But what does this only exclude? It does not exclude that those elect who are meant do not

mean in turn something else and namely all men. The interpretation of the sacramental formas including both sufficiency and efficacy entails that there must be this two-tiered structure.Otherwise it would be ambiguous as Omlor says.

St. Thomas gives a beautiful explanation of such structures at the beginning of the Summawhen he speaks of the different levels of scripture.

Let us examine these words in hoc loco tantummodo de fructibus passionis sermo esset. Whatis excluded by these words? Do these words mean that there can be no mentioning ofsufficiency anywhere in the words of consecration directly or indirectly because only theaspect of efficacy belongs there? This is what Omlor reads, but it is not justified.

It is important to recall here that the Catechism is dealing with the wine-consecration formnow, not the bread-consecration. But both consecrations form together the form of thesacrament: the doubleconsecration.

One might think that if sufficiency doesnt belong in the wine-consecration, then certainly itdoesnt belong to the bread-consecration. The wine-consecration, on one hand, speaks morevividly of the Passion (as St. Thomas tells us), and it is clear, on the other hand, that theEucharistic Body of the Lord is only to be received by the living members of Christ.

But the bread-consecration signifies most clearly the real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist,

and therefore it signifies the aspect ofsufficiency, because Jesus Christ, being God containspower to forgive all sins, all the sins of all men, and this power is what sufficiency signifies:not simply the power of God abstractly but a power that is really present to us because JesusChrist is really present in the Church, and therefore in the world through his Eucharisticcoming.

The expression hoc locorefers to the expression many, or more generally, one can say that itspeaks of the consecratory formula of the wine. It speaks of efficacy. But the form of theSacrament does not consist solely of the consecratory formula of the wine, but includes alsothe consecration of the bread, which speaks of sufficiency.

Does this allow us to say that the manydoes not refer in any way to sufficiency, to all men?No, because efficacy represents an expansion beyond sufficiency, not a contraction (whichwoud entail a contradiction, the denial of the truth of sufficiency). It is an expansion which is


22/318

limited by human non-collaboration with grace. Nevertheless, it is an expansion. Being anexpansion, it includes within itself the notion of sufficiency.

The Roman Catechism speaks of the joining of words. This joining constitutes the essence ofthe celebration of Holy Mass, the form of the sacrament, the double consecration. This

joining (united with the matter) realizes the sacrifice of the mass. This joining joins theaspects of sufficiency and efficacy, sacrament and sacrifice in a unique whole.

Objection: hoc loco tantummodo de fructibus passionis sermo esset, quae salutis fructudelectis solum attulit

Response:Hoc locorefers to the part, the words of consecration of the wine, not to the wholeform of the sacrament.

A second objection: How can one then go on saying that the many somehow refers to all?Arent you saying that many is, in any case, the efficacy part.

Here we can benefit from a concept developed in contemporary mathematics, that of fractal

structure, the structure of self-similarity. In the form of the Eucharist the part reflects thewhole. The determining character of the whole is present locally in the part. Thus theconsecration of the wine is the efficacy part, yet nevertheless both sufficiency and efficacy areexpressed therein, because efficacy in surpassing sufficiency affirms (and therefore does notcancel) what it surpasses

The Eucharist extends the Incarnation, but it must not be thought of as something outside ofthe Incarnation. The Incarnation is Eucharistic in its very structure.

Here I would like to present the full text of the official response of the Vatican in Notitiae to

the question of the translation ofpro multis, with specific reference to the text of the RomanCatechism and its correct interpretation:

In quibusdam versionibus popularibus formulae consecrastionis vini in Missa, verba"pro multis" sic vertuntur: anglice for all men; hispanice por todos; italice per tutti.

Quaeritur:

a) an adsit ed quaenam sit ratio sufficiens pro hac variatione inducenda?

b) ad doctrina tradita circa hanc rem in "Catechismo Romano ex DecretoConcilii Tridentini iussu S. Pii V edito" habenda sit ut superata?

c) an etiam minus aptae tenendae sint omnes versiones huius supradicti biblicitextus?

d) an re vera in approbationes danda huic vernaculari variationi in textualiquid minus rectum irresperit, quod correctionem seu emendationem expostulet?

Resp: Variatio de qua supra plene iustificatur:

a) secundum exegetas verbum aramaicum, quod lingua latina versum est "promultis", significationem habet "pro omnibus": multitudo pro qua Christus mortuusest, sine ulla limitatione est, quod idem valet ac dicere: Christus pro omnibus


23/318

mortuus est. Illud S. Augustini meminisse iuvabit: " Videte quid dederit, et invenietisquid emerit. Sanguis Christi pretium est. Tanti quid valet? Quid nisi totus orbis?Quid, nisi omnes gentes? Valde ingrati sunt pretio suo, aut multum superbi sunt quidicunt, aut illud tam parum esse ut solum Afros emerit, aut se tam magnos esse proquibus solis illud sit datum" (Enarr. in Ps, n. 5).

b) nullo modo habenda est ut superata doctrina "Catechismi Romani": distinctio circamortem Christi sufficientem pro omnibus, efficacem solum pro multis, valoremsuum retinet.

c) in adprobatione data huic vernaculari variationi in textu liturgico nihil minusrectum irrepsit, quod correctionem seu emendationem expostulet.

The questions are well formulated and the answers are clear. The Church has the right tointerpret its own pronouncements and this is what it is doing here with respect to theCatechism. This is necessary for the interpretation of points which seem difficult.

3. Pope Benedict XIV

Another authority whom Omlor cites is Pope Benedict XIV who follows St. Thomas andsupposedly gives Omlor a basis for his conclusions:

Expicantur illa verba, Hic est Calix Sanguinis &c. ex D. Thoma.

Illud etiam ad verborum sensum pertinet & intelligentiam, quaerere, quid haecverba siginificent:Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei novi & eterni testamenti;itemque illa: qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.Divus Thomas 3. part . quaest. 78. art. 3. ad primum docet, cum dicitur, hic estCalix Sanguinis mei, esse locutionem figuratam per metonymiam, qua poniturcontinens pro contento, ut fit sensus: Hic est Snguis meus contentus in Calice, dequo fit mentio; quia Sanguis Christi in ho Sacramento consecratur; & ibidem inresponsione ad tertium docet, dici Sanguinem novi Testamenti, quod non perfiguram, ut in veteri Testamento, sed revera effusus sit:Dicitur, Hic Sanguis noviTestamenti, quia iam non in figura sed in veritate exhibetur; unde subditur: qui

pro vobis effundetur; docet porro dici Sanguinem aeterni Testamenti, tam rationeaeternae Dei praeordinationis, quam ratione eternae haereditatis, quae per hocSacramentum disponitur: ipsa etiam persona Christi, cuius SaanguineTestamentum disponitur, est aeterna cit. art. 3. in respponsione ad 4. Ac eumdemAngelicum Doctorem sequuti ita explicamus verba illapro multis, ut voxmulti

juxta modum loquendi sacrarum Scripturarum significet omnes.Sicut enim per inobedientiam unius hominis peccatores constituti sunt multi: ita &

per unius obeditionem justi constituentur multi: sunt verba D. Pauli ad Roman. 5.ubi sine dubitatione vox multiomnes significat, ut luculentissime apparet exsuperioribus verbis:Igitur sicut per unius delictum in omnes homines in

justificationem vitae. Itaque dicimus Christi Sanguinem fusum esse pro omnibus:

Ipse est propitiatio pro peccatis nostris; no pro nobis autem tantum, sed etiam prototius mundi; sunt verba D. Joannis: fusum autem pro omnibus quoadsufficientiam, & pro solis electis quoad efficaciam, ut bene explicat D. Thomas in4. Sentent. dist. 8. quaest. 2 art. 2 quaestiunc. 3 ad septimum: habere porro


24/318

efficaciam non solum(ait idem D. Thomas 3. part. quaest. 78. art. 3. ad octavum)in Judaeis electis, quibus exhibitus est sanguis veteris Testamenti, sed etiam inGentilibus, nec solum in Sacerdotibus, qui hoc conficiunt Sacramentum, vel aliis,qui sumunt, sed etiam in illis pro quibus offertur. Et ideo signanter dicit: provobis Judaeis, & pro multis, scilicet Gentilibus; vel pro vobis manducantibus, &

pro multis, pro quibus offertur.

Comentarius de Sacrosancto Missae SacrificioBenedictus XIV, Tomus I, CCLVI

Ex Typographia AcademicaMDCCLXII

Now we will give Omlors interpretation of Benedict XIV

But, it may still be argued, even so this Catechism, extraordinary though it is, isstill not the Holy See Itself speaking. Very well then, let us see what was taught

by The Holy Father Himself regarding the proper interpretation of these wordsfor

many, as found in the sacramental form for the consecration of the wine.Pope Benedict XIV, adhering to St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catechism of theCouncil of Trent, officially and authoritatively interpreted the wordspro multis ("formany") in Book II, Chapter XV, par. 11 of his work entitled "De Sacrosancto

Missae Sacrificio". In order to understand his explanation clearly, beyond theshadow of a doubt, let us first recall that St. Thomas originally gave anexplanation of these words for many (his explanation was discussed at lengthearlier in this monograph in pars. 73-77) in which he (Thomas) explicitly refutedthe argument that the words "for all men" ought to be used instead of "for many."Commenting on this, Pope Benedict XIV says.- "And so, having agreed with the

same Angelic Doctor, We explain those words for many accordingly, though it is

granted that [sometimes] the word many, after a manner of speaking in the HolyScriptures, may signify all." To illustrate his point the Pontiff next cites a certainexample (from Romans 5) where without a doubt the word many does indeedsignify all. (Ubi sine dubitatione vox multi omnes significat.)

Returning to the wordsfor many in the passage in question (from Matt. 26, 28),the Pontiff explains: "Therefore We say that the Blood of Christ was shed for all,shed for all however as regards sufficiency (Benedict's emphasis: quoad

sufficientiam), and for the elect only as regards efficacy (again Benedict'semphasis: quoad efficaciam), as the Doctor Thomas explains correctly: 'Theblood 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 [End of quotation from Pope Benedict XIV.]The above passage from St. Thomas, which I quoted earlier in this monograph(par. 75) and which Pope Benedict XIV quotes, saying that Thomas "explainscorrectly" (bene explicat) the words "for many" in the words of consecration usedat Holy Mass, is taken from Thomas' Summa Theologica, III, Q. 78, Art. 3, Replyto Objection 8. It is important to observe that what Thomas is "explainingcorrectly" here is his rebuttal of the claim that the words 'for all' ought to be used!Thus we see that the Sovereign Pontiff Benedict XIV, the Vicar of Christ on earthand the ultimate authority on the interpretation of Holy Scripture, has quoted theAngelic Doctor in order to teach us authoritatively that the word "many" in this

particular instance is not to be taken as meaning "all men."(Note: It was St. Alphonsus de Liguori who directed me to this passage fromBenedict XIV. The following paragraph is taken from his treatise on "The Holy


25/318

Eucharist". It may be found on p. 44 of the edition published by the RedemptoristFathers, 1934, translated by Rev. Eugene Grimm, C.SS.R.)"The words Pro vobis et pro multis ('For you and for many') areused to distinguish the virtue of the blood of Christ from its fruits; forthe blood of our Saviour is of sufficient value to save all men, but its

fruits are applicable only to a certain number and not to all, and thisis their own fault. Or, as the theologians say, this precious blood is(in itself) sufficiently (sufficienter) able to save all men, but (on our

part) effectually (efficaciter) it does not save all - it saves only thosewho co-operate with grace. This is the explanation of St. Thomas,as quoted by Benedict XIV."

Q.T.V. in the Robber Church

A careful reader begins to put many pieces together here.

Omlor believes that he has St. Thomas, The Roman Catechism, Benedict XIV, and St.Alphonsus all lined up and on his side. We have seen how this presupposition has crumbled.

In the case of Benedict XIV we are facing a clear case of poor scholarship from Omlor,because he is mistranslating his text. His mistranslation may have its origin in a felt need tomake Pope Benedict harmonize with the rest. We can excuse him in this. We can respect hismotives. But the translation remains poor, wrong.

Let us have a look at this sentence of Benedict XIV:

Ac eumdem Angelicum Doctorem sequuti ita explicamus verba illa pro multis, utvoxmultijuxta modum loquendi sacrarum Scripturarum significet omnes.

Omlor maintains that the sense is concessive: "And so, having agreed with the dame AngelicDoctor, we explain those words for many accordingly, though it is granted that [sometimes]the word many, after a manner of speaking in the Holy Scriptures, may signify all []"(QTV, p. 62 in The Robber Church)? There is a concessive use of ut, though it is notcommon. In a Dutch Latin Dictionary,Beknopt Latijns-Nederlands Woordenboekn, Wolters

Noordhoff, 1970, there are given several examples of concessive ut: ut desint vires, tamen estlaudanda voluntas and ut quaeras omnia, non reperies. In these examples the subjunctive isused is the concessive clause introduced by ut. That it is concessive must be seen in thecontext. But in the text in question there is nothing in the context that indicates concession,.

Thesometimeswhich Omlor adds in brackets is his own addition, not found in the text.

Likewise is the mayhis own addition. If one understands concessionone should translate"And having followed the same Angelic doctor we explain those words accordingly, thoughthe word many, according to the way of speaking of sacred scripture, means all." Omlorcertainly does not want to concede this much regarding the use of manyin scripture. A furtherdifficulty of the tranlation which Omlor attempts is the ita in the preceding clause. We havethus an ita...utconstruction which Omlor is forced not to observe. In his taped response to mehe has recourse to the comma following verba illa pro multis, Omlor himself admits that thisis not decisive.

Furhtermore, if Omlor's translation were correct it would be difficult to explain the followingwords of Benedict XIV:sine dubitationeluculentissime. If Benedict were saying that

sometimes many has the sense of all but not in this case, why would he give such emphasis tothis evidence which would seem to go against the idea that many does not mean all in thewords of institution? He gives no counter-examples of cases in which many means a restrictedgroup of the elect. Then he says"Itaque dicimus christi sanguinem fusum esse pro


26/318

omnibus" Itaque means"therefore." Is it not more logical to see itaque referring to whatgoes immediately before it and not way back to "Ac eumdem Angelicum Doctorem sequutisumus"?

Omlor's interpretation of Benedict XIV is thus untenable.

I would also like to cite Michael Duddys analysis of this very passage and in h is response toOmlors interpretation:

Pope Benedict XIVs De Sacrosancto M issae Sacri f icio

and the Words for many

In the Consecration of the Wine

Since St. Alphonsus tells us that his own exposition of the phrase shed for you and for manyis virtually a recapitulation of the exposition of Pope Benedict XIV, and that Benedict also, inactuality, is basically just quoting the explanation formulated by St. Thomas in both theSentences and in the Summa, it behooves us to look into and see what Benedict actually saysabout this matter.

In the context of explaining the meaning of the words of the consecration formula for the wine,Pope Benedict XIV, in his monumental theological Tome De Sacrosancto Missae Sacrificioexplains:

Ac eundem Angelicum Doctorem sequuiti ita explicamus verba illa pro multis, ut vox multijuxta modum loquendi Scripturarum sacrarum significet omnes. Sicut enim per inobedientiamunius hominis peccatores constituti sunt multi; ita et per unius obeditionemjusti constituanturmulti: sunt verba D. Pauli ad Roman.5. ubi sine dubitatione vox multi omnes significant, utluculentissime apparet ex superioribus verbis: Igitur sicut per unius delictum in omneshomines in condemnationem, sic per unius justitium in omnes homines in justificationemvitae. Itaque dicimus Sanguinem Christi fusum esse pro omnibus; Ipse est propitiatio pro

peccatis nostris; non pro nostris autem tantum, sed etiam pro totius mundi; sunt verba D.Joannis: fusum autem pro omnibus quoad sufficientiam, et (fusum) pro solis electis quoadefficaciam, ut bene explicat D.Thomas in 4 sentent. dist. 8. quaest. 2. art. 2. quaest. 3. adseptimum: habere porro efficaciam non solum (ait idem D. Thomas 3. par. Quaest. 78. art.3. adoctavum) in Judacis electis, quibus exhibitus est Sanguis veteris Testamenti, sed etiam inGentilibus, nec solum in Sacerdotibus, qui hoc conficiunt Sacramentum, vel aliis, qui sumunt,sed etiam in illis, pro quibus offeretur. Et ideo signanter dicit: pro vobis Judaeis, et pro multis,scilicet Gentilibus; vel pro vobis manducantibus, et pro multis, pro quibus offeretur.

And so, following the same Angelic Doctor, we explain those words for many as follows, thatthe word many according to the manner of speaking of the Holy Scriptures may signify all.

For as through the disobedience of the one man many were constituted sinners; and sothrough the obedience of one man many were constitutedjust: The words are of St Paul to theRomans 5. where without doubt the word many does signify all men, as is most clearly evidentfrom the following words written above it: Therefore as through the sin of one man unto allmen the result was condemnation, so through the justice of one man unto all men the resultwas justification. Therefore we say that the Blood of Christ has been shed for all men: This

same (Blood) is the propitiation for our sins; not, however, for our sins only, but also for thesins of the whole world; The words are of St. John: shed however for all men according tosufficiency, and (shed) for the elect only according to efficacy, as Thomas well explains in 4Sentences: dist. 8. quaest. 2. art. 2. quaest. 3. ad septimum: next (we say) that (the Blood) hasefficacy not only (Thomas affirms the same thing in the Summa part III, Question 78, art.3 tothe 8th objection.) in the Jewish elect, to whom the Blood of the old Testament was exhibited,

but also in the Gentiles, not only in the Priests who confect this Sacrament and also in thosewho receive it, but also in those for whom it is offered. And thus he significantly says: for you,


27/318

the Jews, and for many, namely the Gentiles; or for you who partake of it, and for many forwhom it is offeredThe above translation is my own, but it will differ substantially in only one very criticalsentence the first sentence - from the translation made by Mr. Omlor on page 62 of The

Robber Church. Omlor translates this critical sentence as follows:And so, having agreed with the same Angelic Doctor, we explain those words for manyaccordingly, though it is granted that (sometimes) the word many, after a manner of speakingin Holy Scriptures, may signify all.

I will repeat my translation here for purpose of comparison:And so, following the same Angelic Doctor, we explain those words for many as follows, thatthe word many according to the manner of speaking of the Holy Scriptures may signify al l.At first sight it might not seem to some that there is any real difference between the twotranslations; but the difference revolves around the meaning of the phrase ita explicamusverba illa pro mul tis, ut vox multi significet omnes. Omlor attempts to translate the utsignificet omnes clause as a Concessive Clause: We explain accordingly, though it isgranted that (sometimes) the word many may signify all. and I translate it as a ResultClause: We explainas follows, (with the result) that the word many may signify all. Sothen, who is right?

Here I must digress for a moment and go back to the year 1971. One day, when visiting Mr.Omlor at his house, he gave me a copy of the above Latin text from Benedicts writings. Hehad underlined the ut significet omnes clause and then proceeded to explain to me his reasonfor insisting that it had to be translated as a Concessive, rather than as a Result Clause. (I wrotehis explanation on the bottom area of the photocopies he had given me, and which I still

possess.) Unless this passage is translated as a Concessive Clause he said, Benedict wouldthen have to be understood as necessarily contradicting Thomas on this point. Since Omlorhad previously already formulated the conclusion that Thomas actually rejected the viabilityof the for all men translation, his tendentious eagerness to render this clause as concessive isunderstandable.

But apart from Omlors preconceived assumption about Thomas position on this matter, histranslation is untenable for several reasons.

1. A Concessive Clause, by definition, is one which introduces a statement conceded orgranted for the sake of argument. But, when an utclause, followed by the use of thesubjunctive mood, is to be rendered as a concessive clause, it is accompanied in the mainclause by the correlative word tamen. Such a correlative, however, is missing in the casehere. Therefore a concessive clause is highly improbable.

2. A Result Clause, on the other hand, is one which expresses the result of the action of themain verb. But when an ut clause, also followed by the subjunctive mood, is to berendered as a result clause, it is accompanied in the main clause by a correlative wordsuch as ita, tam, sic, tantus, tot, etc. In the case at hand, ut significet is introduced by thecorrelative ita: ... ita explicamus verba illa, ut vox multi significet omnes.Therefore a result clause is virtually certain.

3. But also, in Omlors translation of ut as a concessive clause, the idea which the sentencesupposedly intends to convey remains incomplete; the sentence never goes on to explainthe fundamental issue of what accordingly means: We explain those words for manyaccordingly, though it is granted that While the pope immediately goes on to give anexample from Scripture in order to demonstrate the truth of the alleged concession, i.e.,

the use of many as sometimes meaning all, he doesnt immediately go on to make anexplicit point about many meaning literally many, nor does he give (as one would expect)any corresponding example from Scripture which would demonstrate the literal sense ofmany as many. However, immediately after citing this example which proves that many


28/318

can mean all (Rom 5:5-15), the pope in the next sentence does complete the idea ofaccordingly: And so we say that the blood of Christ was shed for all; Thus (leavingout the example from Scripture) the essential flow of the popes thought is as follows:We explain those words accordingly. And so we say that the blood of Christ was shedfor all. Here we clearly see that accordingly is equivalent to And so we say that the

blood of Christ was shed for all. And to emphasize the point again, Benedictimmediately goes on to give a second example from Scripture which also verifies thatChrist shed his blood for all (1Jn.2:2); but again, no example from Scripture is given for

many, as literally many. To summarize: If the pope had merely wished to acknowledgethe occasional possibility (the idea here conceded for the sake of argument) that manydoes sometimes mean all, he would not make such a concerted effort to emphasize withtwo examples the exception to rather than the rule itself, and then not go on to sayanything explicitly about the rule, namely, the fact that many usually and manyspecifically in this particular place means many.

4. Itaque dicimus Sanguinem Christi fusum esse pro omnibus; fusum autem pro omnibusquoad sufficientem, et (fusum) solis pro electis quoad efficaciam, ut bene explicatD.Thomas: porro habere efficaciam non solum in Judacis electis sed etiam in

Gentilibusetc.

And so we say that the Blood of Christ has been shed for all; shed for all, however,according to sufficiency, and (shed) for the elect only according to efficacy, as the DoctorThomas explained well: next (it) has efficacy not only in the elect from the Jewsbut alsoin the Gentiles Here Pope Benedict states two things: First, that the word shed asexpressed in the words of consecration refers to two concepts: the concept ofsufficiency and the concept of efficacy. He thus indicates that this phrase in the words ofconsecration is ambiguous, and therefore refers simultaneously to two theologicallyrelated ideas: sufficiency and efficacy. And second, that this notion of dual significationcomes from St. Thomas himself: Ut bene explicat D. Thomas As the Doctor Thomas

explains correctly. What Thomas explains correctly, first of all, is the twofolddistinction between sufficiency and efficacy in these very words of the consecration.Remember again the words from St. Alphonsus: This is the explanation of St. Thomas, asquoted by Benedict XIV.

Duddys conclusions regarding the passage of Benedict XIV, which I came upon much laterthan the writing of the rest of this manuscript, are in essence the same as mine.

Let us see if others interpret St.Thomas as Omlor does: for instance an author whom Omlorcites, Rev. John O'Brien. Omlor himself cites him in QTV:

Seventh Objection181. Objection 7: Your whole thesis is based on a fundamentalmisunderstanding. Don't you know that in the language of Holy Scripture theword "many" is often to be taken as meaning "ALL"? "According to the bestauthorities, and Pope Benedict XIV among others," says Rev. John O'Brien, "theword 'many' is here to be taken as meaning all, a mode of expression by nomeans uncommon in the Holy Scripture. St. Thomas Aquinas also interprets it inthis way. If taken in any other sense it would hardly be possible to keep free ofthe Calvinistic error that our Lord died only for a certain class of persons."(O'Brien, op. cit, p. 331).


29/318

Reply to Seventh Objection182.Reply Obj. 7: This TOTALLY erroneous paragraph penned by FatherJohn O'Brien is disturbing enough. Even more disturbing is the fact that the bookwherein it appears was published in 1881 and bears the Imprimatur of JohnCardinal McCloskey. Now, in the first place, Father O'Brien's claim would makea mockery of Saint Pius V and his CATECHISM by Decree of THE HOLYCOUNCIL OF TRENT. The reader will recall that earlier in this monograph wequoted a passage from this CATECHISM which begins thus: "With reason,therefore, were the wordsfor all not used." (!) Or wasn't this saintly Pope awarethat the word many "is here to be taken as meaning all."??183. That Father O'Brien would actually use Benedict XIV and St. Thomas asauthorities to prove his point is incredible! Because they both held exactly theopposite of what Father O'Brien is trying to "prove." This quotation of St.Alphonsus (who has never been suspected of being a Calvinist) needs repeatinghere: "The wordsPro vobis et pro multis ('For you and for many') are used todistinguish the virtue of the blood of Christ from its fruits; for the blood of ourSaviour is of sufficient value to save all men, but its fruits are applicable only to acertain number and not to all, and this is their own fault. ... This is the explanation

of St. Thomas, as quoted by Benedict XIV." (Emphasis added).The mistake that Omlor makes in his translation of Benedict XIV resulting in this critique ofOBrien is excusable, as all human mistakes are. Yet it is not a pleasure to here him continuein the same strain in a footnote to TNS, published years later in 1991, in which time it has notoccurred to him to check his translation of Benedict XIV.

108 John O'Brien, A.M., A History of the Mass and Its Ceremonies in theEastern and Western Church, 1881, p. 333. O'Brien further displays brilliantly histotal ignorance on p. 331, where he writes: "According to the best authorities,and Pope Benedict XIV [who teaches exactly the opposite of what O'Brien

claims] among others, the word 'many' is here [in the wine-consecration] to betaken as meaning all, a mode of expression by no means uncommon in theHoly Scripture. St. Thomas Aquinas also interprets it in this way." This lastobtuse remark only proves that O'Brien did not actually read St. Thomas, whoclearly teaches the opposite, just as he apparently never laid eyes on Benedict XIV'sDeSacrosancto Missae Sacrificio.

Omlor responded once (politely but unconvincingly) on a tape which was sent to my to mymother to my objections regarding his translation of Benedict XIV, arguing that there are utclauses that sometimes have a concessive value, and that this was clearly one of those cases.To me it sounded like voluntarism: with ones will one can bend things around to what one

wants.

4. St. Alphonsus

Then he cites the passage from St. Alphonsus, who together with Benedict XIV, St. Thomasand the Catechism of the Council of Trent are affirmed as the most important corroboratorsof his thesis.

The wordsPro vobis et pro multis("For you and for many") are used to distinguish thevirtue of the blood of Christ from its fruits; for the blood of our Savior is of sufficientvalue to save all men but its fruits are applicable only to a certian number and not toall, and this is their own fault. Or, as the theologians say, this precious blood is (initself) suffiiently (sufficienter) able to save all men, but (on our part) effectually


30/318

(efficaciter) it does not save allit save only those who co-operate with grace. This isthe explanation os St. Thomas, as quoted by Benedict XIV.

St. Alphonsus de Liguori. Treatise on THE HOLY EUCHARIST

I will also include here the original Italian version of this text of St. Alphonsus:

Del sacrificio di Ges Cristo

PARTEIV -DelCanonesino alPater noster476-477-Si dice:pro vobis et promultis,perdistinguere lavirt delsangue dalfrutto delsangue,poich ilsanguevale asalvar tutti, ma in quanto alfrutto sisalvanomolti, ma non tutti, per lorodifetto;opure,come dicono iTeologi,questosanguesufficienterbasta asalvar tutti, maefficaciter nonsalva tutti, ma queisolichecooperano allagrazia,comespiega S.Tommaso36pressoLamb.(Cap. XV, 3).37

36Sanguis Passionis Christi non solum habet efficaciam in Iudaeis electis, qiubusexhibitus est sanguis veteris Testamenti, sed etiam in gentilibus; nec solum in sacerdotibusqui hoc efficiunt sacramentum vel aliis qi sumunt, sed etiam in illis pro quibus offertur. Etideo signanter dicit:pro vobis Iudaeis etpro multis scilicet gentilibus: vel pro vobismanducantibus et pro multis pro quibus offertur. S. THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theol.,

pars III, quaestio 78, art. 3, ad octavum. - Sanguis Christi effusus est pro omnibus quoadsufficientiam, sed pro electis tantum quoad efficaciam; et ne putaretur effusus pro Iudeistantum electis, quibus promissio facta fuerit, ideo dicit: Vobis, qui ex Iudaeis: etMultisscilicet multitudine gentium. Vel per Apostolos, sacerdotes signat, quibus mediantibus adalios effectus passionis per dispensationem sacramentorum pervenit, qui etiam pro seipsis

et pro aliis orant. IDEM,In quartum librum Sententiarum distinctio VIII, quaestio II,articulus II, ad tertiam quaestionem ad septimum.

37LAMBERTINUS,De Sacrosancto Missae sacrificio, lib. II, cap. 15, n. 11.

In this passage St. Alphonsus affirms that the distinction sufficiency/efficacy is affirmed inthe wordspro vobis et pro multis. It does not affirm that the aspect of efficacy is the onlyaspect which is spoken of and ought to be spoken of in the words of consecration, as Omlormaintains. If this distinction is communicated in these words it follows that both terms of the

distinction must be present and not only the one.

This passage can be counted as one that goes rather against the thesis of Omlor rather than asone that argues for it.

I will

pro multis: from the invalidity thesis of patrick omlor to authentic understanding of the...

Documents