The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
#11
(12-09-2010, 12:43 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote:
(11-30-2010, 07:52 PM)Zakhur Wrote: When the translation is changed to "for many," people are going to think the Church is implying something about Christ's intent, not about what Trent's catechism says about this phrase.

We do not worship John Calvin's god.  But some are going to feel like we do as a result of this move (I think).

More people are aware of the historical fact that apostates & non-Christians have lived and died on this planet without taking Christ up on offer of the shedding of His blood—and they’re probably more aware of that than they are of Calvinist theology.

Yep.  But whether it's realized or not, MOST negative reaction to Christianity in the modern west is against Calvin's abominable theology, not Catholic theology.

Human beings know exactly what to do with a capricious god:  "*&^% him."

Btw, that bleeped part is not my own, it's a verbatim quote from an atheist.
Reply
#12
If one wishes to say "for all men" in Latin, he must say "pro omnibus."

Council of Florence: However, since no explanation was given in the aforesaid decree of the Armenians in respect of the form of words which the holy Roman church, relying on the teaching and authority of the apostles Peter and Paul, has always been wont to use in the consecration of the Lord's body and blood, we concluded that it should be inserted in this present text. It uses this form of words in the consecration of the Lord's body: For this is my body. And of his blood: For this is the chalice of my blood, of the new and everlasting covenant, which will be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.

The Great Sacrilege:
It is on the basis of this decree that the Missale Romanum of Pope St. Pius V commands priests to adhere to this Form most strictly. In the chapter entitled "De Defectibus" ("Concerning Defects"), after having given the exact same words as the decree quoted above, the "Missale" continues:

Wherefore the words of Consecration, which are the Form of this Sacrament, are these: etc.

If anyone removes or changes anything in the Form of Consecration of the Body and Blood, and by this change of words does not signify the same thing as these words do, he does not confect the Sacrament.

De Defectibus Decree of the Council of Trent
V. 1. DEFECTS may arise in respect of the formula, if anything is wanting to complete the actual words of consecration. The words of consecration, which are the formative principle of this Sacrament, are as follows: Hoc est enim Corpus meum; and: Ric est enim calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti; mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. If any omission or alteration is made in the formula of concecration of the Body and Blood, involving a change of meaning, the consecration is invalid. An addition made without altering the meaning does not invalidate the consecration, but the Celebrant commits a mortal sin.

Reply
#13
Catholic apologist John Salza has an interesting take on this issue. He seems to have a good argument for the validity of the NO cosecration formula. However he concludes saying even this opinion is not certain.          http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives...multis.htm
Reply
#14
(12-09-2010, 11:01 PM)NorthernTrad Wrote: "For many" also doesn't go along with the Modernists' program of universal salvation either.  It's not accidental that the words of Christ were changed.  It is also a blasphemy.

The Bible says that Christ died for all: "For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus: Who gave himself a redemption for all, a testimony in due times." 1 Timothy 2:5-6 Douay Rheims

So what is your definition of blasphemy, exactly?
Reply
#15
Stubborn,

using "For All" instead of "for many" does not change the meaning or the alter the intent of the words which signify that this is indeed the body and blood of Christ.

Quote from: NorthernTrad
"For many" also doesn't go along with the Modernists' program of universal salvation either.  It's not accidental that the words of Christ were changed.  It is also a blasphemy.


Changing the formula back to "For many" also doesn't go along with the Sede Nut Jobs conspiracy theories and attempts to sever the Faith.
Reply
#16
(12-12-2010, 06:20 PM)AxxeArp Wrote: Stubborn,

using "For All" instead of "for many" does not change the meaning or the alter the intent of the words which signify that this is indeed the body and blood of Christ.

The Councils of Florence and Trent disagree with you - don't they?
Reply
#17
(12-12-2010, 06:24 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-12-2010, 06:20 PM)AxxeArp Wrote: Stubborn,

using "For All" instead of "for many" does not change the meaning or the alter the intent of the words which signify that this is indeed the body and blood of Christ.

The Councils of Florence and Trent disagree with you - don't they?

Not necessarily. They spoke of omissions or alterations involving a change of meaning. He is arguing that this does not change the overall meaning. The scope of who the sacrifice is for is a separate issue from whether or not transubstantiation takes place. I don't pretend to have the answer, but it's not clear to me that that one change invalidates the whole thing.
Reply
#18
(12-12-2010, 06:45 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:
(12-12-2010, 06:24 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-12-2010, 06:20 PM)AxxeArp Wrote: Stubborn,

using "For All" instead of "for many" does not change the meaning or the alter the intent of the words which signify that this is indeed the body and blood of Christ.

The Councils of Florence and Trent disagree with you - don't they?

Not necessarily. They spoke of omissions or alterations involving a change of meaning. He is arguing that this does not change the overall meaning. The scope of who the sacrifice is for is a separate issue from whether or not transubstantiation takes place. I don't pretend to have the answer, but it's not clear to me that that one change invalidates the whole thing.

That's the point - it is not clear, what it does, is it makes Transubstantiation questionable.

What was the purpose of changing the words - certainly "for all" is not the words of Our Lord. Why was the mistranslation allowed to begin with let alone still continue?

All things considered, it makes more sense that "for all" invalidates.
Reply
#19
(12-12-2010, 06:50 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-12-2010, 06:45 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:
(12-12-2010, 06:24 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-12-2010, 06:20 PM)AxxeArp Wrote: Stubborn,

using "For All" instead of "for many" does not change the meaning or the alter the intent of the words which signify that this is indeed the body and blood of Christ.

The Councils of Florence and Trent disagree with you - don't they?

Not necessarily. They spoke of omissions or alterations involving a change of meaning. He is arguing that this does not change the overall meaning. The scope of who the sacrifice is for is a separate issue from whether or not transubstantiation takes place. I don't pretend to have the answer, but it's not clear to me that that one change invalidates the whole thing.

That's the point - it is not clear, what it does, is it makes Transubstantiation questionable.

What was the purpose of changing the words - certainly "for all" is not the words of Our Lord. Why was the mistranslation allowed to begin with let alone still continue?

All things considered, it makes more sense that "for all" invalidates.

Well, it's only going to continue for about a year. Next Advent, they're changing it back to "for many". Some would consider that a victory.      :)
Reply
#20
lol - yes, I saw where the Bishops voted to make it say "for many" again.

How the heck can they vote on the words of Our Lord I wonder?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)