The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
(12-03-2010, 05:25 PM)MMLJ Wrote: It is "for many" not "for all".
At no time in Church history was it ever "for all" except post V2.

Although the Proponents of "for all" will argue that "for many" and "for all" are interchangeable in scripture, that is true but not in all cases, and definitely not in this case.

Of course the words aren't interchangeable; and they're not interchangeable because they clearly don't have the same meaning.  And the fact that they don't have the same meaning is exactly why the authors of the Roman Catechism thought it necessary to explain, in detail, the rationale for the choice of the words "for many."  And that is also why the Roman Mass should be offered in Latin--and not in some twisted vernacular version--so that the such ridiculous claims (e.g.: "for many" and "for all" have the same meaning and intent) are not given credence by the faithful.

Now, let's be honest here: The only reason N.O. Catholics argue that "all" really means the same as "many" is to validate this obvious mistranslation in their own minds, and to deflect the criticism of Catholic traditionalists who argue that the words "for all" represent a significant change in the form of the sacrament, thus rendering the sacrament invalid according to the church's own solemn pronouncements on the requirements for validity.

In any case, if the Church is going to enforce a change back to "for many" in all its vernacular missals, then it shouldn't have any problem explaining it.  Admit to the bad translation, while claiming righteousness of intent (the zeal of ecumenism), then preach from the pulpit on the explanation provided in the Roman Catechism.  If folks accepted "for all" without complaint, then they should have no problem with "for many" -- especially if the preachers start out by mentioning the Spirit of Vatican II.

Messages In This Thread
Re: The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all" - by ripmarcel - 12-08-2010, 05:56 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)