The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
#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


Messages In This Thread
Re: The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all" - by Grasshopper - 12-12-2010, 06:54 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)