The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
#24
(12-12-2010, 08:49 PM)Gilgamesh Wrote:
(12-12-2010, 05:29 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote:
(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?

Sufficiency and efficacy have already been mentioned.  That verse from the first epistle to Timothy refers to the former, not the latter.  Can non-Catholics receive the sacrament?  There—you have your answer.  Pro multis.

Yeah, of course not. But I can't imagine every English priest is blaspheming in an NO consecration.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all" - by Bakuryokuso - 12-14-2010, 10:54 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)