The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
#26
(12-17-2010, 01:40 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote:
(12-14-2010, 10:54 AM)Bakuryokuso Wrote:
(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.

Why not?

Why not indeed. Regardless what the latin says, the NO service, along with the mistranslation, is said in the vernacular anyway. The vernacular says "for all" for the last 45 years already but the latin says "pro multis", and NOers have no problem with that? Folks, at best, the consecration at the NO is doubtful. For Catholics, that means you are bound by Church law to avoid it like the blasphemy it may well be - it DOES NOT mean you go and hope for the best.

As I understand it, a year from now the NO Bishops, being right on top of this mistranslation situation, are going to jump right in there after voting to make the vernacular match the latin....what a joke. This alone should serve to prove that the words of consecration have no more meaning in the NO service that anything else in the NO.

Fr. Wathen explains The new form of Consecration  in the NO in clear detail and it should be a must read for whoever attends the NO *before* they go to their next NO mass.

Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all" - by Stubborn - 12-17-2010, 03:15 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)