The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
#42
(12-18-2010, 12:12 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote:
(12-17-2010, 03:15 AM)Stubborn Wrote: 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.

This is what I don't think you guys have clearly explained: how can something being doubtful be the same as something blasphemous? That's not the same thing at all.

First off, when you attend the NO, the vernacular is purposely mistranslated from the latin (unless you believe that for the last 45 years that Church authorities are ignorant or incompetent) - So:
a) The mistranslation renders the NO transubstantiation, at best, doubtful - remember, the NO you attend is said in the vernacular, no latin.
b) The new form of Consecration itself renders itself doubtful at best since it is now merely a "narration".
c) Since the consecration at best, is doubtful, per Church Law, we are to avoid it because it is now the occasion of sin.

Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all" - by Stubborn - 12-18-2010, 12:37 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)