The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
#43
(12-18-2010, 12:37 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(12-18-2010, 12:12 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: 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.

Yeah, I'd vote for incompetence!

OK... doubtfulness and the occasion of sin. I hear you. The article you reference makes a lot of sense. But I would make a distinction between that and blasphemy per se. It seems to me blasphemy needs to be a tad more obvious to be blasphemous. I think it's a wee bit of a stretch to call "for all" blasphemy, nothwithstanding the implications if that were true.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02595a.htm
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all" - by Bakuryokuso - 12-18-2010, 12:42 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)