The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
#46
(12-18-2010, 01:19 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: You're making a very large assumption considering "for all" to render it doubtful.  Even those who consider it a grave scandal agree that it shouldn't change the validity of the Consecration.

For it to be invalid, the substance of the Consecration would have to be changed.  St. Thomas claims the substance of the form is: "This is My body,"  "This is the chalice of My blood."  That hasn't been changed in a significant way.

ST III Q 78 A 1

I am not smart enough to make such an assumption.....................

De Defectibus Decree of the Council of Trent
V. 1. DEFECTS may arise in respect of the formula, if anything is wanting to complete the actual words of consecration. The words of consecration, which are the formative principle of this Sacrament, are as follows: Hoc est enim Corpus meum; and: Ric est enim calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti; mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. If any omission or alteration is made in the formula of concecration of the Body and Blood, involving a change of meaning, the consecration is invalid. An addition made without altering the meaning does not invalidate the consecration, but the Celebrant commits a mortal sin.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all" - by Stubborn - 12-18-2010, 01:28 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)