The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
#55
(12-20-2010, 05:07 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Stubborn, I think you're reading too much into "ought to be".  De defectibus and the Catechism say what they "ought" to be as well, and those, too, are by order of the Pope.  And the original Latin has "pro multis" which is what the Pope is talking about, anyhow.  He wasn't part of the USCCB translation team.

It may seem like I'm reading too much into what ought to be, however, the vernacular, not latin, has been the norm and still is. Since what "ought to be" said in the vernacular ("for many") is not what is being said over the chalice, the sacrament is invalid per De defectibus.

The vernacular does not say "for many". It says "for all". Do NO priests who say the mass in the vernacular say "for all" or "for many"?

Aside from that, the form has been changed, not just "all" / "many". Which once again, per De defectibus render the sacrament either invalid or a sin. I don't see how there is any way around that - unless one thinks they can convince everyone that there is no difference in meanings between "all" and "many".
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all" - by Stubborn - 12-20-2010, 05:21 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)