The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
#58
(12-20-2010, 08:57 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: I'm pointing out your intellectual dishonesty.  Paul VI's words were about the promulgated Latin, not the crappy translations that were done by the Bishops of each country.  You're making it sound like, purposefully I would guess, he's talking about the translated versions.


No, I am saying that regardless of what the "official" latin version is, the whole world is saying the words in the vernacular, not latin.

The pope decreed the words "pro multis" ("for many"), but the clergy say "for all". Why do priests all over the world throw doubt into the changed formula by saying "for all"? I don't care what is official, I am saying what is real. Real = "for all".

(12-20-2010, 08:57 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Because De defectibus is in align with Aquinas in that it is only invalid if the form is substantially changed.  The substance of the form is found in "This is my body; this is my blood."  That was not changed in the New Mass.  For other changes that don't affect the substance, De defectibus says it is a grave sin.

Or do you think Christ invalidly confected at the Last Supper since what He said differs in inerrant Scripture from the form we have from Tradition?

The NO form was changed from the pre-V2 form, which matched Scripture. How can one compare the two forms and not see immediately that the form and meaning in the NO was changed is beyond me.

(12-20-2010, 08:57 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: The substance of the Sacramental form is in "this is my body; this is my blood".   If you don't understand this, re-read the section on the Eucharist in the Roman Catechism, and you will find it to be so.

The substance? The Councils of Florence disagrees with you - as I previously posted. The TLM followed the form established from Florence precisely.

For this is my body might suffice, but the NO has a new form for the wine, that is not what is said below:

...relying on the teaching and authority of the apostles Peter and Paul, has always been wont to use in the consecration of the Lord's body and blood, we concluded that it should be inserted in this present text. It uses this form of words in the consecration of the Lord's body: For this is my body. And of his blood: For this is the chalice of my blood, of the new and everlasting covenant, which will be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins . Council of Florence
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all" - by Stubborn - 12-20-2010, 09:35 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)