The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
The reasons for changing the words can't render something invalid.  Only changes to the form itself can render it invalid.

Sure, question the changes, but questioning the validity is something else.

Quote:Whether valid or not is one thing, and is subject to the scrutiny of theologians - know of any good ones still alive? 

They don't have to be alive.  St. Thomas was a good theologian, and I already cited that the substantial part for him is: "This is my blood".

Quote:Considering the changes overall have been the cause of unprecedented destruction, I believe one can be perfectly justified saying this change of form renders the Sacrament doubtful.

I believe the moon is made of green cheese, but that doesn't make it so.  There are theological "rules" that have to be applied.  Proper form, matter, and intent render a valid Sacrament.  You have to have proof of at least doubt for one of those to doubt the Sacrament's validity.

Matter is easy to check - is it wine and unleavened bread?  You're good.

Intent is not so easy to check in the NO; it is implied that the priest has it, but in the TLM it is explicit.  So, maybe on a case-by-case basis this is cause for concern in the NO.  However, it is a cause for concern in general because an evil priest can intentionally not confect the hosts even in the TLM.

But the form is valid by the arguments I gave, and that's what we're talking about.  If you have any other arguments for why it is doubtful based on form and citing theologians or Church documents, keep them coming and we will see how this pans out.

Messages In This Thread
Re: The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all" - by Historian - 12-20-2010, 12:14 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)