The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
#65
(12-20-2010, 12:14 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: 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.

I will continue to look based on what I already said regarding all the other changes were made for no good reason, changing the form of consecration should follow suit.

St. Thomas may well be right, but Florence was very explicit, and they did not say the same thing that St. Thomas said.

Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all" - by Stubborn - 12-20-2010, 12:50 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)