The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
(12-20-2010, 12:50 PM)Stubborn Wrote:
(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.

OK, well, let's look at what Florence said in its entire context.

Quote:However, since no explanation was given in the aforesaid decree of the Armenians in respect of the form of words which the holy Roman church, 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 .

"Form" here is not the form of the Sacrament as in "form and matter".  It is "form of the words".  The Armenian "form of the words" is

This is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for many for the expiation and forgiveness of sins.

The decree of the Armenians said they needed to mix water with the wine as the other Churches do.  Since the wording of the Sacrament wasn't addressed there, and differs slightly in verbiage though not in meaning,  they spelled out here what the Latin Church uses.


Messages In This Thread
Re: The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all" - by Historian - 12-20-2010, 01:28 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)