The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
#76
(12-21-2010, 01:52 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote: So there’s just no way whatsoever that the sacramental Blood of Christ in the Eucharist can be said to have been shed for all.  And that’s important.

If the Eucharist is a re-enactment of the crucifixion though... I mean, are there two bloods of Christ?

(12-21-2010, 01:52 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote: The Church’s official sacramental theology is that the form of a sacrament must “signify the grace which it effects.”  The graces of baptism and Eucharist are different: one effects redemption, and the other effects the partaking of Christ’s Divinity. If “for all” is used for the Eucharistic sacrifice, then it changes the meaning of the words which modify the form and does not effect a valid consecration.

So in other words, in Montreal, transubstantiation occurs in French masses but not in English masses regardless that the intention of the priests are identical?
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all" - by Bakuryokuso - 12-21-2010, 06:22 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)