The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
#77
(12-21-2010, 01:52 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote: 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.  According to De Defectibus.

If even the SSPX doesn't come to your conclusion (that "for all" = invalid consecration) then I can't imagine that it's correct. I just can't imagine that the SSPX and the conciliar church are wrong about this.

SSPX FAQ Wrote:The words of consecration, especially of the wine, have been tampered with. Has the “substance of the sacrament” (cf., Pope Pius XII quoted in PRINCIPLE 5) been respected?  This is even more of a problem in Masses in the vernacular, where pro multis (for many) has been deliberately mistranslated as "for all". While we should assume that despite this change the consecration is still valid, nevertheless this does add to the doubt.

http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q5_novusordo.htm
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all" - by Bakuryokuso - 12-21-2010, 06:37 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)