The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
#78
(12-21-2010, 06:37 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote:
(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

Well, since we're now using the SSPX as a source to argue sacramental theology...

THE PROBLEM OF THE LITURGICAL REFORM  (SSPX, 2001)
CHAPTER 1
FROM SACRIFICE TO MEMORIAL MEAL
"5. A comparison of the missal revised by St. Pius V and the missal of Paul VI at first shows certain likenesses between the two orders of Mass; an opening rite, Kyrie Eleison, Gloria, readings and Credo, preparation of the offerings on the altar, Preface and Sanctus, Consecration, Pater Noster, distribution of Communion. A closer analysis reveals, however, that despite the material appearances remaining the same, the structure of the Eucharistic liturgy has been changed at its very foundations. In place of the sacrificial structure of the traditional missal—oblation, consecration, consummation— the new missal has substituted the structure of the Jewish meal—berakah or blessing of the food, thanksgiving for gifts received, and the breaking and partaking, of bread."

No  SACRIFICE  =  No SACRAMENT
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all" - by ripmarcel - 12-21-2010, 09:36 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)