The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
(12-22-2010, 10:12 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(12-21-2010, 09:36 PM)ripmarcel Wrote:
(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.

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

"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."


The SSPX statement doesn't say "there is no Sacrifice".  You're misrepresenting it.  What it is saying is the liturgical structure changed from Sacrificial to Commemorative.  The Sacrifice itself is found in the Consecration.

Of course the SSPX statement doesn't say that there's no sacrifice.  I assumed that; just like the SSPX wants you to assume that there is.  But I'm not into assumptions on this issue, I'm into fact, and the fact is that "for all" doesn't have the same theological meaning as "for many," and that fact leads me to conclude that the use of the words "for all" invalidates the sacrament.  Besides, why would a Catholic knowingly attend a Mass where there is doubt as to the validity of the sacrament, when he can attend a TLM and be comforted in the knowledge that he assisted at a real Catholic Mass?

Messages In This Thread
Re: The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all" - by ripmarcel - 12-22-2010, 06:01 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)