The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
#92
(12-22-2010, 11:34 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: ripmarcel, you can put up all the smoke and mirrors you want.  You can say someone was insulting or whatever, and maybe they were, but that doesn't mean there isn't a point to discuss.

You can repeat yourself ad nauseum, but that does not make an argument.  It's clear your mind is made up and no one will convince you.  Fine, I'm not an apologist nor do I pretend to be.   As I've said, I don't care about convincing you, but I am interested in hearing your arguments and our dissecting of arguments as a group so we have more insight into the issue.

But you should realize on your side that repeating things over and over and not addressing points of contention makes your argument fairly worthless.  There is no discussion when that happens.  Nothing is achieved, it's simply advertising of a position.  OK, we know your position and reasons for it.  If that's all you want to say, message received.

But if you want to discuss things, then you need to answer challenges and such regardless if you feel offended in how they were presented.  While I may have been offensive to you in some manner, there is nothing ad hominem that I can see in my statements.  They are relevant to the point at hand, and so are my questions for you.

If you won't or can't answer them, OK, fair enough.  But please stop repeating the same things over and over like people are going to believe you are correct when you won't defend those arguments.

OK, I'll give you the short version--straight from my narcissistic mind, and with help from those little green men from Mars.

Forget everything I wrote about Pius V and what happened in the Church before VCII. I accept the proposition that, outside of “de fide definita” pronouncements, everything else is of no import to issues of law regarding the formulation this “new” liturgy. Let’s move on and agree that all those in Church authority—and laymen, too—should concentrate on strict adherence to the constitution on the liturgy that was solemnly proclaimed by the fathers of VCII. Specifically:

In keeping with the Council’s directive to undertake a careful revision, but to also preserve the Latin, this "new" sacramental form (not the attendant words) should be recited in Latin—the universal and official language of the Church—so that there is no possibility that the true, Catholic meaning of the sacrament is corrupted. However, recognizing that there may be certain circumstances where the faithful would benefit by translating the Latin into the local vernacular, a careful translation could be authorized.

What happened: There was callous and total disregard regard for the Council’s directive that the use of the Latin language “be preserved;” and worse, instead of care being taken in translating the form of the sacrament, a cabal of neo-modernist clerics produced a deliberate mistranslation designed to not offend heretics and other enemies of Holy Mother Church and to impart the Church’s quasi-official endorsement to the heresy of Universal Salvation.

Bottom line: “For all” is derived from heresy. Its use induces Catholics into accepting heresy; therefore, a sacramental form incorporating those words cannot possibly be Catholic (read: valid).
 
Over and out.  But you can contact me on the same Bat Channel, same Bat Time.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all" - by ripmarcel - 12-24-2010, 08:35 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)