The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
You're just plain wrong based on the facts.  It's real simple:

Can only the body or blood be confected?


Is there a Sacrifice with only one confected?

According to most theologians, no.

Then clearly there can be Consecration without Sacrifice, and further, the efficacy of the Sacrifice is independent of the Consecration.

Another problem is your saying "no Mass no transubstantiation" which is wrong.  Consecration can take place outside of Mass, but it is illicit and a grave sin.

In return, I'll leave you with this:  You can repeat until you're blue in the face that the NO is invalid, but you're reasoning is completely broken.  So, whatever.  Believe what you want, but realize it makes no sense.

Messages In This Thread
Re: The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all" - by Historian - 12-30-2010, 05:43 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)