J
Joe_5859
Guest
I thought some here might be interested in this “Faith Fact” from Catholics United for the Faith:
Pro Multis: For ‘Many’ or ‘For All’?
Obviously, CUF is one of the furthest things from a “liberal” Catholic organization there is, and yet they give a pretty good explanation of why “for all” can be considered a good translation of pro multis in the Eucharistic Prayer.
Keep in mind, this “Faith Fact” was originally written in 1996 (and was excerpted from a book first published in 1981), long before the new translation of the Missal was on the table. It was likely written primarily in response to those ultra-traditionalists who thought that the “for all” translation actually rendered the consecration invalid. Thus, they take the stance of defending the current translation.
I think this article is a good read because it lets us know that believing “for all” is a better translation does not mean that a person is automatically a flaming heretic. There are legitimate, orthodox reasons for preferring that translation of pro multis.
Pro Multis: For ‘Many’ or ‘For All’?
Obviously, CUF is one of the furthest things from a “liberal” Catholic organization there is, and yet they give a pretty good explanation of why “for all” can be considered a good translation of pro multis in the Eucharistic Prayer.
Keep in mind, this “Faith Fact” was originally written in 1996 (and was excerpted from a book first published in 1981), long before the new translation of the Missal was on the table. It was likely written primarily in response to those ultra-traditionalists who thought that the “for all” translation actually rendered the consecration invalid. Thus, they take the stance of defending the current translation.
I think this article is a good read because it lets us know that believing “for all” is a better translation does not mean that a person is automatically a flaming heretic. There are legitimate, orthodox reasons for preferring that translation of pro multis.