Pro multis means "for many," Vatican rules

[Verbum_Caro]

JKirk,

Certainly. Check my previous posts, because I have been focusing on that point in the Cardinal’s letter for some time now. In fact, I’ve publicly speculated that those who insisted that the english translation made for an invalid consecration are going to to have to rethink their position.

I was simply soliciting Ray’s view on the matter.
VC

 

[JKirkLVNV]

JKirk,

Certainly. Check my previous posts, because I have been focusing on that point in the Cardinal’s letter for some time now. In fact, I’ve publicly speculated that those who insisted that the english translation made for an invalid consecration are going to to have to rethink their position.

I was simply soliciting Ray’s view on the matter.
VC

Excellent.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

In other words, your point #2 seems like it could be valid as a general rule, but the concern might not now apply.?

Correct. The proper legislative authority of Cardinal Arinze’s response clearly addresses and resolves this particular concern. I never saw it as potentially invalidating in and of itself either, but rather one of many cases where the ICEL of days past appeared to take advantage of a time of turmoil to quickly slip stuff through for approval and then dragging its feet on doing the right thing.

I was addressing the converse, what appeared to be a claim that a prior lack of papal intervention to correct translation errors therefore caused a challenge to the bad translation to constitute a denial of the protections of the validity of the official missal promulgated by a valid pope, and that just doesn’t fly.