FreeLand comment

Comment on Apologia Pro Novum Ordinem Missae.

Even if multis could "connote" "all", which I certainly do not admit, that would still be no reason to translate "multis" as "all", since its primary meaning would still be "many". Please look up "connote" and "denote"; they mean different things.

And where did you get the idea that 'most traditionalists admit that "pro multis" can legitimately be translated as "for all"'? Pro multis means "for many". While some old liturgies omitted "for many", *no* pre-Vatican II rite recognized by the Church substituted in "for all". During the Mass, the priest says that he is going to say what Jesus said during the consecration. Omission of certain words does not constitute a contradiction of the ancient teaching of the Church. But claiming that at the Last Supper Jesus actually said he would shed his blood "for all" rather than "for many" is a contradiction, both of the Bible [Matthew 26:28] and the constant teaching of the Church. The Consecration is the most important part of the Mass. The priest speaks in persona Christi, using the words of Christ, rather than his own, so that Jesus will be truly present on the altar. Any attempts to improve on Jesus' own words is a troubling sign of infidelity right in the heart of the Mass.