Sancta Litugica #2 - Christ's actual words

(Second of two replies to a post at Sancta Liturgica.)

Does any traditionalist deny that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for all? I have heard no one make that claim. But consider what the priest says immediately before the consecration: "When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said ..." The priest is not just describing what Christ did, he is supposed to be speaking in persona Christi, using the same words that Christ spoke. He ought to get the words right. I notice that none of the formulas of Consecration of the Chalice attribute the words "for all" to our Lord, except the English translation of the 1970 Roman missal. That one exception stands in contrast to the two translations you offer for the 1962 missal. In those, the exact same words used in the 1970 missal, "pro multis", are translated as "for many" rather than "for all". I notice also that in your 10/23/2005 post, you provide the Anaphora of St. Mark. There again, Our Lord is reported to have said that His blood is shed "for many"; the words "for all" do not appear.

The following two articles criticize the linguistic arguments of the Zenit article:
http://www.latin-mass-society.org/promult.htm
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/04Nov/nov16str.htm

The second article's tone might displease you, but do you see any flaws in the linguistic arguments of Philip Goddard and Griff Ruby?

Finally, if it were true that Our Lord's words were ambiguous and could be taken to mean "for all" in addition to their traditional meaning of "for many", then perhaps these passages from Liturgiam authenticam could be used to determine which meaning to use:

24. Furthermore, it is not permissible that the translations be produced from other translations already made into other languages; rather, the new translations must be made directly from the original texts, namely the Latin, as regards the texts of ecclesiastical composition, or the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, as the case may be, as regards the texts of Sacred Scripture.

38. It is often permissible that a variant reading of a verse be used, on the basis of critical editions and upon the recommendation of experts. However, this is not permissible in the case of a liturgical text where such a choice would affect those elements of the passage that are pertinent to its liturgical context, or whenever the principles found elsewhere in this Instruction would otherwise be neglected. For passages where a critical consensus is lacking, particular attention should be given to the choices reflected in the approved Latin text.

It shouldn't need to be explained that when translating the Mass from Latin, "particular attention should be given to the choices reflected in the approved Latin text", but apparently such explanations are necessary.

The Latin text says "for many". Scripture says "for many". Tradition says "for many". Why change it?