Originally Posted by Pax et Caritas
Would that apply to the Traditionalist who argued that the old Mass had never been abrogated, and that pro multis should have been translated as "for many", instead of "for all" in the consecration?
The Traditionalist were correct on both of those points. With your intellectual abilities, I actually thought you knew the truth the whole time, but just went along with the contrary opinion since it was what Rome had been either explicitly saying, or at least implying, for all those years.
The "pro multis" argument was so obvious, that I thought you were on the side of the Traditionalists. In fact, in one of you letters (I think in This Rock), in an attempt to defend the errroneous translation, you said, if I recall, "I can do no better than quote James Akin on this poiint", then proceeded to quote James Akin giving, in my humble opinion, an extremely weak and twisted "explanation" (which of course proved to be dead wrong). I thought that was your way of saying "I have no answer to give, and the best I can do is quote this bad one".
Is that what you were doing, or was I giving you too much credit?
Pax et Caritas:
I would much rather the "Liturgists" have followed the tradition and practice of the Church, both East and West, and translated it correctly. But, It doesn't matter if it's a wretched translation (It is of both the Greek and the Latin). The fact is that our Lord gave St. Peter a guarantee that He would build the Church "...Upon this Rock, and the gates of hell will shall not prevail against her." (Mark 16:18)
What that means is that even that wretched translation can't render the sacrifice of the Mass, and the Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into our Lord's Body and Blood, null and void.
He guaranteed it and still guarantees it. As St. Thomas said, "What the Truth has spoken, that for truth I hold."
Your Brother in Christ, Michael