This same issue came up on another thread. Someone else tried to make the claim that "for many" and "for all" meant the same thing, since according to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "for all" really meant "for all the elect," with "the elect" understood. Here is what I answered:
____________________________________
Let's see if I've got this right. The Church took a perfectly clear meaning and decided to make it ambiguous. Doesn't this strike you as strange? Why would churchmen do this? Why change the words of Jesus Himself?
You must admit the people who did this knew they would raise a few eyebrows, would even raise a howl of protest not unlike the old "Filioque" dispute. But still, they did it anyway. And when people complained to Rome, the Holy See made matters worse by allowing the change.
So there had to be an agenda. They took something clear and made it fuzzy. They knew they would be charged with distorting the meaning of Jesus--but they did it anyway. They knew it was the most sacred part of the text--the origin for which went back to apostolic times--but still they did it.
And not only this. But they remove tabernacles from a place of centrality, they eliminate genuflections, they prohibit kneeling for Communion, they insist on Communion in the hands, they tear out communion rails, they place teddy bears on the altar and dress up as Santa for Christmas--and still people like you will say there is no agenda.
Meanwhile the Pope offers heathens our altars at Assisi, heretics are elevated to the cardinalate, an encyclical is published which states that "Man is the path the Church must follow," and on and on. And still you say there is no agenda. Of course there is an agenda.
You will never admit it, but any one with common sense understands what it is. It is to destroy the old religion and institute the new. But still you will deny it. You will see the evidence of catastrophe everywhere, the statistical declines that correlate perfectly with the systematic destruction of Tradition--but still you will deny the obvious.
1) My "own experience", which you so blithely dismissed, is more common than you think. I, for one, think that's a good thing. 2) I quoted you the Latin Novus Ordo. Even you cannot deny that pro multis is right there in black and white.
3) Here in the real world, "badly translated" does not mean "left out". Deal with it.
4) You have been reduced to bandying semantics. If you wish to continue doing so, you will have to do it with someone else. You may have the last word, if you like.