About “pro multis”

[bear06]

I think that the easy way to prove your point is with a reference.
If you don’t give a reference as Alex has done, you are just typing how YOU feel.

In that case, I would go with the person with the degree.

And BTW, I don’t have a dog in this fight. It’s all Greek to me.

Wait a minute. I have to post a reference but Alex does not and never usually does? The joke of the whole thing is that he agrees with the list but doesn’t agree with the fact that the list doesn’t mean “all” but you want a reference? Since I can’t get my great dictionaries on-line, you’ll have to resort to dictionary.com or some other web dictionary. Remember, I don’t have a dog in the fight either since I attend a Mass that resembles yours. Also like I said, I hope the translation does change to “many” so that I don’t have to hear the whining anymore. It will not change my belief in the fact that Christ died for all but some will reject him and lose salvation. The idea that some have alluded to in which this some how goes against the Council of Florence and Trent and thus the “for all” translation invalidates the Consecration is ludicrous and is being quite lost in this little squabble.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

In the previous post you are referring to you never responded to me (I still have it saved).

Be forgetting that for now, if you would, please explain very briefly what “ecumenism of return” means. This idea has been rejected, so please tell me what it means and what it doesn’t mean.

You claim to know this based on the book you referenced. Since I haven’t read it, please pass along the information.

I have a better idea, do your own research on the matter…

Truth and Tolerance by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

After you have read his book, if you still don’t understand, I can help you.

After reading through your posts again USMC, your argument sounds no different than the Jansenist web page you cited. They use your method of primacy of personal opinion as to “knowing what the truth is” to reject St. Pius V and St. Pius X as heretics. Why? They have arrogated to themselves the authority which belongs to the pope. Are they expected to reject their supposed Jansenist “truth” in support of the papal “errors” of Pius V, et. al.? Like your contention, they KNOW the truth. Why would they need to conform to those heretical claims by Pius V and Pius X, huh?

I see no difference in your approach to Catholic teaching than their approach. It’s just that what YOU KNOW is the truth differs from what THEY KNOW is the truth, both of which differ from the Catholic magisterium authentically teaches.

I submit to the judgement of the Roman Pontiff, as St. Thomas Aquinas exhorts.

 

[Rykell]

Ray_Scheel:

With any modern browser Ctrl-f will bring up a search function for the text of a particular page into which you can plug in a the portion of the quote for which you are searching to jump straight to it. Of course, just being given a citation to a document should be enough, it is easy enough to find a copy on a site you trust and do the Ctrl-f trick to check the text posted, if you were actually interested in checking the quote rather than casting aspersions suggesting the source had to be schismatic since it didn’t back your position.

On one hand, I am indebted to you for this technical help, for I’m sure with all the scrolling I do, it will be a great time saver. Thanks.

Actually, with the two that I did check out prior to this lengthly speech, I learned enough that this one would be more of the same slander to John Paul. I had no desire to read it, as the first two made me somewhat sick. You misunderstand if you think I believe it was schismatic. No, I believe it was demonic.

 

[netmilsmom]

Wait a minute. I have to post a reference but Alex does not and never usually does? The joke of the whole thing is that he agrees with the list but doesn’t agree with the fact that the list doesn’t mean “all” but you want a reference? Since I can’t get my great dictionaries on-line, you’ll have to resort to dictionary.com or some other web dictionary.

Alex gave us a reference…

Alex:

Well isn’t this amusing. I just looked up the Greek word POLUS in the Oxford Greek-English Lexicon, which is the largest and most complete Greek-English dictionary in existence, and I read 2 entire pages of entries on POLUS (plural POLLOI), and NOWHERE did the English word “all” occur.

Pull up a dictionary.com reference or at least give us the Dictionary you are quoting from and you have proven you point.

 

[netmilsmom]

I’m not seeing “all” here either.

perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2385307
Maybe someone can point it out.

 

[Rykell]

Dave,

Like your contention, they KNOW the truth. Why would they need to conform to those heretical claims by Pius V and Pius X, huh?

I couldn’t help but be somewhat amused by the potential harm your sentence could do, if someone did not go back and check your source post, and takes these words out of context. Can you picture it? “Dave believes Pius V and Pius X are heretical … I know because I saw it on a website.”

Yet this is the sad situation many of our young adults are confronted with when someone leads them to these sites. Oh how we need to pray for them! No wonder Fr. Groeschel condemns the media so often in his presentations!

 

[AlexV]

Sorry Bear6, you were wrong. You took the least comon translation of a common word, found the least common synonym of that least common word, and then leaped back and inserted that synonym as a definition of the original word. Nice try…you fail.

 

[bear06]

Sorry Bear6, you were wrong. You took the least comon translation of a common word, found the least common synonym of that least common word, and then leaped back and inserted that synonym as a definition of the original word. Nice try…you fail.

Sorry, but least common doesn’t make it wrong. It makes it least common.

 

[Walking_Home]

Sorry, Trady,
I was jolted by your “friendly” statement at the end and lost my concentration on your question. However, if you read my post with attention, it would have answered your Q.

Had I meant any of the popes or councils, I would not have used the word “person.” Ok?

Quote=Rykell
You confirmed my suspicions, for you are not the first person I came across who espoused these erroneous beliefs, most of which come from these websites.

---

So the popes, saints, and the ones that make up a council —were not persons.

 

[bear06]

Alex gave us a reference…

Pull up a dictionary.com reference or at least give us the Dictionary you are quoting from and you have proven you point.

From dictionary.com
thesaurus.reference.com/browse/hoi%20polloi
dictionary.reference.com/browse/hoi%20polloi

I actually wished they had a better one on-line but dictionary.com will do in this instance although I’m sure someone will challenge its veracity. Netmil(name removed by moderator) wanted dictionary.com, so here it is. Notice the long lenghty list of synonyms. And, I don’t believe that you required Alex to give his on-line reference, Netmil(name removed by moderator). Also, if you notice, Alex has agreed to other definitions than his original. The big argument now is whether the masses, the populace, etc. are all. I think yes, you think no. Got it.

 

[AlexV]

Notice the level of obtuseness we are sinking too: in the matter of a translation of a major liturgical text, a person is more willing to accept the most tortured reasoning possible to defend to the last breath that it’s a POSSIBLE correct translation, even in the face of evidence that they are wrong, than just to admit error and move on.

Sorry Bear, on this issue you were proven wrong, and you should drop the issue and move on…perhaps to quoting Pastor Aeternus (maybe it has a section on pontifical and episcopal rights to reinvent languages).

To repeat, for the forgetful: the Oxford Greek-English Lexicon, 9th Edition, large edition, DOES NOT print “multitude”, “common people”, let alone “ALL” as a possible translation of POLUS. Neither does the Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford, 1982) under MULTI. Neither does the 1879 Oxford Dictionary translated into English from the major German lexicon of Latin.

Nowhere. Not anywhere. In the Greek dictionary, we’re talking 2.5 dense pages of meanings that range from the common to the incredibly rare. Yet nowhere are the words all, multitude, or common people.

So sorry, Bear, you’re wrong.

P.S. for the curious: The Patristic Greek-English Lexicon of Lampp, also from Oxford, also does not offer these ICEL translations.

I guess ICEL has their own dictionary.

Remember, Bear, I stand by what is in the STANDARD, SCHOLARLY, BEST Latin and Greek dictionaries available.

Not lists of synonyms from online dictionaries. Because this isn’t a synonym game. It’s a translation question, and ICEL got it wrong. We haven’t even moved on to their next error(s). “Christus innocens Patri” = “Christ who only was sinless.” There, ICEL invented a word that is nowhere in the Latin.

Defend that.

In brief, it is UNACCEPTABLE from a scholarly point of view to look up a Greek or Latin word, take all the dictionary meanings, take those meanings to an English thesaurus, look up synonyms there, pick one at whim, and then claim it’s a valid translation of the original Latin or Greek.

No philological scholar would tolerate that. It’s sloppy, inaccurate work. Latin and Greek are notoriously precise languages. English isn’t. That’s part of the problem here. It’s also why sloppy English translations are major problems.

 

[bear06]

m-w.com/dictionary/hoi%20polloi
From Webster too.

 

[AlexV]

Hoi polloi has ACQUIRED a colloquial English idiomatic meaning…usually sarcastic, the commoners, the rabble, etc.

Such a meaning DOES NOT EXIST IN ANCIENT GREEK.

It’s irrelevant to this discussion.

I have given you serious, scholarly philology. You have given us obfuscation in your obsession with defending ICEL’s error.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

m-w.com/dictionary/hoi%20polloi
From Webster too.

That still only gets you from “the many” to “the general population” and/or “masses” as a dictionary definition for causual English use instead of as a list of synonyms of the source word beig translated. Even with those initial porblems, the entries on that site for “pouplation” and “masses” both contain clear connotations of exclusivity - you’d have to make another jump yet before starting to find possibly inclusive synonyms, and a jump further to get to a list of synonyms that included “all”. Your desparation in trying to defend this mistranslation is embarrasing, please stop.

 

[USMC]

I have a better idea, do your own research on the matter…

Truth and Tolerance by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

After you have read his book, if you still don’t understand, I can help you.

Scared to put it your own words, aren’t you? I don’t blame you.

After reading through your posts again USMC, your argument sounds no different than the Jansenist web page you cited. They use your method of primacy of personal opinion as to “knowing what the truth is” to reject St. Pius V and St. Pius X as heretics. … Like your contention, they KNOW the truth. Why would they need to conform to those heretical claims by Pius V and Pius X, huh?

I see no difference in your approach to Catholic teaching than their approach. It’s just that what YOU KNOW is the truth differs from what THEY KNOW is the truth, both of which differ from the Catholic magisterium authentically teaches.

So, you are admitting that you do not know the truth? That is the difference between a person who holds to what the Church has alway taught, and you.

When you believe what the Church has always taught you will KNOW the truth. Unfortunately, as you have proven, you don’t know the truth. You don’t even claim to. Instead, you wait on pins and needles for the lastest document so you will know what to believe today, even though it is the opposite of what you believed yesterday. Your faith is built on sand and it is shifting with the winds of modernism.

Let’s take just one example to show your shifting foundation.

Remember a year or so ago when we were discussing the eternal destiny of aborted babies? Remember when I quoted magisterial text after magisterial text to show that they will not go to heaven? Remember how you rejected those magisterial documents? And do you remember why you rejected them?

Because in Evangelium Vitae, John Paul II made the statement that aborted babies “are living with the Lord”. For you, this comment completely reversed all that the Church had ever taught and raise, to a dogma, the teaching that aborted babies go to heaven.

I bet you felt pretty foolish, didn’t you, when you later learned that the novel statement of John Paul II, which was contrary to what the Church has always taught, was removed from the final and offical version of the encyclical.

That is the problem with people, such as yourself, who refuse to submit to what the Church has always taught and prefer to follow novel teachings.

One day you will learn that the Catholic faith does not change; and that the dogmas of the Church are irreformable. Unfortunately, you have chosen to follow any novel teaching, as long as it comes from someone in the magisterium. That is a dangerous thing to do during a crisis such as we have today.

Or maybe we are not in a crisis. Maybe we are in the new springtime? According to John Paul II we were experiencing a “new springtime” while he lived. Since John Paul II said we were in a new springtime, by golly, we were in a new spring time, right?.

But then, a few days after he died, I’m sure you completely reversed yourself with Cardinal Ratzinger said the contrary when he compared the Church to a , *“boat on the point of sinking, a boat taking in water on all sides. *And also in Your field we see more darnel than wheat. To see the vesture and visage of Your Church so filthy throws us into confusion. Yet it is we ourselves who have soiled them! It is we who betray you time and time again, after all our lofty words and grand gestures.”

If you submitted to what the Church has always taught you would not be on the foundation of shifting sand during todays crisis. You need to heed the wrods of St. Paul who said: “though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach a gospel to you other than that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema”.

I can imagine people such as you who lived during the Arian crisis arguing with those who were holding fast to the true faith. I can hear them now: "You must follow the magisterium, who now teaches that Jesus is not God. Stop putting your personal interpretation of the documents from the council of Nicea above the “living magisterium”. You must submit to the new teachings!"

Fortunately, during that crisis a few held fast to what the Church had always taught. Maybe you should consider following their example.

 

[netmilsmom]

From dictionary.com
thesaurus.reference.com/browse/hoi%20polloi
dictionary.reference.com/browse/hoi%20polloi

I actually wished they had a better one on-line but dictionary.com will do in this instance although I’m sure someone will challenge its veracity. Netmil(name removed by moderator) wanted dictionary.com, so here it is. Notice the long lenghty list of synonyms. And, I don’t believe that you required Alex to give his on-line reference, Netmil(name removed by moderator). Also, if you notice, Alex has agreed to other definitions than his original. The big argument now is whether the masses, the populace, etc. are all. I think yes, you think no. Got it.

Honestly, anyone who is in a discussion should be able to give a reference.
I also didn’t require YOU to give an ONLINE reference. I asked for an online reference or at least the dictionary you were looking at, as Alex did.
No need to take offense where there is none.

 

[Potato1]

Wow, this is a great example of how these forums fail us. All of you arguing over what you believe so you can be right. Nowhere is the charity, hope, love, and faith that should accompany brothers and sisters in Christ. I am shocked and ashamed that educated people would act this way for thier own egos. The confessional ought to be full this weekend. Shame on you all. IMO, Alex is correct and it falls in line with my own thinking but he is way off base in his arrogant treatment of others. One thing is for sure Catholic has obiously been mistranslated as Universal because you all are anything but. Great reflection of Christ.

Shame on you all, I wonder if we will continue this argument and ego masturbation in heaven. Maybe some of us should hope for the incorrect translation.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

For those of us following along at home :

The document “De Defectibus” has been cited multiple times in defense of the proposition that the “novus ordo” Mass in english is invalid. (“If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament.” )

In the intrest of completeness I think it useful to have the entire passage, in context:

1. Defects on the part of the form may arise if anything is missing from the complete wording required for the act of consecrating. Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are: Hoc est enim Corpus meum, and Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei: qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. *** If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin.

---

 21. If the celebrant does not remember having said the usual words in the Consecration, he should not for that reason be worried.  If, however, he is sure that he omitted something necessary to the Sacrament, that is, the form of the Consecration or a part of it, he is to repeat the formula and continue from there.  If he thinks it is very likely that he omitted something essential, he is to repeat the formula conditionally, though the condition need not be expressed.  **But if what he omitted is not necessary to the Sacrament, he is not to repeat anything; he should simply continue the Mass.**

It seems to me that the question then becomes for those who assert that the “novus ordo” mass in english is invalid: do the words “for many” constitute something necessary to the Sacrament?

I note that if all the words were required for validity then this phrase

“if, on the other hand, he were to. . . take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid”

would be meaningless?

So. . . what are the bare minimum words needed?

Thoughts?

God Bless,
VC

 

[USMC]

So. . . what are the bare minimum words needed?

Thoughts?

God Bless,
VC

There are two parts to the Form of consecration. There is the essential words of the Form and the substance of the Form.

Most theologians aree that the essential words are This is My Body, and This is the Chalice of my Blood. The additional words that follow This is the Chalice of my Blood are part of “the substance of the Form”.

There can be a slight variation in the substance of the Form, but the words must maintain the integrity of the sacrament by preserving the correct meaning. A change in the substance of the Form can invalidate the Mass, as De defectibus says.

For example, let’s say the Priest said “For this is the Chalice of my Blood, of the Old Testament: the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins”.

Changing the word from New Testament to Old Testament would probably result in invalidity, since the meaning has changed and is wrong.

Regarding for all and for many? Is this change enough to cause the Mass to be invalid? It’s hard to say.

What we do know is that “all” is not the correct translation of multis. Multis means “many” and many and all have two different meanings. We also know what the theology behind the words “many” refers to, since it was taught in the Catechism of Trent; and according to what the Church has taught, “many” refers specifically to those who will be saved, not just those who our Lord died for. We also know that the Catechism of Trent specifically stated that “for all” should not be used.

Does this mistranslation invalidate the Mass? I don’t think we will know for sure. But there is no doubt that the words should be corrected to read “for many”, not for all. I think we may see this correction pretty soon, since the Pope has established two commissions to study the point.

 

[Rykell]

The Holy See examines the translation of a sacramental form into the vernacular and, when it judges that the translation rightly expresses the meaning intended by the Church, approves and confirms the translation.
In so doing the Holy See is stipulating that the meaning of the translation is to be understood in accord with the mind of the Church as expressed by the original Latin text" (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Instauratio liturgica, 25 January 1974, in AAS 66 [1974], p. 661 - English translation in ICEL: Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979 [The Liturgical Press: Collegeville, Minnesota, 1982], p. 299).

This is a very important document showing the rationale for the change. The words “for all” are understood as being in the mind of the Church, who has authority over the liturgy and the translations which express that meaning. The final approval WAS given for the change of wording, after much deliberation by the Bishops who presented it for recognitio after the required vote.

It is really senseless for the rest of us to argue over something we cannot change, nor do we have authority over it. The vote was taken again in the fall’s Bishops’ meeting to retain “for all” and is in the final stage of approval by the CDW. How many who have argued so vehemently will adhere and submit to the second move of the Holy Spirit? I doubt those who are loyal to the N.O. will utter a peep if approval is denied and the wording is changed back to “for many” because they have never been the ones revolting all these 40 years.

This should end a very lengthly discussion that has resulted in a stalemate, for none of us can do a thing about it except argue and create division and animosity among brethren trying to prove one’s point … which is not either side’s right to prove, but belongs to the Magisterium. One can only state correctly the latin meaning, but this does not translate into the intended ‘mind of the Church.’