D
Dr.Bombay
Guest
And the document trawlers are reduced to, “I know you are but what am I?”
Brilliant riposte. Truly brilliant.
Brilliant riposte. Truly brilliant.
- Status
M
Marian_Carroll
Guest
**GENERAL NOTICE
There is an immediate need to have a general upswing in charity and civility in the thread…
There is an additional need to stay on topic and refrain from attempting to dazzle each other with as many extraneous and tangential references as can be introduced…
And as always, the discussion should center around discussion points, not each other. Please review your remarks prior to posting.**
There is an immediate need to have a general upswing in charity and civility in the thread…
There is an additional need to stay on topic and refrain from attempting to dazzle each other with as many extraneous and tangential references as can be introduced…
And as always, the discussion should center around discussion points, not each other. Please review your remarks prior to posting.**
A
AlexV
Guest
The real root of this problem is that the explosion of permissions and indults for the vernacular have meant enormous problems that didn’t exist before.
There’s not a single thing wrong or questionable about any Latin text in the liturgy.
However, the official Latin text of the books now (since 1970), for the first time, allows great latitude in rubrical adaptation and, of course, translations, to local bishops.
Translations? Some are simply wrong. Considering there are bishops who don’t know Latin (let alone Greek), that’s not surprising. Considering the document governing translations was originally the French Comme le prevoit, which allows quite loose translations, and we lived with that for almost 40 years, and now are still figuring out how to translate in light of Liturgiam authenticam…well…it’s a mess. And it’s been a mess.
The Easter Sequence translation in the USA is wrong. Period. Not “in my opinion”…it’s objectively incorrect, and it creates a wonderful blooper. Then again, the same people who got that blooper through got the “Father, you alone are God” blooper in…not their fault in that case, since the people writing in a Swiss hotel wrote “Pater, tu es solus Deus.”
By the way, “Pater, tu es solus Deus” was originally approved by Paul VI. After the heresy was caught, the book was reprinted in a corrected edition. The first edition exists, in a nice red cover with gold stamped “Novus Ordo Missae”.
I guess Paul hadn’t read Auctorem fidei, or De defectibus. After all, according to them, a pope could never sign a Eucharistic Prayer (the center of our faith) that contained the Arian heresy.
There’s not a single thing wrong or questionable about any Latin text in the liturgy.
However, the official Latin text of the books now (since 1970), for the first time, allows great latitude in rubrical adaptation and, of course, translations, to local bishops.
Translations? Some are simply wrong. Considering there are bishops who don’t know Latin (let alone Greek), that’s not surprising. Considering the document governing translations was originally the French Comme le prevoit, which allows quite loose translations, and we lived with that for almost 40 years, and now are still figuring out how to translate in light of Liturgiam authenticam…well…it’s a mess. And it’s been a mess.
The Easter Sequence translation in the USA is wrong. Period. Not “in my opinion”…it’s objectively incorrect, and it creates a wonderful blooper. Then again, the same people who got that blooper through got the “Father, you alone are God” blooper in…not their fault in that case, since the people writing in a Swiss hotel wrote “Pater, tu es solus Deus.”
By the way, “Pater, tu es solus Deus” was originally approved by Paul VI. After the heresy was caught, the book was reprinted in a corrected edition. The first edition exists, in a nice red cover with gold stamped “Novus Ordo Missae”.
I guess Paul hadn’t read Auctorem fidei, or De defectibus. After all, according to them, a pope could never sign a Eucharistic Prayer (the center of our faith) that contained the Arian heresy.
R
Rykell
Guest
I hesitate to post this, for I am entering a lengthly thread rather late, but I have not the patience to read 90 posts to see if I am duplicating.
Whether the argument “pro multis” is solved or still in limbo is going to be moot rather soon, for the bishops have already voted on this and are awaiting final approval from the Holy See. Here are a few excerpts from their meetings:
Whether the argument “pro multis” is solved or still in limbo is going to be moot rather soon, for the bishops have already voted on this and are awaiting final approval from the Holy See. Here are a few excerpts from their meetings:
Apparently Bishop Foley tried to intervene to keep the pro multis translation, but the bishops opposed it strongly…meaning the “for all” translation stands.
A
AlexV
Guest
In every high school in America, a Latin student who translated “pro multis” as “for all” would get an F.
That’s because “pro multis” doesn’t mean “for all.”
However you want to spin the issue, this all comes down to Latin and how to translate that language.
The Latin language has words for “all”. “Multis” isn’t one of them.
And no bishop, not even a pope, can make Latin say what Latin doesn’t say.
“Pro multis” doesn’t mean “for all.” Period.
That’s because “pro multis” doesn’t mean “for all.”
However you want to spin the issue, this all comes down to Latin and how to translate that language.
The Latin language has words for “all”. “Multis” isn’t one of them.
And no bishop, not even a pope, can make Latin say what Latin doesn’t say.
“Pro multis” doesn’t mean “for all.” Period.
R
Rykell
Guest
I would trust that they have a great deal more knowledge and authority than a layman who disagrees with them. They do have the commission’s directive to make translation changes that are more theologically accurate and convey fuller meaning for the faithful. With a little research, I’m sure you can locate this directive. Did you read the transcripts?
In essence, would you sacrifice your faith because you disagree with those who are our Shepherds? Worse still, would you go on a forum and teach others to disrespect them and revolt? No, not you, Alex. You love the Church and would not trash Her in this way.
A
AlexV
Guest
Excuse me. I am not “trashing the Church”. Speaking the truth is not “trashing the Church.”
I may not be ordained, but I happen to have a quite advanced knowledge of Latin. Several degrees in it, actually.
There is no excuse to mistranslate. And in the case of Cardinal George’s comment, we’re actually reading a remark that argues against correcting something so as not to give credence to the Lefebvrists.
Talk about missing the point.
Pro multis doesn’t mean “for all.” Period.
I guess you would have condoned the Arian heresy of “Father, you alone are God”…after all, calling it what it is would have been “trashing the Church.”
Pointing out an error isn’t disrespect. It’s honesty. Pro multis was mistranslated.
I may not be ordained, but I happen to have a quite advanced knowledge of Latin. Several degrees in it, actually.
There is no excuse to mistranslate. And in the case of Cardinal George’s comment, we’re actually reading a remark that argues against correcting something so as not to give credence to the Lefebvrists.
Talk about missing the point.
Pro multis doesn’t mean “for all.” Period.
I guess you would have condoned the Arian heresy of “Father, you alone are God”…after all, calling it what it is would have been “trashing the Church.”
Pointing out an error isn’t disrespect. It’s honesty. Pro multis was mistranslated.
B
boppysbud
Guest
Excuse me for existing and breaking into what is apparently a private thread with my apparently ignorant question. Either I am typing in invisible ink, or my (name removed by moderator)ut and questions are unwanted, but I asked a question, and I would really appreciate an answer instead of being ignored.
Are Catholics now to be Calvinists? Did Jesus give his life for only the Calvinist “elect” but not for the entire human race as I was taught (at least I thought)?
You may now resume your ignoring of everyone outside your private conversation.
Are Catholics now to be Calvinists? Did Jesus give his life for only the Calvinist “elect” but not for the entire human race as I was taught (at least I thought)?
You may now resume your ignoring of everyone outside your private conversation.
A
AlexV
Guest
This has nothing to do with theology. It has to do with Latin. I never posted on this thread that “for all” is invalid. I never argued that it’s theologically wrong.
It’s LINGUISTICALLY WRONG. The Latin pro multis = FOR MANY, or FOR THE MANY, not for all.
You can spin anyway you want, but the Latin is clear. And many vernacular translations are just as clear and correct. “For all” cannot be defended.
Unless bishops - many of whom don’t know Latin - are now allowed to redefine Latin words. Which they’re not…or at least if they try, we’re perfectly within our rights to point out reality.
Multus,a,um is a Latin adjective and it doesn’t mean all.
It’s LINGUISTICALLY WRONG. The Latin pro multis = FOR MANY, or FOR THE MANY, not for all.
You can spin anyway you want, but the Latin is clear. And many vernacular translations are just as clear and correct. “For all” cannot be defended.
Unless bishops - many of whom don’t know Latin - are now allowed to redefine Latin words. Which they’re not…or at least if they try, we’re perfectly within our rights to point out reality.
Multus,a,um is a Latin adjective and it doesn’t mean all.
B
bear06
Guest
Yes, you are correct. Christ did die for all.
B
bear06
Guest
How’s your Greek? What does “hoi pollen” mean?
B
boppysbud
Guest
You guys have left me way behind in yoour quest for legaliastic and linguistic correctness.
I had a stroke fairly recently and I am honestly somewhat challenged in the brilliance department, but it seems like I remember a Latin saying of my own thar goes something like …
Lex orandi, lex creandi, and yes I am sure I murdered the spelling, but the gist of it is “how we pray, is how we beleive”.
So how can the latin phrase for Jesus died for a few, or many, but not all, be linguistically correct in latin, but not theologically correct?
If it is correct it is correct both linguistically and theologically, and if it is incorrect it show go both ways as well.
I had a stroke fairly recently and I am honestly somewhat challenged in the brilliance department, but it seems like I remember a Latin saying of my own thar goes something like …
Lex orandi, lex creandi, and yes I am sure I murdered the spelling, but the gist of it is “how we pray, is how we beleive”.
So how can the latin phrase for Jesus died for a few, or many, but not all, be linguistically correct in latin, but not theologically correct?
If it is correct it is correct both linguistically and theologically, and if it is incorrect it show go both ways as well.
R
Rykell
Guest
Boppysbud,
You may be challenged, as you said, but it is not in your faith! I uphold and support your grasp of theological truth. The Bishops have obviously been led by the Holy Spirit to make clearer the same theology by maintaining their original translation of “for all.”
To insist otherwise, one becomes an advocate of the protestant “sola scriptura” and loses *Catholic *identity. As the bishops stated in their session, scripture does not define liturgy. The magisterium is the guardian and interpreter of scripture, and not the other way around.
Where the problem lies is in the fact that some of the more radical traditionalists oppose the doctrine of ecumenism and object to the salvific nature of Jesus’s death being for “all” … they say it is only for the many. This clearer language blows their theory out of the water, for in fact, it is not true theology. Yes, He did die for all, but not all will avail themselves of His sacrifice. So they are partially correct.
R
Rykell
Guest
Alex, did you miss this part?
It is more convenient perhaps, to assume the bishops kept the wording solely to refute the Lefebvrists, and take their *liturgical *concerns out of context. You were not at the meetings, and know not what was discussed. This was not the first session, and you are not privy to all the background of their decision. The final challenge is, where is your faith?
A
AlexV
Guest
My Catholic faith doesn’t depend on the International Committee on English in the Liturgy.
Catholicism does not teach that the bishops - let alone ICEL - have the Holy Spirit’s guidance when they (mis)translate Latin.
Hoi polloi is very clear Greek. It = THE MANY. Not “the all,” for which Greek has another very clear expression, Hoi pantes.
Again, obfuscate all you want, the truth is simple and clear here. The Latin says something. That should be translated accurately. It doesn’t matter if it’s for use in “liturgy” (unless we want to argue that in liturgy we use translations that are wrong).
But this is really just one of numerous examples of outright mistranslations, let alone omissions, by ICEL…errors that have seriously damaged an entire generation of American Catholics.
But let’s make it very clear here: Catholicism does not teach that the Holy Spirit guarantees and protects all these translations.
Catholicism does not teach that the bishops - let alone ICEL - have the Holy Spirit’s guidance when they (mis)translate Latin.
Hoi polloi is very clear Greek. It = THE MANY. Not “the all,” for which Greek has another very clear expression, Hoi pantes.
Again, obfuscate all you want, the truth is simple and clear here. The Latin says something. That should be translated accurately. It doesn’t matter if it’s for use in “liturgy” (unless we want to argue that in liturgy we use translations that are wrong).
But this is really just one of numerous examples of outright mistranslations, let alone omissions, by ICEL…errors that have seriously damaged an entire generation of American Catholics.
But let’s make it very clear here: Catholicism does not teach that the Holy Spirit guarantees and protects all these translations.
R
Rykell
Guest
Alex,
Your clinging to sola scriptura tranlation is a poor argument for the universal Church to submit to what some think are the words of Jesus. Luke 22:20 reads entirely different from Matthew, and says:
This is not the first time there have been changes. The older translations read:
Take and drink ye all of this, For this is the chalice of my blood, of the new and everlasting testament, the mystery of faith which for you and for many shall be shed unto the remission of sins.
For this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant, it will be shed for you and for **all men **so that sins may be forgiven.
Who is to say whether Matthew or Luke spoke Jesus’s words? It is not our place to argue, only to trust – without that faith, you may be bordering on being protestant, subjecting the liturgy to your own interpretations.
Many agree that there are translations that need perfecting, and the process has begun to change the less worthy wording. But the essentials in the mass are still in tact, and do not render it invalid. For instance, note that the creed has lost the vague wording of consubstantial, to “one in being.” The final beauty of the mass is still in transition and future generations may be the beneficiaries.
Your clinging to sola scriptura tranlation is a poor argument for the universal Church to submit to what some think are the words of Jesus. Luke 22:20 reads entirely different from Matthew, and says:
Using sola scriptura logic, one might interpret “you” to mean only those at the supper, and none other. Obviously the interpreter of Jesus’s words is the Church who is guided still by Jesus’s Spirit. He never left us when the latin translation was grafted, believed by some to be etched forever in stone. The Church has authority over the liturgy and may add, change or remove words that more clearly set forth correct theology, provided the essential words of consecration are spoken: This is My Body, This is My Blood.
This is not the first time there have been changes. The older translations read:
Take and drink ye all of this, For this is the chalice of my blood, of the new and everlasting testament, the mystery of faith which for you and for many shall be shed unto the remission of sins.
For this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant, it will be shed for you and for **all men **so that sins may be forgiven.
Who is to say whether Matthew or Luke spoke Jesus’s words? It is not our place to argue, only to trust – without that faith, you may be bordering on being protestant, subjecting the liturgy to your own interpretations.
Oh boy, so what you are believing is that the liturgy, the ineffable summit of our faith, would be left to the whims of translators, unprotected by the guarantee of Jesus to guide His Church? Consider that a 2/3 majority vote is necessary. Are all of these Shepherds misguided? Hardly. You really need a huge dose of faith.
Many agree that there are translations that need perfecting, and the process has begun to change the less worthy wording. But the essentials in the mass are still in tact, and do not render it invalid. For instance, note that the creed has lost the vague wording of consubstantial, to “one in being.” The final beauty of the mass is still in transition and future generations may be the beneficiaries.
A
AlexV
Guest
Do not accuse me of what I have not done.
The Latin in the Missale Romanum reads “pro multis.”
I don’t care what Scripture texts read, I don’t care about the theological arguments. They are red herrings in this argument.
The Latin in the Missal reads “pro multis,” which means “for many” or “for the many”.
Generations of Catholics read that translation in their little hand Missals, and without problem.
Only more recently has it suddenly become a problem to translate the Latin correctly.
Don’t accuse me of “sola Scriptura” anything as if I were a Protestant heretic. I’m arguing ACCURATE TRANSLATION FROM THE LATIN.
And pro multis doesn’t equal for all.
It’s about Latin and nothing else.
It’s not “my personal interpretation.” The Latin language has rules. No matter what a bishop (who may well not know Latin, like many bishops these days) decides.
And, I reiterate: Catholic teaching does not guarantee that vernacular translations are protected by the Holy Spirit.
The Latin in the Missale Romanum reads “pro multis.”
I don’t care what Scripture texts read, I don’t care about the theological arguments. They are red herrings in this argument.
The Latin in the Missal reads “pro multis,” which means “for many” or “for the many”.
Generations of Catholics read that translation in their little hand Missals, and without problem.
Only more recently has it suddenly become a problem to translate the Latin correctly.
Don’t accuse me of “sola Scriptura” anything as if I were a Protestant heretic. I’m arguing ACCURATE TRANSLATION FROM THE LATIN.
And pro multis doesn’t equal for all.
It’s about Latin and nothing else.
It’s not “my personal interpretation.” The Latin language has rules. No matter what a bishop (who may well not know Latin, like many bishops these days) decides.
And, I reiterate: Catholic teaching does not guarantee that vernacular translations are protected by the Holy Spirit.
R
Rykell
Guest
Bye, Alex… keep your translation, but do not impose it upon the faithful as doctrine more correct than the Church.
Yes, I hear how “you don’t care.”
Yes, I hear how “you don’t care.”
A
AlexV
Guest
I love it: those who argue for accurate translations are trying to “impose their doctrine as being more correct than the Church.”
This is how far the problems of the last 40 years have gone. Now those who defend accurate translations are everything imaginable: Protestants, imposers of their own personal views, etc., etc.
Again, this isn’t about doctrine. It’s about accurate translation. And this is but one example of many. “Christus innocens Patri” does not mean “Christ who only was sinless.” But the fine Latinists at ICEL mistranslated that as well.
I guess the Holy Spirit decided the Latin needed embellishment.
This is how far the problems of the last 40 years have gone. Now those who defend accurate translations are everything imaginable: Protestants, imposers of their own personal views, etc., etc.
Again, this isn’t about doctrine. It’s about accurate translation. And this is but one example of many. “Christus innocens Patri” does not mean “Christ who only was sinless.” But the fine Latinists at ICEL mistranslated that as well.
I guess the Holy Spirit decided the Latin needed embellishment.
U
USMC
Guest
- Status