P
ProVobis
Guest
I’m not defending either translation but don’t we say “Our Father,” though I concede the plural here may not have the “royal our” intent?
- Status
B
brgregmack
Guest
“Our” Father, at least my understanding of it, expresses God’s Fatherhood of each individual. Thus we can’t claim exclusive ownership (for lack of a better word). God nourishes us according to our individual needs. The Creed expresses unity of faith, and the Our Father acknowledges all of the individuals that form the mystical body of Christ, and that we are also a community.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
About the “pro multis.” I think we can all agree, on a translation level, that “multis” does not mean “all,” at least.
P
ProVobis
Guest
In the context of the consecration as written (with no subjunctives), yes.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Well, just because we say “Our Father…” doesn’t automatically mean that we should say “We believe…”
“Credo in unum Deum…” means “I believe in one God…”
“Pater noster…” means “Our Father…”
“Credo in unum Deum…” means “I believe in one God…”
“Pater noster…” means “Our Father…”
P
ProVobis
Guest
Fair enough. But I was pointing out that just because we use a first person plural regardless of the Latin, we aren’t necessarily disunited.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Agreed.Fair enough. But I was pointing out that just because we use a first person plural regardless of the Latin, we aren’t necessarily disunited.
B
brgregmack
Guest
Over the course of my posting, my ideas are coming more into focus. Perhaps the “confederation” remark regarding “We believe” was unwise, and would be more applicable in refuting the invisible unity that many protestants believe in and the legitimacy of denominationalism.Fair enough. But I was pointing out that just because we use a first person plural regardless of the Latin, we aren’t necessarily disunited.
While “We believe” doesn’t disunite us, “I believe,” which is the accurate translation, is, rather, more in keeping with the Church praising God with one voice.
D
DebChris
Guest
The projection is computer generated powerpoint. It does not interfere with the Mass.
My current parish, with over 40,000 registered families is the most active spirit filled parish in which I have attended Mass. There are 15 Obligation (Sunday) Masses offered every weekend beginning on Friday in 8 different languages. Lectors are required to attend monthly meetings as well as the monthly Deepening the Faith sessions and First Friday Holy Hour. A person undergoes a full year of formation before distributing communion.
Having the words projected on the wall is an aid to prayer, especially for a congregation whose primary language may not even be English.
All Masses are packed to overflowing so that some parishioners are actually in the courtyard attending Mass. I have attended a New Year’s Holy Hour in which video had to be set up in the auditorium in order for all who had come to participate.
There is only one Catholic church in this predominantly Muslim country.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
The point is that they’re not allowed, though.
How can an “obligation” mass be on a Friday?
T
TheMc
Guest
No one said anything on if, in your opinion, it interfered with Mass. All I said is that the church does not allow it, and it shouldn’t be done.
How does this relate to the projector again? It’s completely possible to have a vibrant community and still have abuses in the liturgy.
That could be said about many liturgical abuses.
That’s different. The projector is an extension of the church, not in the church itself.
All the better reason to get the liturgy right.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
You really should stop presenting your opinions as Gospel truths in this fashion. It’s quite misleading. Projectors, especially movie projectors, were banned in 1958 for use in church, but this prohibition was not written into the 1983 CIC, the rubrics of the modern Mass, or the present norms for church construction and activities, and it has never been restated in any way. One interpretation of the present state of affairs is that it is still “in force,” although even then it is quite telling that in the face of fairly widespread practice to the contrary the authorities of the Church have shown no interest whatsoever in dusting off this prohibition and enforcing it. Another interpretation is that the later promulgation and adoption of comprehensive sets of norms regulating sacred spaces and sacred functions which omit this provision are to be taken as indicating its lapse.
To simply say “the church does not allow it,” without explaining that this is from a 1958 ruling which has fallen into complete desuetude, is irresponsible and confusing. I would even go further and say that you are wrong in your phrasing: “the church” does allow it. The evidence for this is in the countless instances in which the Church has, in fact, allowed it. Whether the law allows it is a different question (and one without a clear-cut answer), but the law is the servant of the Church, not vice versa. When the Church ignores a regulation and permits it to fall into desuetude, that must be taken as expressing the mind of the Church.
Oh, and please note that that provision of DMS&SL is not just talking about during the Mass, but at any time whatsoever. If the provision were still in force, using a projector would be forbidden even during “pious, religious, or charitable” activities, not to mentioned educational or catechetical activities, going on inside a Church. Do you suppose that that is the present mind of the Church?
D
Digitonomy
Guest
So you’re saying that in some sense we are saying “I, the Church, believe…”? Not an interpretation that had ever occurred to me, but fair enough.
M
mburn16
Guest
I’m not arguing “for all” is the best translation, but as I said - “for many” will imply, at least to modern english-speaking congregations, an exclusivity well beyond what Christ is referring to.
Certainly salvation is no guarantee, and obviously not everyone will receive salvation, but using “for many” without any kind of extra qualifier, gives the appearance that some have already been ruled out as potential recipients.
Not just that we won’t all attend the wedding feast, but that some of us never even got invitations.
Certainly salvation is no guarantee, and obviously not everyone will receive salvation, but using “for many” without any kind of extra qualifier, gives the appearance that some have already been ruled out as potential recipients.
Not just that we won’t all attend the wedding feast, but that some of us never even got invitations.
P
ProVobis
Guest
While we’re on the subject, I don’t think “I understand” or “my understanding is” says quite the same thing as “I believe” or “I trust in.” Like in math or science, you don’t need to understand, you just need to believe. For example, no one knows or understands gravity, but it’s become the belief of everyone, at least of those who study science.
B
brgregmack
Guest
Exactly. I’ve heard it taught that in the Mass, God the Father “speaks” Christ to us, and then we “speak” Christ back to the Father in Christ as the mystical body. The Creed being placed where it is in the liturgy is in a certain sense our response of affirmation and commitment to the work of Christ after hearing Him proclaimed. So there is both unity as body and personal commitment as individual cells of the body. Then begins the liturgy of the Eucharist.
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
Well, technically, AFIK the original Greek wording of the Creed is “We believe.”
However it is an ancient tradition the West to liturgically use Credo.
So its not so much what the Creed says but rather what the Roman Missal says…
B
brgregmack
Guest
I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at here, but I’ll just say that I know that we cannot fully understand what the Mass really is this side of Heaven. Our fallen nature has made our intellects far too weak. I don’t claim to have full understanding or try to make “I understand” synonymous with “I believe.” For example, I believe everything that the Church infallibly teaches, but I don’t understand all of it.
P
ProVobis
Guest
D
Digitonomy
Guest
Meanwhile, the Coptic Church uses the plural.
copticchurch.net/topics/liturgy/liturgy_of_st_basil.pdf
- Status