T
TheCatholicDude
Guest
Centurionguard, I will check out your link. Thanks.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
C
cesmit2
Guest
Sorry to keep harping on this but you are incorrect. Many and All are not synonyms for one another. The definition for the word ALL reads:words change meanings. In the Gospel of St. Mark in the Douay-Rheims it uses the word many. However many can mean a variety of things though. Many can include all.
- the whole of
- the whole number of
- every
- constituting or forming a large number
- noting each one of a large number
- the many, the greater part of humankind.
Peace!
S
Steven_John
Guest
Good thread,
the poster that does not go to mass because of the wording i see as right in understanding but wrong in action.
Please don’t stay away from mass.
Not to debate but just to offer.
If you know the true words say them in the heart and pray God will bless and guide the church to speak the truth.
God really listens to you
the poster that does not go to mass because of the wording i see as right in understanding but wrong in action.
Please don’t stay away from mass.
Not to debate but just to offer.
If you know the true words say them in the heart and pray God will bless and guide the church to speak the truth.
God really listens to you
P
ProVobis
Guest
Actually the ICEL changed the consecration in the “transitional” 1967 English missal and other vernaculars followed the English. And this was before the first edition of the Novus Ordo was promulgated.It is not the Second Vatican Council that changed this; rather, it was the International Commission on the English Language (ICEL) that made the change back in the 1970s.
T
TheCatholicDude
Guest
Okay okay, I’ll go to church. I like church. You guys are worse than my mother.
S
Steven_John
Guest
May Almighty God bless The Catholic Dude and His Mum.
D
davymax3
Guest
I think both translations are inaccurate. More precise is “for the many” with many meaning something like “many people” or multitude.
There are no articles in latin. So, don’t start telling me this is an incorrect translation. It is perfectly valid and more correct when going into English because of what it is describing.
In English when we say “many” we mean something like I have many things as opposed to few things. It is not meant to be opposed to “all” whatsoever. Jesus certainly did die for many. I understand what you are saying in that their is a difference between many and all, surely. But, the difference here is irrelevant. Jesus used “many” so as to oppose “few.” This is a theme throughout the New Testament.
Also, in Latin, “multis” oftentimes stands in for “multis aliis” or “many others.” Which since he starts it with for you (and they are peolpe) this would be something like, “shed for you and for many other people” or “shed for you and for the many others.”
Again, Multis is used her to distinguish from the “nobis,” the people right there. Suppose, Christ said just “shed for you.” Then, that would be somewhat confusing. Christ wanted to make clear that it was not just for the few (paucis) in the room but for “the many” that He sheds His blood. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a distinguishing from “all.”
If we were to somehow imagine that Jesus did say all, it would be translated as “shed for you and for all” right? But this is repetitive obviously. He could just say, “shed for all.” So, I agree with the Pope that we should have a better translation like, “for you and for the many.” However, the phrase, “nobis et multis” is what comprises “all.” It’s like saying “shed for all those in the room and all those outside the room.” Again, this is because, ‘multis’ stands in for ‘multis aliis,’ the many others. There are two groups, those whom he is speaking to right then (the apostles) and those whom he is not (the many others, the multis). Thus, there is no semantic difference between these two phrases. And thus, no invalidation is possible. It’s like baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and then saying that that’s not a valid baptism because ghost means something different from spirit in English. Since, they are not semantically different within their context, it is valid.
There are no articles in latin. So, don’t start telling me this is an incorrect translation. It is perfectly valid and more correct when going into English because of what it is describing.
In English when we say “many” we mean something like I have many things as opposed to few things. It is not meant to be opposed to “all” whatsoever. Jesus certainly did die for many. I understand what you are saying in that their is a difference between many and all, surely. But, the difference here is irrelevant. Jesus used “many” so as to oppose “few.” This is a theme throughout the New Testament.
Also, in Latin, “multis” oftentimes stands in for “multis aliis” or “many others.” Which since he starts it with for you (and they are peolpe) this would be something like, “shed for you and for many other people” or “shed for you and for the many others.”
Again, Multis is used her to distinguish from the “nobis,” the people right there. Suppose, Christ said just “shed for you.” Then, that would be somewhat confusing. Christ wanted to make clear that it was not just for the few (paucis) in the room but for “the many” that He sheds His blood. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a distinguishing from “all.”
If we were to somehow imagine that Jesus did say all, it would be translated as “shed for you and for all” right? But this is repetitive obviously. He could just say, “shed for all.” So, I agree with the Pope that we should have a better translation like, “for you and for the many.” However, the phrase, “nobis et multis” is what comprises “all.” It’s like saying “shed for all those in the room and all those outside the room.” Again, this is because, ‘multis’ stands in for ‘multis aliis,’ the many others. There are two groups, those whom he is speaking to right then (the apostles) and those whom he is not (the many others, the multis). Thus, there is no semantic difference between these two phrases. And thus, no invalidation is possible. It’s like baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and then saying that that’s not a valid baptism because ghost means something different from spirit in English. Since, they are not semantically different within their context, it is valid.
L
LumenGent
Guest
The ICEL was formed to translate the Liturgy from Latin to English. Had they really aimed at doing that, we wouldn’t be in the situation where we are at. The ICEL were not called upon to provide Catechesis they were asked to translate a text from one language to another. What emerged was faulty and inaccurate translations since the commission was founded for whatever reasons (although there is alot of controversy as to why thgese translations are the way they are). During that time the Church found itself in a position where it had to defend the validity of the Mass and was placed in a situation which it never should have been in. Yes the Church did say that Christ did die for all, but that is a poor excuse to use in that context since the discussion is pertaining to Translations not catechesis.The Latin text could have been “For all” so as the Syriac/Aramaic and Greek texts of the Oriental/Eastern Liturgies but this ins’t what the Church has understood, and lets not forget Christ did say “for many” at the Last Supper. The reason why it is Valid, is because it is contained in the treasury of the Church’s faith and that can’t change.
Keep in mind that since vernacular languages were approved for use in the liturgy, all these languages use “for many” except for english, however that should soon be fixed. What i don’t understand is why it took 40 years.
Keep in mind that since vernacular languages were approved for use in the liturgy, all these languages use “for many” except for english, however that should soon be fixed. What i don’t understand is why it took 40 years.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
I suspect you’re referring to Pius V in Quo Primum. The relevant passages that mandate the use of the new missal and caution against change are as follows:The idea that either wording produces a valid consecration is nonsense. Sorry. If you look back…I can’t remember which pope it was now…but he said if any of the words are changed then it is invalid. I guess it depends which pope you want to listen to.
Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us…
We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure…
We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be…must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal…
We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used…
It’s pretty clear from reading the whole document that in his forceful language Pius was trying to preempt the tactics of those who would seek to retain the use of older missals, or particular indults, or who would alter the text of the missal or the decree at the printing shops in their countries. Despite his prohibition, he certainly didn’t say that alternate texts, whether past or future, were invalid.Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.
L
LumenGent
Guest
There are many reasons why Quo Primum was not universally binding. One that comes to mind are Eastern Catholics celebrate different Rites than that of the Latin Rite. Another reason could imply that the Pope meant that the essentials can not be changed but the accidentals can.
T
TheCatholicDude
Guest
Steven John thank you for asking God to bless my mom and I. That was very kind. I hope God blesses you and your family too.
T
TheCatholicDude
Guest
Digitonomy, yes I think it was Pope Paul V. Yes, that’s the guy ! Way back when.
But, I’m going to go to church and have communion from now on. Actually there’s a tridentine mass about 45 minutes away that I might be able to go to sometimes. I don’t think I’ve ever been to a tridentine mass.
But, I’m going to go to church and have communion from now on. Actually there’s a tridentine mass about 45 minutes away that I might be able to go to sometimes. I don’t think I’ve ever been to a tridentine mass.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.