J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
A) I’ve just followed you.
B) I can post the link where you did, in fact, denounce the Holy Father, if you like.
- Status
B) I can post the link where you did, in fact, denounce the Holy Father, if you like.
S
stanley123
Guest
I do think that the correct translation should be “for many.” And I think that “for all” is incorrect.
However, I do agree with the efforts of Pope John Paul II to reach out to other religions. I have had the great honor of knowing people of other faiths, and the ones of my acquaintance have shown themselves to be honorable and decent people. The way I see it, is that we have a choice here to either wage a bloody argumentative war with people of other faiths over the points where we differ, and where their religion falls into error, or we can accentuate those beliefs and values that we hold in common (while at the same time holding fast to our Catholic beliefs and not accepting errors in other religions).
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
The translation is perfectly OK - because although the translation of the Latin is not accurate in English if one considers the words as grammatical-lexical units, the meaning which is conveyed by the words as units of meaning in a liturgical text is perfectly accurate: “for many” is said; but “for all” is the meaning being pointed to. It is not unusual for the meaning pointed to, and the meaning of words as grammatical-lexical units, to differ; and language is used in many different ways. The Bible ascribes eyes to and nostrils and hands to God, which God does not have - these are metaphors for what is done by them in man, who does have them.
To look at the words only with a dictionary, in isolation from what they are saying in the context in which they appear, is a bad idea.
For dictionaries or grammars of Latin or English are poor guides to how a word is used in a specific context; they can guide us on points of grammar - but not on theology.A dictionary would not indicate that to sit up, means almost the same as to sit down. We need to look at *how language is used *- not only at isolated definitions of words as they appear in dictionaries; for that is not enough. ##
The pope clearly said the traditional canon in Latin. Since I have the canon in Latin before me I know exactly what the pope said in latin. However, EWTN misinterpreted it big time. I will give you an example of one major area they screwed up!
The Pope Said:
“Hic Est Enim Calix Sanguinis Mei, Novi Et Aeterni Testamenti: Qui Pro Vobis Et Pro Multis Effundetur In Remissionem Peccatorum”
Which says in english:
For this is the chalice of my blood of the new and eternal covenant: which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins.
EWTN’s commentary said this:
This is the cup of my blood of the new and everlasting covenant: which shall be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.
Ok everyone get out their Webster’s and lets look up the words “many” and “all” and see if they mean the same thing. Report back here with the results.
F
Francis_Ocoma
Guest
Well, some church officials do lousy jobs of translating stuff. For example, the approved Filipino translation of the Hail Mary prayer is slightly flawed. It’s sad, but it doesn’t equate to heresy. It’s just an unfortunate limitation of mere human beings. We should just pray that they fix the translation, soon.
V
Vox_Borealis
Guest
Gottle of Geer said:## The translation is perfectly OK - because although the translation of the Latin is not accurate in English if one considers the words as grammatical-lexical units, the meaning which is conveyed by the words as units of meaning in a liturgical text is perfectly accurate: “for many” is said; but “for all” is the meaning being pointed to. It is not unusual for the meaning pointed to, and the meaning of words as grammatical-lexical units, to differ; and language is used in many different ways. The Bible ascribes eyes to and nostrils and hands to God, which God does not have - these are metaphors for what is done by them in man, who does have them.
To look at the words only with a dictionary, in isolation from what they are saying in the context in which they appear, is a bad idea.
A dictionary would not indicate that to sit up, means almost the same as to sit down. We need to look at *how language is used *- not only at isolated definitions of words as they appear in dictionaries; for that is not enough. ##
YES! Moreover, the substantive use of the plural of multus (multi, multorum) when referring to people, at least in Classical Latin, means “the mass” or “the multitude” (translated from the Greek polloi, with basically the same range of meanings). The most literal translation in context, then, would be “it will be poured out for you [those present at the last supper] and for the multitude.” In any case, “all” is clearly not inaccurate in context.
G
gusano
Guest
Hi toppro77,Why did EWTN misinterpret the canon of the mass during Pope Benedict XVI papal mass?
The pope clearly said the traditional canon in Latin. Since I have the canon in Latin before me I know exactly what the pope said in latin. However, EWTN misinterpreted it big time. I will give you an example of one major area they screwed up!
The Pope Said:
“Hic Est Enim Calix Sanguinis Mei, Novi Et Aeterni Testamenti: Qui Pro Vobis Et Pro Multis Effundetur In Remissionem Peccatorum”
Which says in english:
For this is the chalice of my blood of the new and eternal covenant: which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins.
EWTN’s commentary said this:
This is the cup of my blood of the new and everlasting covenant: which shall be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.
Ok everyone get out their Webster’s and lets look up the words “many” and “all” and see if they mean the same thing. Report back here with the results.
I think you scewwed up !
If you read Heb.7:27…you will find Tha Apostle Paul says ;
"…once for all…He offered himself."…
as a matter of fact , in Hebrews it says “ONCE AND FOR ALL” several times.
If you properly understand “ONCE AND FOR ALL”…
and you don’y have the “us and them” mentality…
you will also learn that EWTN did not screw up.
God Bless…
gusano
S
Sean_O_L
Guest
TNT wrote:
Well, I’m not against that either.
Inasmuch that Our Lord did NOT say “all” OR “many” [English], nor Latin, nor Greek - I can only guess that you are currently advocating a return to the vernacular language that Our Lord DID speak at the Last Supper - Aramaic.
Well, I’m not against that either.
S
Sean_O_L
Guest
troppo77 wrote
The Church has the power to alter the Form and/or the Matter of a Sacrament, provided that the “substance” of the Sacrament is maintained.
It is my opinion that the translation of “pro multis” was countenanced by the Supreme Pontiff at the time to counter heretical opinions that Christ did NOT die “for all”.
Just an opinion, of course.
Obviously you are unaware that there are two fundamental truths in respect of Jesus’ death which only appear to be opposites:
- Christ’s death was SUFFICIENT for the REDEMPTION of ALL;
- Christ’s death was EFFICATIOUS for the SALVATION of MANY.
The Church has the power to alter the Form and/or the Matter of a Sacrament, provided that the “substance” of the Sacrament is maintained.
It is my opinion that the translation of “pro multis” was countenanced by the Supreme Pontiff at the time to counter heretical opinions that Christ did NOT die “for all”.
Just an opinion, of course.
S
Sean_O_L
Guest
troppo75 wrote:
Well, certainly, the Pope did NOT give any approval for either of those alleged events. On the other hand, if you read your catechism a little better, you would be aware of little matters called false witness and calumny.
M
Mysty101
Guest
A different goof—
Did anyone notice that the announcer called the Pope “Pope Gregory”?
Did anyone notice that the announcer called the Pope “Pope Gregory”?
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I think the “flames” came more from his uncharitable replies, especially the use of profanity.
This is what turns many off from those “traditional” elements in the Church.
As Fr Rob pointed out. The offical translation for English is used.
S
STIOFAN
Guest
The blood of Christ was shed for all men, but not all will accept Christ, therefore reducing His Death to many.EWTN’s commentary said this:
This is the cup of my blood of the new and everlasting covenant: which shall be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.
T
tuopaolo
Guest
Translating it as “for all” is interpreting the text rather than simply translating the text … it would be an interpretive paraphrase. I’m not surprised that people defend the translation since some people amazingly perhaps more out of a desire to not admit their error defend attributing to St Francis of Assisi words he never uttered at all: “Preach the Gospel and when necessary use words.”
Using the translation “for all” doesn’t invalidate the sacrifice of the Mass because the English, metaphysically speaking, “piggybacks” on the Latin so even if the translation is defective, as long as the Latin remains true, no worry in that regard is warranted.
Using the translation “for all” doesn’t invalidate the sacrifice of the Mass because the English, metaphysically speaking, “piggybacks” on the Latin so even if the translation is defective, as long as the Latin remains true, no worry in that regard is warranted.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Thats the problems with translations.
To translate one must interpret. If you do not then it is a transliteration and a transliteration does not lend itself to ease of speaking.
Also, as has been pointed out. We may all dislike this but it is the approved English Translation form the Vatican.
V
Vox_Borealis
Guest
ALL translating is interpreting, since languages not function word-by-word but rather phrase/grammatical unit-by-phrase/grammatical unit. For example, in English we say “My name is X”, but in Italian we say “Mi chiamo X” (literally, “I call myself X”–it would be unidiomatic to translate this phrase literally). Also nearly all words have a wide range of meanings depending on context–Latin habeo can mean to “have”, to “hold”, or to “understand.” Which is the correct meaning in a given context? That’s an interpretive process.
And in any case, there are already layers of this interpretation in the gospels, as Jesus’ Aramaic has been translated into Greek, then Latin, then a variety of languages. So I do agree with another post that if we want, we should go back to the Aramaic and Hebrew (OT), and if we can’t do that settle for Greek.
I
Ignatius
Guest
Sometime things are only mistakes!
C
Church_Militant
Guest
And used as a springboard for those with their own agendas…
T
trth_skr
Guest
Wait a minute. I think you started off on the wrong foot.Why did EWTN misinterpret the canon of the mass during Pope Benedict XVI papal mass?
The pope clearly said the traditional canon in Latin. Since I have the canon in Latin before me I know exactly what the pope said in latin. However, EWTN misinterpreted it big time. I will give you an example of one major area they screwed up!
The Pope Said:
“Hic Est Enim Calix Sanguinis Mei, Novi Et Aeterni Testamenti: Qui Pro Vobis Et Pro Multis Effundetur In Remissionem Peccatorum”
Which says in english:
For this is the chalice of my blood of the new and eternal covenant: which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins.
EWTN’s commentary said this:
This is the cup of my blood of the new and everlasting covenant: which shall be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.
Ok everyone get out their Webster’s and lets look up the words “many” and “all” and see if they mean the same thing. Report back here with the results.
The Pope used the NEW MASS in latin, and the translation that came back was the official ICEL English translation of the new mass.
Did anyone note that the women participating in the mass, even the ones who approached the new Pope did not bother to cover their heads? I wonder if Benedict XVI agreed with this, knew about it, or if the mass was arranged (possibly by Cardinal Marini) without overview of Benedict XVI? I would have thought that at least one woman, unless instructed otherwise, would have been conservative enough to cover her head, especially with all the talk of how conservative Benedict the XVI is (or Cardinal Ratzinger was).
MJW
Z
Zosimus
Guest
WELL SAID!!!
J
JackmanUSC
Guest
Why was Toppro suspended?
- Status