EWTN screwed up

[ScottH]

Wow! And I thought it was just us protestants that were picky.

 

[JackmanUSC]

Nvrmnd

 

[JKirkLVNV]

JackmanUSC:

Why was Toppro suspended?

He came back. He dropped the “77” and now is just Toppro. I’m sure it will be no time at all before he starts calling out for attention again.

 

[Genesis315]

In this case “all” and “many” mean the same thing.

Read this:

ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur46.htm

 

[Deus_Solus]

Well the Greek in Matthew and Mark is pollon which is “many”, so I suppose it should be “many”.

 

[tuopaolo]

Vox Borealis:

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.

It would be better to translate Mi chiama X as I call myself X, IMO. Things are lost when you translate loosely. But this isn’t an issue like that. This is dealing with a substantive change in the meaning. The word “multis” does not include “all” in the scope of its meaning. Look it up in a Latin dictionary and see if “all” is listed there – it’s not.

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.

That’s not what the ICEL destroyers should be doing. They should be translating the Latin text. They have no business modifying the Latin text based on their knowledge of the bible. That’s not their job. Their job is simple. To faithfully translate the Latin. Because they haven’t been doing that, Rome has scolded them. What Rome needs to do is simply get rid of them and do the translation themselves without going through the bishops’ conferences. Or give them a deadline and if they don’t meet it, take upon the task themselves. That kind of thing happened with the Catechism translation btw. The Americans were translating it terribly and so their translation efforts were scuttled by Rome and Rome entrusted it to an Australian to faithfully translate it and that’s what happened … that’s why in the Catechism you see “men” and “man” instead of the inclusive language mumbo jumbo. If Rome had left it to the Americans and whoever else was initially entrusted with it, it would have been a disaster. The Liturgy is as important as the Catechism so Rome should take a similiarly hard line.

 

[Vox_Borealis]

tuopaolo:

It would be better to translate Mi chiama X as I call myself X, IMO. Things are lost when you translate loosely. But this isn’t an issue like that. This is dealing with a substantive change in the meaning. The word “multis” does not include “all” in the scope of its meaning. Look it up in a Latin dictionary and see if “all” is listed there – it’s not.

My trusty but dusty Leverett’s Lexicon includes the following meanings (especially for multi, subst. pl): the many, the great mass, the populace, ordinary persons, common people, hoi polloi [orig. in greek script]. The same or similar meanings (the mass of people, the multitude) is also found in the Lewis Elementary, the Lewis and Short, and the Langenscheidt Pocket Latin Dictionaries. When I return to campus I will check out the O.L.D. So, on one hand you are correct that the word “all” does not appear, and as I noted above perhaps the best rendering would be “the multitude.”

tuopaolo:

That’s not what the ICEL destroyers should be doing. They should be translating the Latin text. They have no business modifying the Latin text based on their knowledge of the bible. That’s not their job. Their job is simple. To faithfully translate the Latin.

But here I have to disagree–the job is not “simple,” and one cannot simply translate the Latin without knowing the context of the passages being translated. I have cited above only a few of the multitude (multorum ) of meanings for multus in classical Latin–choosing what meaning is not as easy as simply picking the first definition (“many”) from the dictionary. One has to look at context–this includes the grammatical context (the clear substantive use of the pro multis) and the broader context (the contrast between pro vobis [those present] and pro multis [the more or multitude, whoever they may be], what multi/hoi polloi meant in its ancient context, etc). I guess one could object that they should only worry about translating the liturgy independent of the Bible passages from which the liturgy is drawn, but that strikes me as rather artificial.

In any case, my main point is that translation is not simple and that all translation is interpretive. Whether the liturgy has been translated poorly or (too) innacuarately, and whether the Vatican should seize control of all such matters, is a matter of debate beyond my knowledge. I’ll defer to you on these points.

 

[KDoerr]

The translators are employed at the Vatican, not EWTN.

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.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

ScottH:

Wow! And I thought it was just us protestants that were picky.

Anything but - the pre-V2 manner of offering Mass was regulated down to the tiniest detail: how many signs of the Cross the priest should make, after which words, with which fingers the Consecrated Host should be held, and so on. I think this excessively minute regulation may be one reason that there have been so many absurd aberrations since V2: priests were over-compensating for the excesses of the pre-conciliar period; and the over-compensation has sometimes become habitual. That’s my guess.​

 

[chadwilliams]

stanley123:

OK. Here’s my report: The original Latin is pro multis, even in the New Mass. However, it is not only EWTN, but the whole USA Church which misinterprets pro multis as meaning in English “for all”. This is not so in other languages, as I have seen it interpreted correctly in another language.
My personal opinion is that there is a big difference between the words “many” and “all”. And I go by what the Catechism of the Council of Trent says about it, and I think that the recent translations are faulty.

Keep in mind that the Holy See has approved the English Translation of the Mass, and if we really believe in the Authority of the Church to translate a bible passage, why can’t the Church have the authority to translate the Mass??

 

[Fidei_Defensor]

toppro77:

If you feel giving a little fat man named Buddah, precedence over Our Lord by placing him on top of a tabernacle is acceptable, then God help you!

How does that give precedence to Buddha when the Buddha didn’t stay up there and the Pope did not revere the statue in any way? It was a symbol of unity, not heresy. The tabernacle is the house of Jesus, and there’s nothing wrong with putting something on top of a house, is there? Hey, in some old Catholic Churches (middle ages, renaissance), there are angels, animal figures, human figures over and above tabernacles. Does this mean that the angels, animal figures, and human figures are given precedence over the Body of Christ? No.

toppro77:

If you feel worshiping a snake god :bowdown: is an approved Catholic practice then I think you need to read your catechism a little better.

JPII did not worship a snake God, he only participated in a meditation session with them.

 

[tuopaolo]

Vox Borealis:

So, on one hand you are correct that the word “all” does not appear

A breath of sanity to this thread.

But here I have to disagree–the job is not “simple,” and one cannot simply translate the Latin without knowing the context of the passages being translated.

The context is to be the context in the Latin text not the personal knowledge the translators have of the Bible. And no amount of context can make the word “multis” mean “all” when as you confirmed above that is simply not within the scope of the word multis’ meaning.

I guess one could object that they should only worry about translating the liturgy independent of the Bible passages from which the liturgy is drawn, but that strikes me as rather artificial.

They’re job is not to be bible scholars. That’s not what they are hired for. They are not hired to form the liturgy according to their knowledge of the bible. They are not hired to form the liturgy at all. They are hired to translated the liturgy that has already been handed down to them in its present form in the Latin that they have received.

 

[Vox_Borealis]

tuopaolo:

They’re job is not to be bible scholars. That’s not what they are hired for. They are not hired to form the liturgy according to their knowledge of the bible. They are not hired to form the liturgy at all. They are hired to translated the liturgy that has already been handed down to them in its present form in the Latin that they have received.

But you’re avoiding the issue that I raise. Multis has multiple meanings (even if we discount “all” as one of them)–how do translators determine what definition to use–many, the multitude, the mass, the hoi polloi, etc.? One can only decide what definition to choose by looking at the context. Since the liturgy is based on the scripture, one has to look at the context of scripture to determine what the context of the prayer is.

Let’s approach this another way–we’ll look at the “received Latin text”: “Hic Est Enim Calix Sanguinis Mei, Novi Et Aeterni Testamenti: Qui Pro Vobis Et Pro Multis Effundetur In Remissionem Peccatorum.” What are the range of meanings for some of these the words, using only the Langenscheidt Pocket Dictionary?

Hic: Here, this, the latter, present, actual, on this occasion
Est: it is, there is, is
Enim: For, namely, in fact, truly
Calix: cup, goblet, drinking-vessel, pot
Sanguinis = sanguis: blood, bloodshed, vigor, life , strength, race, family, offspring, descendant
pro: before, in front of, on behalf of, for (among others)
Novus: new, inexperienced, novel, strange
Effundo: pour out, send forth, wasted, squander, etc.
Remissio: sending back, letting go, relaxing, recreation, etc.

So, one could translate the eucharistic prayer, perfectly legally according to the dictionary but without context as:

“Indeed, the latter is the pot of my offspring,of the the inexperienced and eternal testament, which will be wasted in front of you and in front of many for the recreation of sins.”

This makes perfect sense grammatically, and mostly makes sense semantically. But obviously this is not what Christ meant, and so the prayer should not be translated as such. But how do we know Calix means cup/chalice and not pot, or pro means for/on behalf of and not in fron of, or effundetur means shed and not wasted? Context. And where is the context found? The scriptures on which the prayer is based.

 

[tuopaolo]

Vox Borealis:

But you’re avoiding the issue that I raise. Multis has multiple meanings (even if we discount “all” as one of them)–how do translators determine what definition to use–many, the multitude, the mass, the hoi polloi, etc.? One can only decide what definition to choose by looking at the context. Since the liturgy is based on the scripture, one has to look at the context of scripture to determine what the context of the prayer is.

Let’s approach this another way–we’ll look at the “received Latin text”: “Hic Est Enim Calix Sanguinis Mei, Novi Et Aeterni Testamenti: Qui Pro Vobis Et Pro Multis Effundetur In Remissionem Peccatorum.” What are the range of meanings for some of these the words, using only the Langenscheidt Pocket Dictionary?

Hic: Here, this, the latter, present, actual, on this occasion
Est: it is, there is, is
Enim: For, namely, in fact, truly
Calix: cup, goblet, drinking-vessel, pot
Sanguinis = sanguis: blood, bloodshed, vigor, life , strength, race, family, offspring, descendant
pro: before, in front of, on behalf of, for (among others)
Novus: new, inexperienced, novel, strange
Effundo: pour out, send forth, wasted, squander, etc.
Remissio: sending back, letting go, relaxing, recreation, etc.

So, one could translate the eucharistic prayer, perfectly legally according to the dictionary but without context as:

“Indeed, the latter is the pot of my offspring,of the the inexperienced and eternal testament, which will be wasted in front of you and in front of many for the recreation of sins.”

This makes perfect sense grammatically, and mostly makes sense semantically. But obviously this is not what Christ meant, and so the prayer should not be translated as such. But how do we know Calix means cup/chalice and not pot, or pro means for/on behalf of and not in fron of, or effundetur means shed and not wasted? Context. And where is the context found? The scriptures on which the prayer is based.

If they have questions about the context, they should ask Rome, instead of relying on their independent research. They are NOT supposed to be independent researchers. They are just translators – just like someone who is hired to translate in a court or for tv, etc. It’s not a big job!

 

[Vox_Borealis]

tuopaolo:

If they have questions about the context, they should ask Rome, instead of relying on their independent research. They are NOT supposed to be independent researchers. They are just translators – just like someone who is hired to translate in a court or for tv, etc. It’s not a big job!

If they have to ask Rome for the context, then in effect Rome is doing the translating. So Rome should just translate and cut out the middle man. We would probably both agree that this would be best anyway.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Vox Borealis:

If they have to ask Rome for the context, then in effect Rome is doing the translating. So Rome should just translate and cut out the middle man. We would probably both agree that this would be best anyway.

It would be illuminating to know what is meant by “Rome” - since “Rome” could mean:​

the Pope
the Roman diocese
Vatican dicasteries as a group
One of these dicasteries in particular
The capital of the state of Italy
The preceding city in its capacity as the site of the treaty signed in 1957
The Roman Rite
The world-wide religious body in communion with popes in general

• or with this Pope in particular
  Any one of a number of cities in the USA -

to name just a few;

• it is clear that even the one word “Rome” has a variety of meanings, and that that which is intended in a particular instance, depends on the context

The Pope certainly has other things to do than translate a corpus of liturgical texts.

The words of consecration were not uttered by Cicero or Livy or Caesar, nor by Herodotus, Plutarch or the Emperor Julian; they were uttered by a Palestinian Jew of the first century AD, and were transmitted, in the first instance at least, by Jews of the same background; and it is unlikely in the extreme that they were uttered in Latin or Greek: IOW, the Latin words in the Latin text of the Roman liturgical books cannot be treated as if they were the ipsissima verba of Jesus: if we want to get close to what He is likely to have said, we have to take the background of Jesus and the ideas implied in that background into account - not go back no further than the Latin.

Even in Latin, oratio does not mean in Cicero what it means in Leo the Great: in Christian Latin it is a word for prayer; before that, it is a word for a speech. The meaning of words does not stand still. To get as close as possible
to what Jesus actually meant, we have to go back as close to His time as possible.

This should help:

catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1317

• it quotes an official reply to a question on this very subject ##

 

[Vox_Borealis]

Gottle of Geer:

The words of consecration were not uttered by Cicero or Livy or Caesar, nor by Herodotus, Plutarch or the Emperor Julian; they were uttered by a Palestinian Jew of the first century AD, and were transmitted, in the first instance at least, by Jews of the same background; and it is unlikely in the extreme that they were uttered in Latin or Greek: IOW, the Latin words in the Latin text of the Roman liturgical books cannot be treated as if they were the ipsissima verba of Jesus: if we want to get close to what He is likely to have said, we have to take the background of Jesus and the ideas implied in that background into account - not go back no further than the Latin.

Even in Latin, oratio does not mean in Cicero what it means in Leo the Great: in Christian Latin it is a word for prayer; before that, it is a word for a speech. The meaning of words does not stand still. To get as close as possible
to what Jesus actually meant, we have to go back as close to His time as possible.

Thank you–I agree entirely, though yours is the much more articulate response.

 

[RobbyS]

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.

No.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Vox Borealis:

Thank you–I agree entirely, though yours is the much more articulate response.

Actually, I keep wishing I had written yours ​

 

[gelsbern]

Gottle of Geer:

The words of consecration were not uttered by Cicero or Livy or Caesar, nor by Herodotus, Plutarch or the Emperor Julian; they were uttered by a Palestinian Jew of the first century AD, and were transmitted, in the first instance at least, by Jews of the same background; and it is unlikely in the extreme that they were uttered in Latin or Greek: IOW, the Latin words in the Latin text of the Roman liturgical books cannot be treated as if they were the ipsissima verba of Jesus: if we want to get close to what He is likely to have said, we have to take the background of Jesus and the ideas implied in that background into account - not go back no further than the Latin.

Even in Latin, oratio does not mean in Cicero what it means in Leo the Great: in Christian Latin it is a word for prayer; before that, it is a word for a speech. The meaning of words does not stand still. To get as close as possible
to what Jesus actually meant, we have to go back as close to His time as possible.

I wonder what language a country occupied by Rome would have to speak? I mean yes, they were Hebrews, but the NT Books were mostly written in Greeek which means there would have been one translation from Aramaic. but I am pretty sure, since english didn’t exist that even Jesus and the Apostles spoke Latin I mean their country was occupied after all. So it is very possible Jesus may have done the Last Supper in Latin. He could have done it in Greek, or Aramaic or Hebrew as well. It’s all speculation.

The point of the discussion is in the tradition of the Church, the words were “pro multis” which was translated to “for many” until 1960’s where it was translated “for all” which would be “pro omnibus”

Did EWTN screw up? Nope, they were reading the Mass from the currently approved translation. With that being said, we know where the screw up lies. ICEL and Vatican II.