Priest saying "For you and for ALL"

[ProVobis]

Using the words “…for all” after Nov. 27 is illicit but still valid.

Fr, I would buy that argument if the old formula is said exactly the way it was approved at one time.

However, as I tried to say in post #23, the Church never said the following:

“for this is the chalice of my Blood, the Blood of the new and eternal covenant, which will be poured out for you and for all for the forgiveness of sins.”

was ever valid or licit. I’m pointing this out as it seems to me that this would be the more likely mistake.

I think I’ll just stick with the Polish and Latin Masses and that’s all I’m going to say on this thread.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Considering that the texts of the Mass are translated from Latin, and not from Aramaic, I don’t see why anyone cares at all what words exist in Aramaic. Aramaic is not a source language for any liturgical text in the Latin Church, and is also not a source language for Holy Scripture which, by the way, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, also reports the words of Christ as being “for many” and not “for all”.

Certainly you would agree that Christ was not speaking in Latin, right?

Certainly you would agree that these were alleged to be the words of Christ, right?

So what’s the deal, then? Need I remind you that the Church was established by Christ, not the other way around!

So let’s just put aside the ridiculous discussion of what Jesus Christ may or may have said speaking in Aramaic (if indeed He did speak Aramaic when he spoke those words).

Really? What language do you think he would have spoken at that time, in that place, as the son of a carpenter?

 

[Spirithound]

Hmmm. Did the Church say it was valid after Nov 26th?

If a particular formula is valid for the confection of a sacrament, it is because of the meaning in the words, not because the Church grants validity to them. However, it is through the Church’s declaration that we know they are valid. If a word is a particular word, it is because of the meaning in it. So if the word changes meaning, then it is not the same word, is it?

Since the English language changes meanings often, I have a problem with that statement. If it were true, why the need to retranslate every 40 years.

I really think you’re jumping the gun a little in saying “every” 40 years…

Fr, but is this the case here? Though “for all” was quite controversial back in the 60’s. If a priest had said “for all” prior to that, it would not have been a valid Mass in most observers’ eyes. So if the Church says from Nov 27, 2011 on in the US only this formula must be used, a priest shouldn’t be free to say “for all” or whatever he feels like it. IMO there shouldn’t be a general “it’s valid” without some warning because at some point it could be retroactively invalidated. And Pope Leo XIII showed that it was possible to invalidate Masses retroactively.

What makes you think there is no warning? The Church says DON’T DO IT! That really sounds like a warning to me.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Fr, I would buy that argument if the old formula is said exactly the way it was approved at one time.

However, as I tried to say in post #23, the Church never said the following:

“for this is the chalice of my Blood, the Blood of the new and eternal covenant, which will be poured out for you and for all for the forgiveness of sins.”

was ever valid or licit. I’m pointing this out as it seems to me that this would be the more likely mistake.

You’re ignoring that the Church has already declared that changing the words of consecration, while gravely wrong, does not invalidate the consecration. And, as Fr. David pointed out, the intention of the priest to do what the Church does can cover over any inadvertent grammatical mistakes that lead to theological confusion.

I don’t understand why you’re trying so hard to make the Church say something it doesn’t…

 

[w_s_s]

Certainly you would agree that Christ was not speaking in Latin, right?

I assume (but do not know) not. But the question is irrelevant. The language Christ spoke when he spoke the words of institution is irrelevant. The only authoritative text of the Latin rite Mass is the Latin text. The English language Missal is a translation of the Latin language Missal, and not a translation of some person’s colorful imagination of what Christ might have said in Aramaic or any other language.

Certainly you would agree that these were alleged to be the words of Christ, right? So what’s the deal, then? Need I remind you that the Church was established by Christ, not the other way around!

I agree that both “for you” and “for many” are alleged (by Holy Scripture) to be the words of Christ. I also agree that “for you and for many” is alleged (by the Latin rite Canon of the Mass for all of the recorded history of the Church) to be the words of Christ. So “the deal” is, that any attempt to render the Mass in English using a translation of a hypothesized Aramaic version of what Christ might have said based on the assumption that he was speaking Aramaic at the time, is not only erroneous, but also dishonest.

Really? What language do you think he would have spoken at that time, in that place, as the son of a carpenter?

He might well have spoken Aramaic. But then again, he might have spoken Hebrew or Greek. As God, he might have chosen to speak Chinese, but I doubt that he did. The fact is that we don’t know for sure what language Christ spoke at that time on that night, and our only real knowledge of what he said comes from Holy Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. And neither Holy Scripture and Apostolic Tradition permit the inference that Christ said “for all”.

 

[Timothysis]

I don’t understand why you’re trying so hard to make the Church say something it doesn’t…

Because ProVobis has a penchant for words and languages which influence his positions on liturgical translations. He once said that the Prayer to St. Michael should always be prayed in Latin, because many versions differ a bit in their translations.

There is certainly nothing wrong with such an interest but it shouldn’t guide a person’s mindset against issues that the Church either has spoken on or doesn’t regard as being relevant.

 

[promethius]

Evidence? All I can find is:

Matt 26:28 - For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
Mark 14:24 - And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.
Luke 22:20 - In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.
1 Cor 11:24 - In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.

The first two say “many”. The last two say “you”. Where is “all”?

Bonus: Mark 10:45 - For the Son of man also is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for many.

1 Tim 2:6: “He who gave himself a ransom for all…”
Romans 5:12-19 uses all and many back and forth.

The common understanding is that Jesus died so that all MIGHT be saved, and for the many who WOULD be saved, but it is not unsciptural to use either all or many.

Whether or not Christ spoke Latin is irrelevant to this thread and no one has even brought it up until you just did.

Conversely, I was responding to a specific point trying to clarify where I thought two other posters were speaking past each other, which means it most certainly was germain and I clarified already that the language Christ spoke is largely irrelevant to a discussion of the governing language of the latin rite…

 

[promethius]

edit: somehow got a duplicate post from clicking one time… please delete!

 

[Godfollower]

Whatever is right, it remains that I very much resent being called a man.
It grates every time. We women are not men, do not desire to be and never will be.
We do not deserve to be overlooked in this way.

Man is not a generic term…or is it!!! To call women “men” in the Mass is to degrade what it is to be a man. It leaves women as something special, man and men as something generic.

Yes we women are very special but we don’t deserve to be overlooked and ignored in the Mass translation. I will always be grateful to those priests who respect that even if the earns the ire of all those to whom the letter of the law is more important than the Spirit, which is not the Jesus of the Gospel!

However, the law always wins if there is a conflict between the spirit and law!!! However much Jesus demonstrated His love for the spirit of the law and reprimanded those who failed to in favor of the letter of the law at the expense of the spirit of the law

So like you men we women are men, but the real truth is we are something more because not being generic, we are women.

Yes, actually, “man” is a generic term meaning “human.” In Old English the words were man, werman, and wifman (or possibly, depending on spelling, mann, wermann, and wifmann); meaning, respectively, human, male human, and female human.

Over the centuries the words changed (the designation werman gradually got dropped so that we were left with the word “man” meaning both “male human” and “generic human,” while the designation “wifman” morphed to “woman”). This may have been because the people doing the writing were mostly concerned – rightly or wrongly – with males; or there may have been some other explanation. But the word “man” was always understood to have two different meanings (“human” or “male human”), depending on context.

Incidentally, where in the GIRM does it use the word “man” in a way that might exclude “woman”? I can’t find such a usage.

 

[w_s_s]

1 Tim 2:6: “He who gave himself a ransom for all…”
Romans 5:12-19 uses all and many back and forth.

These are not the words of Jesus Christ at the last supper. That is the difference.

The common understanding is that Jesus died so that all MIGHT be saved, and for the many who WOULD be saved, but it is not unsciptural to use either all or many.

It is not unscriptural to say “Christ died for all” as a theological statement outside the Mass. But it would be (and was) unscriptural to use “for all” in the words of institution in the Canon of the Mass as the priest celebrant at that point is speaking the very words that Christ Himself spoke in the upper room. And nowhere in scripture are the words “for many” found at that specific time and place.

Of course that is still completely ignoring the fact that even Holy Scripture in this case, although confirming the words of the Missal, is not the authoritative text. The Roman Canon itself, in Latin, is the authoritative text and it does now, and always has, clearly and unambiguously reported the words of Christ to be: “for you and for many”.

 

[TheMc]

Whatever is right, it remains that I very much resent being called a man.
It grates every time. We women are not men, do not desire to be and never will be.
We do not deserve to be overlooked in this way.

Man is not a generic term…or is it!!! To call women “men” in the Mass is to degrade what it is to be a man. It leaves women as something special, man and men as something generic.

Yes we women are very special but we don’t deserve to be overlooked and ignored in the Mass translation. I will always be grateful to those priests who respect that even if the earns the ire of all those to whom the letter of the law is more important than the Spirit, which is not the Jesus of the Gospel!

However, the law always wins if there is a conflict between the spirit and law!!! However much Jesus demonstrated His love for the spirit of the law and reprimanded those who failed to in favor of the letter of the law at the expense of the spirit of the law

So like you men we women are men, but the real truth is we are something more because not being generic, we are women.

Sorry, no one is overlooking you in the new translation. It’s common knowledge, whether you like it or not, that “man” “men” “mankind” “brethren” and all similar words can have one of two meanings. One potential meaning is “male” or “males.” But one equally valid meaning is “people.” No one is being excluded by using “brethren” or “for us men.” It’s not an exclusion. It’s a fact of the English language.

 

[martininthefiel]

Just for the record, I think the Third Roman Missal is a tremendous improvement over what we had. There are awkward parts to be sure, but everyone will eventually get used to the changes. The fact remains that it is far more reverent and poetic.

Change comes hard.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

These are not the words of Jesus Christ at the last supper. That is the difference.

Nor was the phrase “the mystery of faith” but the Church included that in the words of consecration for centuries.

The words of consecration are also slightly different amongst the Gospels thus we should avoid an over literalism…

 

[Pat_the_elder]

Please untwist your underwear! This will be a source of arguement for some time while priests (and laity) get used to the new translation. I have talked to a number of priests, most of whom are at least mildly anxious about slipping back into the ‘old’ translation. I think I’m right in saying that there is something in canon law which validates a mistake by the priest during the consecration - some of you more learned guys will know the latin phrase no doubt.
I know an old priest, now retired and lving in a home, who before going into the home was living at our parish house. (he was our PP but age and ill health forced his retiral). Anyway in the last months of his active ministry he was prone to a lot of mistakes and omissions. The PP who had taken over from him told me about the canon law bit. Now he is in a home he will still be able to celebrate mass privately - so where does he stand as I would guess that due to his condition he will probably forget to use the new translation.

 

[ProVobis]

FWIW,

born
O.E. boren, alt. pp. of beran (see bear (v.)). Distinction between born and borne is 17c. Born-again (adj.), of Christians, is from 1961, based on John iii:3. Used in fig. (non-religious) sense from 1977.

begotten
late 14c., pp. adjective from beget.

beget (v.)
O.E. begietan “to get by effort, find, acquire, attain, seize” (class V strong verb, p.t. begeat, pp. begeaton), from be- + get (q.v.). Sense of “to procreate” is from c.1200. Related to O.H.G. pigezzan, Goth. bigitan “to get, obtain.” Related: Begot; begotten.
only

Neither “born” nor “begotten” is morphed/cognated from the Latin “natus” and therefore they are, at best, educated guesses as to the modern meaning of “natus.”

 

[FrDavid96]

Please untwist your underwear! This will be a source of arguement for some time while priests (and laity) get used to the new translation. I have talked to a number of priests, most of whom are at least mildly anxious about slipping back into the ‘old’ translation. I think I’m right in saying that there is something in canon law which validates a mistake by the priest during the consecration - some of you more learned guys will know the latin phrase no doubt.
I know an old priest, now retired and lving in a home, who before going into the home was living at our parish house. (he was our PP but age and ill health forced his retiral). Anyway in the last months of his active ministry he was prone to a lot of mistakes and omissions. The PP who had taken over from him told me about the canon law bit. Now he is in a home he will still be able to celebrate mass privately - so where does he stand as I would guess that due to his condition he will probably forget to use the new translation.

It’s simple: mistakes will happen.
For my own part, I am making it a point to use the translation–I’m trying very hard at it. Yet I still make mistakes (mostly on the short parts that I had memorized, like the silent prayers at the offertory). I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve said the old prayer after the Our Father. It’s easy to do.

At the same time, we also have to realize that there is a difference between a priest who simply makes a mistake, and one who intentionally uses the abrogated adaptation (or parts of it).

Let’s face it: We can usually tell the difference.

A priest who supports the translation will still make mistakes; but we can usually pick up on it when a priest is intentionally using the wrong words. If he does it every time, and puts particular emphasis on the fact that he’s using the wrong word, well, it’s safe to say he’s doing it on purpose.

Yes, we need to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and we need to be patient with priests who are learning to say the new words (and I can assure you it is not as easy as it might seem). But we don’t have to be naive about it either.

If that retired priest forgets and uses the old adaptation? God bless him–he’s earned a little tolerance.

 

[dochawk]

.

And while, yes, aramaic isn’t the source text for the latin rite and I agree that latin text should be the consideration for the latin rite, it is still not inaccurate to note that Christ most likely spoke a mix of Greek and Aramaic, and probably didn’t actually speak much (if any) latin at all.

a former priest of mine got a kick about folks who fancied themselves “traditional” who thought Jesus spoke Latin: “What would he have done with Latin? Cuss out Roman soldiers?”



hawk

 

[Thankfulness]

Yes, actually, “man” is a generic term meaning “human.” In Old English the words were man, werman, and wifman (or possibly, depending on spelling, mann, wermann, and wifmann); meaning, respectively, human, male human, and female human.

Over the centuries the words changed (the designation werman gradually got dropped so that we were left with the word “man” meaning both “male human” and “generic human,” while the designation “wifman” morphed to “woman”). This may have been because the people doing the writing were mostly concerned – rightly or wrongly – with males; or there may have been some other explanation. But the word “man” was always understood to have two different meanings (“human” or “male human”), depending on context.

Incidentally, where in the GIRM does it use the word “man” in a way that might exclude “woman”? I can’t find such a usage.

Thank you, but I studied linguistics and read books in old English, and am not obliged to accept a myriad of old English or medieval words the are only accepted in a patriarchal society , or even Shakespearian words that are no longer used in our society and nothing will induce me to wish to to be called ‘man’. “For all men” offends me, and that is how it is.

 

[AndyP2010]

Since the English language changes meanings often,

You have made this claim before in several other threads and it isn’t true, Please go through the current translation of the Mass and list off the words that have substantially changed their meaning in the last 500 years. I don’t expect that you will find all that many. There is a reason why we should expect high school students to be able to read Shakespeare. The language hasn’t changed all that much during that time period.

 

[Brendan]

Thank you, but I studied linguistics and read books in old English, and am not obliged to accept a myriad of old English or medieval words the are only accepted in a patriarchal society , or even Shakespearian words that are no longer used in our society and nothing will induce me to wish to to be called ‘man’. “For all men” offends me, and that is how it is.

Ah, So if an animal was identied as being a man eating species, you would have no problems petting it?