ByzCath; Pro multis means for many. Pro=for Multis or Latin which is similar to italian. Molto (italian) =many. Its not multis=all. it never has been.This is a non-issue becuase the new English translation will have for many.
That was when he indicated, as we report today, that the indult, or permission, for universal celebration of the Tridentine Mass could be published this month. That meeting did however take place before the German bishops sent a seven-page letter outlining their objections.
. . .]
He [Benedict XVI] is surrounded in the Vatican by people who oppose the Latin Mass. Cardinal Arinze is on the side of the German bishops,…
Yes, that is the dogma of papal infallibility. However, there is also the theologically certain doctrine that the Church cannot approve disciplines contrary to Divine law; the Church cannot approve an invalid rite. See the section entitled “Disciplinary Infallibility” in this article from the CE.As I understand it, the pope is protected by infallibility when he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.
The English translation was approved by the Vatican, the top authorities. The Church cannot approve an invalid rite.The new Mass was promulgated in Latin, anyway, not in English.
I believe for the many in Greek would be περι των πολλων.I don’t have Greek.
However the words of the consecration would have been Hebrew, and are lost.
Latin of course has no definite article, “many” and “the many” are identical.
It does not err (apart from an obvious translation error) if the words are taken to mean sufficiency rather than efficacy.In any case, “for all” is inconsistent with Christ’s message. In fact, it’s a contradiction. The ICEL erred.
In any case, “for all” is inconsistent with Christ’s message. In fact, it’s a contradiction. The ICEL erred.
“I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.” John 17:9 KJV
scripturetext.com/john/17-9.htm
Validity is not the issue on this thread. But I would question this theologically certain doctrine that you bring up as it applies here.Yes, that is the dogma of papal infallibility. However, there is also the theologically certain doctrine that the Church cannot approve disciplines contrary to Divine law; the Church cannot approve an invalid rite.
Seems that that isn’t the case at all.The English translation was approved by the Vatican, the top authorities.
Do you question that theologically certain doctrine as it applies to the practice of the Latin rites concerning Communion under one kind? If not, I do not see how you can question it with regards to the formula of consecration of an approved translation of an approved rite.Validity is not the issue here. But I would question this theologically certain doctrine that you bring up as it applies here.
How?Seems that that isn’t the case at all.
Yes, that is the dogma of papal infallibility. However, there is also the theologically certain doctrine that the Church cannot approve disciplines contrary to Divine law; the Church cannot approve an invalid rite. See the section entitled “Disciplinary Infallibility” in this article from the CE.
The English translation was approved by the Vatican, the top authorities. The Church cannot approve an invalid rite.
Maria
So “for the many” is ruled out by the Greek?I believe for the many in Greek would be περι των πολλων.
The Gospels are our best guide to what our Lord said at the Last Supper.
But no rite is imposed universally on all Churches within the Catholic Church. The Roman Rite is not imposed on the Byzantine Church and the Byzantine Rite on the Latin Church, for example.The article you mentioned says “in her general discipline, i.e. the common laws imposed on all the faithful, the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or the Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or the Divine law would exact.”
Well, then the issue here is not whether a rite approved by a pope for English-speaking Catholics is valid, but whether the rite was duly approved or whether the pope who approved it is a valid pope.Also, the change from reception of Holy Communion under two species to reception under one is a different sort of change than changing our Lord’s words from “for many” to “for all”. The former is a change in discipline; the latter is a change from truth to falsehood.
Not necessarily. If I say “I think everyone has at some time wondered what it is like to be a bird” and a little later “I think most people have wondered what it would be like to fly as a bird” someone might ask “what did you mean by saying ‘everyone’ and then ‘most people’?” The answer would be nothing, I just happened to use slightly different words to say essentially the same thing.+JMJ
Often it’s argued that the phrase “for all” simply means that our Lord wants salvation for all people. Nobody can deny that our Lord wishes salvation for all, but the truth of the matter is that some people are just not saved…sorry…that’s just the way it is. And our Lord knew that when He said it.
“For many” does have a different meaning than “for all”.However by producing a very conscious translation of “pro multis” as “for all”, the ICEL has actually forced people who prefer “for many” to say that “for many” specifically does mean something different from “for all”. So it has maybe given the words a kind of emphasis they weren’t supposed to have.
You have a more expansive notion of infallibility than I do. As for validity, whether of Liturgies or of popes, you are the only one on the thread talking about it.MikeDunphy;2269097:
Well, then the issue here is not whether a rite approved by a pope for English-speaking Catholics is valid, but whether the rite was duly approved or whether the pope who approved it is a valid pope.Also, the change from reception of Holy Communion under two species to reception under one is a different sort of change than changing our Lord’s words from “for many” to “for all”. The former is a change in discipline; the latter is a change from truth to falsehood.
No more expansive than that set forth in Catholic doctrine.You have a more expansive notion of infallibility than I do.
As an acedemic, I find the word “infallibility” rather embarrassing. We don’t claim to be infallible in our knowledge or conclusions, so why should the Pope?(Infallibility)
No more expansive than that set forth in Catholic doctrine.
Maria
Dear Mike,You have a more expansive notion of infallibility than I do. As for validity, whether of Liturgies or of popes, you are the only one on the thread talking about it.
Wiser heads have already pointed out that there isn’t much reason for getting worked up about this issue any more; even with continued progressive foot-dragging, we will get a corrected translation of the Mass and especially of the consecration. Eventually.
Peace to all.
Here is the relatio of Bp. Gasser, the relator of the Faith at Vatican I. He is explaining here what the Fathers are about to vote on:“But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.” Tuas Libenter (1863), DZ 1684.
Therefore, in this entire definition, the following three things are contained:
- The Roman Pontiff, through the divine assistance promised to him, is infallible, when, by his supreme authority, he defines a doctrine which must be held by the Universal Church, or, as very many theologians say, when he definitively and conclusively proposes his judgment;
- the object of these infallible definitions is doctrine about faith or morals;
Gorman
- in respect to the object of infallibility, generically proposed in this way, the infallibility of the Pope is neither more nor less extensive than is the infallibility of the Church in her definitions of doctrine of faith and morals. Therefore just as everyone admits that to deny the infallibility of the Church in defining dogmas of faith is heretical, so the force of this decree of the Vatican Council makes it no less heretical to deny the infallibility of the supreme Pontiff, considered in itself, when he defines dogmas of faith. However, in respect to those things about which it is theologically certain - but not as, yet certain “de fide” - that the Church is infallible, these things are also not defined by this decree of the sacred Council as having to be believed “de fide” in respect to papal infallibility. With the theological certitude which is had that these other objects, apart from dogmas of the faith, fall within the extension of the infallibility which the Church enjoys in her definitions, so, with that same theological certitude, must it be held, now and in the future, that the infallibility of definitions issued by the Roman Pontiff extends to these same objects.