Question on wording during consecration

[itsjustdave1988]

tjmiller:

According to the hierarchy of truths and the corresponding grades of theological certitude, a position can be “heretical” without necessarily also being “heresy”. Every heresy is indeed heretical, but not everything heretical is ipso facto heresy.

The elimination of almost all references to the soul and spirit in the ICEL Liturgy is as it were heretical (as are many other things in the ICEL liturgy!) inasmuch as it amounts to a rationalistic, naturalistic (anti-supernaturalist) denial of the existence of the soul and/or spirit.

There is indeed a difference bewteen “And with your spirit”, and “and also with you”!

Ah…you are using a very broad definition of “heretical.” Broader than “heresy” as defined by canon 751 and CCC 2089.

As for the meaning: when I say “I shall be healed” it necessarily connotes “my soul shall be healed.” I don’t see the distinction that you see. Nonetheless, I agree that “my soul shall be healed” ought to be the English translation, as it is what the Latin actually states.

 

[Joe_Gloor]

tjmiller:

The elimination of almost all references to the soul and spirit in the ICEL Liturgy is as it were heretical … inasmuch as it amounts to a rationalistic, naturalistic (anti-supernaturalist) denial of the existence of the soul and/or spirit.

I don’t think this is true and it casts those who created the ICEL Liturgy as non-Catholics which I find extremely doubtful.
It seems like an extreme position to take that ‘I’ am not ‘my soul’. If you are alive, your body and soul are entwined. Cell by cell your body dies and up to a certain age, replaces itself with new cells - but the soul remains intact. I am the soul I was when I was a 10 year old boy, but my body is new (but feels a lot older).
“Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word, and I will be healed” is a statement of faith that God has the ability to forgive sins (heal our souls) even though (or perhaps because we realize) we are unworthy.
We are not expecting our bodies to be healed in the way Centurion knew Jesus could heal his servant. It is understood that the ‘I’ referred to is ‘my soul’.
I can understand your insistance that the translation be done accurately, but I agree with Dave, there is no real distinction between the two translations.

 

[grotto]

Leaner: I think you asked a very good question; one that I have had myself for a long time. I have lived through this change of words and have concluded that inclusive language and changing of words have a damaging affect on our Faith. In my verbal response at Mass I use the word soul - I tried to say “I” but it didn’t fit because in my heart I was asking Our Lord to make me worthy to receive Him because of my soul’s unworthiness not my body which has been healthy and unhealthy, etc. I ask separately to be healed from illness or injury but during this part of the Mass I know what Our Lord wants me to ask!

I am afraid that its true about the deliberate changing of words to carry out a “reform/change” to our practicing Faith, but it will fail!

Some people have had such big fights over the subject they come out swinging if they think support is being lent to undermining the Faith - thats my guess anyway. For the most part I think the people we are discussing things with on these forums are pretty gentle.

 

[G_S]

A Ghrotto!

Dia 's Muire agus Pádraig dhuit! Conas atá tú? An bhuil Gaeilge agat?

 

[G_S]

“I shall be healed” is certainly not heretical. However, the dropping of “soul” from all translations (cf. What does it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose himself…Not his soul but himself.) was fairly thorough around 1970. It was often explicitly stated that the body/soul language promoted Greek dualism rather than a Judeo-Christian concept of a person being a body soul union and not a soul rattling around in a body. Many Christians do have this misconception as is evidenced when you hear someone say at a wake, “that’s not her. It’s just a shell.” Well, it is her. Were not Masons. We believe in the resurrection of the body and show great respect for the bodies of the dead. This dualistic disease is probably what has led to the widespead embrace of cremation even when there’s not a compelling reason to do it. Many Christians – mostly non-Catholic – really don’t see Jesus as fully man. They see him as a human shell with God inside – kind of like the aliens in the movie Cocoon when they put on their human suits but remained aliens. All this being said, proper catechesis should suffice to keep Catholics from turing into dualists when they say soul. Get ready, it’s returning in the new translation if/when the bishops’ committee sends it to Rome.

 

[palmas85]

muledog:

Once upon a time, the Holy See accepted lots of translations in the liturgy that it now condemns.

Jesus died for all in the sense that all might be saves, yet his death was efficatious only for the believers. It all depends upon what the focus of the translation is. Both translations, therefore, could be correct, depending on the terminology used.

I believe the most-correct translation of “pro multis” would be “the many”, which is close to “the multitudes.”

If the correct translation (based on the original meaning) for the original latin were “for all”, then the original latin would read “pro omnibus.”

Has anyone stopped to think that maybe the translations are meant to aid in Ecumenism? For many years it was understood that Pro Multis referred to the members of the true church, because they were the ones who could be saved. Those outside the church could not.

However, since Vatican II that belief has gone by the wayside, and it appears that everyone can be saved, in the church, outside the church whatever. The new translation of Pro Multis, for all, accurately reflects that understanding.

 

[otm]

tjmiller:

According to the hierarchy of truths and the corresponding grades of theological certitude, a position can be “heretical” without necessarily also being “heresy”. Every heresy is indeed heretical, but not everything heretical is ipso facto heresy.

The elimination of almost all references to the soul and spirit in the ICEL Liturgy is as it were heretical (as are many other things in the ICEL liturgy!) inasmuch as it amounts to a rationalistic, naturalistic (anti-supernaturalist) denial of the existence of the soul and/or spirit.

There is indeed a difference bewteen “And with your spirit”, and “and also with you”!

You are making the assumption that the translatioon was done for the purpose of denying the soul. Your position that it amounts to a rationalistic, naturalistic denial of the soul is pute supposition on your part without some reliable, researchable evidence that the translators ahd any such intent. Would you care to back your assetion with some evdence?

 

[otm]

palmas85:

Has anyone stopped to think that maybe the translations are meant to aid in Ecumenism? For many years it was understood that Pro Multis referred to the members of the true church, because they were the ones who could be saved. Those outside the church could not.

However, since Vatican II that belief has gone by the wayside, and it appears that everyone can be saved, in the church, outside the church whatever. The new translation of Pro Multis, for all, accurately reflects that understanding.

Perhaps it would help to actually go back and read what the Church said in the Vatican documents you refer to; it would also help to consider the fact that the Church recognizes the validity of other church’s baptisms, and will not re-baptize when one of out Protestant brethern joins the Church. Nowhere do I find the Church saying that the belief of the church concerning the necessity of baptism is no longer valid; it does, however, have some interesting things to say about the Mercy of God when baptism is not available to some.

 

[palmas85]

otm:

Perhaps it would help to actually go back and read what the Church said in the Vatican documents you refer to; it would also help to consider the fact that the Church recognizes the validity of other church’s baptisms, and will not re-baptize when one of out Protestant brethern joins the Church. Nowhere do I find the Church saying that the belief of the church concerning the necessity of baptism is no longer valid; it does, however, have some interesting things to say about the Mercy of God when baptism is not available to some.

I really don’t have a clue what you are talking about. I just said it looks to me like the translations may be a bow to ecumenism. I never said a word about baptisms one way or the other. I was not under the impression that baptism in and of itself did the job of salvation anyway, and I really did not refer to any Vatican II documents at all…

 

[JimG]

palmas85:

Has anyone stopped to think that maybe the translations are meant to aid in Ecumenism? For many years it was understood that Pro Multis referred to the members of the true church, because they were the ones who could be saved. Those outside the church could not.

However, since Vatican II that belief has gone by the wayside, and it appears that everyone can be saved, in the church, outside the church whatever. The new translation of Pro Multis, for all, accurately reflects that understanding.

Having lived both pre and post vatican II, I really don’t recall anyone having that understanding of “pro multis” in the pre-vatican II days. (i.e., that Christ died only for members of the true Church.)

If we thought about it at all, it seemed to be saying that Christ died for the multitudes, but that some might not be saved. Therefore his salvation was effective “for many.” But all that are saved, are saved through him.

In a sense, the newer translation is more theologically correct, since Christ’s sacrifice really is for all. Yet we are free to reject it.