Revised translation update?

[awalt]

Back to the original question, if you listen to the CA Live program from September referenced above, you’ll hear that there is still more detailed work to do in additional translation, then this has to go through an approval process as well. The lady said it’s likely 2-3 years before changes would be introduced into our liturgy.

 

[drforjc]

I seem to remember hearing another rumor (take it for that only, please) that it could be done in time so that his Holiness may use it for WYD 2008 in Sydney, I think.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

What show are you talking about exactly?

Pax tecum!

I forgot to post the link, didn’t I? :banghead:

catholic.com/radio/calendar.php
Listen to the second hour of the September 1 show with Helen Hull Hitchcock. It’s called “Upcoming changes to the Mass”.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

I believe it actually was “many” in the original Latin version. The English version is supposed to be a translation of the Latin version. However, if I recall correctly, it will be “many” in the new edition, and if so it is becoming a moot point. (Correct me if I am wrong though.)

Pax tecum!

Yes, you are correct that it was “for many” in the Latin (and still is): “pro multis”. The draft of the translation that I have (not the final one that was approved) still had “for all” as the translation of “pro multis”. I am not sure if that was what made it into the final version, but it is the translation in the draft that I have.

I can e-mail the draft to anyone who is interested. It is in .pdf format. Just send me a PM and let me know if you want it.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[TradyDaddy]

WOW!!! And who is “WE” may I ask?

This is Truth and doctrine, that Jesus Christ died for ALL, not just for some, although this separation is a free choice of every person to accept it or not. The gift of redemption is meant for all men. I can’t believe you said this and think it is true.

To answer your first question, "who is ‘we’? "…
I believe that would be the Catholic Church who has always taught that IT alone is the sole source of salvation. I can’t believe you said that.

Regarding the next thing you said… please read it again (noting the portion of it I placed in bold) and then read what I wrote (noting the portion I placed in bold). We are saying the same thing…
MY QUOTE…“Because we don’t believe in universal salvation. **Those who choose to separate themselves **from the true faith separate themselves from salvation”.

 

[Rykell]

Trady:

…“Because we don’t believe in universal salvation. Those who choose to separate themselves from the true faith separate themselves from salvation”.

I apologize if I read your statement wrong. What I was focusing upon was universal “redemption” which is an absolute doctrine of our faith, but universal “salvation” depends upon the readiness of the person to accept it.

This still doesn’t explain the objection I made about the wording, “for many.” And to be honest, it is not worth causing a rupture in the peace between us to insist that one interpretation is more correct than another. Let the Church decide, and may you and I submit to Her teaching, whichever words are used in the final text.

 

[dano1972]

Well it is the US Confused Bishops Conference

I’m puzzled by the lack of respect shown to the US Bishops. They are the leaders given to us by God through the church. Even if we don’t agree with them I feel we must respect them and their office.

 

[demerzel85]

I’m puzzled by the lack of respect shown to the US Bishops. They are the leaders given to us by God through the church. Even if we don’t agree with them I feel we must respect them and their office.

Actually it really is meant only as a joke.

 

[TradyDaddy]

I apologize if I read your statement wrong. What I was focusing upon was universal “redemption” which is an absolute doctrine of our faith, but universal “salvation” depends upon the readiness of the person to accept it.

This still doesn’t explain the objection I made about the wording, “for many.” And to be honest, it is not worth causing a rupture in the peace between us to insist that one interpretation is more correct than another. Let the Church decide, and may you and I submit to Her teaching, whichever words are used in the final text.

No problem, I just didn’t want you thinking I was a Feeneyite. I do believe that there are non-Catholics who will go to Heaven. It’s just that they will NOT enter because of their particular religious affiliation and also that they will be Catholic before they enter. These are the MANY. The Church did decide this long ago and re-affimed it many times until Vatican II.

Secondly, to seek truth is not a rupture in peace. There is only one correct interpretation because the connotation of the two words changes the meaning of the sentence and therefore the theology thereof. I never even brought up the issue of validity of the Sacrament, the Novus Ordo services which use invalid breads and grape juice, made up cannons, concelebration by laymen, etc. do quite enough of that. The fact is that in Catholic bibles in the vernacular (and even in King James bibles), the translation is “for many”. What was so difficult about this? It had never been tranlated as “for all” until the ICEL came along. The equation 2+2=4 is not one of several possible interpretations.

 

[Rykell]

Tradydaddy:

No problem, I just didn’t want you thinking I was a Feeneyite. I do believe that there are non-Catholics who will go to Heaven. It’s just that they will NOT enter because of their particular religious affiliation and also that they will be Catholic before they enter. These are the MANY. The Church did decide this long ago and re-affimed it many times until Vatican II.

This is not Catholic doctrine. You will not be able to produce a shred of evidence to support this.

I never even brought up the issue of validity of the Sacrament, the Novus Ordo services which use invalid breads and grape juice, made up cannons, concelebration by laymen, etc. do quite enough of that.

[SIGN]False. Methinks someone’s been playing with your mind![/SIGN]

The majority of orthodox priests/parishes are following the rubrics of the church. If some fail to do so through abuse, it does not negate all Novus Ordo liturgies.

The fact is that in Catholic bibles in the vernacular (and even in King James bibles), the translation is “for many”. What was so difficult about this? It had never been tranlated as “for all” until the ICEL came along.

You need to check these bibles, then, because both Luke and Paul do not say “for many” … only for “you.” Who is right, Matthew & Mark? Or Luke & Paul? Obviously the answer cannot consist solely in the words of scripture, but in the Tradition passed down from Peter. Only the Church is able to teach us what is true and essential.

The form of the consecration is in the words, “This is My Body; This is My Blood.” Check with your Bishop or priest (*) rather than uninformed websites that promote division through that which they fail to understand correctly. The added or changed words do not invalidate the consecration as some are asserting. The Church has authority to make changes that reveal a greater theological meaning. In this case, it is absolutely true that Christ’s redemption is for “all” while salvation is accepted only by the “many.”

For God so loved the (what?) that He gave His only Son to be our redeemer.

(*) Oops, maybe your Bishop or priest is not adhering to the RCC? The lawful successors of the RCC are the ones to check with.

 

[TradyDaddy]

The majority of orthodox priests/parishes are following the rubrics of the church. If some fail to do so through abuse, it does not negate all Novus Ordo liturgies.

Obviously, you still don’t understand the difference between the terms “all” and “many”… or as I stated it "quite enough of "… (which doesn’t even imply “many”). How you draw the conclusion that I judged “all” Novus Ordo services to be invalid is beyond me. Would you please read what I’ve written before responding? I said that the abuses listed constitued “quite enough of”… meaning a considerable number, not necessarily even a majority.

 

[TradyDaddy]

You need to check these bibles, then, because both Luke and Paul do not say “for many” … only for “you.” Who is right, Matthew & Mark? Or Luke & Paul? Obviously the answer cannot consist solely in the words of scripture, but in the Tradition passed down from Peter. Only the Church is able to teach us what is true and essential.

Ok, you are correct that the Gospel of St. Luke does not include the pro multis, but your problem here is that the ICEL did not use St. Luke’s form because the Church’s official Latin version of the Consecration uses “pro multis” even in the Novus Ordo. You are jumping around with your logic to “prove” me wrong and by pointing to St. Pauls Epistle to the Corinthians you actually support the traditional translation. How does St. Paul follow the quote of the Lucian formula? By stating that by eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ unworthily, you bring judgement on yourself and he goes on to say, “that is why MANY of you are ill”. If “many” are ill, then not "all " are saved.

The “for you” was directed specifically to those in the room at the last supper, the “for many” was directed at those who would accept the Gospel. There are those in the Protestant world who believe in universal salvation and now sadly even those who call themselves Catholic are now beginning to believe that ALL will be saved. Gee, I wonder were the root of this confusion lies?

 

[Rykell]

How does St. Paul follow the quote of the Lucian formula? By stating that by eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ unworthily, you bring judgement on yourself and he goes on to say, “that is why MANY of you are ill”. If “many” are ill, then not "all " are saved.

1 Cor. 11:24, "This is My Body which shall be given up for “you.”

I think you misread my words, Trady, for I never said “all” are saved, but redemption is for “all.” This is what I wrote:
"In this case, it is absolutely true that Christ’s redemption is for “all” while salvation is accepted only by the “many.” Do you not agree?

You:

I never even brought up the issue of validity of the Sacrament, the Novus Ordo services which use invalid breads and grape juice, made up cannons, concelebration by laymen, etc. do quite enough of that.

It is really easy to read your words as meaning all N.O. services. Thanks for clearing that up. There are a good many traditionalists who point fingers at all N.O. masses, as being invalid and heretical. Not knowing what your background is, one could assume by your user name that you were one of the more radical ones that believed this way.

Incidentally, I’m not here to prove you wrong, but to ask as I did a few posts ago that you and I let this matter drop and follow the Church, who does have the authority to make these changes … lawfully! As for the proper form, the words outside of the essential ones do not change the essence of the consecration. I then invited you to check with lawful authority in the church. I do not expect that you will listen to me, for who am I? Just a forum poster, huh?

To be honest, you and I could debate endlessly, and I doubt either of us will budge. I listen to the Church — you listen to others who oppose Her guidance.

I remember the parable in Lk. 16, where scripture states, "He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ "

May we rest in peace.

 

[Trident59]

Hey, Tradydaddy,

He just baited you in. There are lots of these folks on these threads. They just tick you off enough for you to really let it go and then, ZAP.

Chapter, verse and source and if you can’t keep up, tough!

But I do agree with you.

 

[TradyDaddy]

Hey, Tradydaddy,
He just baited you in. There are lots of these folks on these threads. They just tick you off enough for you to really let it go and then, ZAP.
Chapter, verse and source and if you can’t keep up, tough!
But I do agree with you.

Thanks Trident. May I add that if you read through the series of responses, you will notice that he or she continually twists my words. And to truly respond to some of the illogical use of bible quotes would take several paragraphs. I tried to do it in just a couple paragraphs but it would take something more along the lines of an act of God to get some people to admit that “pro multis” can not be translated as “all” if you are intellectually honest.

It boils down to this: one modernist Priest told us to check our ego’s at the door, which means accepting everything the libs throw at you with out questioning them. Fine, I’ll check my ego at the door, but I will NOT check my intellect.

 

[Trident59]

Tradydaddy,

You know I’ve had numerous discussions with “Catholic priests” that claim that I don’t understand latin. I was pointing out the Pro Multis many vrs. all thing. They are claiming “all” as the translation of Pro Multis. My response was a total disbelief of what I was hearing from so called educated men. It began sounding like an “Orwellian” double speak conversation.

And speaking of Orwell, when priests and Bishops totally ignore the Pope as in France, Holland and the USA, and then expect their parishoners to follow their directives, how can they expect anything else but many to flee to SSPX.

This whole thing has become almost surreal. Each Bishop seems to have his little kingdom and any disobedience to him is WRONG.

 

[Erich]

The actual transubstantiation is in the wording, “THIS IS MY BODY.”

I heard a priest explain that the actual moment of transubstantiation is in the invocation of the Holy Spirit, “Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.” (Eucharistic Prayer II)

 

[Vox_Borealis]

I heard a priest explain that the actual moment of transubstantiation is in the invocation of the Holy Spirit, “Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.” (Eucharistic Prayer II)

Unfortunately, your priest appears to mistaken. From the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Consecration:

When we speak of consecration without any special qualification, we ordinarily understand it as the act by which, in the celebration of Holy Mass, the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ. It is called transubstantiation, for in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of bread and wine do not remain, but the entire substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ, and the entire substance of wine is changed into His blood, the species or outward semblance of bread and wine alone remaining. This change is produced in virtue of the words: This is my body and This is my blood, or This is the chalice of my blood, pronounced by the priest assuming the person of Christ and using the same ceremonies that Christ used at the Last Supper. That this is the essential form has been the constant belief and teaching of both the Eastern and Western Churches (Renaudot, “Liturgiarum Orientalium Collection”, I, i).

 

[TradyDaddy]

Tradydaddy,

You know I’ve had numerous discussions with “Catholic priests” that claim that I don’t understand latin. I was pointing out the Pro Multis many vrs. all thing. They are claiming “all” as the translation of Pro Multis. My response was a total disbelief of what I was hearing from so called educated men. It began sounding like an “Orwellian” double speak conversation.

And speaking of Orwell, when priests and Bishops totally ignore the Pope as in France, Holland and the USA, and then expect their parishoners to follow their directives, how can they expect anything else but many to flee to SSPX.

This whole thing has become almost surreal. Each Bishop seems to have his little kingdom and any disobedience to him is WRONG.

And we’re supposed to stick our heads in the sand and not say anything… it’s almost laughable.

 

[Asperges_Me]

I had read on various blogs that the USCCB meeting in November would be voting on additional translations. If I remember correctly, these were prefaces and alternate Canons (EP’s). But I see from their agenda

usccb.org/comm/archives/2006/06-193.shtml

that they won’t be voting on any translations at all. Last June I was very excited when the new translations passed with such little opposition. But, since then I have been getting that sinking feeling. The prevailing opinion seems to have been in order to get the votes, the bishops were given a lot of discretion on the implementation.

If it is really going to take 2-3 years or more, then really anything can happen (e.g. God forbid a new pope, rumors of a new Roman Missal etc.) It seems that the new translations can almost be put off indefinitely for one bureaucratic reason or another.

I’m wondering if we will really ever experience the new translations. Almost all of the Catholics I talked with had no idea that new translations had been approved. They gave me the old “deer in the headlights” look. This should be a joyous occasion, eagerly anticipated by the clergy and lay people alike. The greatest litugical revolution in over a generation!!! Yet, it’s almost like a non-event. I think some priests just hope it all goes away somehow. I’m wondering does anyone have the same feeling as I do?