Revised translation update?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Elzee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
I do. Exactly. This is one time when I really would love for Pope Benedict to dictate what has to happen in a very detailed way: Approve or update the text as he sees fit and give a mandate to implement it in all parishes by a particular date.

Like you said, it’s a wonderful, joyous occasion. I hope he very publicly sets that tone - and soon.
 
What do you think the essence of the consecration is?
The preceding words? … Take this all of you and eat it?
Or the concluding words? …which will be given up for you? Or
both?

The actual transubstantiation is in the wording, “THIS IS MY BODY.”
St. Thomas Aquinas said: “the form of this Sacrament is the very words of Christ, ‘This is My Body,’ and ‘This is the chalice of My Blood of the new and eternal testament; the mystery of faith; which shall be shed for you and for many, to the remission of sins.’ These words spoken by the priest in the person of Christ brings into being this Sacrament.”

Note that according to St. Thomas, the form for the consecration of the Precious Blood is more than just the words “This is my blood”, and that the priest speaks the words that our Lord actually spoke.
Why is it that the changed wording for the consecration of the wine, whose essence is 'THIS IS MY BLOOD," is causing such turnoil? One would think that there would also be much controversy over the word “you” in the consecration of the bread if the Church changed it to, “which will be given up for ALL.”
Why speculate over how much controversy would be provoked by a change the translators did not actually make?
The Church is guided by the Spirit to provide clearer teaching over the course of time to make the essence of Her mysteries more deeply understood by the faithful. The lesser connotation of the word “many,” (which is semi-inclusive), is not truly as encompassing as the word “all.” For it is doctrinal Truth to say and proclaim infallibly that Jesus shed His blood for ALL, even though all do not avail themselves of the fruits of His sacrifice.

As the Church grows in understanding of these sacred mysteries of our faith, She alone has the Divine commission to make changes for the good of the faithful. The essence, however, does not change one iota, only the accidentals of language.
The Catholic Church does not have the power to change what Jesus said. Just before the consecration of the wine, the priest says Jesus “gave the cup to his disciples, and said …”, so that should be followed by something Jesus actually did say.

What He said is recorded in the gospels, in particular, St. Matthew, who records that He said He was shedding His blood for many.

I agree, by the way, that Jesus shed His blood for all. This is the traditional teaching of the Church, and not a new development. Neverthless, the emphasis at the Last Supper seems to have been on those willing to enter into the new covenant, rather than the world at large. Jesus said: *I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom Thou hast given me, because they are Thine. *Speculation about what He could could have said does not change what He really did say.
 
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.
It is not necessary to assume that the books of the New Testament you mention are contradictory. None of the Gospels claim to provide a complete transcript of our Lord’s words at the Last Supper, and Paul in 1 Corinthians does not claim to be providing all the words of a Liturgy.

Two of the books tell us that Our Lord said He was shedding His blood "for many", none quote Him as saying “for all”.

The Roman Catechism has this to say on the matter:

With regard to the consecration of the wine, which is the other element of this Sacrament, the priest, for the reason We have already assigned, ought of necessity to be well acquainted with, and well understand its form. We are then firmly to believe that it consists in the following words: This is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many, to the remission of sins. Of these words the greater part are taken from Scripture; but some have been preserved in the Church from Apostolic tradition.

Thus the words, this is the chalice, are found in St. Luke and in the Apostle; but the words that immediately follow, of my blood, or my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for you and for many to the remission of sins, are found partly in St. Luke and partly in St. Matthew. But the words, eternal, and the mystery of faith, have been taught us by holy tradition, the interpreter and keeper of Catholic truth.

They moreover express certain admirable fruits of the blood shed in the Passion of our Lord, fruits which pertain in a most special manner to this Sacrament. Of these, one is access to the eternal inheritance, which has come to us by right of the new and everlasting testament. Another is access to righteousness by the mystery of faith; for God hath set forth Jesus to be a propitiator through faith in his blood, that he himself may be just, and the justifier of him, who is of the faith of Jesus, Christ. A third effect is the remission of sins.

The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore ('our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.

With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine.
 
Dear Mike,

Thanks for your theological interpretation, but it is just not correct. I invite you to look at the Church’s reasons for the change as explained in good detail by Zenit’s Father McNamara here: You will need to scroll down to the date below.

Code: ZE04090722
Date: 2004-09-07
Why “For All” in the Words of Consecration?

Zenit:
“c) In the approval given to this vernacular variation in the liturgical text, nothing less than correct has crept in, which would require correction or amendment.”

"But even if we didn’t have this authoritative interpretation, that ‘for many’ nonetheless should certainly be understood as ‘for all’ because the coming of Jesus (‘he came in order to give …’) is explicitly carried out for the purpose which can abundantly be shown to have as its object the whole world, i.e. the human race as a whole.

"This brings us now to another question: Why therefore in our liturgical version this venerable original ‘pro multis’ should yield to the phrase ‘pro omnibus’? I respond: because of a certain accidental but true inconvenience: the phrase ‘for many’ – as it is said – in our minds (not forewarned) excludes that universality of the redemptive work which for the Semitic mind could be and certainly was connoted in that phrase because of the theological context. However, the allusion to the theology of the Servant of Yahweh, however eloquent for the ancients, among us is clear only to the experts.

"But if on the other hand it is said that the phrase ‘for all’ also has its own inconvenience, because for some it might suggest that all will actually be saved, the danger of such an erroneous understanding is estimated to hardly exist among Catholics.

"Besides, the change which the words of the consecration underwent was not unique nor the first. For the traditional Latin text already combines the Lucan text ‘pro vobis’ with the phrase of Mark and Matthew ‘pro multis.’ And that is not the first change.
 
Dear Mike,
Thanks for your theological interpretation, but it is just not correct. I invite you to look at the Church’s reasons for the change as explained in good detail by Zenit’s Father McNamara here: You will need to scroll down to the date below.
Hi Rykell. Which part of what I wrote is not correct? The part from St. Thomas, widely regarded to be one of the greatest thinkers in the history of the Church? My suggestion that the gospels don’t contradict each other or the letters of St. Paul? My overlong quote from the Roman Catechism, edited under St. Charles Borromeo and published by decree of Pope St. Pius V?

In your quote from Zenit, did you notice the following?
Why therefore in our liturgical version this venerable original ‘pro multis’ should yield to the phrase ‘pro omnibus’?
Fr. McNamara admits that “for all” is a translation of “pro omnibus”, not “pro multis”. So what we hear on Sundays is not an accurate translation of the Mass into English. The New Mass, like the Old Mass before it, and the Gospel of St. Matthew before it, quotes our Lord as having said He was shedding His blood pro multis, “for many”. Setting aside any questions of validity of the Mass, bad translations ought to be fixed simply because they are bad translations and good translations are …um… better. *.

This bit from Zenit was also interesting:
"But if on the other hand it is said that the phrase ‘for all’ also has its own inconvenience, because for some it might suggest that all will actually be saved
, the danger of such an erroneous understanding is estimated to hardly exist among Catholics.
Would you agree that not all will be saved? I wonder, because earlier in this thread, when TradyDaddy wrote that we do not believe in universal salvation, your response was
WOW!!! And who is “WE” may I ask? All of the Traditionalists? or maybe just the SSPX-ers?
 
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.
I like this quote from you enough to quote it a second time. What does the Church teach us from Tradition? In another thread, I quoted from the saints here, here, here, and here. I also looked at Eucharistic prayers here, here, here, here and here. If you read some of this you will see Jesus quoted many times as saying He was shedding His blood “for many”. He is never quoted as saying He was shedding His blood “for all”. The creators of the new Mass got it right on this point and the translators got it wrong: Jesus said “for many”.
 
Dear Mike,

“A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”

Obviously we are at different points of view, and I doubt anything I say will convince you, and vice-versa. A thread on another forum was pages long with people on both sides of this issue … I see no solution in entering into further discussion.

Reason? Because I believe the Church has the final say. Whatever I pray or listen to at mass does not affect its validity and sublimity. Jesus is present in the sacrament. If the Church decides to change it or simply to keep it (the words), it is well with my soul. Some who cannot accept Her guidance in pure faith have already lost their joy, and that is very apparent, yet sad.
 
Dear Rykell,

The Church had the final say a long time ago, and its teaching has not changed. As TradyDaddy suggested earlier in this thread, you can find out what Jesus said by opening up your Bible to Matthew 26:28 and reading. The Bible is Catholic. The same words of our Lord you find there you will also find in the normative Latin version of the New Mass. It is the translators who have tried to change what our Lord said, not the Church.

I would have been suprised if you had changed your opinion overnight just from this brief exchange between us. But I hope I have planted some small seed of suspicion in your mind that just maybe those of us who take a more traditional view of things have reasons for what we think, that are more than just the stubborn desire to have things our own way. We are trying to serve the Church and adhere to its teachings (as we understand them) as best we can. Speaking only for myself, I do not see how a truth about our Lord could change from generation to generation.

I do have high regard for your loyalty to the Church.
 
40.png
Rykell:
Obviously we are at different points of view, and I doubt anything I say will convince you, and vice-versa. A thread on another forum was pages long with people on both sides of this issue … I see no solution in entering into further discussion.
Obviously, you knew of the thread, for your posts in this forum were extensive on the subject. Nothing I write will be new to you, nor did the many arguments on that website convince you.
40.png
You:
But I hope I have planted some small seed of suspicion in your mind that just maybe those of us who take a more traditional view of things have reasons for what we think, that are more than just the stubborn desire to have things our own way.
Not at all, Michael. Not at all. It speaks to me of the difference between flies and bees … what they feed on, and the manner in which they propagate. Bees always stay with the hive and feed only on honey.
 
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?
Yes, I know for sure that we will see an improved translation. From the outside it looks like a non-issue or something that just got lost in the mix but in reality it is going to happen-regardless of some “progressive” bishops dragging their feet.
 
Originally Posted by Rykell
Are you talking about this forum? One thing I’d like to highlight from there is the reference to Philip Goddard’s article on the pro multis question. Talking about the word in question, Mr. Goddard writes:
in Liddell and Scott’s standard Greek Lexicon, the article on πολλoi extends to over two columns of small print and lists many nuances of meaning with extensive quotations from Greek literature to support the corresponding English meanings given. Nowhere, however, in Greek literature do either Liddell and Scott or the many later editors of their Lexicon record any passage where the word bears the meaning “all”.
He makes other important points in his short, very readable article.

Did the “for all” side of that discussion make any points that in your view were not answered by the “for many” side?
Originally Posted by MikeDunphy
If you go back to post #42, post #43, post #45, and the links in in post #46, you will see actual reasons, if you look. If you do look, and see a mistake in what I have written, let me know. I can be reasoned with, but I need to hear something more than “so and so says so”. Show me why. Factual claims that are easily disproved by checking a neutral source, such as a Hebrew-English dictionary, are particularly unconvincing.

Guess what? I’m not the only one who thinks the translators could have done a better job. Even if the problem with the consecration isn’t going to be fixed in the near future, a new translation is on the way that will fix other problems, Deo gratius.
 
I need to hear something more than “so and so says so”.
Well, if you found a recognized saint or doctor of the Church who says that Jesus said “for all” at the first consecration, that would impress me.
 
Might I suggest that he look up the writings of St. Lukewarm to find that particular quote?
 
Dear Mike,
Even if the problem with the consecration isn’t going to be fixed in the near future, a new translation is on the way that will fix other problems, Deo gratius.
Meanwhile, am I going to lose sleep and have anxiety attacks? My joy is in daily having the privilege of celebrating the liturgy and receiving Jesus … I treasure this precious opportunity as one of the greatest gifts God has given me, especially since I am only one mile from Church, and I have a most holy pastor who truly “prays” the mass in words I can understand.

You and I do not have the Authority to legislate, whereas the Church does. As I said previously, either way in which She lawfully directs us in this matter, it is well with my soul, so why debate and lose my peace with traditionalists who haven’t a moment’s peace?

So now the only loophole that some of these have left is to prove the Church has legislated through an unlawful Pope … and believe me, I have seen this utter nonsense being propagated to justify their reasoning.

The Church is what She is, here and now … what She will be is yet unknown. Nevertheless, She is the Bride of Jesus Christ, whom He loves! We should love and support her ministers, working quietly for those things which we feel are less than perfect. But no, I come to websites like this where She and her ministers are dragged through the mud by rational men whose thinking places themselves above Her authority, as though they were God with the power to have it their way. And the badmouthing goes unchecked for the most part … (sigh). Look at the threads! People itch to get up in the morning and spew their anger trashing yet another liturgy or minister.

Tell me why I should stay and imbibe this day after day, without becoming one of these? Yes, as you said about planting seeds of suspicion, I would grow the same tree as your seeds …

If this sounds like an epitaph, it probably may be my last post in this section of the forum.
 
Dear Trady,
Might I suggest that he look up the writings of St. Lukewarm to find that particular quote?
I assume this was directed to me, and that it was a sarcastic remark implying that I am lukewarm? I would bet the farm that you were not at mass this morning … guess what? I was. Know what the first reading was? St. Paul admitting how in his blindness he “persecuted the Church of God.”

If you believed so deeply in the efficacy and ineffableness of the Holy Mass, that it obtains for others the divine mercy of God “for our good and the good of all His Church,” you would run to the church for daily Mass rather than log on to CAF. Posting word after word trying to convince others that the liturgy is tainted, will not accomplish a whit towards making a person holier or more devoted to God, nor bring about the changes you believe are needed. It will only further persecute and divide the Body of Christ.

What will be a great mover of hearts is the Sacrifice offered daily on our altars, in which we participate to obtain for those “lukewarm ones” the grace to become holy, joyful, on fire for God.
 
vatican.va/edocs/ENG0821/__P3.HTM

Ecclesia de Eucharistia
Ioannes Paulus PP. II
2003 04 17

THE MYSTERY OF FAITH
  1. The saving efficacy of the sacrifice is fully realized when the Lord’s body and blood are received in communion. The Eucharistic Sacrifice is intrinsically directed to the inward union of the faithful with Christ through communion; we receive the very One who offered himself for us, we receive his body which he gave up for us on the Cross and his blood which he “poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Mt 26:28). We are reminded of his words: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me” (Jn 6:57). Jesus himself reassures us that this union, which he compares to that of the life of the Trinity, is truly realized. The Eucharist is a true banquet, in which Christ offers himself as our nourishment. When for the first time Jesus spoke of this food, his listeners were astonished and bewildered, which forced the Master to emphasize the objective truth of his words: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life within you” (Jn 6:53). This is no metaphorical food: “My flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (Jn 6:55).
 
From…DE DEFECTIBUS, Papal Bull decreed by Pope Saint Pius V in ratifying the Council of Trent …
Code:
ON DEFECTS THAT MAY OCCUR IN THE CELEBRATION OF MASS......
V - Defects of the form
20. Defects on the part of the form may arise if anything is missing from the complete wording required for the act of consecrating. Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are:

HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, and HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: MYSTERIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM


**If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin. **

What more can be said? I don’t know how much clearer it can be.
 
On the Revision of the Roman Missal

July 7, 1604 Pope Clement VIII

Not only have the Roman Pontiffs, Our Predecessors, always desired, and for a long time greatly striven to achieve, this aim, but above all Pope Pius V of happy memory undertook, in accordance with the decree of the Council of Trent, to bring the Roman Missal into conformity with the old and purer pattern and to have it printed in Rome. Although he very severely forbade under many penalties that anything should be added to it, or that anything for any reason be removed from it, nevertheless, in the course of time, it has come to pass that, through the rashness and boldness of the printers, or of others, many errors have crept into the missals which have been produced in recent years.

We have also entrusted some of Our Venerable Brethren, Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, versed in Holy Writ and skilled in ecclesiastical antiquity, with the business of restoring the Missal to its primitive and purest form.

It happened, however, that in the carrying out of this task, as a result of an accurate comparison of ancient books, some things have been improved upon and, concerning the rules and rubrics, some points have been more fully and clearly stated. These improvements, however, flowing as it were from the same sources and principles, seem rather to represent and complete the meaning of the rules and rubrics than to introduce anything new.

Notwithstanding whatsoever licenses, indults and privileges hitherto granted by Us or by the Roman Pontiffs, Our Predecessors, to print the aforenamed Missal of Pius V, which by these presents We expressly revoke and which We wish to be revoked; and also the constitutions, Apostolic ordinances, general and special, granted in whatever manner, contrary to the above prescriptions, confirmed and approved.
Trady,

In reviewing your post, I believe your error is in understand the wording: “If the priest were to shorten or change the form”

The “priest” may not change anything that has been lawfully prescribed and set forth by Papal authority … but the Pope may introduce changes. In that sense, your document is partially correct. However, as we see with Pope Clement and others to follow, the Pope does have the authority to abrogate the directives of previous Councils .

There is an excellent document that explains it beautifully here:
The [closing] point, ultimately, is that the Church is governed by a living authority, and all appeals to Scripture, tradition, emotional attachment or personal preference (however sound and certain these appeals appear to those who make them) must ultimately bow to that living authority or cease to be Catholic.
 
Rykell,

What’s your point? By your “logic”, if a current or future Pope said that the new form for Baptism was, *“I wash you, in the name of the Pope, and the Bishops and Hahns Kuhn”, *that it would still be a valid Baptism because a Pope could not be bound by previous Popes. This is ludicrous.

First, the quote forbidding the short form of the Consecration was from “De Defectibus”, not “Quo Primum”. And I used it to point out just one more authoritative source from a Pope that stated that the FULL form of the Consecration had to be followed.

Secondly, if you ever decided to actually read Quo Primum in its entirety, you would find that not just Priests but also, *" bishops, administrators, canons, chaplains and other secular priests, **or religious of whatsoever Order or by *whatsoever title designated **", were bound in perpetuity.

Thirdly, Quo Primum DID NOT abrogate previuos councils. It specifically states, “We likewise order and declare that no one whosoever shall be forced or coerced into altering this Missal; and this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law, notwithstanding previous constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the usage of the churches aforesaid established by very long and even immemorial prescription, saving only usage of more than two hundred years”

Finally, the letter you cite from Pope Clement regardedthe restoration of what Pope St. Pious V had put in place and it specifically states that the improvements were not changes: "These improvements, however, flowing as it were from the same sources and principles, **seem rather to represent and complete **the meaning of the rules and rubrics than to introduce anything new".

At any rate, nice try. I’m sure you’ll keep nit picking it to death.

Your friend
-Tradydaddy from Cincinnati
 
One more fungent point made by the Catholic Encyclopedia, particularly the last two sentences:

"The (Missale Romanum) as we now have it, was published by Pope Pius V by the Bull “Quo primum” of 14 July, 1570 (see LITURGIES and ROMAN RITE). A commission, opened by the Council of Trent under Pius IV (1559-65), consisting of Cardinal Bernardine Scotti, Thomas Goldwell, Bishop of St. Asaph (one of the last two English bishops of the old Catholic line), Giulio Poggi, and others, had then finished its task of revising the book. Clement VIII (1592-1605) formed a new commission (Baronius, Bellarmine, and others) to restore the text which printers had again corrupted, and especially to substitute the new Vulgate (1590) texts for those of the Itala in the Missal; he published his revision by the Bull “Cum Sanctissimum” on 7 July, 1604. Urban VIII (1623-44) again appointed a commission to revise chiefly the rubrics, and issued a new edition on 2 September, 1634 (Bull “Si quid est”). Leo XIII (1878-1903) again made a revision in 1884. These names stand for the chief revisions; they are those named on the title-page of our Missal (Missale Romanum ex decreto SS. Concilii Tridentini restitutum S. Pii V Pont. Max. iussu editum, Clementis VIII, Urbani VIII et Leonis XIII auctoritate recognitum). But the continual addition of Masses for new feasts goes on. There are few popes since Pius V who have not authorized some additions, made by the Sacred Congregation of Rites, to the Missal or its various supplements. The reigning pope [1910], Pius X, has issued the chants of the Vatican edition in the Gradual. As far as these affect the Missal they have again produced new editions of it. Moreover a commission now sitting is considering a further revision of the text. It is believed that when the commission for restoring the text of the Vulgate has completed its work, that text will be issued in the lessons of the Missal, thus making again a new revision. But, in spite of all these modifications, our Missal is still that of Pius V. Indeed its text goes back to long before his time to the Gallicanized Gregorian “Sacramentary” of the ninth to eleventh century, and, in its essential characteristics, behind that to the Gelasian book of the sixth century, and so back into the mist that hangs over the formation of the Roman Rite in the first centuries. "

In other words, all the new edditions since 1570 had been in harmony with the Missal of Pius V, NOT totally fabricated new Masses and NEVER with the (name removed by moderator)ut of Protestants.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top