gelsbern:
And any high school latin student would know Pro Multis means For Many, not For All. Here is yet another example of where the ICEL goes against the teachings of the Church and the Church has to cover itself by releasing statements and exegesis.
actually, you are dead wrong with both of these statements. while few would defend the ICEL for other poor work they’ve done, this isn’t an example of it. if you want to see what the problem really is, take a look at how they butchered the psalms.
if your high school student were just taught word matching games, and told that translation consists of replacing one word for another without regard for meaning, sense, nuance etc. then you might be right. they might make the same mistake that you are making. that’s why we generally try to use more advanced principles to translate Church texts than are normally taught in high school.
when St. Jerome translated this from whatever sources he had, he chose to use the word
multis, instead of
omnibus,
pluribus, or even
totis. Jerome had to consider the connotations of each of these. if he meant to communicate ‘many, but not all’ as you think it should say, he would not have used
multis.
multis means the masses, the multitude, the common folk, the many. it is not the same word as the english ‘many’, which carries with it the common english connotation of ‘many, but not all’. it is incorrect to read
multis and translate it as “many” and then say that it doesn’t mean “all”. proper translation considers meaning and intent before translation, not after.
multis is often used in latin to say ‘all, the multitude regardless of who, taken as a whole’. since St. Jerome already knows that Christ died for
all, as St. Paul tells us, he wouldn’t use the other choices.
omnibus carries the connotation of ‘all, each and every, taken one by one.’ while we are saved individually and personally,
omnibus lacks referrence to the whole and stresses individuality. when translated as “all”, it usually refers to “all” of a particular kind. the other choices are equally unsuited, because of how they are used in the context of ‘many’, ‘the whole’ and ‘all’.
to say that the english must be “many” and not “all” is a tacit denial of a central truth of the Christian Faith. Jesus offered Himself as sacrifice for all, not just some, or the greater part of the whole, but for all. just because there are some who will not partake of the sacrifice, that doesn’t mean that it was not offered for them. the Church teaches that there is
no universal salvation, but there is
universal redemption. to say that His Blood was not shed for all is a heresy.
if you make further use of your argument and its logical conclusions, you will notice that Jesus doesn’t say that His Body is “for many” or “for all”. He says “for you” (
pro vobis) and nothing else. certainly scripture must mean what it says and we can’t add anything to it. He was speaking to the apostles. therefore it ‘will be handed over’ for them and only them. i am just applying your method to the preceding verses. thus His Body is not for
you, but for
them.
clearly, that’s unacceptable. but it sure highlights the problem with your method. if you accept the reasoning of your method, you have to accept its conclusions. you are comfortable to say ‘i am included in the sacrifice, according to Christ’s words, but others are not.’ when the same logic excludes you, you become uncomfortable saying, ‘others are included in the sacrifice, according to Christ’s words, but i am not.’ your method is not wrong because you wind up asking ‘how can others be included, but not me?’ it is wrong because we already know that no one is excluded, not even you. therefore, we throw away your method and its conclusions. we have to use methods which edify the faithful to the Truth, not those which make us ignorant.
if you reinvent your method or clarify its use, so that you continue to proffer your conclusion, which offends dogma, then you are just arguing for your desired result to the evidence. hopefully, you’ll see the absurdity of that and just let it go. the facts about Jesus’ sacrifice were set down centuries ago. JPII isn’t making anything up here. he’s just saying that some translations of these words legitimately make the truth more obvious than others.
