The pope settles the "all" vs "many" debate for the uber-catholics

[JustSomeGuy]

continued…

as to earlier posts:
yes, it is spin.

deacon ed gets no argument from me.

i think that the trent catechism was guided by Pope St. Pius V, and he’s not a Doctor.

now, we can’t even trust the pope’s letters? what? now he’s just some old, decrepit puppet? it’s all just a big conspiracy?

i may not know anything about “unit cohension” but the Church too? sounds faithful, i guess. if this debate doesn’t apply to you, fine. the fact is that some continue it, and now apparently, not even the pope can settle it.

 

[Catholic29]

A question for everyone in this thread. Why are we attacking each other?

I know many us have disagreements. But instead of pontificating our OWN position on who or what is right, I think we should make an honest effort to find out what the Church has decided on these issues. All this infighting certainly cannot look good to those non-Catholics looking in. There is only ONE Lord, ONE Faith and ONE Baptism, so let us just PLEASE be Catholic without throwing out what has been taught over the last 2000 years.

and I am certainly not a RadTrad as someone else mentioned…

And I never intended to include you in that statement, just those who reject the validity of the NOM, the authority of the current Pope, and of course Vatican II.

 

[dumspirospero]

I agree with this post

Catholic29:

A question for everyone in this thread. Why are we attacking each other?

I know many us have disagreements. But instead of pontificating our OWN position on who or what is right, I think we should make an honest effort to find out what the Church has decided on these issues. All this infighting certainly cannot look good to those non-Catholics looking in. There is only ONE Lord, ONE Faith and ONE Baptism, so let us just PLEASE be Catholic without throwing out what has been taught over the last 2000 years.

And I never intended to include you in that statement, just those who reject the validity of the NOM, the authority of the current Pope, and of course Vatican II.

 

[Sean_O_L]

gelsbern wrote:

Find out what the Official Latin translation of the Church is. Then look it up.

That was precisely my point: YOU were again imprecise!

You are correct that Chirst probably never used the word multis he would have used whatever Aramaic term, that was then written down in Greek. Finally the church translated it, (remember the church is infallible in matters of faith) which gave us pro multis.

Imprecision again! The sequence was:

1. Christ said the first Mass using a vernacular Aramaic word.
2. That Aramaic word was translated (probably by St Paul) into Greek.
3. Greek continued to be used in Rome.
4. Latin was the vernacular of the masses of Rome.
5. St Jerome was born c. 343, d. 420. Thus, about 400 years after the first vernacular Mass, St Jerome translated the Bible from Hebrew and Greek texts into Latin and produced the first authorative translation, the Vulgate. As I have said, Latin was still then the vernacular language - just as in the USA and some other countries, English is the vernacular language.

Are you saying the Church was wrong in translating it to pro multis and teaching that those were the words of Christ?

Of course not! What a crazy proposition! What HAS been said is that the words of Christ in the Aramaic could not be fully translated in depth. “pro multis” was the closest translation. But, it did not contain the fullness of the meaning of Christ’s death for mankind.

There are two truths involved in Christ’s death - the denial of which involves heresy. The dimunition of one, leading to the overemphasis of the other leads to heresy.

There are the truths:

1. Christ’s death was SUFFICIENT for the REDEMPTION of ALL.
2. Christ’s death was EFFECTIVE for the SALVATION of MANY.

“Many” being an unknowable number less than “All”.

If they were wrong, we are in deep trouble. ICEL’s translation is blatantly wrong, ICEL was supposed to faithfully translate the Latin. Period. 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.

Personally, I do not “like” the mistranslation - yet I understand the theology behind it. There is precedent for the Church insisting on a particular orientation in theology - for instance, when the protestants specifically denied that Mass should be in Latin (and not the vernacular), the Council of Trent stated in Canon IX On the Sacrifice of the Mass:
If anyone saith that … Mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only…let him be anathema."

Now, “traditionalists” have claimed that this is a prohibition of Mass in the vernacular - which is wholly untrue. It only anathematizes one who is totally against Latin in the Mass. Thsi is not the case today. The Mass of Paul VI was authoratively promulgated in the Latin. It was subsequently permitted in the vernacular. No-one says that it "ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only’!

 

[TNT]

JustSomeGuy:

hello? … show me the latin of this. you will see that it is an explanation of why it says “pro multis” and not “pro omnibus”. …
…the words, which the Church has chosen to be the words that effect the consecration, are correct, appropriate, adequate, etc. it clearly states that the words are not merely quotes from scripture, but are constructed from both scripture and tradition. thus they explain the possible choice between “pro multis” and “pro omnibus”.** the passage you have cited points out that “pro multis” is used in order to avoid any connotation of ‘universal salvation’, which, given the nuance of latin usage would be implied by “pro omnibus”. **the opposite is true for english. that is the point of mentioning “the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of…”

the roman catechism admits that the Church dictates what words effect transubstantiation:even if you don’t accept arguments about the translation, the translation was promulgated by the Church, and therefore is, by that fact, valid and efficacious.

the fact remains that the roman catechism explains the usage of the latin words, not the usage of english words. in the paragraph above the one you’ve cited,… ‘he wished to be understood to mean “not each and every”.’ this is the argument against using “pro omnibus”. the issue isn’t that “pro multis” has been changed to “pro omnibus” in the latin of the Novus Ordo Missae. obviously, by what is stated in the roman catechism, that would be wrong. the issue is how do you render it into modern english faithfully. since the english “many” conveys the idea “not all” it had to be modified to stay true to Catholic teaching. due to the delicate nature of the distinction between the universality of the offer vs. its limited acceptance, no particular phrase is adequate in modern english to spell out what is alluded to in the consecration. that is what catechesis by the priest in the holimy is for. the council of trent said that too.

IMHO, people should stop using the documents to prove their points, if they are not also willing to be taught by them.
…

“**show me the latin of this”
Just look in any English side by side to Latin in a TLM Missal. Does it say MANY or ALL? Does the Tridentine Mass translation agree with the English translation of Trent or you?

"****you will see that it is an explanation of why it says “pro multis” and not “pro omnibus” "…
Again:
****"the passage you have cited points out that “pro multis” is used in order to avoid any connotation of ‘universal salvation’, which, given the nuance of latin usage would be implied by “pro omnibus”. "…
TRUE!
Again:
**"the issue isn’t that “pro multis” has been changed to “pro omnibus” in the latin of the Novus Ordo Missae. obviously, by what is stated in the roman catechism, that would be wrong."
**TRUE!
BUT, this whole wordy explanation makes
** Ecclesia de Eucharistia

   **"WRONG". It is by your own essay, implying Unversal Salvation in "pro omnibus", which I have said elsewhere, "This is a Preamble to universal salvation." We think alike on this one! ie If pro omnibus, then someone is wrong to do it because it implies U-S. Otherwise, there would be NO worthwhile reason to cause all this consternation in the Church over an "English" translation already settled for about 150 yrs in the Tridentine Missal

Here is the official Vatican web site on that Encycl:
**

…dixit: “Accipite et bibite omnes: hic calix novum aeternumque testamentum est in sanguine meo, qui pro vobis funditur et pro omnibus in remissionem peccatorum” (cfr* Mc *14, 24; Lc 22, 20; 1 Cor 11, 25)

**"****even if you don’t accept arguments about the translation, the translation was promulgated by the Church, and therefore is, by that fact, valid and efficacious."
I NEVER even implied this. Read Post 2. That is my position. It has NOTHING to do with Transubstantiation, nothing. It has to to with honesty when one is quoting Almighty God verbatim.
But now you have poked in “omnibus obviously implies universal salvation”.
Well, that is my 2nd position also. It is the real reason for pushing this agenda. It has not a thing to do with “nuance” or “delicate” or “depth”. NOTHING. That is all a smokescreen to keep the revolution from exposure for what it is attemping to do: Read my Blue Sig.
****.
**

 

[rwoehmke]

Well? I suppose debating this issue is better than debating on “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” Er… would that be a pin from the middle ages or a modern stright pin?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

kk1727:

P.S. The parties of discontinuity regularly ignore the Holy Father and the Magisterium both on the right and on the left. In fact it is when a statement bothers modernists and integrists in equal measure that I am almost certain of its validity.

I don’t know if your statement is only meant to refer to this particular dispute or many which you have in mind, but in either case you seem close to slipping into a glorification of the current Magisterium over the rest of the Magisterium throughout history. Just because a pope exercises the ordinary magisterium this does not mean he automatically develops the teaching of the Church. His thought must be tested against the other 2000 years of thought and also must be preserved, seconded, etc. by consequent actors within the ordinary magisterium. This is not meant to devalue the teachings of the current pope, merely put them in context. He has, after all, advanced many teachings which are either deal with issues too new to have a magisterial context and has also taught some things, such as the development of justifications for capital punishment, that ignore previous papal thought. While we should in most cases submit to his decision at present (the ordinary magisterium is still due our assent), it remains to be seen whether his writings will become definitive positions for the Church. I think pretending that one non-ex cathedra statement by John Paul II somehow magically puts a dispute to rest for all time seems to be one of the most “discontinuous” positions possible.

 

[TNT]

Is this what sudden death syndrome is?
Wake up.

 

[TNT]

TNT:

Is this what sudden death syndrome is?
Wake up.

Am I to conclude that the uber Catholics have had the last and final word?

 

[gelsbern]

You can only beat your head against a wall for so long.

 

[BulldogCath]

Hey…With your kind of rationale thinking, maybe you should run for the next Pope. You just settled 40 years of arguments.

But your probably right, with the next retranslation of the NEW AMERICAN Bible- to suit Vatican II as if it has not been translated over and over to make it suit Vatican II, and the Liberal theologians on the ICEL, hey, they can twist the bible and translate it to suit their Modernistic agendas.

Luther …Calvin…Hans Kung…Pope Paul VI…Whos next?

JustSomeGuy:

for all you nutty people who harp forever on this non-issue, and refuse to apply any scholarship or theology to the reality of the Mass: the pope has spoken.

here are your options: pig-headedly ignore this, excommunicate the pope, just say that it’s not a matter of faith and morals so it’s not real, misread and misquote it so that the “all” vs “many” garbage continues, make up some silly thing that says you never thought that it mattered and that you’ve always agreed with the pope, or just let it go and realize that it never mattered.

it’s ok to hate the abuse and sacrilige without abandonning the Church and it’s central liturgy. at least, we never have to read about that nonsense again on these forums, right?

you can read the rest at: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/2005/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_20050313_priests-holy-thursday_en.html

maybe now all the TLMers can refocus on the goal.

 

[demolitionman65]

Luther …Calvin…Hans Kung…Pope Paul VI…Whos next?

SLIGHT problem. In your list, Paul had the Keys, the others never did, though they all liked to think that they had.

The Holy Spirit shepherds the Church, not man. And man makes mistakes. Could John/Paul/JPI and II be wrong? Possibly. But their mistakes are NOT addressed through schism. Paul, as head of the Church, had he Holy Spirit watching his back. Not so for Kung, Luther et al.

 

[Catholic29]

demolitionman65:
SLIGHT problem. In your list, Paul had the Keys, the others never did, though they all liked to think that they had.

The Holy Spirit shepherds the Church, not man. And man makes mistakes. Could John/Paul/JPI and II be wrong? Possibly. But their mistakes are NOT addressed through schism. Paul, as head of the Church, had he Holy Spirit watching his back. Not so for Kung, Luther et al.

A very informed observation I must say.

 

[EddieArent]

So, let me get this straight.

It used to be

2+2=4

But now it can be

2+2=5
2+2=6

Whatever you want basically. Awesome!

 

[EddieArent]

Hey Sean, I’m sure the women also covered their heads back then along other issues you folks claiming to going back to the early roots of Christianity claim to be saying. I wonder if there was also all the hoopla that Cardinal Mahoney puts on as well.

 

[BulldogCath]

So the Pope has settled this debate. I am amazed at this. And what of the supposed ‘Words of Our Lord’? I say ‘supposed’ because these words were also significantly changed by Paul VI. The words used by Our Lord at the Last Supper are well known - they have been handed down to us by Tradition.

These words are not exactly the same as those found in the Gospel and there was absolutely no justification for changing them to bring them into line with Scripture. (And even less for bringing them into line with the Lutheran service.) It should be remembered that the true Mass existed years before the first Scriptures were written down (and long before Luther came on the scene); one can assume that the Apostles took great care to use the exact words specified by our Lord at the ‘Last Supper’ for the Consecration. (The twelve Apostles said Mass in slightly different ways, but always preserved these words with great care - and to this day in the 80 or more different traditional rites which have been in use in various parts of the world, preserve these words exactly.)

But not only did Paul VI change the words of our Lord traditionally used in the Consecration formulas, he also altered them so that they no longer even conform to those found in Scripture. The Church has throughout the ages taught that Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross was sufficient to save all men, but that on our part it does not effectually save all, but only** those that cooperate with grace. **

Thus it is that the traditional formula for Consecrations says ‘for you and for many.’ However, the new rite insistently translates this phrase as 'for you and for all,’ thus attacking the theological (and logical) principle that distinguishes sufficiency from efficiency and leading on to assume that as a result of the historical Sacrifice of the Cross, all men are saved.

**Such a change of meaning in the Consecratory formula attacks the ****‘substance’ of the rite and even taken in isolation - apart from the numerous other defects indicated - certainly renders it of dubious validity. This is only one **of the ways in which the Mass inherited from the Apostles has been altered. And this is why Traditional Catholics, or those that are not blindly following the church and have some knowledge, are deeply concerned, especially when Protestants and Ecumenism was at the forefront of the Council-and was the Cornerstone of JPII’s Papacy.

IF we wanted to be Protestants, we would do so as they seem to have an easier time of it I must say.

Catholic29:

A very informed observation I must say.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

JustSomeGuy:

i think that the trent catechism was guided by Pope St. Pius V, and he’s not a Doctor.

St. Charles Borromeo is credited with raising the issue of putting together a new catechism during one of the sessions of Trent and was president of the Catechism committee during its completion after the original president died (and was on the committee for the entire time). However, he isn’t a doctor of the Church either.

One of the prefaces to the TAN edition of the Roman Catechism has a very interesting history on the history of catechisms up until and including Trent’s.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Ray_Scheel:

St. Charles Borromeo is credited with raising the issue of putting together a new catechism during one of the sessions of Trent and was president of the Catechism committee during its completion after the original president died (and was on the committee for the entire time). However, he isn’t a doctor of the Church either.

One of the prefaces to the TAN edition of the Roman Catechism has a very interesting history on the history of catechisms up until and including Trent’s.

I my Catholic Reformation course our edition of his (Carlo Borromeo’s) writings referred to him as a Doctor of the Church.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Andreas Hofer:

I my Catholic Reformation course our edition of his (Carlo Borromeo’s) writings referred to him as a Doctor of the Church.

~ I wouldn’t mind being corrected, as I’d thought he was myself, but when looking for verification from posting, I couldn’t find his name on any of the lists of Doctors of the Church, and decided I must have been mistaken.

 

[TNT]

~ I wouldn’t mind being corrected, as I’d thought he was myself, but when looking for verification from posting, I couldn’t find his name on any of the lists of Doctors of the Church, and decided I must have been mistaken.

C. Borromeo is not a Doctor of the Church. Robt Bellarmine (from the same era) is.