US priests dislike Mass translation, survey finds [CNAU]

[Saints_Alive]

This business about translation is something I don’t understand. There are many different English translations of the Bible, and that is thought to be ok, right? So, why is it a big deal that everyone should agree on the translation for the mass service? Why couldn’t those churches who prefer the old translation use that one, and those that prefer the new use that one? I guess I don’t understand why this is such a big deal. Maybe someone could explain?

Thanks!

This Cardinal explained it very well. And if they had all listened, perhaps we wouldn’t have to discuss this.

"In recent times, even in materialist North America, the growth of the Church was magnificent with the liturgy being kept in Latin. The attempts of the Protestants have failed, and Protestantism uses the vernacular. We ask again: Why the change, especially since changes in this matter involve many difficulties and great dangers? All of us here at the Council can recall the fundamental changes in the meaning of words in common use. Thus it follows that if the Sacred Liturgy were in the vernacular, the immutability of doctrine would be endangered.
The introduction of the vernacular should be separated from the action of the Mass. The Mass must remain as it is. Grave changes in the liturgy introduce grave changes in dogmata."
-James Cardinal McIntyre addressing the Second Vatican Council.

Note what he said about the immutability of Doctrine ?

“Pro multis” does not mean “for all”. Yet for many Catholics it’s all they heard for years until the new, more accurate, translation.

 

[Vico]

This Cardinal explained it very well. And if they had all listened, perhaps we wouldn’t have to discuss this.

Note what he said about the immutability of Doctrine ?

“Pro multis” does not mean “for all”. Yet for many Catholics it’s all they heard for years until the new, more accurate, translation.

LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI * PRO MULTIS

*This highlights something very important: the rendering of “pro multis” as “for all” was not merely a translation but an interpretation, a well-founded interpretation then as now, but an interpretation nevertheless, something more than a translation. …
In this catechesis must first briefly explain why, in the translation of the Missal after the Council, the word “many” was replaced by “all”: to express unambiguously in the sense desired by Jesus, the universality of salvation which it comes. But the question immediately arises: If Jesus died for all, why in the words of the Last Supper he said, “for many”? And why do we now we stick to the words of the institution of Jesus? At this point, you need to add to all that, according to Matthew and Mark, Jesus said, “for many”, while Luke and Paul said “for you”. Apparently, thus further restricts the circle. And yet, it is precisely based on this as you can get to the solution. The disciples know that Jesus’ mission goes beyond them and their group, that he has come to bring together the children of God scattered throughout the world (cf. Jn 11:52). But the “for you” makes the mission of Jesus appears in an absolutely specific for presents. They are not members of any of a huge whole, but everyone knows that the Lord died “for me”, “for us”. The “for you” is extended to past and future concerns me totally personal way, we who are gathered here, we are known and loved by Jesus as such. Therefore, this “for you” is not a restriction, but a substantive, that goes for every community to celebrate the Eucharist and that specifically binds to the love of Jesus. In the words of consecration, the Roman Canon has joined the two biblical readings and, according to this, he says, “for you and for many.” This formula was taken up later by the liturgical reform in all the Eucharistic Prayers.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2012/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20120414_zollitsch_en.html

 

[ProVobis]

This business about translation is something I don’t understand. There are many different English translations of the Bible, and that is thought to be ok, right? So, why is it a big deal that everyone should agree on the translation for the mass service? Why couldn’t those churches who prefer the old translation use that one, and those that prefer the new use that one? I guess I don’t understand why this is such a big deal. Maybe someone could explain?

Thanks!

Interesting choice of the word “business.” I guess it’s true (and I’m not necessarily saying it is) if one considers copyrights and royalties to be part of the equation in translating from Latin to English or Greek to English. And what’s the length of a copyright period now? 27 years? Should we expect still another translation after that?

 

[pnewton]

I noticed the article doesn’t actually give the question that was asked, so what is meant by “liked” is up for grabs. I am sure it was an inconvenience to all the priests. It is to their credit that they accept the change and keep chugging through. Ask this again and ten years.

 

[Kevin12]

This Cardinal explained it very well. And if they had all listened, perhaps we wouldn’t have to discuss this.

Note what he said about the immutability of Doctrine ?

“Pro multis” does not mean “for all”. Yet for many Catholics it’s all they heard for years until the new, more accurate, translation.

.
But is it Church doctrine that Christ died for all because His “death assured to every man the graces necessary for salvation.”

Please see the entry from the Catholic Encyclopedia about the five erroneous positions of Jansenism, for which it was declared a heresy:

• Some of God’s commandments are impossible to just men who wish and strive (to keep them) considering the powers they actually have, the grace by which these precepts may become possible is also wanting;

• In the state of fallen nature no one ever resists interior grace;

• To merit, or demerit, in the state of fallen nature we must be free from all external constraint, but not from interior necessity,

• The Semipelagians admitted the necessity of interior preventing grace for all acts, even for the beginning of faith; but they fell into heresy in pretending that this grace is such that man may either follow or resist it;

• *** To say that Christ died or shed His blood for all men, is Semipelagianism.***

Therefore, there is nothing contradicting doctrine in the interpretation of “multis” as “the many” or even “all” - though “many” may be a better translation, the other translation does not express anything contrary to doctrine.

In either case, the supposed deterioration of doctrine to heterodoxy from translation is not shown in this. Also, I would ask the Cardinal, if this is the case, then wouldn’t there be errors in the translation of the Mass from its original form to Latin?

I might say something about those who disparage the vernacular Mass and Jansenism, but being too explicit in this matter would be uncharitable.

 

[ProVobis]

.
Therefore, there is nothing contradicting doctrine in the interpretation of “multis” as “the many” or even “all” - though “many” may be a better translation, the other translation does not express anything contrary to doctrine.

Aren’t you perhaps thinking of “pluribus” (the superlative form) which also can be translated as “many” (as in E PLURIBUS UNUM) but where the translation could easily be “out of all, one”?

That said, saying “so that the sins of all MAY be redeemed” is not contrary to doctrine. You are right if this is what you implied. However, I don’t think that’s what the Greek or Aramiac or Latin is saying. Or any English BIble, for that matter.

 

[pnewton]

.
But is it Church doctrine that Christ died for all because His “death assured to every man the graces necessary for salvation.”

Heresy is not a matter of translation. I am boggled at some times the slim differences making more than an iota of difference (literally). So, that being said, there is a sense in which Christ died for all because all can be saved and his death has sufficient grace, and a sense in which he did not in that all may not be saved. The translation issue however is not a theological point though. The new translation is geared to literal exactness.

 

[jwinch2]

The translation issue however is not a theological point though. The new translation is geared to literal exactness.

If I am understanding you properly, then I must disagree somewhat. The normative Latin text is a theological issue. The faithfulness of the English to the Latin is an issue of fidelity to the Latin, which helps to ensure the theological accuracy of the Mass. In that sense, to my understanding, the translation is a theological issue.

 

[Kevin12]

If I am understanding you properly, then I must disagree somewhat. The normative Latin text is a theological issue. The faithfulness of the English to the Latin is an issue of fidelity to the Latin, which helps to ensure the theological accuracy of the Mass. In that sense, to my understanding, the translation is a theological issue.

As a Latinist, I can tell you that Latin words often have many many glosses depending on context, which is often very difficult to determine. Those who translated it believed that the meaning was meant to emphasize the fact that the Passion opened up the possibility of salvation to all people, which is not hard to understand, because it is the case. However, the Magisterium has determined it is more accurate to translate in such a way so as to emphasize the shedding of his blood for those who follow Christ specifically. In Latin, it is often the case that there are two readings and both are, in some sense intended by the original - the Church has merely determined which reading is primary and which is secondary. Both remain true.

 

[Kevin12]

Aren’t you perhaps thinking of “pluribus” (the superlative form) which also can be translated as “many” (as in E PLURIBUS UNUM) but where the translation could easily be “out of all, one”?

That said, saying “so that the sins of all MAY be redeemed” is not contrary to doctrine. You are right if this is what you implied. However, I don’t think that’s what the Greek or Aramiac or Latin is saying. Or any English BIble, for that matter.

From “multus” in Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary (note this is just one of many many glosses)

multi , ōrum, m., the many, the common mass, the multitude: probis probatus potius, quam multis forem, Att. ap. Non. 519, 9: “video ego te, mulier, more multarum utier,” id. ib.—Esp.: unus e (or de) multis, one of the multitude, a man of no distinction: “tenuis L. Virginius unusque e multis,” Cic. Fin. 2, 20, 62: “unus de multis esse,” id. Off. 1, 30, 109: M. Calidius non fuit orator unus e multis; “potius inter multos prope singularis fuit,” id. Brut. 79, 274: “numerarer in multis,” among the herd of orators, id. ib. 97, 333: “e multis una sit tibi,” no better than others, Ov. R. Am. 682: “multum est,” it is of importance, Verg. G. 2, 272.

 

[pnewton]

The faithfulness of the English to the Latin is an issue of fidelity to the Latin, which helps to ensure the theological accuracy of the Mass. In that sense, to my understanding, the translation is a theological issue.

Tripping over words I guess. Yes, the whole of Mass* is* a theological issue so a translation is a theological issue. The error with “for all” is that it is a poor translation, not that there is no sense in which Christ died for all for both “for all” and “for many” are true, but only one is a proper translation.

 

[jwinch2]

Tripping over words I guess.

No worries

Yes, the whole of Mass* is* a theological issue so a translation is a theological issue. The error with “for all” is that it is a poor translation, not that there is no sense in which Christ died for all for both “for all” and “for many” are true, but only one is a proper translation.

Agreed.