Why is Thomism so Central to Church Teaching and Doctrine

[EphelDuath]

But was that such a terrible thing? Christ’s sacrifice is certainly available for the salvation of all, even if many men choose to reject it of their own free will. I don’t think the average Catholic in our pews (I speak for my own town and community, of course) lost too much sleep over it. It’s still “for all” in Tamil masses, and they tend to be more devout that those of us who prefer an English liturgy.

The main problem with translating “pro multis” isn’t just theological – after all, the CDW more or less said that the two translations are referring to two different but equally true things.

The main problem is that “pro multis” was a quotation of Christ, and every Greek manuscript has him saying “for many”. So rendering it in English as “for all” is a distortion of the Gospel.

 

[JReducation]

I think that we should try to be black and white on this point. For all and for many we know mean the same thing. I won’t get into the exegesis of it all.

What do I mean by black and white? Mean that rather than go over and over it, we just need to say that the Church prefers a direct quote from scripture and “for all” is good, but not the direct quote that the Church wants.

Once we say that and say it that way, the conversation is over. There is nothing more to discuss.

We don’t have to insert our feelings into everything that we discuss and everything that the Church does or say. There are times when stoic is a good thing.

 

[RPRPsych]

The main problem is that “pro multis” was a quotation of Christ, and every Greek manuscript has him saying “for many”. So rendering it in English as “for all” is a distortion of the Gospel.

Isn’t that a little harsh?

I’m all for accuracy in scriptural quotations, but remember that an interpretive translation can also be inspired? (See: Genesis 3:15 in the Vulgate; Isaiah 7:14 in the LXX)

It’s hard to believe that for 40 years, all English Masses “distorted the Gospel”, and that the Tamil Mass is still doing so.

 

[otjm]

Isn’t that a little harsh?

I’m all for accuracy in scriptural quotations, but remember that an interpretive translation can also be inspired? (See: Genesis 3:15 in the Vulgate; Isaiah 7:14 in the LXX)

It’s hard to believe that for 40 years, all English Masses “distorted the Gospel”, and that the Tamil Mass is still doing so.

There are those who understand that both speak a theological truth, and when Rome changes the translation, they go with the flow.

And then there are rigorists.

 

[RPRPsych]

There are those who understand that both speak a theological truth, and when Rome changes the translation, they go with the flow.

And then there are rigorists.

I remember my first day as a psychiatry resident, when our consultant took us on a tour of the wards, and introduced us to several patients with crippling, severe obsessive-compulsive disorder.

I haven’t been too big a fan of rigor since that day.

 

[EphelDuath]

Isn’t that a little harsh?

I’m all for accuracy in scriptural quotations, but remember that an interpretive translation can also be inspired? (See: Genesis 3:15 in the Vulgate; Isaiah 7:14 in the LXX)

Couldn’t tell you much about the Genesis quotation (not my field of study), but Isaiah 7:14 in the Septuagint is a good translation of the Hebrew. Some still insist that the word should be “young woman” and not “virgin”, but an unmarried young woman that is pregnant is prescribed by Mosaic law to be stoned to death.

Regardless: that’s really not for us to decide, that’s the Holy See’s prerogative. And they have ruled that “for all” is not a translation of “pro multis”. If they had wanted to change the meaning of the Words of Institution, they would have altered the Latin to say “pro omnibus”, but they did not.

It’s hard to believe that for 40 years, all English Masses “distorted the Gospel”, and that the Tamil Mass is still doing so.

For 40 years the translation philosophy in the liturgy was regulated by Comme le Prevoit, which more or less said that it doesn’t matter if you’re transmitting the right information in a translation, so long as you’re invoking the same feelings among the audience. So yes, for 40 years, most Roman Catholics had to endure a poor or even wrong translation for much of the liturgy.

You can thank Bl. John Paul II for promulgating Liturgiam authenticam. Truly one of the best things the Holy See has given us.

And I couldn’t tell you much about the intricacies of Tamil since I don’t speak a word of it. But there are still many countries in the world hearing their language’s equivalent of “for all”, since not every language’s Roman Missal translation has been revised yet.

There are those who understand that both speak a theological truth, and when Rome changes the translation, they go with the flow.

And then there are rigorists.

The rigorists were ultimately vindicated when the Congregation for Divine Worship ordered that the translation be corrected. It seems (forgive me if I’m wrong) that you’re slighting them where it’s undeserved.

I remember my first day as a psychiatry resident, when our consultant took us on a tour of the wards, and introduced us to several patients with crippling, severe obsessive-compulsive disorder.

I haven’t been too big a fan of rigor since that day.

I seriously hope you’re not suggesting that anybody that pays close attention to details is psychologically ailed, since that would include Pope Benedict XVI

 

[RPRPsych]

I seriously hope you’re not suggesting that anybody that pays close attention to details is psychologically ailed, since that would include Pope Benedict XVI

No. I’m suggesting that when the Church doesn’t make a big deal of something, we shouldn’t be obsessive-compulsive about it. No one, not even Pope Benedict, suggested that “for all” was “distorting the Gospel”; you did so.

 

[EphelDuath]

No. I’m suggesting that when the Church doesn’t make a big deal of something, we shouldn’t be obsessive-compulsive about it. No one, not even Pope Benedict, suggested that “for all” was “distorting the Gospel”; you did so.

Obsessive-compulsiveness has a strict definition in the world of psychology, but that’s not how you are using the term. You’re using the term to mean “taking it more seriously than I take it”, and I’m not sure why. If you don’t care about it and just want to do what the Holy See says, good for you. If somebody is deeply interested in the question, you shouldn’t write off their passion as being a psychological disorder. After all, if nobody were interested in the problem, the Holy See wouldn’t have a pool of experts that they could utilize to answer the problem.

And what is the Church? The Church – that is, many bishops and theologians – have been talking about this issue since before Vatican II. Just because the Holy See didn’t actually address it until much later, doesn’t mean the Church didn’t “make a big deal” of it. The Holy Father decreed that the translation of “pro multis” be corrected because it was an ongoing problem – not the other way around, i.e. it became an ongoing problem when the Holy Father decided to address it and everything prior to that point was just nitpicking.

That being said. Pope Benedict XVI’s opinion on the matter is a lot firmer than you seem to be portraying it as. Here’s the Holy Father’s letter from 2012 to the German Bishops’ Conference:

Lassen Sie mich zunächst kurz ein Wort über die Entstehung des Problems sagen. In den 60er Jahren, als das Römische Missale unter der Verantwortung der Bischöfe in die deutsche Sprache zu übertragen war, bestand ein exegetischer Konsens darüber, dass das Wort „die vielen“, „viele“ in Jes 53,1l f. eine hebräische Ausdrucksform sei, um die Gesamtheit, „alle“ zu benennen. Das Wort „viele“ in den Einsetzungsberichten von Matthäus und Markus sei demgemäß ein Semitismus und müsse mit „alle“ übersetzt werden. Dies bezog man auch auf den unmittelbar zu übersetzenden lateinischen Text, dessen „pro multis“ über die Evangelienberichte auf Jes 53 zurückverweise und daher mit „für alle“ zu übersetzen sei. Dieser exegetische Konsens ist inzwischen zerbröckelt; er besteht nicht mehr. In der deutschen Einheitsübersetzung der Heiligen Schrift steht im Abendmahlsbericht: „Das ist mein Blut, das Blut des Bundes, das für viele vergossen wird“ (Mk 14, 24; vgl. Mt 26, 28). **Damit wird etwas sehr Wichtiges sichtbar: Die Wiedergabe von „pro multis“ mit „für alle“ war keine reine Übersetzung, sondern eine Interpretation, die sehr wohl begründet war und bleibt, aber doch schon Auslegung und mehr als Übersetzung ist. **

[my translation:]

First, let me say a word about the origin of the problem. In the '60s, when the Roman Missal was undergoing translation by the German Bishops, there was an exegetical consensus that the word “many” in Isaiah 53 is a Hebraism to refer to the whole. The word “many” used in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark should hence be translated as “all”, as well as the term “pro multis”. The scholarly consensus for this translation has now gone the other way. In the German translation of the Last Supper we have: “This is my blood, the blood of the new and eternal covenant, which is to be poured out for many” (Mk 14: 24; cf. Mt 26, 28). This is blatantly a critical issue: rendering “pro multis” as “for all” was not a pure translation keine reine Übersetzung]; it was justified and remains so, but it was a re-interpretation Auslegung; literally “design”], and beyond a translation.

Source: dbk.de/presse/details/?presseid=2091&cHash=a73624e1fe19363371ca03c812dbf396

If you’re confident in your German, perhaps you can educate me on how keine reine Übersetzung, sondern eine Interpretation … aber doch schon Auslegung doesn’t really connotate “distortion”. Otherwise I’m going to say that my opinion is not just in line with, but derived from, the Holy Father emeritus himself.

Edit: Fixed up my translation a bit.

 

[RPRPsych]

Obsessive-compulsiveness has a strict definition in the world of psychology, but that’s not how you are using the term. You’re using the term to mean “taking it more seriously than I take it”, and I’m not sure why.

It has a variety of meanings, one of which is “an excessive rigidity and preoccupation with minutiae”, as in “obsessive-compulsive personality disorder”.

If somebody is deeply interested in the question, you shouldn’t write off their passion as being a psychological disorder.

Having a certain trait is not a psychological disorder. But my apologies if I sounded like that. I was speaking impersonally.

And what is the Church? The Church – that is, many bishops and theologians – have been talking about this issue since before Vatican II. Just because the Holy See didn’t actually address it until much later, doesn’t mean the Church didn’t “make a big deal” of it. The Holy Father decreed that the translation of “pro multis” be corrected because it was an ongoing problem – not the other way around, i.e. it became an ongoing problem when the Holy Father decided to address it and everything prior to that point was just nitpicking.

If you’re confident in your German, perhaps you can educate me on how Auslegung doesn’t really connotate “distortion”. Otherwise I’m going to say that my opinion is not just in line with, but derived from, the Holy Father emeritus himself.

Your own translation says “re-interpretation”. “Distortion” is an interpretation of a translation.

Besides, the sentence also says that the interpretation “is well founded” (die sehr wohl begründet). Doesn’t sound like the blanket condemnation you’re looking for.

Wichtiges does not necessarily mean “critical”; it can also mean “important”.

Unfortunately, I’m not fluent in German (I’m using an online dictionary), so I’ll leave it to others to resolve this. But I don’t think Pope Benedict’s position is in perfect correspondence with yours.

 

[EphelDuath]

Your own translation says “re-interpretation”. “Distortion” is an interpretation of a translation.

That’s what he’s saying. “Die … war keine reine Übersetzung, sondern eine Interpretation, die sehr wohl begründet war und bleibt, aber doch schon Auslegung und mehr als Übersetzung ist.” It’s difficult to translate this perfectly literally, but he’s saying “it wasn’t really a translation, though it was justified – on the contrary, it was a re-writing of the passage, beyond the scope of a translation.”

Besides, the sentence also says that the interpretation “is well founded” (die sehr wohl begründet). Doesn’t sound like the blanket condemnation you’re looking for.

I’m not giving “for all” a blanket condemnation. If you read my posts on the last page, I said that either translation can be theologically justified, but the problem with translating “pro multis” as “for all” is that it’s a distortion of the quotation from Scripture. Jesus didn’t say “for all”, he said “for many”. That’s why the Congregation for Divine Worship ordered that the translation be corrected. That didn’t invalidate “for all”, which is what they said. It just means that it wasn’t a good or correct translation.

Wichtiges does not necessarily mean “critical”; it can also mean “important”.

Unfortunately, I’m not fluent in German (I’m using an online dictionary), so I’ll leave it to others to resolve this. But I don’t think Pope Benedict’s position is in perfect correspondence with yours.

I don’t know if you speak any languages other than English fluently, but if you do, then you should know that you can’t translate something just by individually translating each word. It’s the context of the sentence of a whole. Frankly I find it quite bizarre that you’re telling me I’m misinterpreting the passage when you don’t even speak the language – you wouldn’t correct a math professor and then admit “but I don’t really know calculus I’m just quoting my textbook”.

Perhaps you can find an English translation of the letter and see what some other translator thinks he’s saying.

 

[RPRPsych]

I don’t know if you speak any languages other than English fluently,

A couple, but not German. I do enjoy listening to Rammstein though.

but if you do, then you should know that you can’t translate something just by individually translating each word. It’s the context of the sentence of a whole. Frankly I find it quite bizarre that you’re telling me I’m misinterpreting the passage when you don’t even speak the language – you wouldn’t correct a math professor and then admit “but I don’t really know calculus I’m just quoting my textbook”.

Perhaps you can find an English translation of the letter and see what some other translator thinks he’s saying.

I bow, if not to your theology, then to your superior knowledge of German.

Any third party willing to take up the translation challenge? (There’s my dad, but he’s far away, and I don’t think he’d be impartial; he’s a “for all” sort of guy.)

 

[EphelDuath]

Any third party willing to take up the translation challenge? (There’s my dad, but he’s far away, and I don’t think he’d be impartial; he’s a “for all” sort of guy.)

Considering it was Pope Benedict who ordered that the translation for “pro multis” be corrected (Prot. n. 467/05/L), I’m not sure how you can misread what he’s saying. Like – I’m sure somebody could cleverly interpret some Abraham Lincoln quotation to suggest that he was in favor of slavery, but the facts of history show that he wasn’t.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

CLOSED

Thread has derailed