B
BulldogCath
Guest
Joe-I would think that this makes it quite clear-please go to the link and read-“for many” is just another modernisitc angle to what is being pushed-and is against sacred scripture which causes doubt among the faithful when something that has been said for centuries is abolished without any reason behind it.
http://www.latin-mass-society.org/promult.htm
"Pro multis"
Can it mean “for all”?
by Philip Goddard
The International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) translation of “pro multis” in the words of Consecration as “for all” (which has been approved for use throughout the English-speaking world) has probably attracted more controversy than anything else in its English version of the Latin text of the Mass. There is an excellent discussion of the point by Monsignor Gamber, in an addendum to his book “The Reform of the Roman Liturgy”, in which he concludes that the ICEL translation is completely unjustifiable. However, this discussion is for the most part confined to the theological considerations, and the linguistic aspect is mentioned only in passing. ICEL itself has published (in the Third Progress Report on the Revision of the Roman Missal) a defence of its translation from the linguistic point of view, and I am not sure that the reasons that were given in that document have ever been rebutted in print. I am not a theologian, and my intention in this brief article is to consider only the linguistic arguments advanced by ICEL and to explain why I think the Commission is wrong.
ICEL claims that the Aramaic and Hebrew words for “many” (saggi’in and rabbim respectively), which it assumes to be the original words underlying the Greek text of the New Testament, have an inclusive sense and can therefore legitimately be rendered in English as “all”. This may well be right in principle; I am not familiar with either language and am not therefore in a position to comment. **The fact is, however, that in both the gospels where these words occur, those of St. Matthew and St. Mark, they are translated into Greek as **polloi (polloi), which means “many”, not as panteV (pantes), which means “all”. In other words, faced with a possible ambiguity in the Aramaic, both St. Matthew and St. Mark picked the Greek word for “many” and not that for “all”. I think it is reasonable to suppose that the evangelists, writing in the second half of the first century, within a few decades of the Last Supper, are likely to have had a better conception of exactly what Our Lord had said and meant to say than the members of ICEL in the second half of the twentieth.
Joe-S:
http://www.latin-mass-society.org/promult.htm
"Pro multis"
Can it mean “for all”?
by Philip Goddard
The International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) translation of “pro multis” in the words of Consecration as “for all” (which has been approved for use throughout the English-speaking world) has probably attracted more controversy than anything else in its English version of the Latin text of the Mass. There is an excellent discussion of the point by Monsignor Gamber, in an addendum to his book “The Reform of the Roman Liturgy”, in which he concludes that the ICEL translation is completely unjustifiable. However, this discussion is for the most part confined to the theological considerations, and the linguistic aspect is mentioned only in passing. ICEL itself has published (in the Third Progress Report on the Revision of the Roman Missal) a defence of its translation from the linguistic point of view, and I am not sure that the reasons that were given in that document have ever been rebutted in print. I am not a theologian, and my intention in this brief article is to consider only the linguistic arguments advanced by ICEL and to explain why I think the Commission is wrong.
ICEL claims that the Aramaic and Hebrew words for “many” (saggi’in and rabbim respectively), which it assumes to be the original words underlying the Greek text of the New Testament, have an inclusive sense and can therefore legitimately be rendered in English as “all”. This may well be right in principle; I am not familiar with either language and am not therefore in a position to comment. **The fact is, however, that in both the gospels where these words occur, those of St. Matthew and St. Mark, they are translated into Greek as **polloi (polloi), which means “many”, not as panteV (pantes), which means “all”. In other words, faced with a possible ambiguity in the Aramaic, both St. Matthew and St. Mark picked the Greek word for “many” and not that for “all”. I think it is reasonable to suppose that the evangelists, writing in the second half of the first century, within a few decades of the Last Supper, are likely to have had a better conception of exactly what Our Lord had said and meant to say than the members of ICEL in the second half of the twentieth.
