Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit!
You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Did Jesus Die For Many Or For All?
Topic Started: Sunday, 29. October 2006, 14:17 (533 Views)
pete

Thanks Lilo, if I ever get the opportunity I would love to attend one of these Masses. Just think the Consecration is spoken in the same tongue as Our Lord Himself would have said it.
God bless
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Angus Toanimo
Member Avatar
Administrator
pete
Mar 29 2008, 09:07 PM
Thanks Lilo, if I ever get the opportunity I would love to attend one of these Masses. Just think the Consecration is spoken in the same tongue as Our Lord Himself would have said it.
God bless

And in the Maronite, the words used in the consecration are....

"FOR MANY"

http://www.scmcl.org/scmcl_misc_doc/THE_WO...INSTITUTION.pdf

:wh:
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Derekap
Member Avatar

Has anyone (you Patrick for example) translated the Aramaic or has someone copied the English from the English version of The Tridentine Mass Consecration?

Neither all or many are not vital words of the Consecration. And after all we are taught Jesus suffered and died that ALL might be redeemed.
Derekap
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Posted Image
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Derekap
Member Avatar

:wall:
Derekap
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Angus Toanimo
Member Avatar
Administrator
Derekap
Mar 29 2008, 10:46 PM
Has anyone (you Patrick for example) translated the Aramaic or has someone copied the English from the English version of The Tridentine Mass Consecration?

Derek,

The words of the consecration in the Maronite rite vary ever so slightly in the English translation. However, the English translation of both the Maronite and Tridentine consecration is "for many". There is a consistency there that you will find in most rites, including Orthodox liturgy AND even Cranmer's reform of the Mass, as I have shown to you before.

Quote:
 
Neither all or many are not vital words of the Consecration.


They form part of the formula. A formula that is consistent in every liturgy - apart from the Novus Ordo Missae.

Quote:
 
And after all we are taught Jesus suffered and died that ALL might be redeemed.


"Pro multis" Can it mean "for all"?

Fr John Zuhlsdorf has an article on What Does The Prayer Really Say? concerning the issue, too.

Not to mention the Vatican has also ruled that on this: http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=47719

Of course, they could ALL be wrong, and Derek right!

:wh:


Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Derekap
Mar 29 2008, 09:46 PM
Has anyone (you Patrick for example) translated the Aramaic or has someone copied the English from the English version of The Tridentine Mass Consecration?

Neither all or many are not vital words of the Consecration. And after all we are taught Jesus suffered and died that ALL might be redeemed.

Derek I suggest you read the site to which Patrick gave us a link. It makes sense. Also it demonstrates the reason for the "master copy" of the Mass being in Latin. In languages in modern conversational use, words change their meaning quite rapidly. Whatever the native language of Latin scholars, each is able to understand the Latin and translate it into his or her own language. The meaning of the Latin will be the same from now. If the precise meaning of words does not matter, there could be a little inadvertent error here, another there, a few more in ten years time and so on.

The Church is Catholic (Universal). We can do without the words of the Mass varying according to whims of translators. Anyway if it ain't broken why fix it?
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Angus Toanimo
Member Avatar
Administrator
What strikes me is that even Cranmer managed to get the words of the consecration correctly translated into English, but, some 420 years later, ICEL had difficulty!

In this link, you can clearly see, in the original 1549 Book of Common Prayer, the words of the Consecration: http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1...union3_1549.jpg which are the same in later versions, too.

The 1979 BCP also uses "for many", but interestingly, when it comes to the Pastoral Provision and Anglican Use, the Anglican Use which incorporates the BCP, uses "for all"!


Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fortunatus

Douai translation - Matthew "many"; Mark "many"
New Revised Standard - Matthew "many"; Mark "many".

I'm a simple soul. Add those to the traditional version in the Mass and I see the only possible conclusion as being that the ICEL is w-r-o-n-g. Whether you find "all" more to your liking or not is not germane; this is not a matter of personal preference.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Catechism of Trent

Quote:
 
The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore ('our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.

With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine.

S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Derekap
Member Avatar

Fr Z writes or quotes:

"“The fact that in Hebrew the expression ‘many’ would mean the same thing as ‘all’ is not relevant to the question under consideration inasmuch as it is a question of translating, not a Hebrew text here, but a Latin text (from the Roman Liturgy), which is directly related to a Greek text (the New Testament)."

So one can argue who chose the Latin "pro multis" and why should Latin be the template when Hebrew is nearer a language normally spoken in the Holyland. I think I have also read that Greek translations came between Hebrew and Latin.

I find it very strange when we are taught that Jesus died in order we may all be redeemed that some people are adamant we should say He died that many may be redeemed. And the word "all" is used as one of many sticks to criticise The Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite Holy Mass.

Derekap
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Derek,

I repeat:

Catechism of Trent

Quote:
 
The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore ('our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.

With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine.

S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Derekap
Member Avatar

You can repeat all day long, Clare, am I not entitled to express my views? Am I committing a sin by doing so and by writing what I do? I don't think I'm even bordering on heresy.

I remain puzzled by all the fuss over "all" even by members of the hierachy.
Derekap
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Angus Toanimo
Member Avatar
Administrator
Derekap
Mar 30 2008, 04:31 PM
I remain puzzled by all the fuss over "all" even by members of the hierachy.

Derek,

The fuss over "all" is warranted. Not only is it a mistranslation BUT it gives the erroneous impression that those outside the Church are automatically saved because Jesus died for them - which will lead those outside the Church thinking that there is no point converting to the One True Faith because they're fine where they are.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Derekap
Member Avatar

I disagree Patrick.
Derekap
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Catholic Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply