| 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: |
| Did Jesus Die For Many Or For All? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sunday, 29. October 2006, 14:17 (533 Views) | |
| pete | Saturday, 29. March 2008, 21:07 Post #31 |
|
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 |
![]() |
|
| Angus Toanimo | Saturday, 29. March 2008, 21:23 Post #32 |
![]()
Administrator
|
And in the Maronite, the words used in the consecration are.... "FOR MANY" http://www.scmcl.org/scmcl_misc_doc/THE_WO...INSTITUTION.pdf
|
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Derekap | Saturday, 29. March 2008, 22:46 Post #33 |
|
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 | |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Saturday, 29. March 2008, 22:47 Post #34 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
|
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Derekap | Saturday, 29. March 2008, 22:50 Post #35 |
|
|
| Derekap | |
![]() |
|
| Angus Toanimo | Sunday, 30. March 2008, 00:02 Post #36 |
![]()
Administrator
|
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.
They form part of the formula. A formula that is consistent in every liturgy - apart from the Novus Ordo Missae.
"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! |
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Sunday, 30. March 2008, 00:15 Post #37 |
![]()
Administrator
|
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! | |
![]() |
|
| Angus Toanimo | Sunday, 30. March 2008, 01:06 Post #38 |
![]()
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"! |
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Fortunatus | Sunday, 30. March 2008, 13:10 Post #39 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Sunday, 30. March 2008, 15:41 Post #40 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
Catechism of Trent
|
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Derekap | Sunday, 30. March 2008, 16:10 Post #41 |
|
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 | |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Sunday, 30. March 2008, 16:13 Post #42 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
Derek, I repeat: Catechism of Trent
|
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Derekap | Sunday, 30. March 2008, 16:31 Post #43 |
|
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 | |
![]() |
|
| Angus Toanimo | Sunday, 30. March 2008, 16:37 Post #44 |
![]()
Administrator
|
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. |
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Derekap | Sunday, 30. March 2008, 16:56 Post #45 |
|
I disagree Patrick. |
| Derekap | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Catholic Discussion · Next Topic » |









3:42 PM Jul 11