Author Topic: 07262012 For the multitude not for all (Read 3745 times)

Maria Auxiliadora · « **on:** July 30, 2012, 09:54:59 AM »

http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/the-vatican/detail/articolo/papa-el-papa-pope-consacrazione-17093/

07/26/2012
“For the multitude” not “for all”

The Pope wants to change the translation of the phrase pronounced during the consecration of the bread and wine at the liturgy back to the original expression “for many”. Two experts have proposed another solution
Andrea Tornielli
vatican city

The words pronounced by Jesus at the Last Supper to turn the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ are the most sacred words in the liturgy. In the original Greek version of the Gospels, the blood was poured “for many” (“pollon” in Greek) and so it was translated in Latin as “pro multis”. But in the reform implemented after the Second Vatican Council, “pro multis” was translated as “for all”.

In 2006, a year after Ratzinger’s election, the Congregation for Divine Worship invited bishops’ conferences to update new versions of the missal with the correct translation. Many countries have already made the change from “for all” to “for many”: Hungary, Chile, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, Bolivia. Churches that celebrate the Eucharist in English have also replaced “for all” to “for many”.

In Italy a vote was held on the matter during the general assembly of the Italian Episcopal Conference (CEI) in Assisi, in November 2010. Here, 171 out of 187 individuals voted in favour of keeping “for all”. The main reason given was that in some languages “for many” seems to contrast with “for all” almost as if the universal call for salvation and Christ’s sacrifice were not intended for everyone. Though it is a gratuitous gift, that gift needs to be accepted by the person who receives it.

In Italian especially, the change could appear limiting, giving the impression that Jesus’ sacrifice and the salvation offered to man was not intended for everyone. A suggestion for how to overcome this obstacle is offreed in a book by Biblicist Francesco Pieri from the Diocese of Bologna entitled: “Per una moltitudine. Sulla traduzione delle parole eucaristiche” (“For many. On the translation of Eucharistic words”) (published by Dehoniana Libri, 48 pages, Euro 4,50)

Although the academic agrees with efforts to remain faithful to the original text, he does not believe that the Italian translation “For many” is an ideal solution. He shares the view of individuals such as Biblicist Albert Vanhoye, who was created cardinal by Benedict XVI in 2006. According to Vanhoye, the Jєωιѕн word “rabbim” interpreted as “pollon” in Greek means “a great number” without any specification as to whether this refers to a totality. Pieri therefore proposes the adoption, in Italian, of the solution French bishops have opted for: “pour la multitude”, “for the multitude” or – and this is the tile of his short essay – “for a multitude”. This would ensure a faithful translation of the Evangelical text and would prevent the replacement of “for many” with “for all” from giving the wrong idea of Christ’s salvation not being universal.
RELATED ARTICLES

songbird · « **Reply #1 on:** July 30, 2012, 10:08:44 AM »

The Pope never had the power to change it from the beginning. As for validity, the clergy have no valid ordination, so there remains no Precious Blood in any of the sacraments and there remains nothing in the New Order, as usual.

poche · « **Reply #2 on:** August 04, 2012, 05:31:41 AM »

Do you mean to say that they should not be preparing a better translation?

songbird · « **Reply #3 on:** August 04, 2012, 06:13:37 PM »

What is wrong with what we had before the changes?

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #4 on:** August 04, 2012, 06:58:15 PM »

Quote from: poche

Do you mean to say that they should not be preparing a better translation?

Better translation? Better than Our Lord's? When Leo XIII was asked to add St. Joseph's name to the canon of the Mass, he responded: "I'm only the Pope". After that was done, hell broke loose and nothing sacred remained, not even Christ's own words. If anyone believes the pope can do what he wants, read these prophecies and more available. The Popes duty is to defend and keep The Deposit of the Faith. Their failure to do that has brought us to the fulfillment of these prophecies and the state of apostasy we now find ourselves in. No wonder Pope Leo the XIII composed the prayer to St. Michael, what horrible vision it must have been that lead him to compose it.

One of Ana Katherine Emmerick's prophecies on the neww mass says:

"I saw again the strange big church that was being built there in Rome. There was nothing holy in it. I saw this just as I saw a movement led by Ecclesiastics to which contributed angels, saints, and other Christians. But there in the strange big church all the work was being done mechanically according to set rules and formulae. Everything was being done according to human reason ...I saw all sorts of people, things, doctrines, and opinions. There was something proud, presumptuous, and violent about it, and they seemed very successful. I did not see a single Angel nor a single saint helping in the work. But far away in the background, I saw the seat of the cruel people armed with spears, and I saw a laughing figure which said: " Do build it as solid as you can; we will pull it to the ground."

And Marie Julie Jahenny of La Fraudais (19th century, France):

"I give you a WARNING. The disciples who are not of My Gospel are now working hard to remake according to their ideas and under the influence of the enemy of souls a MASS that contains words that are ODIOUS in My sight. When the fatal hour arrives when the faith of my priests is put to the test, it will be (these texts) that will be celebrated in this SECOND period... The FIRST period is (the one) of my priesthood which exists since Me. The SECOND is (the one) of the persecution when the ENEMIES of the Faith and of Holy Religion (will impose their formulas) in the book of the second celebration.. These infamous spirits are those who crucified me and are awaiting Tthe kingdom of THE NEW MESSIAH."

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #5 on:** August 04, 2012, 07:01:34 PM »

I have here a copy of Fr. Laux's Mass and the Sacraments, from 1928, ed.
1990.

In Chapter IV, The Holy Eucharist, on p. 80:

"The words of Consecration, with those that immediately precede them, do not
exactly correspond to the Scriptural narrative, although the sense is absolutely
the same. Perhaps our present text goes back to a time before there was any
written gospels."

There is a footnote by the editor (probably Thomas A. Nelson) on p. 196 that says,
"There is a tradition in the Roman Catholic Church that the words of Consecration
used in the Traditional Mass of the Roman Rite are the exact words used by Our
Lord after the Last Supper."

This touches on the infallibility of Sacred Tradition, and its vast importance for the
Catholic Faith.

Remember that Jesus spent 40 days after His Resurrection with the Apostles,
and during that time, He no doubt taught them necessary details, not the least
of which would have been to say Mass every day, and then by giving them
this example, He would have shown them HOW to say Mass. He would have
been right there to gently correct them if they got something wrong by mistake.

Remember that Sacred Tradition holds equal authority with Sacred Scripture in
the Catholic Church, and that this is the principle disagreement that Protestants
have with the Church. In fact, Tradition is the SOURCE of Scripture, for without
Tradition we would not know what is Scripture and what is not Scripture. So
along come the Protestants and they denied Tradition, but proceeded immediately
to set up their OWN tradition of REMOVING certain parts of the Bible, claiming
that they are now the authority for what is NOT Scripture.

In the end, if we just stop the nonsense of having Mass prayers in vernacular
languages, we wouldn't have this problem. The Latin Rite should be in Latin.

Problem solved.

rowsofvoices9 · « **Reply #6 on:** August 04, 2012, 11:15:23 PM »

Don't tell me the modernists want to monkey around with the words of consecration again? The Roman Missal for the NO already underwent revisions to correct the words of consecration beginning last Advent (2011). The priest now says "This is my blood which will be poured out for you and for many". Please Lord don't let them have their way just when B16 is trying to steer St. Peters barque back in the right direction.

rowsofvoices9 · « **Reply #7 on:** August 04, 2012, 11:29:27 PM »

I can see that the Church is starting to return to its former traditions a little bit at a time. For instance, at my local parish at the end of every Mass we pray three Hail Mary's and the prayer to St. Michael the Archangel for the protection of Holy Mother Church. This is a very positive step in the right direction.

My personal opinion is that the devil's 100 years of increased power is just about to expire. He knows the jig is about up and he still hasn't managed to destroy the Church, however much he boasted that he would. How else can the current state of the world be explained?

Just in case anyone wonders, I have no problem with the NO Mass as long as its celebrated reverently. Sometimes I don't have any other choice but to attend the NO. I do however prefer the TLM and attend as often as I can. The TLM is superior in every way.

Belloc · « **Reply #8 on:** August 06, 2012, 09:55:42 AM »

Too much of the "revisions" of the revised,etc.....still ahve too many innovations, such as the articular confession at beginning........a Cramner invention......where we are all supposed to loudly confess we sin.......also, no kneeling BEFORE the Sanctus and Agnus Dei.......reasons for kneeling prior.....

Belloc · « **Reply #9 on:** August 06, 2012, 09:56:26 AM »

hoping some day, the NO just dies on the vine-or some leave.......

Maria Auxiliadora · « **Reply #10 on:** August 06, 2012, 11:11:39 AM »

Quote from: Belloc

hoping some day, the NO just dies on the vine-or some leave.......

Yes, Belloc, and welcome your beloved "Reform of the Reform" with all the appearances of Tradition. The N.O. monkey dressed in a tuxedo will still be a monkey.

Belloc · « **Reply #11 on:** August 06, 2012, 11:23:14 AM »

a reform of a turd=still a turd........

A monkey in a tux, still a monkey that is likely to throw said turd......