Two more from Catholic Answers

One post here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergee Ah, I still get a laugh out of Quote: P: Go, the Mass is ended. R: Thanks be to God. But relief from this apparent ordeal does not come yet, because it's not ended at all, there's a lot more still to come!

I say the response with tremendous sincerity, particularly on Sundays when we have been singing that we ourselves are the bread of life.

[Oops. Petergee was complaining about the old Mass; I thought we were talking about the new.]


and the other post here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThomasMore1535 Then you are saying that the gates of hell have prevailed. You cannot maintain that "for all" is inaccurate and still remain in good standing with the Church. Rome has spoken, the matter is closed. You are confusing abuses with actual doctrine. You are falsely hoping for some kind of a "golden age" in the Church. You know perfectly well that that will never happen.

You are being overdramatic. A bad translation does not mean Hell has won a final victory over the Church, which will never happen. Rome has indeed spoken clearly on this matter, in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, edited under Saint Charles Borromeo, and published by decree of Pope Saint Pius V.

I am not expecting a "golden age" of perfection in the Church before our Lord's second coming at the end of time, but I do believe things can be better than they are now.

May the Holy Spirit give you a blessed and spiritually fruitful Sunday.

CCF #6

[post]

Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins." [Matthew 26:27-28, NAB]

It is difficult to see how the Fathers at Trent could have thought 'that Jesus, in using the word "many", was speaking not of those for whom he shed his blood.' Reading the passage from the Roman Catechism quoted by BillMc, it does not seem that that is what the Fathers are saying; rather, they are saying that in one sense Jesus shed His blood for all men, and in another sense He shed His Blood merely for many, and it is in that latter sense that He was speaking at the Last Supper. I am glad we can agree that there's no argument about the meaning of the Latin pro multis; the argument appears to be over whether pro multis belongs in the Latin Mass.

When you say

Giving effect to the meaning of the words may not give best effect to the meaning that those original words were meant to convey.

do you mean the original words of the Mass, or the original words spoken by Jesus at the last supper? I do not believe there is a conflict, but some might. If one believed there was such a discrepancy, then there would be some justification in restoring the actual words of Christ, but then it wouldn't be so much a matter of translating the Mass as of fixing it.

It does seem astonishing that someone would be foolish enough to publicly allege that Aramaic lacks a word to mean "all", but Professor Joachim Jeremias, on page 179 of his book The Eucharistic Words of Jesus wrote:

While ‘many’ in Greek (as in English) stands in opposition to ‘all’, and therefore has the exclusive sense (‘many, but not all’), Hebrew rabbim can have the inclusive sense (‘the whole, comprising many individuals’). This inclusive use is connected with the fact that Hebrew and Aramaic possess no word for ‘all’.

Read that last sentence again. It is hard to believe a well-respected scholar could write such a thing, but Dr. Jeremias did.

Still more remarkably, the year after Dr. Jeremias's book was published (1967), the ICEL published a booklet referencing his work. On pages 34-5 of “The Roman Canon in English Translation”, one finds:

Neither Hebrew nor Aramaic possess a word for ‘all’. The word rabbim or ‘multitude’ 'thus served also in the inclusive sense for ‘the whole’, even though the corresponding Greek and the Latin appear to have an exclusive sense i.e. ‘the many’ rather than ‘the all’. Cf. J. Jerermias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus

It appears that it is the claims of Professor Jeremias that provided the foundation for the change from "for many" to "for all".

I looked up the verses in Isaiah 53 you mentioned; we have the same problem here as in Matthew and Mark. It is far from clear that rabbim in verses 11 and 12 should be taken to mean "all", and, in fact, it is consistently translated as "many" in all versions of the Bible that I have checked. A web page mentioned earlier, http://www.familybible.org/Glossary/Q-R.htm, provides a definition for rabbim: "many". Note: not "all", not even with the qualifier "who are many".

You mentioned the Greek phrase oi polloi, "the many", and I agree, it can suggest people in general. Your ealier post and another by theresepio cite passages in Romans 5 where there "the many" appears twice. I think we can agree in both verses, the first instances of "the many" imply people in general. I have my doubts about the meaning of the second instance of "the many" in each verse. But even if every time the phrase "the many" appeared in the Bible, it meant everyone, that would still have no bearing on the meaning of Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24, where the phrase "the many" does not appear. Those verses only have the word "many", without the definite article in front.

If there is an ambiguity in the meaning of saggi'in, both Matthew and Mark chose to use simply the word "many" by itself, rather than "the many", which could have implied everyone. As Philip Goddard writes in his excellent article:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpks No, I don't think that passage from Matthew answers the question. If we understand the "for many" as indicating that Jesus did not shed his blood for the goats, but only for the sheep, then we may be led to believe (as someone has implied elsewhere on this thread) that Christ's sacrifice is not offered to all, but only to those who are already saved. And this clearly contradicts the orthodox and scriptural belief that Jesus died for all. The fathers at Trent were concerned to address this paradox. They said that Jesus, in using the word "many", was speaking not of those for whom he shed his blood, but of those who would be materially helped by it (i.e. those that did not reject his grace). This to my mind rules out any specious distinction between the "all" for whom Jesus died, and the "many" for whom Jesus shed his precious blood. I respect this point of view, but regard it as an over-simplification of the task of liturgical language. Giving effect to the meaning of the words may not give best effect to the meaning that those original words were meant to convey. I may, but I don't. Further back in this same thread I referred to a passage in Isaiah 53 (see 3 October) which has been cited by scholars as being part of the evidence, now it seems gaining wide acceptance, that the use of "many" to mean "all" was a common semitic idiom. (This is the first time I have ever heard the allegation that Aramaic lacked a word to mean "all". This seems so basic a mistake that I wonder that anyone would be foolish enough to make it in public, knowing for sure that one would instantly lose credibility the moment the mistake was pointed out.) The existence of this semitic idiom makes it unsafe to hold that semitic speakers, using the word "many", necessarily intend to exclude the sense "all". Importantly, the Hebrew rabbim is held to mean "the all - who are many". There is no word in English, Latin or Greek that does this justice, although "polloi" does come close, owing to the meaning of the phrase "hoi polloi" with the definite article. The point is that in English, "many" and "all" are opposed, whereas this is not true of Hebrew. The very fact that this thread seems to be making so much of the distinction is itself abundant testimony to this opposition. So we have, it seems to me, two significant facts. First, the fathers at Trent acknowledged that there was an unacceptable interpretation of the words "for many". They made it explicit that although Jesus did in fact die for all, in the words of institution he was speaking of the fruits of the passion. In making this explanation, they were admitting that the words "for many" could be misunderstood. Second, recent scholarship has established that in semitic idiom, words meaning "many" do not contradict "all" in the way that they do in some modern languages, including English. This scholarship was not available to the fathers at Trent. Therefore, it may be that Jesus was not in fact speaking at all of the "fruits of the passion", but rather that he was speaking about the atonement tout court, using a common semitic idiom. In the circumstances, the Church is perfectly within its rights to authorize a translation that gives effect to what Jesus actually said, and which gives less ground for the misunderstanding that Jesus died (or shed his blood) not for all men, but only for the elect.

CCF #5

[post]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpks It is quite clear that the Fathers are not speaking of two senses in which Jesus shed his blood. "For if we look at its value," the fathers say, "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." (Emphasis mine) Now it is clear from this that there are not two senses here of "shedding" or "blood", but rather two senses of "for". In the first sense, the "value" sense, Jesus shed his blood with the intention of or, perhaps better, for the enabling of, the salvation of all. In the second sense, of course, the fruit of the passion is to the benefit of many, but alas perhaps not all.

It appears to me that you are saying there are two senses in which Our Lord's words can be taken, based on two ways to take the word "for": (1) Jesus shed His blood for the enabling of the salvation of all, (2) Jesus shed His Blood to the benefit of many, but perhaps not all.

Those are essentially the two senses in which I was saying Our Lord's sacrifice can be spoken of: He died for the salvation of all and for the salvation of many. However, I am not sure how a variation in the meaning of the word "for" in Our Lord's words gets you to anything like your two sentences.

We can certainly both agree that "the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all". That is straight from the Fathers. That is the value of His Passion. Notice, however, that when the Fathers are describing the value of His Passion, they do not reference His words at the Last Supper. His words, they say, "serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion". Furthermore, "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".

The Fathers say that these are the words of consecration:

This is the chalice of My blood, of the New and Eternal Testament, the Mystery of Faith, which shall be shed for you and for many to the remission of sins.

If Jesus said that "My blood...shall be shed...for many", it seems one either has to agree that His blood is shed for many, or believe that His words were incorrectly recorded, or believe that Jesus was mistaken about the purpose of His sacrifice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpks Imagine this scenario: A father is out walking with his children. A car veers out of control and mounts the pavement. In order to protect his children, he hurls himself into the path of the car. By this he saves the life of some, but not all, his children. Let's imagine that this is written up in the newspaper. Look at these two possible headlines: 1) Father gives his life for his children 2) Father gives his life for some of his children What does the second version suggest to you? To me it suggests that the father wanted to save the lives of some of his children, but not others.

If Christ's words shock you, that is a sign that you need to think more deeply about His words, not that the words need to be changed. [I need to think more deeply about His words, too].

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpks Now this is precisely the oddness about "for many". And this is my explanation for the difference between the fidelity to Latin words and the duty to bear witness to the truth, which comes a long way first in the liturgist's priorities.

Misrepresenting the words of Christ is a dereliction of duty to bear witness to the truth. It is hard to see how fidelity to the Latin words fails to bear witness to the truth, unless the words are wrong. If they are wrong, why shouldn't they be fixed? If they are right, why should they be changed?

And where is the evidence that the Latin words are wrong? Earlier, you cited oi polloi as the Greek phrase used in the New Testament to mean "the all who are many", but that phrase does not appear in Matthew 26 or Mark 14. Both of them opted simply for polloi, "many". Why should we assume Matthew and Mark got it wrong? Why should we assume that the creators of the New Mass got it wrong, and that the traditional Mass is wrong, and that the Divine Liturgies of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom are wrong? Why should we assume that translators of possibly every English-language Bible available got it wrong? Why should we assume that the Doctors of the Church and the Fathers of the Church got it wrong?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpks The so-called "faithful" translation is misleading, for exactly the same reason as (2) above is misleading, according to the interpretation put forward by the Fathers at Trent.

Why is (2) misleading? Because it won't make people think of (1)? The same can be said of (1) -- it won't make people think of (2). Are you saying the Church Fathers objected to (2)? They did not object to it, they insisted on it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelDunphy I am glad we can agree that there's no argument about the meaning of the Latin pro multis; the argument appears to be over whether pro multis belongs in the Latin Mass.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpks Heavens, what am I supposed to be arguing now? All I thought I was arguing is that those who authorized the translation of "multis" as "all" were entitled to do so, (a) because a strict translation was misleading, and (b) because the translation is legitimate, given that "multis" itself represents a semitic idiom in which "many" can mean "all".

If "for many" does not belong in the English-language Mass because it is misleading, and "pro multis" is Latin for "for many", then wouldn't "pro multis" in the Latin-language Mass be misleading in the same way as "for many"? You did say [post #77] that no word in Latin has the alleged "all who are many" meaning. So shouldn't the Latin Mass (both old and new) be changed, too?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelDunphy I looked up the verses in Isaiah 53 you mentioned; we have the same problem here as in Matthew and Mark. It is far from clear that rabbim in verses 11 and 12 should be taken to mean "all", and, in fact, it is consistently translated as "many" in all versions of the Bible that I have checked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpks Sorry, that just isn't true. See Is 53:6 and compare Is 53:11. The iniquities of "all" in v.6, and "many" in v.11. It isn't far from clear. (I don't allege that any translations should or do put "all" for "many" in vv. 11 and 12. I am not suggesting that bibles should be so translated as to disguise the idioms of the underlying language.) What I am offering here is a clear example of a case where the Hebrew for "many" is obviously not opposed to "all".

My interpretation:
v.6: We [almost] all sin, or at least are stained by original sin.
v.11&12 Many of us will win pardon for our offences because of the Sacrifice of Christ.

If you prefer to say that "all" will win pardon for their sins, I refer you again to Matthew 25:31-46. The number of verses refering to judgment could be multiplied, if you think I am placing undue weight on that single passage.

My interpretation has the advantage of assuming that Isaiah said "all" when he meant "all", and "many" when he meant "many".

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpks It is noteworthy that these quibbles about many/all tend to revolve around the theme of the atonement. That is why Is 53:11 is so important. If it can be shown, as it has been shown, that Is 53:11 is not incompatible with "all" (as 53:6 proves), then we can - and surely should - understand the "many" in these gospel passages as echoing Isaiah - the scripture that Jesus was to fulfill. Hence, that the evangelists used this semitic idiom was not a linguistic curiosity at all. It was a deliberate reference to the scripture that Jesus had come to fulfill.

Isaiah 53 does no more to prove that many means all in Hebrew than it does in English. The context provides the connection between "us all" in verse 6 and "many" in verses 11 and 12. Even if one reads Isaiah 53 the way you do, there is no need to posit a special Semitic idiom making many mean all;the context would provide the association. I wonder if perhaps literary constructs in the Bible, such as parallelism, contrast, and understatement, are the source of this special "all who are many" idiom claimed to have been recently discovered in Hebrew and Aramaic.

Of course, without the claim that many means all in Hebrew, Isaiah is open to other interpretations besides yours, such as the one I tentatively offered earlier.

As for the connection between the Gospel passages and Isaiah 53, changing "many" to "all" in the former but not the latter would would obscure the connection, rather than clarifying it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpks Finally, the question of biblical and liturgical translation is much more complex than just a matter of literalness. The task of the biblical translator is a very different one from that of the liturgist. While I have not the smallest inclination to defend ICEL against anything - nor Jeremias either! - I think that there are other, better criticisms of ICEL, whereas this one just doesn't have legs.

If liturgists believe it is their task to correct Holy Scripture, they are mistaken. Scripture and Tradition alike attest that Our Lord said His blood is shed "for many".

__________________
"The consecration is accomplished by the words and expressions of the Lord Jesus. Because, by all the other words spoken, praise is rendered to God, prayer is put up for the people, for kings, and others; but when the time comes for perfecting the sacrament, the priest uses no longer his own words, but the words of Christ. Therefore, it is Christ's words that perfect this sacrament." (St. Ambrose, De Sacram. iv)

CCF #3

[Post]

Since there seems to be some dispute as to what the Catechism of the Council of Trent says, here are some excerpts to which I will refer:


With regard to the consecration of the wine, which is the other element of this Sacrament, the priest, for the reason We have already assigned, ought of necessity to be well acquainted with, and well understand its form. We are then firmly to believe that it consists in the following words: This is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many, to the remission of sins. Of these words the greater part are taken from Scripture; but some have been preserved in the Church from Apostolic tradition.

Thus the words, this is the chalice, are found in St. Luke and in the Apostle; but the words that immediately follow, of my blood, or my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for you and for many to the remission of sins, are found partly in St. Luke and partly in St. Matthew. But the words, eternal, and the mystery of faith, have been taught us by holy tradition, the interpreter and keeper of Catholic truth.
...
They moreover express certain admirable fruits of the blood shed in the Passion of our Lord, fruits which pertain in a most special manner to this Sacrament. Of these, one is access to the eternal inheritance, which has come to us by right of the new and everlasting testament. Another is access to righteousness by the mystery of faith; for God hath set forth Jesus to be a propitiator through faith in his blood, that he himself may be just, and the justifier of him, who is of the faith of Jesus, Christ. A third effect is the remission of sins.
...
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.

__________________
"The consecration is accomplished by the words and expressions of the Lord Jesus. Because, by all the other words spoken, praise is rendered to God, prayer is put up for the people, for kings, and others; but when the time comes for perfecting the sacrament, the priest uses no longer his own words, but the words of Christ. Therefore, it is Christ's words that perfect this sacrament." (St. Ambrose, De Sacram. iv)

Catholic Community Forum

[post] [thread] (I am posting this thread from the Catholic Community Forum in reverse chronological order, so that they show up in the right order in this blog).

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpks Not exactly. The two possible senses of "Jesus shed his blood for many/all" were distinguished by the fathers of the council of Trent. They said that Jesus was speaking in one sense, not the other, because in the other sense, it would contradict other sound doctrine equally based on the teaching of our Lord.

Now I think you are saying here that the fathers of the council of Trent taught that when Jesus said many, he really meant all, because if he meant many, it would contradict other sound doctrine. I am baffled as to how you could arrive at such a conclusion. Read through post #84. The Fathers say that Jesus deliberately said "for many", not "for all", because he was speaking of the fruits of the Passion, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation.

If I have misunderstood you, what is the other sense you referred to, in which you said our Lord was not speaking?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelDunphy However, I am not sure how a variation in the meaning of the word "for" in Our Lord's words gets you to anything like your two sentences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpks If you mean the two headlines, then in (1) the meaning of "for" was "for the sake of" and in (2) it was "for the benefit of".

No, I was referring to this statement:

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpks Now it is clear from this that there are not two senses here of "shedding" or "blood", but rather two senses of "for". In the first sense, the "value" sense, Jesus shed his blood with the intention of or, perhaps better, for the enabling of, the salvation of all. In the second sense, of course, the fruit of the passion is to the benefit of many, but alas perhaps not all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpks Why does Michael Dunphy insist on talking about "a variation in the meaning of 'for' in our Lord's words"?

You brought up "two senses of 'for'"; I didn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpks I am not alleging any variation in the meaning of our Lord's words. I am talking about how people would understand a quotation of our Lord's words in a liturgical context - just ordinary people walking in off the street and not immediately seeing a connexion to, e.g., Is 53:11-12. This is what the liturgist has to consider. Hence the appropriateness of holding up two newspaper headlines. The question is not about what Jesus said (that is adequately represented by the reliable biblical translations and by the Latin text of the words of consecration). The question is about how it's translated into vernacular English in the vernacular liturgical context.

The question is exactly "What did Jesus say?" All through this discussion it seems as if you have forgotten that immediately before the consecration of the wine, the priest tells the congregation that what he is about to say is what Jesus said. It is never appropriate to misrepresent what Jesus said, but the absolute worst time possible is at the most solemn moment of the Mass, when the priest speaks in persona Christi, using the words of Christ, so that He will be truly present on the altar. Only now, rather than speaking Christ's words, the priest is forced to speak ICEL's words instead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelDunphy We can certainly both agree that "the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all". That is straight from the Fathers. That is the value of His Passion. Notice, however, that when the Fathers are describing the value of His Passion, they do not reference His words at the Last Supper. His words, they say, "serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion". Furthermore, "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".

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpks True, admirable, agreed, but irrelevant.

It is relevant if you think the Fathers teach that when Jesus said "for many" He really meant "for everyone". They don't teach that, and the point of the quotes was to point that out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelDunphy If Jesus said that "My blood...shall be shed...for many", it seems one either has to agree that His blood is shed for many, or believe that His words were incorrectly recorded, or believe that Jesus was mistaken about the purpose of His sacrifice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpks This seems to me to be missing the point, and indeed offering all sorts of false alternatives. There is no question that Jesus's blood was "shed for many" in the sense that the fathers at Trent held. There is no question that Jesus's blood was "shed for many" in the sense of "the all who are many" that we see in the semitic idiom exemplified by e.g. Is 53:11. In this sense, we need not have resort to the theory of the fathers at Trent, that Jesus was speaking of the fruits of his passion, since nobody could rightly or credibly allege that Jesus was inconsistently here proposing that his blood was being shed for the effective salvation ("fruits" sense) of absolutely all. There is no question whether Jesus's words were incorrectly recorded. Please! There has never been any suggestion that Jesus "misunderstood" anything. I find the use of these false alternatives, which are totally unrelated to what has gone before, bizarre.

Either our Lord's words were recorded correctly, or they were not. If they are recorded correctly, those words are themselves either correct or not correct. There are no other alternatives, so these are not false alternatives.

oi polloi ("the many") is said to be the Greek idiom that corresponds to the alleged "all who are many" meaning of saggi'in ("many"). It seemed to me you might believe that Matthew and Mark erred in translating saggi'in as "many" instead of "the many", considering that you mentioned oi polloi yourself, and said it was eminently justifiable to examine how the Greek word was actually used in the NT. [This was my second alternative]

But in this post you agree that reliable Bibles and the Latin Mass are correct: Jesus said He sheds His blood "for many". [My first alternative]

I mentioned the third alternative [Jesus misunderstood] for completeness and as a way one could logically simultaneously hold that Jesus said He died for many, and that it is improper to say that Jesus died for many.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpks This is ad hominem, ungrounded and unworthy.

I thought the point of your story was it is so shocking to say that a father died for some of His children, that Jesus could not possibly have been saying something similar about himself. I know you didn't mean it that way. What I think you meant, is that we can't tell people He said that He died for many, because they might misunderstand. I'm sure you'll correct me, if I'm wrong. To my mind, what I now think you are saying is worse than what I thought you were saying before, because it seems as if you are saying "Yes, I know Jesus said He would shed His blood for many, but I think we should say He said something else, instead".

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpks True, but inadequate. First, because it confuses the task of the biblical translator with that of the liturgist. Second, because it glosses over the task of the translator, which is to communicate something - what? One may take the view that simple literalness is all that is required. One may take the different view that communication of the truth about our Lord is required. All the time, we are working within the constraints of language as it is commonly understood, and different situations demand different responses as to how these tasks are best addressed.

If you want to express a truth about our Lord, other than a truth about something He said, don't start off by saying "He said".

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpks I hope, moreover, that "misrepresenting the words of Christ" does not encompass the interpolation of the words "mysterium fidei" into the words of consecration in the liturgy. (Ah, but Jesus never actually said those words. - Oh, well that's all right, then.)

It is your opinion that Christ never said "the mystery of faith". It is the opinion of the Fathers at Trent that Christ did. Scripture does not record every word our Lord spoke.

It would be a reasonable interpretation of the Roman Catechism quote in post 84 to conclude that "mysterium fidei" is required for a valid consecration. Reasonable, but wrong, I think. At the time of Trent, Eastern Catholics were celebrating their Divine Liturgies as they had for centuries, without the "mysterium fidei", and without censure from Rome. From this one can conclude that more than one form of the sacrament is permissible. What I object to is the importation of words contrary to Scripture and Tradition into the formula of consecration.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpks I don't argue that the Latin word is "wrong". I don't argue that the Latin words of consecration should be changed - absolutely not! I cited "hoi polloi" (with the definite article) merely to show that "polloi" on its own was not, in the Greek idiom, so opposed to the sense of "all" as the English word "many". I think that if the English words "for the/a multitude" were used to translate "pro multis", it would be closer to the sense of Jesus's original words than "for many", and less prone to misunderstanding; but this is a question of nuance, and not at all owing to any mistaken belief that "polloi" was used with the definite article here.

A writer whose opinion I respect has the same idea: he advocates translating pro multis as "for the multitudes". It seems to me, however, if Matthew and Mark both chose to leave the definite article out when translating our Lord's words into Greek, we should respect their choice and not add the article, since that could change the meaning of what they wrote.

Thank you for the extra comments on your headlines example. I should have remarked that although I remain unconvinced, your example was moving and offer about as strong a case as I can imagine for your point of view.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpks As to these private interpretations of Isaiah:

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelDunphy v.6: We [almost] all sin, or at least are stained by original sin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpks Contrast Isaiah: "...and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." [RV]

Here, I consider your scepticism justified. I was thinking only about the verse referring to [almost] all of us, and left out the main point, which that our Lord bears the burden of our sins. If it is the "almost" that bothers you, the exceptions that I was thinking of are the Lord Himself, and His mother.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelDunphy v.11&12 Many of us will win pardon for our offences because of the Sacrifice of Christ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpks Contrast Isaiah: "...yet he bare the sin of many" [v. 12, RV]

I should have quoted the verses from the Bible I was looking at, the New American Bible, which is what the version I hear at Mass on Sundays. In that translation, verse 12 ends:

And he shall take away the sins of many, and win pardon for their offenses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelDunphy If you prefer to say that "all" will win pardon for their sins...

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpks Ad hominem and unworthy! In citing these verses I was not seeking to interpret their significance for the doctrine of the atonement at all, other than to assert that they are plainly relevant to that doctrine. What I was asserting was that if you compare them, you will see that whereas in v. 6 the Lord laid upon him the iniquity of us all, in v. 12 he bore the sin of many. Unless one is committed to a doctrine that some of what the Lord laid upon his suffering servant unaccountably slipped off, it should be apparent to the most unprejudiced reader that "many" and "all" are not opposed in this chapter in the way that they would appear to be in English.

I was simply substituting "all" for "many" in the translation I had in front of me. I am not arguing that "many" has to be opposed to "all", only that the two words are not interchangeable and that one should not be substituted for the other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpks ICEL may have made this rather "free" translation for the worst of reasons. Had it been applied to scripture, rather than to the vernacular liturgy, it would have been a grave mistake. As it is, however, there are good grounds for leaving it alone, however defective ICEL's reasons or intentions might have been. The most important ground is that some might be led to the false belief that Jesus's sacrifice atoned only for the sins of the elect, and that therefore it cannot be said of the rest that they turned down an offer that was open to them, or a sacrifice that sufficed to redeem them. There are other, much more grievous mistranslations that ICEL has done. And I ask (again): why, then, are people so focused on this particular one?

Speaking only for myself, even if there are more blatant mistranslations, there are none more grievous. In other parts of the Mass, ICEL has monkeyed with the words of men, but this case they have altered the words of our Lord. In my eyes, at the most solemn part of the Mass, infidelity to the truth and to our Lord are on display, and it raises some doubts in my mind as to the validity of the consecration.

__________________
"The consecration is accomplished by the words and expressions of the Lord Jesus. Because, by all the other words spoken, praise is rendered to God, prayer is put up for the people, for kings, and others; but when the time comes for perfecting the sacrament, the priest uses no longer his own words, but the words of Christ. Therefore, it is Christ's words that perfect this sacrament." (St. Ambrose, De Sacram. iv)