Priest calls translation of "pro multis" to "for many" a "heresy"!
#41
(12-01-2010, 10:26 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Or perhaps when Christ said: "This is my body...this is my blood" it was also an idiom who shouldn't haven been translated literally. You see, all interpretations are possible when one abandons the sure guidance of the Church.

Well said.
Reply
#42
(12-02-2010, 02:09 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(12-01-2010, 10:26 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Or perhaps when Christ said: "This is my body...this is my blood" it was also an idiom who shouldn't haven been translated literally. You see, all interpretations are possible when one abandons the sure guidance of the Church.

Well said.

That's why the Reformers, minus the Lutherans, abandoned the belief in the Real Presence. Since they had left the Church, they were absolutely free to make all the eisegesis they wanted and to credulously deny any previous belief that didn't conform to their prejudices as a "romish superstition." This destructive pattern continues up to this very day and its logical conclusion is Atheism.
Reply
#43
(12-02-2010, 02:19 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(12-02-2010, 02:09 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(12-01-2010, 10:26 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Or perhaps when Christ said: "This is my body...this is my blood" it was also an idiom who shouldn't haven been translated literally. You see, all interpretations are possible when one abandons the sure guidance of the Church.

Well said.

That's why the Reformers, minus the Lutherans, abandoned the belief in the Real Presence. Since they had left the Church, they were absolutely free to make all the eisegesis they wanted and to credulously deny any previous belief that didn't conform to their prejudices as a "romish superstition." This destructive pattern continues up to this very day and its logical conclusion is Atheism.

So dangerously true!
Reply
#44
(12-01-2010, 10:45 PM)quotidianum Wrote: No, you're going down the wrong road with your erroneous speculations.  The people (Disciples) who heard the words in Aramaic or Syriac or whatever language it was, and who therefore knew exactly what Jesus was expressing in  the perfect context, and who later, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost Himself, recorded the works in Greek, did NOT write "for all"---they wrote "for many."  Even someone who is not guided by the Holy Ghost knows enough to translate the meanings of expression, like euphemisms or sayings, when a literal translation is contradictory or nonsensical.  There is a saying in Spanish that "hay gato encerrado...", which literally means "there's a cat locked up...."  But do you know what the even means if it is directly translated?  No, because probably the best way to translate that to English is "there's something fishy going on in here..."  Likewise, if you translates "there's something fishy going on here" literally to Spanish, they would have no clue what you were talking about. 

But nevermind all of that, because the authors of the Gospels were divinely inspired, and so what they recorded on the matter is accurate.  To say that Jesus "really said 'for all'" is to deny the words of the Gospel and to assume that the earliest Christians "didn't really know" that Jesus mean "for all," but you, who happen to know about the euphemisms used by Christ almost 2,000 years ago, do (somehow) know.   Surely, you must know that you are making statements, like declaring "for many was a euphemism in Aramaic at the time and it meant "for all"", that you cannot back up and which contradict the inspired words of the Disciples in recording what Jesus did that day.  Also, as this other person points out, he has studied Greek, and the original Greek record the words are "for many."  Not "for all."  I also like the other posters explanation of Jesus' suffering in the garden of olives.

Faulty argument.  As I mentioned earlier, when people spoke of a thousand years, they meant forever.  So, those writing in Greek didn't feel the need to write out forever, even though that is what was meant, because it was common knowledge at the time that when people said a thousand years, they were not speaking of a literal thousand years, but forever.  So, by your argument, the writers of the NT who wrote in Greek should have known what they were doing and used the Greek words for forever, rather than for a thousand years, since they meant, and the Church teaches they meant, forever.

Also, I never said Jesus really said for all.  I said, Jesus really said the words "for many."  What I'm saying is, contrary to what it sounds to me like you're arguing, is not that the early Christians didn't know what Jesus meant when he said "for many" but that they all understood what he meant, and all understood that "for many" was used in place of "for all" because their culture did so.  Just as they used "a thousand years" for 'forever' and 'Babylon' for 'Rome.'  So, understanding 'for many' to mean 'for all' does not contradict the inspired words of the disicples any more than understanding 'a thousand years' to mean 'forever' contradicts the inspired words of the disciples.  Swiss cheese argument.
Reply
#45
(12-02-2010, 04:46 PM)Melkite Wrote:  So, understanding 'for many' to mean 'for all' does not contradict the inspired words of the disicples any more than understanding 'a thousand years' to mean 'forever' contradicts the inspired words of the disciples.  

This comes straight from the "Melkite" Catechism. Causa finita est.
Reply
#46
(12-02-2010, 11:13 PM)Lee Timmer Wrote:
(12-02-2010, 04:46 PM)Melkite Wrote:  So, understanding 'for many' to mean 'for all' does not contradict the inspired words of the disicples any more than understanding 'a thousand years' to mean 'forever' contradicts the inspired words of the disciples.  

This comes straight from the "Melkite" Catechism. Causa finita est.

Haha, Mekitus locuta est, I like it!  But seriously, if one can't argue in a logically consistent manner, why bother?
Reply
#47
(12-02-2010, 11:19 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(12-02-2010, 11:13 PM)Lee Timmer Wrote:
(12-02-2010, 04:46 PM)Melkite Wrote:  So, understanding 'for many' to mean 'for all' does not contradict the inspired words of the disicples any more than understanding 'a thousand years' to mean 'forever' contradicts the inspired words of the disciples.  

This comes straight from the "Melkite" Catechism. Causa finita est.

Haha, Mekitus locuta est, I like it!  But seriously, if one can't argue in a logically consistent manner, why bother?

Because I don't think there's an argument here. The Roman Catechism goes out of its way, if you will, to actually make the statement that "For good reason, therefore, were the words 'for all' not used" and that Our Lord was speaking of the fruits of the Passion. The authors of the Catechism were basically saying, "Don't EVEN go there!" No offense, but I'll trust the good sense of St. Charles Borromeo and Pope St. Pius V on this matter. Since when is a Catholic even allowed to argue such a point?

EDIT: Formatting
Reply
#48
(12-02-2010, 11:30 PM)Lee Timmer Wrote:
(12-02-2010, 11:19 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(12-02-2010, 11:13 PM)Lee Timmer Wrote:
(12-02-2010, 04:46 PM)Melkite Wrote:  So, understanding 'for many' to mean 'for all' does not contradict the inspired words of the disicples any more than understanding 'a thousand years' to mean 'forever' contradicts the inspired words of the disciples.  

This comes straight from the "Melkite" Catechism. Causa finita est.

Haha, Mekitus locuta est, I like it!  But seriously, if one can't argue in a logically consistent manner, why bother?

Because I don't think there's an argument here. The Roman Catechism goes out of its way, if you will, to actually make the statement that "For good reason, therefore, were the words 'for all' not used" and that Our Lord was speaking of the fruits of the Passion. The authors of the Catechism were basically saying, "Don't EVEN go there!" No offense, but I'll trust the good sense of St. Charles Borromeo and Pope St. Pius V on this matter. Since when is a Catholic even allowed to argue such a point?

EDIT: Formatting

No worries, I'm just arguing on principle.  I just don't like when people get on here and basically say that when Jesus said for many, he only died for some and not all, as if he only made salvation receivable by some.
Reply
#49
I agree with you on that point. He indeed died for all, wishing that all be saved, but He knew that the fruits of the Passion would realistically be efficacious only for many. Thank God that we have the Church to explain such complicated matters.
Reply
#50
(12-02-2010, 11:56 PM)Lee Timmer Wrote: I agree with you on that point. He indeed died for all, wishing that all be saved, but He knew that the fruits of the Passion would realistically be efficacious only for many. Thank God that we have the Church to explain such complicated matters.

Agreed.  I definately was NOT arguing for universal salvation, just to be clear.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)