The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
#21
(12-12-2010, 06:56 PM)Stubborn Wrote: lol - yes, I saw where the Bishops voted to make it say "for many" again.

How the heck can they vote on the words of Our Lord I wonder?

Well, the words of Our Lord were probably uttered in Aramaic, written down years later in Greek (or possibly, in the case of Matthew, Hebrew later translated into Greek), then translated into Latin, and finally into English. So what they're really voting on is a multi-level translation. I'd be interested to know what the most accurate translation is of the original Hebrew/Greek. Having said that, though, I just looked at 8 different English translations of the NT (including the "modernist" New American Bible), and they all translate it as "for many" (Matthew and Mark) or "for you" (Luke). "For all" is not to be found. So there does seem to be a consensus on that.      :)    So I'm willing to accept that putting "for all" in the NO constitutes evidence of an agenda.
Reply
#22
(12-10-2010, 08:48 PM)Zakhur Wrote:
(12-09-2010, 12:43 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote:
(11-30-2010, 07:52 PM)Zakhur Wrote: When the translation is changed to "for many," people are going to think the Church is implying something about Christ's intent, not about what Trent's catechism says about this phrase.

We do not worship John Calvin's god.  But some are going to feel like we do as a result of this move (I think).

More people are aware of the historical fact that apostates & non-Christians have lived and died on this planet without taking Christ up on offer of the shedding of His blood—and they’re probably more aware of that than they are of Calvinist theology.

Yep.  But whether it's realized or not, MOST negative reaction to Christianity in the modern west is against Calvin's abominable theology, not Catholic theology.

Human beings know exactly what to do with a capricious god:  "*&^% him."

Btw, that bleeped part is not my own, it's a verbatim quote from an atheist.

You'll find that the very Catholic concept of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus suffices just fine in the West for the consideration of an unjust God.  Not that it gets preached terribly often or anything, but the "trads" seem to love it and they're on the upswing now.  Calvinism is a nice bonus, though.
Reply
#23
(12-12-2010, 05:29 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote:
(12-09-2010, 11:01 PM)NorthernTrad Wrote: "For many" also doesn't go along with the Modernists' program of universal salvation either.  It's not accidental that the words of Christ were changed.  It is also a blasphemy.

The Bible says that Christ died for all: "For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus: Who gave himself a redemption for all, a testimony in due times." 1 Timothy 2:5-6 Douay Rheims

So what is your definition of blasphemy, exactly?

Sufficiency and efficacy have already been mentioned.  That verse from the first epistle to Timothy refers to the former, not the latter.  Can non-Catholics receive the sacrament?  There—you have your answer.  Pro multis.
Reply
#24
(12-12-2010, 08:49 PM)Gilgamesh Wrote:
(12-12-2010, 05:29 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote:
(12-09-2010, 11:01 PM)NorthernTrad Wrote: "For many" also doesn't go along with the Modernists' program of universal salvation either.  It's not accidental that the words of Christ were changed.  It is also a blasphemy.

The Bible says that Christ died for all: "For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus: Who gave himself a redemption for all, a testimony in due times." 1 Timothy 2:5-6 Douay Rheims

So what is your definition of blasphemy, exactly?

Sufficiency and efficacy have already been mentioned.  That verse from the first epistle to Timothy refers to the former, not the latter.  Can non-Catholics receive the sacrament?  There—you have your answer.  Pro multis.

Yeah, of course not. But I can't imagine every English priest is blaspheming in an NO consecration.
Reply
#25
(12-14-2010, 10:54 AM)Bakuryokuso Wrote:
(12-12-2010, 08:49 PM)Gilgamesh Wrote:
(12-12-2010, 05:29 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote:
(12-09-2010, 11:01 PM)NorthernTrad Wrote: "For many" also doesn't go along with the Modernists' program of universal salvation either.  It's not accidental that the words of Christ were changed.  It is also a blasphemy.

The Bible says that Christ died for all: "For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus: Who gave himself a redemption for all, a testimony in due times." 1 Timothy 2:5-6 Douay Rheims

So what is your definition of blasphemy, exactly?

Sufficiency and efficacy have already been mentioned.  That verse from the first epistle to Timothy refers to the former, not the latter.  Can non-Catholics receive the sacrament?  There—you have your answer.  Pro multis.

Yeah, of course not. But I can't imagine every English priest is blaspheming in an NO consecration.

Why not?
Reply
#26
(12-17-2010, 01:40 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote:
(12-14-2010, 10:54 AM)Bakuryokuso Wrote:
(12-12-2010, 08:49 PM)Gilgamesh Wrote:
(12-12-2010, 05:29 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote:
(12-09-2010, 11:01 PM)NorthernTrad Wrote: "For many" also doesn't go along with the Modernists' program of universal salvation either.  It's not accidental that the words of Christ were changed.  It is also a blasphemy.

The Bible says that Christ died for all: "For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus: Who gave himself a redemption for all, a testimony in due times." 1 Timothy 2:5-6 Douay Rheims

So what is your definition of blasphemy, exactly?

Sufficiency and efficacy have already been mentioned.  That verse from the first epistle to Timothy refers to the former, not the latter.  Can non-Catholics receive the sacrament?  There—you have your answer.  Pro multis.

Yeah, of course not. But I can't imagine every English priest is blaspheming in an NO consecration.

Why not?

Why not indeed. Regardless what the latin says, the NO service, along with the mistranslation, is said in the vernacular anyway. The vernacular says "for all" for the last 45 years already but the latin says "pro multis", and NOers have no problem with that? Folks, at best, the consecration at the NO is doubtful. For Catholics, that means you are bound by Church law to avoid it like the blasphemy it may well be - it DOES NOT mean you go and hope for the best.

As I understand it, a year from now the NO Bishops, being right on top of this mistranslation situation, are going to jump right in there after voting to make the vernacular match the latin....what a joke. This alone should serve to prove that the words of consecration have no more meaning in the NO service that anything else in the NO.

Fr. Wathen explains The new form of Consecration  in the NO in clear detail and it should be a must read for whoever attends the NO *before* they go to their next NO mass.

Reply
#27
(12-12-2010, 07:18 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:
(12-12-2010, 06:56 PM)Stubborn Wrote: lol - yes, I saw where the Bishops voted to make it say "for many" again.

How the heck can they vote on the words of Our Lord I wonder?

Well, the words of Our Lord were probably uttered in Aramaic, written down years later in Greek (or possibly, in the case of Matthew, Hebrew later translated into Greek), then translated into Latin, and finally into English. So what they're really voting on is a multi-level translation. I'd be interested to know what the most accurate translation is of the original Hebrew/Greek. Having said that, though, I just looked at 8 different English translations of the NT (including the "modernist" New American Bible), and they all translate it as "for many" (Matthew and Mark) or "for you" (Luke). "For all" is not to be found. So there does seem to be a consensus on that.      :)     So I'm willing to accept that putting "for all" in the NO constitutes evidence of an agenda.

If my memory serves, there is only one translation of the Holy Bible that has been proclaimed by the Church to be free of error, and that is the Latin Vulgate--and in the Vulgate, there are no Latin words that can be reasonably construed in another language to mean "for all."

And of  course the use of "for all" constitutes evidence of an agenda:  For all = Universal Salvation (read: Protestantism)
Reply
#28
(12-17-2010, 06:46 PM)ripmarcel Wrote: If my memory serves, there is only one translation of the Holy Bible that has been proclaimed by the Church to be free of error, and that is the Latin Vulgate.

So, when the error-free Vulgate was translated from the Septuagint and the Jewish Old Testament, did St. Jerome correctly translate the errors from the LXX into the Vulgate, or did he correct the errors in the Septuagint before translating?  If he changed the errors, how did he know they were errors to begin with?
Reply
#29
Stubborn,
Thank you for the article; I was not aware about that particular decision of the Holy Office.
Reply
#30
You're welcome.

I was unaware as well.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)