The translation of "pro multis" as "for many" vs. "for all"
#31
(12-17-2010, 07:17 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(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?

Decree of the Council of Trent :

"Moreover, the same holy council considering that not a little advantage will accrue to the Church of God if it be made known which of all the Latin editions of the sacred books now in circulation is to be regarded as authentic, ordains and declares that the old Latin Vulgate Edition, which, in use for so many hundred years, has been approved by the Church, be in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions held as authentic, and that no one dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it.
Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions, presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation, has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published."

Seems to me, then, that the use of "for all," cannot be attributed in any way to Scripture, and thus is contrary to the "true sense" of that holy book and the "unanimous teaching"  of the fathers of Trent.  To be blunt, I'd say that "for all" was made up from the proverbial thin air.
Reply
#32
(12-18-2010, 01:19 AM)ripmarcel Wrote:
(12-17-2010, 07:17 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(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?

Decree of the Council of Trent :

"Moreover, the same holy council considering that not a little advantage will accrue to the Church of God if it be made known which of all the Latin editions of the sacred books now in circulation is to be regarded as authentic, ordains and declares that the old Latin Vulgate Edition, which, in use for so many hundred years, has been approved by the Church, be in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions held as authentic, and that no one dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it.
Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions, presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation, has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published."

Seems to me, then, that the use of "for all," cannot be attributed in any way to Scripture, and thus is contrary to the "true sense" of that holy book and the "unanimous teaching"  of the fathers of Trent.  To be blunt, I'd say that "for all" was made up from the proverbial thin air.

So, do you have an answer to the question I actually asked?  I wasn't challenging the veracity of the vulgate.  I was simply thinking logically.  The vulgate can only be inerrant if its source, the lxx, is likewise inerrant.  Yet, if Rome is saying that the vulgate is the only inerrant translation, how then did it escape the errors contained in the lxx?
Reply
#33
(12-17-2010, 07:17 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(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?

It is free of doctrinal error, not translation errors.  He corrected errors mainly in the Old Latin, which was the Latin version of Scripture before the Vulgate.  The Old Latin, for example, didn't translate directly from the Hebrew for the OT.

He knew of errors based on scholarship, living in the Holy Lands, talking to Rabbis, etc.

CE has a good article on versions of the Bible and a few paragraphs on the Vulgate:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm

Quote:Their circulation with other Latin versions led to increasing uncertainties as to a standard text and caused the Fathers of the Council of Trent to declare that the Vulgate alone was to be held as "authentic in public readings, discourses, and disputes, and that nobody might dare or presume to reject it on any pretence" (Sess. IV, decr. de editione et usu sacrorum librorum). By this declaration the Council, without depreciating the Hebrew or the Septuagint or any other version then in circulation and without forbidding the original texts, approved the Vulgate and enjoined its public and official use as a text free from error in doctrine and morals.
Reply
#34
(12-18-2010, 07:43 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(12-17-2010, 07:17 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(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?

It is free of doctrinal error, not translation errors.  He corrected errors mainly in the Old Latin, which was the Latin version of Scripture before the Vulgate.  The Old Latin, for example, didn't translate directly from the Hebrew for the OT.

He knew of errors based on scholarship, living in the Holy Lands, talking to Rabbis, etc.

CE has a good article on versions of the Bible and a few paragraphs on the Vulgate:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm

Quote:Their circulation with other Latin versions led to increasing uncertainties as to a standard text and caused the Fathers of the Council of Trent to declare that the Vulgate alone was to be held as "authentic in public readings, discourses, and disputes, and that nobody might dare or presume to reject it on any pretence" (Sess. IV, decr. de editione et usu sacrorum librorum). By this declaration the Council, without depreciating the Hebrew or the Septuagint or any other version then in circulation and without forbidding the original texts, approved the Vulgate and enjoined its public and official use as a text free from error in doctrine and morals.

Ok, so was trent saying that the vulgate was error free and just remained silent on the septuagint and hebrew version, or was it saying that the vulgate alone contains no theological errors?  If the latter, how would St. Jerome have kept theological errors out, even with having studied in the holy land, since at the time the jews were already apostate?  I still don't understand how he could have made a theologically error free translation without having a theologically error free source to translate from.
Reply
#35
Melkite, what's your deal?

Trent infallibly declared the Vulgate was free from error. Do you deny the infallibility of Trent?
Reply
#36
(12-18-2010, 10:48 AM)Stubborn Wrote: Melkite, what's your deal?

Trent infallibly declared the Vulgate was free from error. Do you deny the infallibility of Trent?

No, I don't deny it.  What my deal is is it sounds like Trent is saying this perfect vulgate is perfect in isolation.  If it didn't receive its perfection from the sources that preceded it, then the only other perfection it could have received was directly from God.  Since we believe that certain prots are nuts for believing the kjv descended from heaven in perfection, I doubt the infallible trent was implying virtually the same thing about the vulgate.  So, since that's not what trent meant, what then did it mean?. Do you have an answer for that, or is your only answer to question my catholicity for merely daring to ask for clarification?
Reply
#37
Trent seems clear enough......the Vulgate is free from error in doctrine and morals.

Why worry about what St. Jerome did, did not do or why he did what he did? Bestter to be glad he did what he did and be done with it no?
Reply
#38
(12-18-2010, 11:19 AM)Stubborn Wrote: Trent seems clear enough......the Vulgate is free from error in doctrine and morals.

Why worry about what St. Jerome did, did not do or why he did what he did? Bestter to be glad he did what he did and be done with it no?

Because I'm an inquisitive person.  I don't trust things blindly.  If the Church teaches the vulgate is free of error in doctrine and morals, I want to know why it teaches it.  If I don't have the answer it remains an open question in my mind.  There isn't one Catholic teaching I accept because the Church says so, and this one won't be the first.  I accept Catholic teaching because in every instance, I've used reason and found the Catholic teaching to be true.  But, unlike Scott Hahn, I don't say, 'well, the Church has been right every time before, it must be right this time too' and then drop it.  The church has to prove it to me, each and every time.  And based on its track record, I fully expect it will prove it to me, or already has proven it and I'm just not aware of it.  But to me, the Church's word alone is not good as gold.
Reply
#39
Well, if you read what Trent said - you either accept it or you're anathema. No other power on earth has such authority.
Reply
#40
(12-17-2010, 03:15 AM)Stubborn Wrote:
(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.

This is what I don't think you guys have clearly explained: how can something being doubtful be the same as something blasphemous? That's not the same thing at all.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)