Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« Mitt & Rudy | Main | Photo Caption »

November 20, 2006

Comments

tim

hee!

Tim J.

Yay! Just one indication that the Barque of Peter is turning - albeit slowly - in the right direction.

Jason

of course, "For many" is not an exclusive expression, and what is actually meant by it is expressed in the catechism #605.

Patricio Acevedo

It seems this was a worldwide instruction, not for current translations efforts only. Does this mean all translations must be revised?

Anathema sit!

It is quite the shame that the letter does not conclude with a warning that any bishop or priest who refuses the instruction will be anathema.

Rosemarie

+J.M.J+

Like I said on another blog, this is great! I was disappointed when I read the "leaked" draft of the translation and saw the "for all" retained. Finally, they'll be forced to change it. Thanks be to God!

In Jesu et Maria,

jswranch

Any chance the USCCB meeting will make any changes soon? How long will this take?

Arieh

"Any chance the USCCB meeting will make any changes soon? How long will this take?"

--Must...resist...sarcasm...

I would say one would be well advised, out of respect for one's life, to not hold one's breath...

Pseudomodo

Is this instruction binding on All Bishops or just MANY?? :)

kaneohe

RE: Does this mean all translations must be revised?

The current in use French translation of the Eucharistic Prayer reads "..qui sera verse pour vous et pour la multitude en remission..."
( sorry, I know the above is missing two accents but I never figure out how to get them on my computer)

Anyway the word "multitude" in French is tranlated in English as many, a mass of - it is never understood or translated as "all" - (Fr. tout, toute, toutes, tous)

So from this I gather the French tranlation is compliant.

What about other languages? Anybody have info on what they presently read?

kaneohe

I also seem to be mssing an "s' - where are those bi-focals...squint squint \:)

Ed Peters

Yes. Fine. Really. But this is all still a lot of hoopla for getting right something that I expect my beginning Latin students to get right by the end of Collins, Primer, Chapter 4.

Arieh

I think most Romantic languages have a fairly faithful rendering of the Latin. I know that French, Spanish, and Italian all don't have the "for all" or "and also with you" type of errors. It seems mostly Germanic languages that went screwy (from what I have seen) because I know that the German translation has "for all".

Patricio Acevedo

Spanish: Que será derramada por vosotros y por todos los hombres, para el perdón de los pecados. At least in Chile.

"Y con tu espíritu" We got that right.

Esau

"Y con tu espíritu" We got that right.

I think (please correct me if I am wrong) that it may be only the English that doesn't have it as "and also with your spirit"; which I believe will soon have its correction in the next two years as well.

Jimmy Akin

Italian does have "for all"--"per tutti."

German also has it.

And "y por todos los hombres"? That's worse than the English!

Kudos on "Y con tu espiritu," though!

Esau

Thanks Jimmy! I was really curious about this! ;^)

Esau

"y por todos los hombres"?

I wonder why it was translated into this???
That one's certainly strange!

Anyone know?

DWB

When the revised translations come about, will the Spanish and other languages also conform to the Latin?
In the meantime, should our celebrants amend "por todos los hombres" to "hombres y mujeres"? :-)

Pax tecum.

Randy

If the french translations are right then it can hardly be a big deal. You would be hard pressed to find problems in the Catholic church that are not worse in Quebec and France than they are in the US and English Canada. It makes me think this won't change much. Even the rad trad problem is worse in France. They have a schism with a better translation.

Dan's Dad

The missal of Pope St Pius the V use's Pro Multis,and has for a number of years,so I am told. In Hoc Signo.

Matt McDonald

it can hardly be a big deal

Mahoney won't even assent to the english which says not to use glass chalices, and you expect him to assent to the "for many"???

Why do you think that Cdl. Arinze had to write yet another letter saying "no" to the USCCB on this question, if it wasn't such a big deal to them?

Matt

criscoball

Actually, "y por todos los hombres" sounds like the original English from 1970, before the revision of 1974. That translation had "...for you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven." Those poor mujeres.

Leo

The literal translation is 'for many'. The 'explanatory' translation is 'for all'.

Most instructed Catholics should have no personal difficulty with either rendering, although they might have a reasoned preference.

My concern is a pastoral/media one for the English speaking world; where many (especially an hostile media) will see this as exclusivity or 'closing the doors of heaven'. It will take some unnecessary effort to explain all this to a hostile media.

Esau

Most instructed Catholics should have no personal difficulty with either rendering...

Thanks Leo!

I was just pointing that out in the other thread:

Obviously, “for all” in Latin is pro omnibus and, for the words of consecration, pro multis, which is "for many", was said throughout the Latin Church for many years.

Yet, those words, “This is the Cup of My Blood given up for All” or “… for the Many”, there are actually 2 truths that are being communicated at that point:

(1) "for the Many" - meaning that the Mass is not for everyone. It’s only for those who are in the State of Grace in union with the Catholic Church. In that sense, it’s referring to the Fruit of the Mass that is for the Family alone in the context of our Passover Sacrifice and that’s why “Many” is used in the Tridentine Mass in the Latin because that is an essential truth that is being communicated.

However, there is another level of meaning to those same words; i.e. the Mass is also for everyone.
Christ died – and I think this is a very important point because if you don’t acknowledge this, you end up a Jansenist who says that Christ didn’t die for everyone – and so with the “For All”, that Truth (i.e., "Christ died for All") is being communicated. This does not contradict what the Catechism of Trent says. This does not contradict what the Tridentine Mass was communicating in the Latin or the Novus Ordo. It is simply bringing out different levels of meaning here.

We have to remember that when we’re talking about Scripture, which is really what is being quoted here in the Liturgy, there are different levels; there are many levels of understanding to a particular text.

I could give you an example: Psalm 2:7 refers prophetically to Jesus.

It says, “Thou are my Son; this Day I have begotten Thee.”

Well, Hebrews 1:5 uses that verse to demonstrate the eternal generation of the Son, eternally begotten of the Father.
Whereas if you go to Acts 13, Paul uses that same text to demonstrate the Resurrection: Christ is begotten from the Dead. In Hebrew 5:5, the writer to the Hebrews uses that same text, “Thou art my Son; this Day I have begotten Thee” for the eternal priesthood of Christ, the Melchizedek priesthood. So, the same verse of Scripture has different levels of meaning. Just because we apply it in a particular way in one verse doesn’t mean that the other meanings somehow go away.

Esau

Corrigendum:

I could give you an example:

Psalm 2:7 refers prophetically to Jesus.

It says, “Thou art my Son; this Day I have begotten Thee.”

Esau

Corrigendum:

(1) "for the Many" - meaning that the Mass is not for everyone. It’s only for those who are in the State of Grace in union with the Catholic Church. In that sense, it’s referring to the Fruit of the Mass that is for the Family alone in the context of our Passover Sacrifice and that’s why “Many” is used in the Tridentine Mass in the Latin because that is an essential truth that is being communicated.

(2) "for all" - however, there is another level of meaning to those same words; i.e. the Mass is also for everyone.

Christ died – and I think this is a very important point because if you don’t acknowledge this, you end up a Jansenist who says that Christ didn’t die for everyone – and so with the “For All”, that Truth (i.e., "Christ died for All") is being communicated. This does not contradict what the Catechism of Trent says. This does not contradict what the Tridentine Mass was communicating in the Latin or the Novus Ordo. It is simply bringing out different levels of meaning here.

Puzzled

pantwn anthropwn, pantwn cosmwn.

interested in liturgy

A layman named Steve Mahowald (who makes videos of Tridentine Masses) uploaded a homemade two part documentary to YouTube which looks at various controversies surrounding the Novus Ordo Mass and the old Latin Mass.

He titled it "Reform or Revolt? The Mass of Paul VI"

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxx1ZRMpfk8
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzjN5Dbr0kA


It really fascinated me, and though I caught a few factual foibles or over-simplifications (based on my own reading), I felt at the end like he had shed some new light on the subject.

But I just don't know what to make of it all, and was wondering if other readers here would take a look. Is this something to share with friends and family (especially young persons) who are trying to understand the present situation with regard to Catholic liturgy, art, and architecture as found in many American parishes? Or is Mr. Mahowald painting an unfair picture of the liturgical reforms following Vatican II?

There were a few points where I was ready to judge him, or his presentation, as "rad-trad", but then he will pull the information into a context that seems to give a balanced view, even if he's obviously in favor of the TLM.

Since this blog entry is about the liturgy and liturgical controversies, I thought commenters here might be especially interested in providing feedback on this video, which has my head spinning around a bit. Thanks, friends.

This same guy has also uploaded one his videos of a Tridentine Low Mass:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2RqEUhGnKw

Rev. Hunter

The Remnant magazine has a great article on thier webste by Christipher Ferrara about the pro multis correction.
God Bless Pope Benedict.

Ian

I am pretty sure that Aquinas addressed the issue of why for many was used in the Mass instead of for all. But hey, what did he know?

Esau

I am pretty sure that Aquinas addressed the issue of why for many was used in the Mass instead of for all. But hey, what did he know?

Gee, St. Paul in 1st Timothy Chapter 2:3-4 said the following (but, hey, he was only an Apostle)!

1 Timothy 2:3-4

3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour,
4 Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.


Just as Leo said: Most instructed Catholics should have no personal difficulty with either rendering...


Also, again, as I mentioned:

Obviously, “for all” in Latin is pro omnibus and, for the words of consecration, pro multis, which is "for many", was said throughout the Latin Church for many years.

Yet, those words, “This is the Cup of My Blood given up for All” or “… for the Many”, there are actually 2 truths that are being communicated at that point:

(1) "for the Many" - meaning that the Mass is not for everyone. It’s only for those who are in the State of Grace in union with the Catholic Church. In that sense, it’s referring to the Fruit of the Mass that is for the Family alone in the context of our Passover Sacrifice and that’s why “Many” is used in the Tridentine Mass in the Latin because that is an essential truth that is being communicated.

(2) "for all" - however, there is another level of meaning to those same words; i.e. the Mass is also for everyone.

Christ died – and I think this is a very important point because if you don’t acknowledge this, you end up a Jansenist who says that Christ didn’t die for everyone – and so with the “For All”, that Truth (i.e., "Christ died for All") is being communicated. This does not contradict what the Catechism of Trent says. This does not contradict what the Tridentine Mass was communicating in the Latin or the Novus Ordo. It is simply bringing out different levels of meaning here.

We have to remember that when we’re talking about Scripture, which is really what is being quoted here in the Liturgy, there are different levels; there are many levels of understanding to a particular text.


I could give you an example:

Psalm 2:7 refers prophetically to Jesus.

It says, “Thou art my Son; this Day I have begotten Thee.”

Well, Hebrews 1:5 uses that verse to demonstrate the eternal generation of the Son: eternally begotten of the Father.

Whereas if you go to Acts 13, Paul uses that same text to demonstrate the Resurrection: Christ is begotten from the Dead.

In Hebrew 5:5, the writer to the Hebrews uses that same text, “Thou art my Son; this Day I have begotten Thee” for the eternal priesthood of Christ: the Melchizedek priesthood.

So, the same verse of Scripture has different levels of meaning. Just because we apply it in a particular way in one verse doesn’t mean that the other meanings somehow go away.

Rev. Hunter

Next is the change of the Creed's,"one in being with the Father to the more accurate "Consubstantial with the Father".
Our Holy Father will soon bring this other most imperative statement of truth to the fore.

Esau

"Consubstantial with the Father".

I'd look forward to that since it matches the Latin: consubstantialem Patri

Although, there were arguments actually made for the Filoque clause in the Creed to change and render it amenable to the Orthodox Church for the sake of unity.

As much as I yearn for re-unification with the Orthodox Church, I would not travel this route.

Joyce Stolberg

Jesus actually spoke in Aramaic, an ancient Semitic language. Have biblical linguistic exergetes traced the literary context and meaning of the phrase back from the Latin Vulgate through the Greek to the original spoken Aramaic? Read the footnote in the NAB on Matt. 20:28.

Puzzled

Joyce,
Jesus grew up a carpenter's 'son' in a Jewish village next to a major Greek colony called Sephoris. The Greeks would have been major customers. He spoke Greek. Everyone in Judah and Galilee did. It was the common tongue, the administrative tongue of the Empire, everybody spoke it. In synagogue it might have been Aramaic or even Hebrew when the Scriptures were actually being read, and probably Aramaic at home, but everybody spoke Greek on a day-to-day basis.

Since the inerrant New Testament was given by the Holy Spirit in Greek, trying to "go back" to Aramaic is not only problematic in terms of getting an accurate translation, but fails to take into account which ones are the very words of God.

Michael

Jesus actually spoke in Aramaic, an ancient Semitic language. Have biblical linguistic exergetes traced the literary context and meaning of the phrase back from the Latin Vulgate through the Greek to the original spoken Aramaic?

You can read a brief excerpt from an interlinear translation of the Peshitta here. The Peshitta is a translation of the Bible into Aramaic. Notice that the word for "many" (saggi'an) is used, not the word for "all" (kol).

Esau

Puzzled:

What Joyce Stolberg was referring to was the following found in the NAB footnotes:

The liberation brought by Jesus' death will be for many; cf Isaiah 53:12. Many does not mean that some are excluded, but is a Semitism designating the collectivity who benefit from the service of the one, and is equivalent to "all." While there are few verbal contacts between this saying and the fourth Servant Song (Isaiah 52:13-53:12), the ideas of that passage are the LXX of God's liberating Israel from Egypt or from Babylonia after the Exile; see Exodus 6:6; 15:13; Psalm 77:16 (76 LXX); Isaiah 43:1; 44:22.

Now, in this case since:
(1) It came from the NAB
(2) Because it deals with Aramaic

I would, therefore, defer to Jimmy Akin on this matter.

Esau

Corrigendum:

Puzzled:

What Joyce Stolberg was referring to was the following found in the NAB footnotes:

The liberation brought by Jesus' death will be for many; cf Isaiah 53:12. Many does not mean that some are excluded, but is a Semitism designating the collectivity who benefit from the service of the one, and is equivalent to "all." While there are few verbal contacts between this saying and the fourth Servant Song (Isaiah 52:13-53:12), the ideas of that passage are reflected here.

Now, in this case since:
(1) It came from the NAB
(2) Because it deals with Semitism

I would, therefore, defer to Jimmy Akin on this matter.

John

The question is why has this even take over 40 years to be corrected, or why was this sneaked in the first place? Was this another attempt at ecumenism and that all can be saved even non Catholics?

St. Alphonsus Liguori, a Doctor of the Church, explains this very clearnly and confirmed by St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catechism of the Council of Trent and I quote:

'The words Pro vobis et pro multis (For you and for many) are used to distinguish the virtue of the Blood of Christ from its fruits: for the Blood of our Saviour is of sufficient value to save all men, but its fruits are applicable only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault. Or, as the theologians say, this precious Blood is (in itself) sufficiently (sufficienter) able to save all men, but (on our part) effectually (efficaciter) it does not save all - it saves only those who cooperate with grace'(Treatise on the Holy Eucharist).

Bringing this into the modern age, Pope Benedict XIV declared that teaching (of the Council of Trent) 'explains correctly' Christ's use of 'for many' as opposed to 'for all'(De Sacrosanctae Missae Sacrificio). In view of the constant teaching of the Church, this change from many to all cannot be accidental. (The Latin original of the NOM still uses multis, but how often does one hear the new 'mass' in Latin? Moreover this mistranslation occurs in almost all the vernacular versions: German: fur allen; Italian, tutti; and in French, the vague word multitude. In Polish, for some reason, 'many' is retained.)

Given all this, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the heresy of many of our 'separated brethren' such as the Anabaptists, the Moravian Brethren, the Christodelphans, Rationalistic Protestants, Universalists and Teilhardians -namely, the false notion that all men will be saved.

This was not a mistake, but an obvious attempt as was the entire council to not offend the Christian churches and to bring the liturgy more in line with their Protestant views. This is a fact and documented and for some reason it brings out hostility when one suggests it, but if it was not the intent, then why allow all of these "observers" to review schema after schema including that on the liturgy and accept their comments as the council fathers were so willing to do?

Phil M.

"Gee, St. Paul in 1st Timothy Chapter 2:3-4 said the following (but, hey, he was only an Apostle)!"

Gee, Jesus in Mark 14:24 and Matthew 26:28 said "for many" (but, hey, He's the messiah and second person of the Trinity)

Annon

Hearing a homily Sunday where not only "being" instead of "same substance" but also where the Incarnation of the Word is reduced to being 'that which we celebrate of every coming of the Word to us in our friends comforting us' With the point being that that is unimportant, the important thing is that anyone coming to befriend you is the incarnation of the Word. Not merely Jesus working through someone, but the actual incarnation of the Word.

Well. . . .

Esau

Gee, Jesus in Mark 14:24 and Matthew 26:28 said "for many" (but, hey, He's the messiah and second person of the Trinity)

Okay, then I guess Christ didn't die for all.

Thanks Phil M. for teaching me this!

Esau

This was not a mistake, but an obvious attempt as was the entire council to not offend the Christian churches and to bring the liturgy more in line with their Protestant views.

JOHN:
I think it seems Phil M. agrees with you as well.

More and more, I become convinced that Vatican II was nothing more than a mere invention devised by the liberal factions of the Church and the true Church ceased to exist by 1962.

Esau

I think people are mistaking something here.

The fact that just because it was changed to "for all" it meant that everyone will be saved and will go to Heaven.

Obviously, this is not the case as Matthew 25 tell us (among other passages in Scripture).

However, we must not loose our grip on reality and immerse ourselves in such overreactions in that we start seeing a rogue cleric in every shadow and suddenly accuse those who are actually faithful clergy of the Church as a Judas Isariot.

We must remember that Christ died for all. Not to say, that all will be saved and go to Heaven -- that's something entirely up to individuals actually accepting God's gift of Salvation and acting as a true child of God, following the commandments, receiving grace through the Sacraments, etc.

Dan's Dad

It always has continued to exist,it is just taking a bludgeoning from men of ill will working
with Satan.
Tradition will triumph.
God Bless our Holy Father.

Esau

It always has continued to exist,it is just taking a bludgeoning from men of ill will working
with Satan.

The above just all the more corroborates my point.

Vatican II Council did not consist of folks who were working with Satan.

Dan's Dad

Schillebeekx,DeChardin,Kung
Read the Ottoviani Intervention,it is enlightening..."The people at no time asked that the liturgy should be CHANGED or MUTILATED so that they might understand it better.What they did ask was that they might have a better understanding of a liturgy which was immutable and which they would never want altered
Thus the "normative"Mass,which is offered anew to us as the Novus Ordo Missae,was rejected in it's substance by the Episcopal Synod;the Novus Ordo itself has never been submitted to the collective judgment of the Conferences;no reform of ANY kind of the Holy Mass has been asked for by the people.This being so,we fail to comprehend the reasons for the new legislation which overthrows a tradition that has survived unchanged since the 4th-5th centuries,as the Constitution itself recognizes.There seems to be no RATIONAL foundation for the reform to justify it,or make it acceptable to the Catholic people.

The above is a portion of the critical study OF The Novus Ordo Missae sent to Pope PaulVI by Cardinals Ottoviani and Bacci.

Esau

survived unchanged since the 4th-5th centuries

Please!

Clearly, you didn't read the Catholic Encyclopedia at all on this!

Esau

Well, if Christ didn't say, "It will be shed for you and for all, so that sins may be forgiven," then I've been in the wrong religion all my life. Consummatum est. Either He atoned for Man without exception, or He didn't. There is no gray area.


Phil M. already provided the proof texts in the bible above.

Don't you know, Christ did not die for all; only some!

Phil M.

"Okay, then I guess Christ didn't die for all.

Thanks Phil M. for teaching me this!"

To quote Beavis and Butthead: "uuhhh..what..?"

Esau, I was merely providing a biblical perspective over the "many" vs "all" issue DURING THE CONSECRATION, by pointing out Christ's own words in the scriptures. I never said His sacrifice wasn't for all, I didn't mean to imply anything other that "many" is what is recorded at the last supper during the blessing of the cup, so let's go with that during the consecration.

Esau

Esau, I was merely providing a biblical perspective over the "many" vs "all" issue DURING THE CONSECRATION, by pointing out Christ's own words in the scriptures. I never said His sacrifice wasn't for all, I didn't mean to imply anything other that "many" is what is recorded at the last supper during the blessing of the cup, so let's go with that during the consecration.

My apologies, Phil M.

It's just I get tired of folks putting down clergy in the manner that some who are so anti-VII do -- especially those priests who are actually faithful stewards of the Church.

I mean, for these people to condemn these faithful priests, those who were at Vatican II as well as those who continue its work today in the proper context under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to have these innocents condemned along with the rogue clergy out there (the ones who are, in fact, the guilty party) those who are truly and actually destroying the Liturgy of the Church and its Tradition, it's just plainly wrong.

Phil M

I accept Esau, and I agree with what you've said above about people being overly critical to those trying to be faithful to the Vatican. BTW, I love the VII documents, and I love the Novus Ordo (when done by the book, I prefer it to the Tridentine).

Esau

Thanks, Phil M.!

...when done by the book, I prefer it to the Tridentine

Excellent point, here!

I actually have an equal admiration for both.

Yet, I would have an even greater admiration for the Novus Ordo, except for this fact that you've rightly alluded to here.

God bless you, buddy!

John

Esau
I know we have disagreed, but I have never said the church disappeared after 1962, but to close your eyes to the infiltration of modernistic and self directed thought and influence that crept into the church in the 20th and 21st centuries, with Popes such as Pius X, Leo XIII and Pius XII as well as Pius IX sylabus of errors-then to all be disregarded with one felt swoop (but for some reason a universal indult needs a majority when the new mass was implemented overnight), then you are only fooling yourself after the council all of what these men taught are disregarded and basically countered by the likes of Pope JPII.

If the church did not change, and is the same church as she was before the council, why would she have needed to change such bastions as :

The Mass
The code of canon law
The catechism
The retranslation of the bible
Changing both form and Matter off ALL of the sacraments
Practices and customs of the church
ETC ETC

Was the church so bad before the council that it needed even the sacraments to be changed? Did the ordination rite of a priest need to be changed or was it the first step to making them in line with a Protestant Minister?

The church has changed as has its direction. Watching EWTN and Raymond Arroyo last evening and listening to Bishop Burke of St Louis who is a GREAT Bishop speak to Skylard and others as to why the new paper or whatever it is called (by the way they said during the conference that these papers that come out of these USCCB meetings have no authority and it still reverts back to the Bishop) as to why they would not as Bishops unite, as clearly defined in Canon 915 to not give communion to those that do not follow church policy, but the other bishops would not listen to him

Then they went over the budget, the monies we put into the basket and you would not belive where millions of our dollars from the church go to, groups like ACORN (If you live in NYC you know what their agenda is and were recently indicted) and millions of other dollars to non Catholic even pro abortion liberal groups

Something serious is amiss here, with a few good men like Bishop Burke and Bruskiewicz of Nebraska still out there,and yes, the neo cons and trads who will once again restore to christ all things that belong to him

Inocencio

John,

You win! You have the biggest hobby horse of all. Now kindly keep it at home and not here.

Do you at least realize you say the same thing over and over and over...

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Dan's Dad

Esau,
That statement about the Church's tradition surviving intact from the 4th and 5th century was made by His Eminence Cardinal Ottoviani,In his plea to Pope PaulVI to not create a new order of Mass.
I would make the healthy assumption that His Emminence is slightly more erudite on matters of the history of the Sacred Liturgy than you or I are.
What Trent did was codify an ancient rite that had organically stood in place since the days the archbishop of England, St. Augustine.Organically is the operative word here.
Whatever you think of the Novus Ordo Missae,it was not an ORGANIC development from the previous rite.This is just a fact.
Again I REPEAT the statement was made by His Eminence Cardinal Ottoviani.Take it up withe His Bishopric if you know better than His Eminence.You might be smarter than all.I do not know.

Inocencio

Dan's Dad,

"the Novus Ordo itself has never been submitted to the collective judgment of the Conferences;no reform of ANY kind of the Holy Mass has been asked for by the people"

Do you honestly believe that "the people" or "conferences" made the decision when Pope Pius V promulgated the Tridentine Rite?

Can they ask? Yes. Do they have the authority to make the decision? No.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Michael

John,

You win! You have the biggest hobby horse of all. Now kindly keep it at home and not here.

Do you at least realize you say the same thing over and over and over...

As an only occasional visitor to this blog, I hadn't read John's comments before. I appreciate what he wrote.

The themes of reconnecting with our Church's living history and the need for reform where corruption has crept in are themes worth repeating many times.

Inocencio

Michael,

Jimmy has warned John twice about riding his hobby horse through his blog. He basically says the same thing in every post.

"The themes of reconnecting with our Church's living history and the need for reform where corruption has crept in are themes worth repeating many times."

Agreed, as long as we do not assume an authority we do not have.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Dan's Dad

Innocencio,
Again take this up wiyh the Ottoviani Intervention.The good Cardinal wrote it.
My thought on this would be that,the knowledge that the laity have a holy devoyion to what is efficacious was never even considered by the individuals who forced the New Order on all the faithful.
Both my mom and dad remember the abrupt and confusing change in both their seperate parishes in 1969 when itwas introduced.
In both their cases it was thrust upon them with ZERO explanation,just "this is how the Mass is to be celebrated".This is not pastoral.
In both my mother and fathers case almost all of the parishioners where confused an very upset.They did not see a need for any change in the Sacred Liturgy.But I guess the Tridentine Mass was tragically flawed and all those lay idiots did not know it.
One realizes that Holy Mother Church is not a hierarchy and rightly so,but the salvation of lay souls was not even considered by many churches,not to mention anyones holy sensibilities.
Us idiot lemmings must toe the line,come what may.
Again Innocencio,you speak of the words of Cardinal Ottoviani.
There was no need for anyone to complain about Pope ST. Pius V decision's on the Tridentine Mass,simply because it was not an inorganic rupture with the previous liturgical norms.
Take care and God Bless
Pope Benedict

Inocencio

Dan's Dad,

Both my mom and dad remember the abrupt and confusing change in both their seperate parishes in 1969 when it was introduced. In both their cases it was thrust upon them with ZERO explanation,just "this is how the Mass is to be celebrated"

This is exaclty the problem and Pope Paul VI asked for repeated explanation of the changes. It is very sad that your parents and others did not receive proper implementation of the new rite.

There was no need for anyone to complain about Pope ST. Pius V decision's on the Tridentine Mass,simply because it was not an inorganic rupture with the previous liturgical norms.

And what about the rites that were less than two hundred years old at the time? There was no need to complain because once the decision is made by the pope we accept it.

One realizes that Holy Mother Church is not a hierarchy and rightly so

I have no idea what you meant? The Church is a hierarchy established by Christ Himself.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Dan's Dad

My apologies on that last statement.I meant The Church is not a democracy,and rightly so.Mea Culpa.
God Bless Pope Benedict.

Rosemarie

+J.M.J+

Dan's Dad: Did you know that the Ottoviani Intervention was written about an earlier draft of the new Mass, not the final draft? When the final draft was officially promulgated, the Cardinal said he was satisfied with it. See:

In Defense of the Pauline Mass
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html (scroll down to the third part)

Puzzled wrote:
>>>He spoke Greek. Everyone in Judah and Galilee did. It was the common tongue, the administrative tongue of the Empire, everybody spoke it. In synagogue it might have been Aramaic or even Hebrew when the Scriptures were actually being read, and probably Aramaic at home, but everybody spoke Greek on a day-to-day basis.

While you are correct insofar as Greek was the "esperanto" of the Roman Empire (so to speak), Jews living in Israel most likely spoke Greek only when dealing with foreigners. Whenever they spoke amongst themselves, in public or private, they surely used their native tongue, Aramaic.

We see glimpses of Jesus' original Aramaic in the Gospels: Talitha koum, Ephphrata, Eli Eli lamah sabachthani... etc. Also, the fact that Peter was called Kephas - Aramaic for "Rock" - imdicates the popular use of Aramaic among Jesus' followers.

(Besides, I rather doubt that Our Lord would have used Greek during a Jewish religious festival such as the Passover Seder. Since the "for many" statement in question was spoken at a Seder, it was most likely spoken in Aramaic.)

>>>Since the inerrant New Testament was given by the Holy Spirit in Greek,

Many early Church Fathers record that the Gospel of St. Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (by which they may have meant Aramaic, BTW).

In Jesu et Maria,

History Unveiled

From Jimmy Akin’s book, Mass Confusion: “According to exegetes, the Aramaic word translated in Latin by pro multis has as its meaning “for all”: the many for whom Christ died is without limit. . . . [I]t is theologically true that Christ shed his blood for all men (1 Tim. 4:10, 1 John 2:2). The claim that he shed his blood only for the elect or only for the faithful was condemned during the Jansenist controversy (Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum 1096, 1294. In biblical idiom, the term ‘many’ is often used as a synonym for ‘all.’…”

Are Cardinal Arinze and Pope Benedict Jansenists now?

Does it hurt to come down on both sides of a controversy?

John

Inocencio

I dont quite know what a hobby horse is, but I only ask if the church and her teachings were and are exactly in line with past teachings and Apostolic intent, why was the following changed:

The Mass
The code of canon law
The catechism
The retranslation of the bible
Changing both form and Matter off ALL of the sacraments
Practices and customs of the church

No one can quite give me the answer as to why the need to change all of the above-was this for "renewal"?

John

Michael

Thank you-Inocencio, Rosemarie (I think they are one and the same) and Esau would probably wish I was dead and silenced by Jimmy-but I only ask simple questions and HAVE to keep repeating them as they are ignored-as what I have simply posed above.

You cant quite keep running away from the truth that the church of today is not the church it was over 50 years ago, what Pope Leo, Pius IX, X and XII warned about and tried to suppress came out like wildfire at the Council with all German periti especially Karl Rahner whom our Holy Father worked under bonding together to get their liberal agendas thru the council.

I can quite understand as Catholics why we would not want to challenge ourselves to take the high road, the most reverent form of worship, true Latin instead of mixed up and politically motivated translations of the most central sacrament-and of course mass-instead of throwing out 35 prayers, changing others, retranslating the mass poorly, and getting rid of kneelers, introduding communion in the hand and EHMC's, etc-adhere to the mass that was handed down from the centuries. What we have now is as close to a Protestant service as one can get. But where are the mass Protestant coversions? Where are the multitude of priests? Where are the overflowing pews?

You cant stip the altars bare and expect our Lord to be happy and to bless the desecration of his church. Where is the tabernacle? When was the last time you saw someone genuflect when they passed the center aisle.

I must say that when I attend my in-laws ceremonies and masses from time to time at a traditional chapel, from the youngest little boy and girl to the oldest-the reverence is amazing and so is their attitude and respect. Compare that to the gum chewing cellphone toting youngster one finds at the Novus Ordo mass

Esau

History Unveiled:

As I had earlier mentioned:

Obviously, “for all” in Latin is pro omnibus and, for the words of consecration, pro multis, which is "for many", was said throughout the Latin Church for many years.

Yet, those words, “This is the Cup of My Blood given up for All” or “… for the Many”, there are actually 2 truths that are being communicated at that point:

(1) "for the Many" - meaning that the Mass is not for everyone. It’s only for those who are in the State of Grace in union with the Catholic Church. In that sense, it’s referring to the Fruit of the Mass that is for the Family alone in the context of our Passover Sacrifice and that’s why “Many” is used in the Tridentine Mass in the Latin because that is an essential truth that is being communicated.

(2) "for all" - however, there is another level of meaning to those same words; i.e. the Mass is also for everyone.

Christ died – and I think this is a very important point because if you don’t acknowledge this, you end up a Jansenist who says that Christ didn’t die for everyone – and so with the “For All”, that Truth (i.e., "Christ died for All") is being communicated. This does not contradict what the Catechism of Trent says. This does not contradict what the Tridentine Mass was communicating in the Latin or the Novus Ordo. It is simply bringing out different levels of meaning here.

We have to remember that when we’re talking about Scripture, which is really what is being quoted here in the Liturgy, there are different levels; there are many levels of understanding to a particular text.

Tim J.

So, "History Unveiled"

Do you imagine that you are the only one who has read "Mass Confusion"?

You courageously (and anonymously) pointed out that Jimmy has in the past defended the use of "for all" in the Eucharistic prayer. SURELY you understand that this does not mean that he thinks it is the best translation or is the one he would personally prefer?

Nowhere does Jimmy claim that "for all" is the superior translation, but only does his job in pointing out that the translation falls well within the bounds of Catholic orthodoxy. It is certainly nothing worthy of protest or schism.

You only caught Jimmy being reasonable again... but reason is scandalous to some, I suppose.

Esau

Michael

Thank you-Inocencio, Rosemarie (I think they are one and the same) and Esau would probably wish I was dead and silenced by Jimmy-but I only ask simple questions and HAVE to keep repeating them as they are ignored-as what I have simply posed above.

Michael:
If you want to be fair and balanced, please go back to the previous threads where all these things were discussed at length by various folks; not only I, Inocencio or Rosemarie, but many others as well.

I am not going to recount all the information presented in those and have them re-listed here once again for the nth time when even doing so would only fall upon deaf ears all over again!

Esau

You courageously (and anonymously) pointed out that Jimmy has in the past defended the use of "for all" in the Eucharistic prayer. SURELY you understand that this does not mean that he thinks it is the best translation or is the one he would personally prefer?

Thanks, Tim J.!

That was the best way to put it!

Esau

JOHN:

Inocencio, Rosemarie (I think they are one and the same)

Just like I think you, JV, Dad's Dad, and Dan Hunter are all the same!

Esau

JOHN:

" introduding communion in the hand" "What we have now is as close to a Protestant service as one can get."

Yes, the Apostles were also 'Protestants' since they received the Lord in the Eucharist with their very bare hands!


"But where are the mass Protestant coversions?"

Uhhhh... Ever heard of the program called "The Journey Home" with Marcus Grodi and the Coming Home Network????


"When was the last time you saw someone genuflect when they passed the center aisle. "

Just last Sunday when I was at Church, in fact!


"...adhere to the mass that was handed down from the centuries."

Read the Catholic Encyclopedia, for goodness sakes (which you, yourself, proclaim to even honor)!

Dan's Dad

Rosemarie,
The Head of The Holy Office,Cardinal Ottoviani,and Cardinal Bacco were commenting on the Novus Ordoe Missae of 1969,since the letter from them was dated from 1969.
Some,though,have claimed that Cardinal Ottoviani in a 17,Feb. 1970 letter,"retracted",his position on the New Order of the Mass.
There is however,a large body of circumstantial evidence which indicates that,if the Cardinal did indeed sign the letter,his signature was obtained fraudulently.The circumstantial evidence all points to the Cardinal's secretary,Msgr.Gilberto Agostoni,as the culprit.Msgr Agostoni,who played an important role in formulating the Ordo Missae,which the Intervention so strongly condemned,had the motive and the opportunity to do the deed.
The Intervention levelled it's charges against the new rite of Mass as well as the 1969 General Instruction.
The General Instruction,as the Intervention pointed out,presents a theology of the Mass which implicitly repudiates Catholic teaching on the Sacrificial character of the Mass,on the role of the priest,on transubstantiation,and many other points.
God Bless all on The Feast of the Presentation of the Blessed Mother.

Inocencio

John,

I dont quite know what a hobby horse is

Then please click this link and read slowly and keep a dictionary handy for the big words.

I only ask if the church and her teachings were and are exactly in line with past teachings and Apostolic intent, why was the following changed

You pretend as though there has only been one:

translation of the bible
rite of the Mass
code of canon law
catechism
set of practices and customs of the Church

You reveal your ignorance of history and the teachings of the Church.

Changing both form and Matter off ALL of the sacraments

ONLY the Church has the right to decide this and not you.

Inocencio, Rosemarie (I think they are one and the same)

I would not call this thinking since we have both said it is not true and we do not know each other than seeing each others comments on this blog. But go ahead keep repeating the lie long enough and you will convince yourself it is true. It will still be a lie even though you "declare" it to be true.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Inocencio

Dan's Dad,

The Intervention levelled it's charges against the new rite of Mass as well as the 1969 General Instruction.

And Pope Paul VI, as I pointed out earlier, answered these charges because he is the one with the authority to do so.

You seem to keep going back and forth on your opinion of the Pauline Rite. Do you consider it valid or does it "implicitly repudiates Catholic teaching on the Sacrificial character of the Mass,on the role of the priest,on transubstantiation"?

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Dan's Dad

Innocencio,
There is no reason,unless it makes one feel superior, to insult someone,with your "hobby horse",fun.
Please permit John to speak his conscience without thwacking everything he says.No matter what is said.
Let Mr. Akin remove his postings if need be,but give leeway to others idea's.
Remember sticks and stones...

Esau

But go ahead keep repeating the lie long enough and you will convince yourself it is true.

Good point, Inocencio!

In fact, anti-Catholic Protestants have done it through the ages and have believed thus since concerning the vile nature of the Catholic Church and its Pope, who is none other than the Anti-Christ!

Now, John, who is the 'Protestant' here?

Inocencio

Dan's Dad,

There is no reason,unless it makes one feel superior, to insult someone,with your "hobby horse",fun.

Hobby horse is Jimmy's term and this is at least the third time I have given John a link to Jimmy's specific post and he keeps claiming to not know what I mean.

Please permit John to speak his conscience without thwacking everything he says

I answer what he says directly and he still accuses me of not answering. Please define "thwacking".

Let Mr. Akin remove his postings if need be,but give leeway to others idea's.

I will gladly give leeway to others ideas and comments. But Jimmy has warned John twice about violating the "hobby horse" rule.

Remember sticks and stones...

If this refers to my dictionary comment, please understand that I wonder if John does not read the comments of others or if he has a reading comprehension problem.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Dan's Dad

Innocencio,
Implicitly repudiates does not mean to make invalid.What it does mean is it tends to make the attempt to contradict a thing in itself without actually making concrete what it sets out to do.
No demonstrative effort was made to invalidate the Pauline Mass,we have Our Saviors promise of this.What did happen whas an unfortunate effort to make the Mass,for some reason more palatable to the protestant liking, as well as an appeal to the younger generation.
How about Lex Orandi,Lex Credendi.The liturgy should be as reverant and awesome as possible.Even when the Novus Ordo is well executed,as in EWTN mass's,it still does not present that stupendously awesome level of visible worship we see and participate in,in the older rites.

Esau

Remember sticks and stones...

If this refers to my dictionary comment, please understand that I wonder if John does not read the comments of others or if he has a reading comprehension problem.


Don't worry, Inocencio.

I thought the same thing as well in past threads, and, at the time, I did not bring it up to him out of spite but rather out of charity since I know folks who have such difficulties, and could need some assistance in handling new information accordingly; which is why, like you, I was even willing to help him to such extent.

I wouldn't mind this being the situation at all in John's case since it would explain greatly why he's failed to comprehend any of the information presented to him in the past by all of us, and why he was unable to respond to them accordingly; thus, his failure to refute them.

John

Esau

I am just going to ignore your personal attacks as I have only placed posts and have not, like you and Inocencio continue to throw names around

And Dans Dad I agree, for some reason they cant seem to present sound doctrine as to why the above has been changed but only pick a little blurb like "Communion in the Hand" which was stopped for a very good reason-Our Lords's body was being abused and if one knows church history,Our Lords body in the early church Our Lord's body was actually taken home and kept in wood boxes, until one day, one "abuser" had his box go on fire. This was then stopped and all eucharists were then distributed on the tongue and consumed immediately. This was strenghtened even further when the Protestants placed it from hand to hand, much like Catholics do today in the NO mass (much less from unconsecrated hands no less!) to deny the real presence of Christ.

One just needs to look at what took place last year when our Lords body was sold on e-bay from the Mass of a Pope no less! The priest as part of his ordination (probably removed from the rite as much of everything else has been) is to protect the sanctity of Our Lord. Instead he is handed over to many who are in grave sin or have evil intentions as thsoe in the group ACT UP! did some years back at St Patricks and threw them on the steps outside for all to see, no different than what the pharisies did some 2000 years back when our Lord was handed over to his death.

Let us not compare what took place in the 1st century when these Apostles were basically "Jesus Jews" and were not even looking to form a new church.

So, getting back to the rest of the post above-why the need to change and have these changes not caused a horrible loss of faith?

translation of the bible
rite of the Mass
code of canon law
catechism
set of practices and customs of the Church

Esau

...for some reason they cant seem to present sound doctrine as to why the above has been changed...

PLEASE GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS THREADS AND R-E-A-D!

When a person only repeats the same thing over and over again, while not listening to their opponent's argument; certainly, how can any such 'sound doctrine' be presented in the first place to him who refuses to even consider (to actually read) that evidence being presented to him!

Inocencio

John,

Let us not compare what took place in the 1st century when these Apostles were basically "Jesus Jews" and were not even looking to form a new church.

You have no idea of Church history or teaching. So when I call you ignorant I am being truthful not name calling.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Inocencio

John,

So, getting back to the rest of the post above-why the need to change

Because the Church guided by the Holy Spirit decided it was best. Do you think you know better than God?

Please, please answer my question.

and have these changes not caused a horrible loss of faith?

No. Those who had such little faith that they believed the Church was not guided by the Holy Spirit during Vatican II didn't have much faith to lose.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J


Inocencio

Dan's Dad,

Implicitly repudiates does not mean to make invalid.

What it does mean is it tends to make the attempt to contradict a thing in itself without actually making concrete what it sets out to do.

What dictionary did you get that defintion from? And your definition doesn't mean invalid? Ok if you say so.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Rosemarie

+J.M.J+

>>>Thank you-Inocencio, Rosemarie (I think they are one and the same)

Umm, you've brought up this silly charge once before, John, and we've both corrected you. But true to form, you didn't listen. Why am I not surprised?

>>>and Esau would probably wish I was dead and silenced by Jimmy-

I don't wish you dead. I didn't even address you in this thread - I addressed Dan's Dad. Are you trying to bait me or something?

(Unless maybe you ARE Dan's Dad after all!)

Well, as long as I'm talking to you, you mentioned "The retranslation of the bible" as a change that you don't understand. Did you know that the "Douay-Rheims" most of us know (the one sold by TAN and Baronius Press) is not the REAL Douay-Rheims of 1609? It is a thorough revision of that translation, based in part on the Protestant King James Version, done by Bishop Richard Challoner in the mid-18th C.? According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"Although the Bibles in use in the twentieth century by the Catholics of England and Ireland are popularly styled the Douay Version, they are most improperly so called; they are founded, with more or less alteration, on a series of revisions undertaken by Bishop Challoner in 1749-52.... The changes introduced by him were so considerable that, according to Cardinal Newman, they "almost amounted to a new translation". So also, Cardinal Wiseman wrote, "To call it any longer the Douay or Rheimish Version is an abuse of terms. It has been altered and modified until scarcely any sense remains as it was originally published". In nearly every case Challoner's changes took the form of approximating to the Authorized Version, though his three editions of the New Testament differ from one another in numerous passages."

The late Nicholas Cardinal Wiseman also accused the Challoner revision of being Protestant. You see, every time the word "Dominus" occurs in the Vulgate, the *original* 1609 Douay-Rheims Bible rendered it "Our Lord" rather than "the Lord" (even the Magnificat begins with the words "My soule doth magnifie our Lord"). The English-speaking Catholic translators did this because, back then, "the Lord" was considered a Protestant expression! It was traditional among English-speaking Catholics to always refer to God and Christ as "Our Lord".

Now, when Bishop Challoner made his revision, he changed each occurance of "our Lord" to "the Lord", to make it more like the Protestant King James Version. Over time this crept into popular use in the praying of the Hail Mary, so that we now say "the Lord is with thee" rather than the age-old phrase: "Our Lord is with thee". Cardinal Wiseman was highly critical of this change; here is what he had to say (early 19th C,):

"In the Ave Maria, Catholics have always, till lately, been accustomed to say "Our Lord is with thee;" as it is in that version, and as it was always used in England, even before that translation was made. But, in conformity with the change of the text, we have observed of late a tendency to introduce into the prayer a similar variation, and to say "The Lord is with thee:" a change which we strongly depreciate, as stiff, cantish, destructive of the unction which the prayer breathes, and of that union which the pronoun inspires between its reciter and Her who is addressed. We have no hesitation in saying, that this difference, trifling as many will consider it, expresses strongly the different spirits of our, and other, religions. It never has been the custom of the Catholic Church to say, "the Redeemer, the Saviour, the Lord, The Virgin;" "Redemptor noster, Dominus noster," and so "Our Savior, our Lord, our Lady," are the terms sanctioned; and, therefore, consecrated by Catholic usage since the time of the Fathers. We own it grates our ears, and jars upon our feelings, to hear the former essentially un-Catholic forms used by preachers and writers; they want affection; they are insipid, formal; they remind us of Geneva caps, and smack of predestination." (Essays on Various Subjects, I, 76; circa 1855)

"Geneva caps, and... predestination!" Wow! Now, I would make the healthy assumption that His Emminence Cardinal Wiseman was slightly more erudite on matters of the translation of Sacred Scripture than you or I are. So who knew that the "Douay Rheims" used widely by English-speaking Catholics prior to 1941 was actually a quasi-Protestant retranslation of the Bible!

Why did Bishop Challoner feel the need to retranslate the Bible 250 years ago?

In Jesu et Maria,

John

Rosemarie wrote with her "Catholic Encyclopedia as her reference"

" Well, as long as I'm talking to you, you mentioned "The retranslation of the bible" as a change that you don't understand. Did you know that the "Douay-Rheims" most of us know (the one sold by TAN and Baronius Press) is not the REAL Douay-Rheims of 1609? It is a thorough revision of that translation, based in part on the Protestant King James Version, done by Bishop Richard Challoner in the mid-18th C.? According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

So I just pulled my DR Bible and it says

The Holy Bible
Translated from the Latin Vulgate
Diligently compared with the Hebrew, Greek and other Editions in Divers Languages

The Old Testament
First published by the English College at Douay AD 1609
And
The New Testament
First Published by the English College at Rheims AD 1582

Published with the Approval of
His Emmincence James Cardinal Gibbons


I see nothing of what you said

Lets compare that to the New American Bible, which right from the Vatican website, says"

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PV7.HTM


"The New Testament of The New American Bible, a fresh translation from the Greek text, was first published in complete form in 1970, together with the Old Testament translation that had been completed the previous year. Portions of the New Testament had appeared earlier, in somewhat different form, in the provisional Mass lectionary of 1964 and in the Lectionary for Mass of 1970.

Since 1970 many different printings of the New Testament have been issued by a number of publishers, both separately and in complete bibles, and the text has become widely known both in the United States and in other English-speaking countries. ....Accordingly, it was decided in 1978 to proceed with a thorough revision of the New Testament to reflect advances in scholarship and to satisfy needs identified through pastoral experience.
For this purpose a steering committee was formed to plan, organize,.... Guidelines were drawn up and collaborators selected in 1978 and early 1979, and November of 1980 was established as the deadline for manuscripts. From December 1980 through September 1986 the editoral board met a total of fifty times and carefully reviewed and revised all the material .........


The threefold purpose of the translation that was expressed in the preface to the first edition has been maintained in the revision: to provide a version suitable for liturgical proclamation, for private reading, and for purposes of study. Special attention has been given to the first of these purposes, since oral proclamation demands special qualities in a translation, and experience had provided insights and suggestions that could lead to improvement in this area. Efforts have also been made, however, to facilitate devotional reading by providing suitable notes and introductory materials, and to assist the student by achieving greater accuracy and consistency in the translation and supplying more abundant information in the introductions and notes.
The primary aim of the revision is to produce a version as accurate and faithful to the meaning of the Greek original as is possible for a translation.....An especially sensitive problem today is the question of discrimination in language. In recent years there has been much discussion about allegations of anti-Jewish expressions in the New Testament and of language that discriminates against various minorities. Above all, however, the question of discrimination against women affects the largest number of people and arouses the greatest degree of interest and concern. At present there is little agreement about these problems or about the best way to deal with them. In all these areas the present translation attempts to display a sensitivity appropriate to the present state of the questions under discussion, which are not yet resolved and in regard to which it is impossible to please everyone, since intelligent and sincere participants in the debate hold mutually contradictory views.


So you are actually going to try and compare something from the Catholic Encyclopedia, which by the way when I referenced, Esau and Inocencio said this was not an accptable reference, to the Vatican website, a 4x over politically correct retranslation of the bible-compared to the DR bible? Forget it, lets all wake up and smell the coffee

Even the Vatican admits it retranslated the bible to be less offensive to Jews and to be more appealing to the modern times, compromising the faith once again to be accepted. Is nothing not sacred any more?


Esau

...from the Catholic Encyclopedia, which by the way when I referenced, Esau and Inocencio said this was not an accptable reference

I never said this!

You're the one who has made it so by your 'liberal' use of the label "liberal" in the other thread!

Thus, considering that the content in the Catholic Encyclopedia actually goes against what you 'believe', you unnecessarily discard it after actually learning it contradicts your very arguments!

Again, miracles can happen if you simply R-E-A-D!

Esau

So I just pulled my DR Bible and it says

The Holy Bible
Translated from the Latin Vulgate
Diligently compared with the Hebrew, Greek and other Editions in Divers Languages

The Old Testament
First published by the English College at Douay AD 1609
And
The New Testament
First Published by the English College at Rheims AD 1582

Published with the Approval of
His Emmincence James Cardinal Gibbons


MY GOODNESS! ! !

Here, allow me to help you:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0202bt.asp

(JIMMY, Please remove if this is too much -- which I think it is. Sorry about that, I just wanted to at least present it in front of John should he decide to skip the link I provided.)

Uncomfortable Facts about the Douay-Rheims
By Jimmy Akin

Following the forced conversion of England to Protestantism and the subsequent persecution and martyrdom of Catholics in that country, many Englishmen fled to the Continent. The expatriates felt the need for a new English translation of Scripture. Consequently, an edition of the New Testament was prepared and released in 1582 at Rheims, France, and an edition of the Old Testament was prepared and released in 1609 at the French town of Douay. The resulting fusion became known as the Douay-Rheims.

The original translation was based on the Latin Vulgate. However, it was revised from 1749–1752 by Bishop Richard Challoner, who corrected it according to the Clementine edition of the Vulgate (published by Clement VIII in 1592, after the Rheims New Testament) and the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. He also updated the spelling, vocabulary, and sentence structure. Today, all Douay-Rheims Bibles in print are actually the Douay-Rheims-Challoner version.

The Douay remained the standard version for English-speaking Catholics until the twentieth century. It is apologetically significant in dealing with two groups: anti-Catholics who deny the existence of vernacular translations before the King James Version (KJV) and certain Catholic Traditionalists who insist on using only the Douay. For both groups there are uncomfortable facts about the Douay.


King James Not the First
Many anti-Catholics accuse the Church of having hidden Scripture from the faithful by refusing to translate them into the vernacular tongue.

The Douay-Rheims provides a particularly telling counterexample. It was completed in 1609, making it older than the KJV, which was not published until 1611. The fact that the Rheims New Testament was published in 1582 meant that it appeared almost thirty years before the KJV New Testament.

Further, the translators of the KJV make specific reference to the Douay version in their translators’s preface, where they devote space to attacking the word choices made by the translators of the Douay. "We have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their [use of words like] AZIMES, TUNIKE, RATIONAL, HOLOCAUSTS, PRAEPUCE, PASCHE, and a number of such like [words], whereof their late Translation is full" ("The Translators to the Reader," King James Version, 1611 ed.).

But while the King James translators rejected some specific translations in the Douay, they emulated others. It is commonly acknowledged that, in preparing the KJV, the translators made use of the Douay New Testament and adopted many of its readings in preference to those of other English editions. The KJV in many places thus bears a Douay "slant" absent from prior translations.

Both the Douay and the KJV served as virtually the only Bible many English speakers used for centuries, and both in Protestant Fundamentalism and in certain parts of Catholic Traditionalism an insistence has arisen that only one translation—the group’s traditional one—may be used. Protestants who insist on using the KJV are often called "King James Onlyists," and one may call the parallel phenomenon "Douay-Rheims Onlyism."

Douay-Rheims "Onlyism"?
Douay-Rheims Onlyists have not gone to some of the extremes of King James Onlyists. For example, they do not claim, as do some King James Onlyists, that their preferred translation was made under divine inspiration. However, they do often parallel King James Onlyists in arguing the superiority of their preferred translation due to the manuscript tradition on which it is based. King James Onlyists frequently argue that the KJV is superior because it is based on the Textus Receptus tradition, and Douay-Rheims Onlyists often argue for the Douay’s superiority from the fact that it is based on the Vulgate.

They argue that the Vulgate is superior on four grounds: (1) It is the official Bible of the Catholic Church; (2) it has been declared free of moral or theological error, (3) Jerome had access to manuscripts that we do not have today, and (4) he was a stupendous translator.

The first point is not true. There was a time when the Vulgate could be described as an "official" translation of Scripture for the Latin rite of the Church, but not the whole Church. It also never superseded the original language versions in authority (a point Pius XII made in Divino Afflante Spiritu21). But while the Vulgate in its latest edition—the "Neo-Vulgate" promulgated by John Paul II—has a privileged position based on its use in ecclesiastical documents, the law has changed such that there is no "official" translation of Scripture for the Latin rite.

The second point is true—ecclesiastical documents have acknowleged that the Vulgate is free of doctrinal and moral error. However, not containing doctrinal and moral error is not the same thing as being a perfect translation. In fact, it isn’t even the same thing as being a good translation. If someone utters the Spanish sentence " La manzana es verde" and I translate that as "The apple is red," then I have in not committed a moral or theological error, but I have committed a translation error (verde means green, not red).

In the same way, as Pius XII pointed out (DAS 20), this does not mean that the Vulgate always reflects accurately what is in the original texts. Sometimes it doesn’t.

The third point is true—Jerome did have manuscripts that we don’t have today—but this is misleading. He also lacked manuscripts that we do have, and he lacked the critical apparatus we have for sorting through textual variants.

One scholar, however brilliant, working in an age when textual criticism was still embryonic, was not as good as today’s community of scholars who are able to critically cross-examine each other’s work in an age in which the rules of textual criticism have been worked out much better. Further, no matter how many manuscripts Jerome had access to, it was not the thousands used by biblical scholars today.

Ronald Knox puts the manuscript point wryly when he writes, "You cannot, I think, be tied down to the statement that Saul was one year old when he came to the throne, merely because that is the construction which the Vulgate has put on an obviously defective Hebrew original" (Trials of a Translator, 29).

Finally, Jerome did not even translate certain books of the Vulgate; he simply incorporated extant Latin translations. Consequently, John Paul II notes that the Neo-Vulgate revision "was quite demanding in certain books of the Old Testament which Saint Jerome did not touch" (Scripturarum Thesaurus). These books scarcely provide an illustration of definitive textual criticism.

The fourth point—that Jerome was a stupendous translator—is true, especially for his era. He also had the advantage of being much closer to the time the biblical dialects were spoken, though koina Greek (the dialect the New Testament is written in) already had evolved into a new dialect before his birth.

But to his disadvantage, Jerome learned these languages in a time before dictionaries and foreign language grammars had been invented. As a result, if a translator didn’t know a rare or unusual word or grammatical form, he couldn’t look it up. No matter how good a translator is, the worthiness of his work will be proportionate to how much he exerts himself—and sometimes Jerome did not exert himself very much. For example, he translated the book of Tobit in a single night.

Recently, I read one Douay-Rheims Onlyist booklet that actually praised this as a demonstration of Jerome’s linguistic prowess. One can only say that this demonstrates a lack of familiarity with how translation works. Nobody trying to do a careful job of translating a book of Scripture will rough out a translation in a single night and leave it at that.

The Church owes an enormous debt to Jerome for the Vulgate, but one must not fail to acknowledge that it—like all translations—fails to capture perfectly the sense of the original. Sometimes this is due to the limitations of the language he’s translating into (Latin), and sometimes it’s due to translator error.


The Vulgate in English?
Douay-Rheims Onlyists often represent the Douay as the only English translation of the Vulgate. It’s not. Ronald Knox’s translation of the Bible is also based on the Vulgate.

Even then, the Douay is not simply a translation of Jerome’s original. There is no pure edition of the Vulgate available, any more than there is a single, pure edition of the original Greek and Hebrew. When the Douay was translated, there were a number of editions of the Vulgate that differed from each other in varying degrees.

Furthermore, the editions of the Douay now in circulation are the Douay-Challoner version (or even more properly, revisions of the Douay-Challoner version), which has been corrected in light of the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, meaning that it is not a pure translation of the Vulgate.

Challoner’s revisions were extensive—more than Douay-Rheims Onlyists commonly admit. They were not limited to updating spelling and punctuation. Regarding the extent of the revisions, Bernard Ward notes, "The changes introduced by him were so considerable that, according to Cardinal Newman, they ‘almost amounted to a new translation.’ So also, Cardinal Wiseman wrote, ‘To call it any longer the Douay or Rheimish Version is an abuse of terms. It has been altered and modified until scarcely any sense remains as it was originally published’" (Catholic Encyclopedia 1910 ed., s.v., "Douay Bible").


Free of Protestant Bias?
While translator bias is a fact to be contended with, Douay-Rheims Onlyists often accuse contemporary translations of being tainted by Protestant translations.

But there’s another side to that story. Just as the original Douay came to influence the KJV, the KJV itself came to influence the Douay. Ward notes: "In nearly every case Challoner’s changes took the form of approximating to the Authorized [i.e., King James] Version."

The fact is that Bible versions on both sides of the confessional divide influence each other. This is because serious translators don’t read only works done by one side. Sometimes the other guys come up with a way of better capturing what’s written in the original language, and when that happens the serious translator wants to know about it, not to hide his head in the sand.

All of this is not to say that the Douay-Rheims is a bad translation, or that it is not to be read, or that individuals may not prefer using it to other translations. It is only to indicate that the Douay-Rheims ought not be put on a pedestal.

bill912

The title page of my Douay-Rheims reads the same as what was quoted above. In between "first published by the English College at Rheims, A.D. 1582" and Cardinal Gibbons' aproval, mine reads: "The whole revised and diligently compared with the Latin Vulgate by BISHOP RICHARD CHALLONER, A.D. 1749-1752."

Inocencio

John,

Catholic Encyclopedia, which by the way when I referenced, Esau and Inocencio said this was not an accptable reference

Please at least try to be honest, your comment is untrue and you know it. I never said the Catholic Encyclopedia is an unacceptable source. I asked you to provide a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia article or other website you were quoting instead:

1. copying and pasting large amounts of text

2. pretending it was your thoughts

And if I need to I will go back and find my comment and prove your are again being insincere at best and deceitful at worst.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Rosemarie

+J.M.J+

John, I own a copy of the ORIGINAL 1609 Douay-Rheims; it is three volumes long and consists of copious footnotes and commentary. I also own a few copies of the same Challoner Revision that you own. Yes, the latter do say exactly what you posted, but they are not the ORIGINAL 1609 Douay-Rheims! It's confusing, yeah, but it's true!

Here is the Beginning of the Gospel of St. JOhn in the Original 1609 Douay-Rheims:

IN THE beginning vvas the WORD, and the WORD vvas vvith God, and God vvas the WORD. 2 This vvas in the beginning vvith God. 3 Al things vvere made by him: and vvithout him vvas made nothing. That vvhich vvas made 4 in him vvas life, and the life vvas the light of men. 5 And the light fhineth in darkeneffe, and the darkeneffe did not comprehend it. 6 There vvas a man fent from God, vvhofe name vvas Iohn. 7 This man came for teftimonie, to giue teftimonie of the light, that al might beleeue through him. 8 He vvas not the light, but to giue teftimonie of the light. 9 It vvas the true light, that lighteneth euery man that commeth into this vvorld. 10 He vvas in the vvorld, and the vvorld vvas made by him, and the vvorld knevv him not. 11 He came into his ovvne, and his ovvn receiued him not. 12 But as many as receiued him, he gaue them povver to be made the fonnes of God, to thofe that beleeue in his name. 13 Vvho not of bloud, nor of the vvill of the flefh, nor of the vvill of man, but of God are borne. 14 AND THE VVORD VVAS MADE FLESH, and dvvelt in vs, (and vve have the glorie of him, glorie as it vvere of the only-begotten of the Father,) ful of grace and veritie. 15 Iohn giueth teftimonie of him, and crieth faying, This vvas he of vvhom I fpake: He that fhal come after me, is made before me: becaufe he vvas before me. 16 And of his fulness all vve haue receiued, and grace for grace. 17 For the lavv vvas giuen by Moyfes; grace and veritie vvas made by IESUS Chrift.

The following url (though Protestant and so a bit biased) gives an accurate side-by-side comparison of the beginning of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the original Rheims, the KJV and the Challoner revision:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/challoner.html

If you compare your own copy of the "Douay," I'm sure you'll find that it is the Challoner revision, not the original Douay-Rheims.

In Jesu et Maria,

Esau

Rosemarie,
The English looks almost similar to that in a book I'm reading by More!

By the way, how'd you get your hands on an Original Douay-Rhiems???

Publius

I assume when Rosemarie quoted the Douay as have an "f" wherever a non-final "s" should be, she meant the archaic "s", i.e., "ſ" (note that the horizontal bar is only on the left side).

Publius

Actually, in the font displayed on the page, there's no bar at all. In the font used in the comment field it appears as an "f" with the right side of the cross bar missing.

Esau

Publius:
You familiar with this type of English?

Have any resources you could recommend?

Thanks!

Rosemarie

+J.M.J+

You're right, Publius. I figured there might be a special ALT character for the archaic long s, but didn't bother to try to find one because I didn't want to keep typing in an ALT character (which might not even show up at times because of some quirk in the computer). So I just used the "f" since it's very similar.

Now that I look closer, I don't even see the ſ on the page I just linked! Would you happen to know its ALT code? I see that Alt 159 produces a similar symbol, ƒ, but is it the same?

In Jesu et Maria,

Rosemarie

+J.M.J+

>>>By the way, how'd you get your hands on an Original Douay-Rhiems???

St Anthony's Bookstore used to sell them a few years back (they weren't cheap, either - $150.00 a set). I just searched their inventory on Abebooks.com and they don't appear to have anymore in stock. They were printed by a very ultratraditionalist publisher which evidently ceased publising them a few years ago. Now they're rarer than those proverbial "hen's teeth."

However, a guy named Dr. William von Peters is selling a "cleaned up" version of the original Douay Rheims. He updated the spelling so it's easier for us moderns to read. Mind you, it's also not cheap - a 4 volume hard copy will set you back approx $114.00 before shipping (I've actually considered trying to sell my three-volume set on eBay and use the money to get the full "cleaned up" version, because the one I have is awfully hard to read!)

However, I'm not certain of the canon law minutiae re. an individual Catholic publishing a translation of the Bible that doesn't have an Imprimatur. It's apparently not allowed, so this guy may be violating canon law. Granted, the original Douay-Rheims had Church approval back in the 17th C., which I doubt has ever been revoked. However, this guy's version (transliteration?) is still a bit different from the original and so may need to be vetted by proper Church authorities before he can licitly sell it as a "Catholic translation". Not to certain on that point, but I think that may be the case.

In Jesu et Maria,

Monica

Esau, Yeah, all that is very interesting, but remember, Jimmy wrote that POST VII, and is therefore slanted and cannot be trusted.

:)

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31