EWTN screwed up


#1

Why did EWTN misinterpret the canon of the mass during Pope Benedict XVI papal mass?

The pope clearly said the traditional canon in Latin. Since I have the canon in Latin before me I know exactly what the pope said in latin. However, EWTN misinterpreted it big time. I will give you an example of one major area they screwed up!

The Pope Said:
“Hic Est Enim Calix Sanguinis Mei, Novi Et Aeterni Testamenti: Qui Pro Vobis Et Pro Multis Effundetur In Remissionem Peccatorum”

Which says in english:
For this is the chalice of my blood of the new and eternal covenant: which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins.

EWTN’s commentary said this:
This is the cup of my blood of the new and everlasting covenant: which shall be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.

Ok everyone get out their Webster’s and lets look up the words “many” and “all” and see if they mean the same thing. Report back here with the results.
:slight_smile:


#2

picky picky :slight_smile:


#3

[quote=JackmanUSC]picky picky :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Hmm I wonder what would happen if we changed a couple letters in your name. Would that be picky?

lets see:

Jackass :yup:

Hey it’s just a couple letters. Doesn’t mean anything right!


#4

[quote=toppro77]Hmm I wonder what would happen if we changed a couple letters in your name. Would that be picky?

lets see:

Jackass :yup:

Hey it’s just a couple letters. Doesn’t mean anything right!
[/quote]

Now that’s what I call funny!


#5

[quote=toppro77]Why did EWTN misinterpret the canon of the mass during Pope Benedict XVI papal mass?

" which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins"

Ok everyone get out their Webster’s and lets look up the words “many” and “all” and see if they mean the same thing. Report back here with the results.
:slight_smile:
[/quote]

OK. Here’s my report: The original Latin is pro multis, even in the New Mass. However, it is not only EWTN, but the whole USA Church which misinterprets pro multis as meaning in English “for all”. This is not so in other languages, as I have seen it interpreted correctly in another language.
My personal opinion is that there is a big difference between the words “many” and “all”. And I go by what the Catechism of the Council of Trent says about it, and I think that the recent translations are faulty.


#6

Boy that dead horse sure is getting a beating lately. How many times have we been over the for all/for many thing? Answer- Too many.


#7

[quote=stanley123]I think that the recent translations are faulty.
[/quote]

While that may be, I think it is also very possible that the EWTN reporter was just using the APPROVED English translation rather than take it upon himself to do his own translation of Latin to English. This was probably the safest option IMHO.


#8

Once again, Trutop, you’re just out to cause problems. Did you search for this topic? It’s been discussed countless times in these threads, “multis” being “many,” “multis” being “all.” Why bring it up again? And why resort to calling someone a jackass? I’m reminded of Our Lord saying,“You strain out the gnat, but swallow a camel.”


#9

Okay, a bit of background.

EWTN had nothing to do with it. Archbishop John Foley, the Director of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications does most of the solemn english-language translating for Vatican Television. EWTN simply carried the vatican feed.

Those interpreting from the Vatican have to use the approved text from each nation that they are translating for. Thus, the version of the Roman Missal currently in use in english-speaking countries is the translation they use.

Rob+


#10

Trust me…I know what you are saying and I know you are going to get flamed for this post…but I just want to let you know that I agree and back you 100%…The Pope used the original words of consecration during that mass…but I also understand they are on a feed that feeds them the translations and they must pronounce them as they are told…but that really is neither here nor there…there should be an accurate translation…not a “p.c.” or “ecumenical” translation…THe original words are “for many”…not “for all”…regardless of how everyone spins the topic.

[quote=toppro77]Why did EWTN misinterpret the canon of the mass during Pope Benedict XVI papal mass?

The pope clearly said the traditional canon in Latin. Since I have the canon in Latin before me I know exactly what the pope said in latin. However, EWTN misinterpreted it big time. I will give you an example of one major area they screwed up!

The Pope Said:
“Hic Est Enim Calix Sanguinis Mei, Novi Et Aeterni Testamenti: Qui Pro Vobis Et Pro Multis Effundetur In Remissionem Peccatorum”

Which says in english:
For this is the chalice of my blood of the new and eternal covenant: which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins.

EWTN’s commentary said this:
This is the cup of my blood of the new and everlasting covenant: which shall be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.

Ok everyone get out their Webster’s and lets look up the words “many” and “all” and see if they mean the same thing. Report back here with the results.
:slight_smile:
[/quote]


#11

[quote=dumspirospero]Trust me…I know what you are saying and I know you are going to get flamed for this post…but I just want to let you know that I agree and back you 100%…The Pope used the original words of consecration during that mass…but I also understand they are on a feed that feeds them the translations and they must pronounce them as they are told…but that really is neither here nor there…there should be an accurate translation…not a “p.c.” or “ecumenical” translation…THe original words are “for many”…not “for all”…regardless of how everyone spins the topic.
[/quote]

Dum: No one denies the need for accurate traslation. Its Trutop’s agenda that questionable. Read his posts, particularly the one where he denounces Pope John Paul. I personally believe he’s here to disturb the faithful. Read his posts and tell me what you think.


#12

I haven’t read their posts yet…but since you have pointed it out…I will. I do not promote any discension among Catholics denouncing our Popes…I will read his posts…God Bless

[quote=JKirkLVNV]Dum: No one denies the need for accurate traslation. Its Trutop’s agenda that questionable. Read his posts, particularly the one where he denounces Pope John Paul. I personally believe he’s here to disturb the faithful. Read his posts and tell me what you think.
[/quote]


#13

After reading some of the OP’s posts, I don’t agree at all with their views of The Holy Father…I am just defending the fact that accurate translations are necessary…thats all. God Bless.


#14

Answer- Too many.

I believe you mean “too all”.


#15

JKirkLVNV really gets around on this site.

First off I do not denounce any pope. Pope John Paul II was a pope. I do not happen to agree with all he did, as my Catholic Faith prohibits me from approving sinful and scandulous actions.

If you feel giving a little fat man named Buddah, precedence over Our Lord by placing him on top of a tabernacle is acceptable, then God help you!

If you feel worshiping a snake god :bowdown: is an approved Catholic practice then I think you need to read your catechism a little better.

I could go on and on but you get my drift.

If you can legitimately defend such practices I would sure like to know how.

Your mission should you decide to accept it, is to show me where in Catholic teaching it is permissable to honor a false god for any purpose, including ecumenism?


#16

FOR ALL is the vernacular in nearly every western civilization language. BUT, in Poland it is “FOR MANY” in the vernacular. The fact that it was JPII’s home country could not have anything to do with it, right?

This is known as Unity in Diversity. Which is Newspeak for embracing contradictions.
If EWTN was translating it in Poland, it would be FOR MANY.

The GREATER point is that we are quoting Almighty God in Jesus Christ at this place in the Consecration. So, shall we quote Him here or misquote Him? Regardless of what we later may say it means in any logical or theological mind. When you are quoting what you KNOW was said, then why diddle the Man’s quote?
If you quote me, I expect you to use exactly what I said, no matter what you think is the meaning behind it.


#17

[quote=TNT]FOR ALL is the vernacular in nearly every western civilization language. BUT, in Poland it is “FOR MANY” in the vernacular. The fact that it was JPII’s home country could not have anything to do with it, right?

This is known as Unity in Diversity. Which is Newspeak for embracing contradictions.
If EWTN was translating it in Poland, it would be FOR MANY.
[/quote]

The problem is that “For All” is heresy!


#18

[quote=toppro77]The problem is that “For All” is heresy!
[/quote]

Of course! THere is an old saying:
All heresy leads to contradiction , impossibility or both.


#19

So, for all the years that the word “multis” has been mistranslated in the English speaking world, the Mass has been invalid (I suppose I should have written “mass”)? All of the faithful Catholics who have bent the knee and head before the elevated chalice have been lead astray? The Vicars of Christ have allowed the flock of Christ to be mislead into error?


#20

The problem is that “For All” is heresy!

Such strong, and wrong, words. Remember, this is the Vatican approved translation. You are accusing the Vatican of heresy? Jesus shed His blood for all, but not all accept the sacrifice. How is this remotely heresy?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.