EWTN screwed up


#21

[quote=toppro77]JKirkLVNV really gets around on this site.

[/quote]

A) I’ve just followed you.

B) I can post the link where you did, in fact, denounce the Holy Father, if you like.


#22

[quote=toppro77]If you can legitimately defend such practices I would sure like to know how.

[/quote]

I do think that the correct translation should be “for many.” And I think that “for all” is incorrect.
However, I do agree with the efforts of Pope John Paul II to reach out to other religions. I have had the great honor of knowing people of other faiths, and the ones of my acquaintance have shown themselves to be honorable and decent people. The way I see it, is that we have a choice here to either wage a bloody argumentative war with people of other faiths over the points where we differ, and where their religion falls into error, or we can accentuate those beliefs and values that we hold in common (while at the same time holding fast to our Catholic beliefs and not accepting errors in other religions).


#23

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

The translation is perfectly OK - because although the translation of the Latin is not accurate in English if one considers the words as grammatical-lexical units, the meaning which is conveyed by the words as units of meaning in a liturgical text is perfectly accurate: “for many” is said; but “for all” is the meaning being pointed to. It is not unusual for the meaning pointed to, and the meaning of words as grammatical-lexical units, to differ; and language is used in many different ways. The Bible ascribes eyes to and nostrils and hands to God, which God does not have - these are metaphors for what is done by them in man, who does have them.

To look at the words only with a dictionary, in isolation from what they are saying in the context in which they appear, is a bad idea. :slight_smile: For dictionaries or grammars of Latin or English are poor guides to how a word is used in a specific context; they can guide us on points of grammar - but not on theology.

A dictionary would not indicate that to sit up, means almost the same as to sit down. We need to look at *how language is used *- not only at isolated definitions of words as they appear in dictionaries; for that is not enough. ##

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:


#24

Well, some church officials do lousy jobs of translating stuff. For example, the approved Filipino translation of the Hail Mary prayer is slightly flawed. It’s sad, but it doesn’t equate to heresy. It’s just an unfortunate limitation of mere human beings. We should just pray that they fix the translation, soon.


#25

[quote=Gottle of Geer]## The translation is perfectly OK - because although the translation of the Latin is not accurate in English if one considers the words as grammatical-lexical units, the meaning which is conveyed by the words as units of meaning in a liturgical text is perfectly accurate: “for many” is said; but “for all” is the meaning being pointed to. It is not unusual for the meaning pointed to, and the meaning of words as grammatical-lexical units, to differ; and language is used in many different ways. The Bible ascribes eyes to and nostrils and hands to God, which God does not have - these are metaphors for what is done by them in man, who does have them.

To look at the words only with a dictionary, in isolation from what they are saying in the context in which they appear, is a bad idea. :slight_smile: For dictionaries or grammars of Latin or English are poor guides to how a word is used in a specific context; they can guide us on points of grammar - but not on theology.

A dictionary would not indicate that to sit up, means almost the same as to sit down. We need to look at *how language is used *- not only at isolated definitions of words as they appear in dictionaries; for that is not enough. ##
[/quote]

YES! Moreover, the substantive use of the plural of multus (multi, multorum) when referring to people, at least in Classical Latin, means “the mass” or “the multitude” (translated from the Greek polloi, with basically the same range of meanings). The most literal translation in context, then, would be “it will be poured out for you [those present at the last supper] and for the multitude.” In any case, “all” is clearly not inaccurate in context.


#26

[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]

Hi toppro77,
I think you scewwed up !
If you read Heb.7:27…you will find Tha Apostle Paul says ;
"…once for all…He offered himself."

as a matter of fact , in Hebrews it says “ONCE AND FOR ALL” several times.

If you properly understand “ONCE AND FOR ALL”…
and you don’y have the “us and them” mentality…
you will also learn that EWTN did not screw up.

God Bless…

gusano

:smiley:


#27

TNT wrote:

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?

Inasmuch that Our Lord did NOT say “all” OR “many” [English], nor Latin, nor Greek - I can only guess that you are currently advocating a return to the vernacular language that Our Lord DID speak at the Last Supper - Aramaic.

Well, I’m not against that either.


#28

troppo77 wrote

The problem is that “For All” is heresy!

Obviously you are unaware that there are two fundamental truths in respect of Jesus’ death which only appear to be opposites:

  1. Christ’s death was SUFFICIENT for the REDEMPTION of ALL;

  2. Christ’s death was EFFICATIOUS for the SALVATION of MANY.

Neither of which, fortunately for you and I, are heresy.

The Church has the power to alter the Form and/or the Matter of a Sacrament, provided that the “substance” of the Sacrament is maintained.

It is my opinion that the translation of “pro multis” was countenanced by the Supreme Pontiff at the time to counter heretical opinions that Christ did NOT die “for all”.

Just an opinion, of course.


#29

troppo75 wrote:

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 is an approved Catholic practice then I think you need to read your catechism a little better.

Well, certainly, the Pope did NOT give any approval for either of those alleged events. On the other hand, if you read your catechism a little better, you would be aware of little matters called false witness and calumny.


#30

A different goof—

Did anyone notice that the announcer called the Pope “Pope Gregory”?


#31

[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]

I think the “flames” came more from his uncharitable replies, especially the use of profanity.

This is what turns many off from those “traditional” elements in the Church.

As Fr Rob pointed out. The offical translation for English is used.


#32

The blood of Christ was shed for all men, but not all will accept Christ, therefore reducing His Death to many.


#33

Translating it as “for all” is interpreting the text rather than simply translating the text … it would be an interpretive paraphrase. I’m not surprised that people defend the translation since some people amazingly perhaps more out of a desire to not admit their error defend attributing to St Francis of Assisi words he never uttered at all: “Preach the Gospel and when necessary use words.”

Using the translation “for all” doesn’t invalidate the sacrifice of the Mass because the English, metaphysically speaking, “piggybacks” on the Latin so even if the translation is defective, as long as the Latin remains true, no worry in that regard is warranted.


#34

[quote=tuopaolo]Translating it as “for all” is interpreting the text rather than simply translating the text … it would be an interpretive paraphrase. I’m not surprised that people defend the translation since some people amazingly perhaps more out of a desire to not admit their error defend attributing to St Francis of Assisi words he never uttered at all: “Preach the Gospel and when necessary use words.”

Using the translation “for all” doesn’t invalidate the sacrifice of the Mass because the English, metaphysically speaking, “piggybacks” on the Latin so even if the translation is defective, as long as the Latin remains true, no worry in that regard is warranted.
[/quote]

Thats the problems with translations.

To translate one must interpret. If you do not then it is a transliteration and a transliteration does not lend itself to ease of speaking.

Also, as has been pointed out. We may all dislike this but it is the approved English Translation form the Vatican.


#35

[quote=tuopaolo]Translating it as “for all” is interpreting the text rather than simply translating the text …
[/quote]

ALL translating is interpreting, since languages not function word-by-word but rather phrase/grammatical unit-by-phrase/grammatical unit. For example, in English we say “My name is X”, but in Italian we say “Mi chiamo X” (literally, “I call myself X”–it would be unidiomatic to translate this phrase literally). Also nearly all words have a wide range of meanings depending on context–Latin habeo can mean to “have”, to “hold”, or to “understand.” Which is the correct meaning in a given context? That’s an interpretive process.

And in any case, there are already layers of this interpretation in the gospels, as Jesus’ Aramaic has been translated into Greek, then Latin, then a variety of languages. So I do agree with another post that if we want, we should go back to the Aramaic and Hebrew (OT), and if we can’t do that settle for Greek.


#36

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

Sometime things are only mistakes!


#37

[quote=Ignatius]Sometime things are only mistakes!
[/quote]

And used as a springboard for those with their own agendas… :wink:


#38

[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]

Wait a minute. I think you started off on the wrong foot.

The Pope used the NEW MASS in latin, and the translation that came back was the official ICEL English translation of the new mass.

Did anyone note that the women participating in the mass, even the ones who approached the new Pope did not bother to cover their heads? I wonder if Benedict XVI agreed with this, knew about it, or if the mass was arranged (possibly by Cardinal Marini) without overview of Benedict XVI? I would have thought that at least one woman, unless instructed otherwise, would have been conservative enough to cover her head, especially with all the talk of how conservative Benedict the XVI is (or Cardinal Ratzinger was).

MJW


#39

[quote=JKirkLVNV]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.”
[/quote]

WELL SAID!!!


#40

Why was Toppro suspended?


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.