Posted on 11/18/2006 5:08:06 PM PST by lrslattery
Vatican, Nov. 18 (CWNews.com) The Vatican has ruled that the phrase pro multis should be rendered as "for many" in all new translations of the Eucharistic Prayer, CWN has learned.
Although "for many" is the literal translation of the Latin phrase, the translations currently in use render the phrase as "for all." Equivalent translations (für alle; por todos; per tutti) are in use in several other languages.
Cardinal Francis Arinze (bio - news), the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, has written to the heads of world's episcopal conferences, informing them of the Vatican decision. For the countries where a change in translation will be required, the cardinal's letter directs the bishops to prepare for the introduction of a new translation of the phrase in approved liturgical texts "in the next one or two years."
The translation of pro multis has been the subject of considerable debate because of the serious theological issues involved. The phrase occurs when the priest consecrates the wine, saying (in the current translation):
...It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.
The Latin version of the Missal, which sets the norm for the Roman liturgy, says:
...qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.
Critics of the current translation have argued, since it first appeared, that rendering pro multis as "for all" not only distorts the meaning of the Latin original, but also conveys the impression that all men are saved, regardless of their relationship with Christ and his Church. The more natural translation, "for many," more accurately suggests that while Christ's redemptive suffering makes salvation available to all, it does not follow that all men are saved.
Cardinal Arinze, in his letter to the presidents of episcopal conferences, explains the reasons for the Vatican's decision to require
- The Synoptic Gospels (Mt 26,28; Mk 14,24) make specific reference to “many” for whom the Lord is offering the Sacrifice, and this wording has been emphasized by some biblical scholars in connection with the words of the prophet Isaiah (53, 11-12). It would have been entirely possible in the Gospel texts to have said “for all” (for example, cf. Luke 12,41); instead, the formula given in the institution narrative is “for many”, and the words have been faithfully translated thus in most modern biblical versions.
- The Roman Rite in Latin has always said pro multis and never pro omnibus in the consecration of the chalice.
- The anaphoras of the various Oriental Rites, whether in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, the Slavic languages, etc., contain the verbal equivalent of the Latin pro multis in their respective languages.
- “For many” is a faithful translation of pro multis, whereas “for all” is rather an explanation of the sort that belongs properly to catechesis.
- The expression “for many”, while remaining open to the inclusion of each human person, is reflective also of the fact that this salvation is not brought about in some mechanistic way, without one’s willing or participation; rather, the believer is invited to accept in faith the gift that is being offered and to receive the supernatural life that is given to those who participate in this mystery, living it out in their lives as well so as to be numbered among the “many” to whom the text refers.
- In line with the instruction Liturgiam Authenticam, effort should be made to be more faithful to the Latin texts in the typical editions.
Glossary Terms: Congregation for Divine Worship
Huh? Was he a retread or something?
Sweeeeet.
Which is precisely why this wrong is being corrected. It should never have happened in the first place.
************
Retread troll?
LOL!
faithful translation.
As I said, I was just providing a point of information. If someone doesn't follow the rules, that does not change the rules. If the priest who gives her Communion knows of her situation and doesn't lead her the right way, then the responsibility for her sacrileges (receiving Communion in a state of mortal sin) lies primarily on his shoulders.
The subject of pastoral care of remarried laity was discussed at the episcopal synod last year. The consensus was to continue to not provide sacraments to those who had divorced and remarried without an annulment. We shall see what Benedict XVI says on this matter, if anything, in his apostolic exhortation regarding the synod.
The Catholic Church is not nearly as rigidly hierarchical as those who are outside of Her would like to believe.
And how is that now?
"I am not a Roman Catholic. I am a Catholic."
Ah, well that's a different kettle of fish, isn't it! It might explain your attitude towards Orthodoxy. I take it you're not a Melkite or an Roumanian then, or at least not an obedient and faithful one. I admit I don't know the position of the other Eastern Rite Churches in communion with Rome on this subject, but perhaps someone here can enlighten me.
"And apparently you excuse evil." and "Oppose adultery. It isn't hard to do so" and "The EOs have excused adultery for 1200 years." and "I have no problem admitting that you excuse adultery." and "You excuse adultery." and finally "No matter what traditions we have we do not excuse adultery. You do."
Vlad, do you believe that if you say something multiple times it makes it true? Please provide me with one Orthodox source which excuses adultery. Do you have evidence of this? The Church forgives after penance. It is for that reason that you'll never find the Orthodox trumpeting that the Roman Catholic Church is a Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization operated so as to provide multiple opportunities to its clerical employees to sexually assault teenage boys and provide sanctuary for them thereafter, though we have multiple tens of millions of dollars in settlements and at least two diocesan bankruptcies which some might argue provide pretty good evidence of that allegation./s
By the way, what do you propose the Supreme Pontiff do about the Melkites or the Roumanians and their Orthodox style method of dealing with civil divorce and remarriage? Shall they be anathemized, Vlad and thrown out of the Roman family? Shall their hierarchs be "deposed"? Here's a guarantee...no matter how personally courageous +BXVI is (and he clearly is very courageous), he won't do a thing. He wouldn't dare do a thing because he knows they'd be gone in an instant. Once that happened, just how long do you think the other Eastern Rites would hang around? The Ukranians are ready to bolt right now over their desire for a Patriarchate. In Lebanon there is already de facto intercommunion among the Melkites, the Orthodox and the Maronites. In meantime, he kisses good-bye any hope he has of a reunion with Orthodoxy.
Your position regarding divorce and remarriage is just fine within the disciplinary context of the Latin Church and those other sui juris churches which choose, not are forced, to accept it. Sui juris Churches properly ought to be free to determine their own internal disciplines. Your position, however, is simply not in accord with 1200 year old practices in the East (practices which were perfectly acceptable to Rome before the Schism), including in sui juris churches in communion with Rome and the very idea that someone would think that that will change because of Western notions and/or practices is simply absurd, so absurd, that Vlad, its not even an issue to be discussed in the on going dialog where +BXVI himself has said that Orthodoxy cannot and will not be expected to accept anything that it didn't accept before the Great Schism. Your own hierarchs will hang you out to dry on this one, Vlad.
Glad someone caught and enjoyed the humor in that post :-)
You wrote:
"Vlad, do you believe that if you say something multiple times it makes it true? Please provide me with one Orthodox source which excuses adultery."
So you're not a source on Eastern Orthodoxy? You seem to claim as much often enough! LOL! Since divorce and remarriage is adultery according to God, and you allow it, then you are excusing adultery.
"Do you have evidence of this? The Church forgives after penance."]
There can be no penance without amends. No on can do genuine penance without renouncing the sin. If a man and woman are living in sin they are still living in sin even after going to confession and being given absolution IF THEY CONTINUE TO CO-HABITATE AND SHARE A BED. If you were a thief, with no intention of stopping your stealing, what would your confession be worth? What would the absolution be worth? Nothing. Without a decision to change no genuine penance can be made, and no absolution received.
"It is for that reason that you'll never find the Orthodox trumpeting that the Roman Catholic Church is a Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization operated so as to provide multiple opportunities to its clerical employees to sexually assault teenage boys and provide sanctuary for them thereafter, though we have multiple tens of millions of dollars in settlements and at least two diocesan bankruptcies which some might argue provide pretty good evidence of that allegation./s"
I have no idea what any of that has to do with your excusing of adultery. No Catholic council nor pope ever excused adultery by saying it was "just how the world worked," or "gee, can't we deal with the reality of things?". If it is adultery, and Jesus says it is, then it is adultery. Period.
"By the way, what do you propose the Supreme Pontiff do about the Melkites or the Roumanians and their Orthodox style method of dealing with civil divorce and remarriage?"
I see no reason to propose anything. It has nothing to do with your excusing of adultery.
"Shall they be anathemized, Vlad and thrown out of the Roman family? Shall their hierarchs be "deposed"? Here's a guarantee...no matter how personally courageous +BXVI is (and he clearly is very courageous), he won't do a thing."
No matter what he did it still has nothing to do with your excusing of adultery. The very fact that you are working so hard to bring up so many unrelated topics makes it obvious you're stuck. Go figure.
"He wouldn't dare do a thing because he knows they'd be gone in an instant. Once that happened, just how long do you think the other Eastern Rites would hang around? The Ukranians are ready to bolt right now over their desire for a Patriarchate. In Lebanon there is already de facto intercommunion among the Melkites, the Orthodox and the Maronites. In meantime, he kisses good-bye any hope he has of a reunion with Orthodoxy."
And none of that has anything to do with your excusing of adultery. Whine and wax angry all you like. You are still excusing adultery.
"Your position regarding divorce and remarriage is just fine within the disciplinary context of the Latin Church and those other sui juris churches which choose, not are forced, to accept it. Sui juris Churches properly ought to be free to determine their own internal disciplines."
Christ's position is just fine with anyone who wants to be like Him. He condemned divorce and remarriage as adultery. Case closed.
"Your position, however, is simply not in accord with 1200 year old practices in the East (practices which were perfectly acceptable to Rome before the Schism), including in sui juris churches in communion with Rome and the very idea that someone would think that that will change because of Western notions and/or practices is simply absurd, so absurd, that Vlad, its not even an issue to be discussed in the on going dialog where +BXVI himself has said that Orthodoxy cannot and will not be expected to accept anything that it didn't accept before the Great Schism."
And yet you still excuse adultery. The fact that you excuse adultery century after century does not change the fact that you excuse adultery nor make it alright to excuse adultery. It is also never absurd to actually obey Christ. He, afterall, in case you didn't know, is the reason to be a Christian. He says divorce and remarriage is adultery. You say adultery, essentially, is okay up to three times, but no more. Who is absurd? You or Christ? Cleary you are.
"Your own hierarchs will hang you out to dry on this one, Vlad."
No, actually not. No matter what my "hierarchs" do in the interest of unity, it will not change the fact that you are excusing adultery. Whether you excused adulery 1200 years ago, now, or after a hoped for reunion with the Church, you will still be excusing adultery. I am completely uneffected by your excusing of sin in any case, can't be hung out to dry on this or any other issue by anyone ever, and still don't excuse adultery.
You do.
"No matter what he [+BXVI] did it still has nothing to do with your excusing of adultery."
Really? But by your "reasoning" the Supreme Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on Earth is in communion with bishops and Patriarchs who excuse adultery! 1000 years ago, the Pope was in communion with 4 whole Patriarchates full of adultery excusers. and now +BXVI seeks, as did his predecessor, to be in communion with dozens and dozens more, multiple Patriarchates and national churches full of adultery excusers. I suspect that would surprise him, and those other hierarchs too I'll wager. Not a very good Vicar, Vlad, at least by your standards. Do you condemn +BXVI and his predecessors for being in communion with adultery excusers? if so, you might want to let him know, give him the benefit of your profound understanding of this issue.
"No matter what my "hierarchs" do in the interest of unity, it will not change the fact that you are excusing adultery. Whether you excused adulery 1200 years ago, now, or after a hoped for reunion with the Church, you will still be excusing adultery."
Sure it matters, Vlad. You cannot call yourself a "Catholic" without submitting to the immediate jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome, or so Rome would have it. By your definition of the Orthodox praxis with regard to divorce and remarriage, the Pope of Rome is in communion with excusers of adultery. Since, "Christ's position is just fine with anyone who wants to be like Him. He condemned divorce and remarriage as adultery. Case closed.", I take it the Pope doesn't want to be "like Him" since he has not anathemized the hierarchs in communion with him who follow Orthodox praxis. And he won't, now or ever. Nor does he consider Orthodox praxis with regard to divorce and remarriage, what you call excusing adultery, an impediment to reunion. But shouldn't refusing to be "like Him" be such an impediment?
Bottom line, Vlad, Orthodox praxis is not excusing adultery. Holding such a belief is contrary to what the Pope teaches by example, which makes you disobedient and maybe a schismatic. Were you to publicly condemn, say, the Melkites for their praxis, you might well find yourself hauled before a spiritual court and hung out to dry by your own hierarchs, whoever they might be.
You wrote:
"Really? But by your "reasoning" the Supreme Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on Earth is in communion with bishops and Patriarchs who excuse adultery! 1000 years ago, the Pope was in communion with 4 whole Patriarchates full of adultery excusers. and now +BXVI seeks, as did his predecessor, to be in communion with dozens and dozens more, multiple Patriarchates and national churches full of adultery excusers. I suspect that would surprise him, and those other hierarchs too I'll wager. Not a very good Vicar, Vlad, at least by your standards. Do you condemn +BXVI and his predecessors for being in communion with adultery excusers? if so, you might want to let him know, give him the benefit of your profound understanding of this issue."
And none of that changes the FACT that you are excusing adultery. Try as you might you will not change that fact. YOU are excusing adultery. Bring up whoever you like or whomever you think is excusing adultery and it still won't change the fact that YOU are excusing adultery.
"Sure it matters, Vlad. You cannot call yourself a "Catholic" without submitting to the immediate jurisdiction of the Pope of Rome, or so Rome would have it."
No matter who I submit to you are excusing adultery. YOU are excusing adultery. I am not. YOU are. Bring in whoever else you want, throw in the kitchen sink if you like, but you're still excusing adultery and opposing Christ.
"By your definition of the Orthodox praxis with regard to divorce and remarriage, the Pope of Rome is in communion with excusers of adultery."
By Christ's definition you're excusing adultery. That's all there is to it. Throw in the kitchen sink, the garden hose, the county clerk, or even the pope, and you'll still be excusing adultery plain and simple. Case closed. Christ says that divorce and remarriage is adultery. You think adultery is just fine as long as no one does it more than a few times and pretends to call it a second or third marriage.
"Since, "Christ's position is just fine with anyone who wants to be like Him. He condemned divorce and remarriage as adultery. Case closed.", I take it the Pope doesn't want to be "like Him" since he has not anathemized the hierarchs in communion with him who follow Orthodox praxis."
No matter what the pope does or does not do, you are excusing adultery. YOU are excusing adultery. Christ says that divorce and remarriage is adultery. Whether or not you bring up anyone else -- anyone else at all in this entire world -- is completely irrelevant as to what you are doing. You are excusing adultery.
"And he won't, now or ever. Nor does he consider Orthodox praxis with regard to divorce and remarriage, what you call excusing adultery, an impediment to reunion. But shouldn't refusing to be "like Him" be such an impediment?"
Whether it is or not does not change the fact that you are excusing adultery. YOU are excusing adultery. Christ says divorce and remarriage is adultery. You think adultery is just fine as long as someone doesn't do it more than three times. That's excusing adultery. YOU excuse adultery.
"Bottom line, Vlad, Orthodox praxis is not excusing adultery."
Christ says that divorce and remarriage is adultery. You say it is fine. You oppose Christ's very word on this.
"Holding such a belief is contrary to what the Pope teaches by example, which makes you disobedient and maybe a schismatic."
Whether or not I am disobedient or a schismatic is completely irrelevant as to the fact that you excuse adultery. Go ahead and make all the nutty conjectures you want, but you still excuse adultery.
"Were you to publicly condemn, say, the Melkites for their praxis, you might well find yourself hauled before a spiritual court and hung out to dry by your own hierarchs, whoever they might be."
Whether I publicly or privately condemn anyone at all regarding this issue is completely immaterial and irrelevant as to whether or not you excuse adultery. YOU DO EXCUSE ADULTERY. Whether or not I am ever brought before an ecclesiastical court over anything is completely irrelevant as to the fact that you excuse adultery. YOU do EXCUSE ADULTERY. Whether or not I am ever hung out to dry on this issue or any other -- an impossibility in any case -- is completely irrelevant and immaterial as to whether or not you are excusing adultery. YOU DO EXCUSE ADULTERY.
Christ says do divorce and remarry is adultery. Deal with His words. Throw in every person you can think of. Throw in the kitchen sink if you like. You'll still be excusing adultery if you excuse adultery. YOU excuse adultery.
Why are people worrying about translations of Latin when the Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek?
There is only one sin that cannot be repented of and it's not adultery. Adultery, however, is a fact, and churches are full of adulterers and sinners. That doesn't mean the Church excuses any sin, including adultery.
The Orthodox Church, true to its catholic faith, looks at repentant souls and says "No one here condemns you. Go and sin no more." That's not excusing anything.
There is only one sin that cannot be repented of and it's not adultery. Adultery, however, is a fact, and churches are full of adulterers and sinners. That doesn't mean the Church excuses any sin, including adultery.
The Orthodox Church, true to its catholic faith, looks at repentant souls and says "No one here condemns you. Go and sin no more." That's not excusing anything.
It would be difficult not to name a bishop in France who is not on his side of this equation. Mahony is the leader of the anti-Church within the Church -- worldwide.
Thanks for the ping. I think that most Slavic Uniates were required to accept Roman "annulment" laws -- I wasn't aware that the Melkites were not, but it would make sense. I know that there are quite a few Romans on this forum who seem to think that this is an irreducible issue on which the Catholics will insist that the Orthodox change their practices to match their in the event of any union.
Regardless, I don't think that there is any question my mind but that neither this nor any other Pope would dream of asking the Orthodox to change this tradition -- or consider the Orthodox to be wrong. But then, I'm not sure that the RCs really expect *anything* of us other than a verbal assent to papal primacy, universal jurisdiction, and supremacy -- so that's not saying much.
As a side-note, in reading this little exchange between you and Vlad, I think I've pretty much figured out which one of you acquired your powers of logic and verbal expression from Jesuits and nuns in Catholic schools... :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.