Posted on 04/07/2003 10:40:50 AM PDT by Land of the Irish
Question from R James on 04-02-2003:
Dear Father Levis:
On this expert forums, there is sometimes debate over the validity of the New ("Novus Ordo") Mass.
I would like to respond to this debate by noting that oftentimes the reason that many Catholics avoid the New Mass (and attend the traditional Latin Mass instead) is not out of concern over its validity (as most "traditional Catholics" I know believe that the New Mass is indeed valid), but rather out of a fear that by attending the New Mass, they would be immorally scandalizing their CHILDREN. Please allow me to explain.
The dramatic fall-off in Mass attendance, along with the dissipation of priestly vocations, can be clearly traced to the introduction of the New Mass. Similarly, decline in the belief in the Real Presence of Christ can be traced to the introduction of the New Mass. Thus, many Catholic parents fear that it would be immoral to subject their children to the New Mass out of concern that they would, among other things, (1) stop going to Mass, (2) less likely to be called to the priesthood / religious life, and (3) less likely to believe in the Real Presence.
And this is not simply a matter of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (in other words, coincidence). There are simple, cogent reasons why the New Mass could be seen as detrimental to the Faith.
For instance, the Real Presence of Christ in the Latin Mass is undeniably confirmed by the fact that (1) the priest must not separate his fingers once he touches the Sacred Host, (2) laity receive the Host on their knees, (3) laity may not touch the Host, (4) a paten is placed under the chins of those receiving the Eucharist to guard against the chance that a crumb may fall to the ground. None of these safeguards are present in the New Mass.
The notion of Mass as a SACRIFICE is obscured by replacing altars with tables. Sure, they may still be called altars, and they may even be marble (although they're usually not), but they do indeed look much more like tables to children rather than something different and set apart -- like a Tridentine altar.
The fact that the priest faces the congregation throughout the New Mass makes it appear much more like the priest is talking to the congregation, rather than to God. Children see this.
In sum, children are quite perceptive, and they notice these little things. Catholic parents need all the help they can get in raising children in the Faith. Sadly, the New Mass is not that helpful -- indeed, it often undermines many of the key tenets of the Faith via practices that are inconsistent with the Truths of the Mass.
So please understand that many of us who avoid the New Mass do so not because we believe it's invalid (we don't), but rather because we are parents who believe that it would be immoral to subject our children to a liturgy that can confuse or undermine Church teaching.
(An obvious response to this would be: how can the Church do anything to undermine its own teaching? One need only look at "Catholic" colleges, and many "Catholic" high schools, to see that this sadly happens all the time. Or see how Catholic bishops have responded to the sex-abuse scandals; the Church is certainly infallible in matters of Faith and Morals, but is NOT infallible in matters of prudential judgment. In other words, the Church can make a mistake with regard to the best method of evangelization, safeguarding the Faith, etc.)
Answer by Fr. Robert J. Levis on 04-03-2003: R. James, Many thanks. Your arguments are very interesting; I am not sure I would use them like you do, but they have some strength. God bless. Fr. Bob Levis
It's a curiosity of the Anglo world -- the UK, Canada/USA, and Australia/NZ -- that we're islands or near-islands. We don't get much exposure to other languages, and somehow get the notion that everybody's like this. But they're not. Dave, most people on this earth are competent in more than one language. This is a long way of saying that there's nothing unnatural or even unusual about expecting cradle Catholics to be perfectly comfortable and at home with Latin as a second language. I've known plenty of people raised with two languages from birth; the idea that only one of those languages is The Mother Tongue and the other something alien and "unknown" would strike them as preposterous. It's another aspect of the cultural amnesia I mentioned yesterday, that Catholics don't remember the recent past, in which at least a nodding familiarity with Latin could be taken for granted in every churchgoing Catholic with a high school diploma. In those days, Latin was unknown chiefly to those who didn't want to know it.
I am indeed in favor of Latin for the ordinary parts of Mass because of its universal uniting and historical attributes.
Dave, you just answered your own objection.
The language is specially "blessed" because of its indispensible value in conferring continuity and accessibility to the uniquely blessed See of Rome, and its teachings and traditions. To lose Latin is to lose touch with Peter.
It was not the Latin, per se, that made the liturgy distinctive, it was the use of a foreign language period. Do you not agree?
Regardless of what should be (all Catholics familar with Latin as a liturgical language), I was speaking to what is.
The sense of awe and majesty and holiness is highlighted by the liturgy being in a special language. Don't you agree?
In this case it is not that it is that is important, it is that it is not English. (For the psychological effect, I am not discounting the importance of Latin in the Church, as I've said 4 or 5 times now.)
SD
It does seem that way, doesn't it? I think I was going for a "the message, not the medium" understanding of language. But you are correct that the three languages have certainly been "blessed" in a way others haven't.
SD
So, do you deny that Christ's sacrifice is sufficient to save all men? Cause translating "pro multis" as "for many" "certainly implies" that the sacrifice is not sufficient to save all.
SD
You didn't answer the question. Is Christ'a sacrifice sufficient or not?
SD
Well, that's not what I see when I see "for many." It "certainly implies" that the sacrifice is not sufficient.
However, keep in mind that nothing God does is for naught. "Pro multis" merely means not all men are going to heaven. Christ spoke about Hell quite often in his ministry.
Yes.
I think the deliberate mis-translation of pro multis in the NO Mass is one it's gravest flaws in that it deceives the faithful.
I think the deliberate mis-translation of the pro multis in the Tridentine Mass is one of its gravest flaws in that it deceives the faithful.
The bottom line is that translating it one way or the other is insufficient (no pun intended.) If we say "for all" we may miss, without catechesis, the idea that the sacrifice is not efficacious for all, though it is sufficient.
If we say "for many" we may miss, without catechesis, the idea that the sacrifice is sufficient for all, but not efficacious.
SD
The International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) translation of "pro multis" in the words of Consecration as "for all" (which has been approved for use throughout the English-speaking world) has probably attracted more controversy than anything else in its English version of the Latin text of the Mass. There is an excellent discussion of the point by Monsignor Gamber, in an addendum to his book "The Reform of the Roman Liturgy", in which he concludes that the ICEL translation is completely unjustifiable. However, this discussion is for the most part confined to the theological considerations, and the linguistic aspect is mentioned only in passing. ICEL itself has published (in the Third Progress Report on the Revision of the Roman Missal) a defence of its translation from the linguistic point of view, and I am not sure that the reasons that were given in that document have ever been rebutted in print. I am not a theologian, and my intention in this brief article is to consider only the linguistic arguments advanced by ICEL and to explain why I think the Commission is wrong.ICEL claims that the Aramaic and Hebrew words for "many" (saggi’in and rabbim respectively), which it assumes to be the original words underlying the Greek text of the New Testament, have an inclusive sense and can therefore legitimately be rendered in English as "all". This may well be right in principle; I am not familiar with either language and am not therefore in a position to comment. The fact is, however, that in both the gospels where these words occur, those of St. Matthew and St. Mark, they are translated into Greek as p o l l o i (polloi), which means "many", not as p a n t e V (pantes), which means "all". In other words, faced with a possible ambiguity in the Aramaic, both St. Matthew and St. Mark picked the Greek word for "many" and not that for "all". I think it is reasonable to suppose that the evangelists, writing in the second half of the first century, within a few decades of the Last Supper, are likely to have had a better conception of exactly what Our Lord had said and meant to say than the members of ICEL in the second half of the twentieth.
Nobody noticed?
The argument, however, is even stronger than at first appears since the evangelists almost certainly did not translate the words of Consecration directly themselves but used the translations with which they were familiar from the Eucharistic Liturgy in which they regularly participated. These translations go back beyond the evangelists, to the time when the first Gentiles were converted and the existing Aramaic liturgy was translated into Greek for their benefit, which must have happened at most within twenty years of the Resurrection, certainly within the lifetime of the majority of the Apostles. Is it conceivable that Christ’s words were mistranslated at that time, that nobody noticed and that the Church had to wait nineteen centuries for ICEL to put the matter right?
But, says ICEL, the Greek word p o l l o i sometimes means "all". It does not say that it always, or even usually, means "all", which would have been quite unsustainable, since there are numerous instances in the New Testament (to say nothing of the rest of Greek literature) where it cannot possibly mean this. However, so long as it sometimes means all, ICEL believes that it is justified in translating it as "all" in this particular context. We must therefore consider whether ICEL’s arguments that it can sometimes mean "all" are sound or not. I believe that they are not, for the following reasons.
Firstly, ICEL quotes two passages from the letters of St. Paul (Romans 5:19, and Timothy 2:5-6) where it says p o l l o i is used in the sense of "all". In the former passage, however, p o l l o i , in contrast to the Gospel passages, has the definite article before it (‘ o i p o l l o i ), and this completely alters the meaning in Greek from "many people" to "people in general". Romans 5:19 does not therefore support ICEL’s argument. The word used in Timothy 2:5-6 is p a n t e V , which undoubtedly means all, and ICEL says that this is a parallel passage to Mark 10:45, in which the corresponding word is p o l l o i . It concludes that p o l l o i in Mark 10:45 must mean "all". What ICEL has evidently failed to notice however is that its argument is circular; it could just as easily be reversed and used to prove that p a n t e V in Timothy 2:5-6 means "many". So of the only two passages in the New Testament which ICEL can quote in support of its translation, one turns out to be irrelevant and the other circular.
ICEL text is a mistranslation.
Secondly, when the Latin Canon was first composed towards the end of the fourth century as part of the shift in the Church’s liturgical language from Greek to Latin, the Latin words chosen as corresponding to the Greek were "pro multis", not "pro omnibus". The fourth century liturgists clearly did not understand the words in the Greek Canon as meaning "for all". "Pro multis" remains in the Latin Canon to this day, and even the most extreme among the twentieth century liturgical reformers have never suggested either that "pro multis" can possibly mean "for all" or that the text of the Canon should be altered to "pro omnibus". On these grounds alone therefore the ICEL text is a mistranslation of the Latin.
Thirdly, in Liddell and Scott’s standard Greek Lexicon, the article on p o l l o i extends to over two columns of small print and lists many nuances of meaning with extensive quotations from Greek literature to support the corresponding English meanings given. Nowhere, however, in Greek literature do either Liddell and Scott or the many later editors of their Lexicon record any passage where the word bears the meaning "all".
Different and incompatible translations.
Fourthly, the distinguished scholars responsible for the principal modern English translations of the Bible (RSV, Knox, New English, Good News, New International and New Jerusalem) are unanimous in translating the passages in question as "for many" and not as "for all". This, incidentally, has the unfortunate result that on a day when the relevant passage is read at Mass as part of the Gospel (Palm Sunday for instance), we have two different and incompatible translations of the same passage in the same liturgy.
It can only be a matter of speculation why ICEL decided to go for the controversial translation "for all" rather than the safe translation "for many". Its members must have known that it would provoke attitudes ranging from polite disagreement to total outrage. It has been suggested that they may have been influenced by the belief that everyone will be saved, and thereby led to attribute to Christ the words which they would have preferred Him to have said rather than those which He did say. I do not think that this belief has ever been formally condemned as heretical, but it is incompatible with Christ’s teaching as recorded in the New Testament, in particular with His account of the Last Judgement in Matt. 25: 41-46. Unhappily, thanks to ICEL, it is now enshrined in the very heart of the English vernacular Mass.
[Taken from the Latin Mass Society's February 2000 Newsletter.]
It's been about seven years since I have been to Matthew's in DC. It was a beautiful Cathedral - hope it still is!
This is not a question of one person's opinion versus another's. This issue was addressed dogmatically and irreformibly by the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent specifically and unambiguously taught that the meaning "for all" is incompatible with the actual words and the intention of Christ.
Now somebody might say that maybe "all" means the same as "many." Someone may argue that Our Lord said "My Blood will be shed for you and for many," but "many" simply means the multitude of the human race. It's really being shed, it's being poured out for all, so "many" and "all" mean the same thing. Therefore, "all" is an adequate and accurate translation. There is only one problem with this argument, and that is the testimony of Sacred History. The Church has spoken magisterially on this issue on several occasions.In the Catechism of the Council of Trent we are told by the Church, speaking magisterially, that when Christ uttered the words of Consecration, He deliberately said "for many" and not "for all." Our Lord was not talking about those for whom His Blood would be shed on the Cross, he was talking about whom His Blood would be poured out for in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and who would be ultimately brought to Heaven by that. He was not talking about the entire world. The Blood He shed on the Cross was sufficient to save the whole world, but our Faith has always taught us that it is efficient only for the elect, for those who actually make it to Heaven. Even Monsignor Klaus Gamber in Appendix I of his book The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, makes this point very clearly. The Cathechism says Our Lord intended to say "for many" and deliberately avoided the use of the words "for all." Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches the exact same thing in his Summa, and so does Saint Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church, in his treatsie on the Holy Eucharist.
BUMP!
Two points. First, the NO Mass, in Latin, contains the proper words, pro multis. If ICEL is in error here, then the translation will be corrected. I don't see why this would by necessity invalidate the Sacrament.
I have tried to point out that the idea that the Sacrifice is sufficient for all, but only efficient for many, is something that requires catechesis. From neither version of the English text is the entire idea flushed out. It requries catechesis.
Perhaps the Old Mass expressed this better, but the Mass is not sufficient to teach the entire theological concept.
Second, perhaps the "all" is meant to refer to all present, or all engaged in the Mass. Which would jibe with the interpretation given above.
SD
No, it doesn't jibe at all, unless your saying that anybody at any given Mass is definitely going to heaven.
Not any more than the above statement does:
Our Lord was not talking about those for whom His Blood would be shed on the Cross, he was talking about whom His Blood would be poured out for in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and who would be ultimately brought to Heaven by that.
By presenting the true statement that Christ's Blood was shed "for all," the Church adopts a "half full" attitude. If you prefer a "half empty" one, that is your choice. I would rather remind people that they, too, can be saved by the Cross, than to remind them that only "some" will be saved.
In any event, as I have said, the NO text says "pro multis." If the English translation is in error, it will be fixed. Does this "mistranslation" void the Sacrament, and how?
SD
It's not a true statement and the Church never, ever presented it as one. Only the miscreants in the ICEL did and now even you are backpedaling and saying if the translation is wrong it will be corrected, but out of the other corner of your mouth you're still mumbling that it's a true statement.
If you wish to believe that Christ only shed His Blood for the elect, the Calvinists will be happy to have you.
SD
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.