It is currently Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:01 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
 Pro multis and the NO!!! 
Author Message

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 284
New post Pro multis and the NO!!!
Oh, how clever are these modernists!

Lance





Pro multis means "for many," Vatican rules

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.


Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:10 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 176
New post Lance, you beat me to it...
I was just about to post on the same piece of news.

Below I paste in the full text sent out by "Cardinal Arinze".

While the claim that "for all" is compatible with a valid Mass is wrong, it is at least a great pleasure to watch Dr Sungenis being steam-rollered by one of his own cardinals!

What is really behind this, in my view, is that Benedict is actually aware that the invalidity of the Novuw Ordo is a strong argument against him. When he has "pro multis" back in the Novus Ordo, will he try to sort out the invalid rites of ordination and consecration, including his own ?

John

[To their Eminences / Excellencies, Presidents of the National Episcopal Conferences]

Congregatio de Cultu Divino et Disciplina Sacramentorum

Prot. N. 467/05/L

Rome, 17 October 2006

Your Eminence / Your Excellency,

In July 2005 this Congregation for the Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, by agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote to all Presidents of Conferences of Bishops to ask their considered opinion regarding the translation into the various vernaculars of the expression pro multis in the formula for the consecration of the Precious Blood during the celebration of Holy Mass (ref. Prot. N. 467/05/L of 9 July 2005).

The replies received from the Bishops' Conferences were studied by the two Congregations and a report was made to the Holy Father. At his direction, this Congregation now writes to Your Eminence / Your Excellency in the following terms:



1. A text corresponding to the words pro multis, handed down by the Church, constitutes the formula that has been in use in the Roman Rite in Latin from the earliest centuries. In the past 30 years or so, some approved vernacular texts have carried the interpretive translation "for all", "per tutti", or equivalents.

2. There is no doubt whatsoever regarding the validity of Masses celebrated with the use of a duly approved formula containing a formula equivalent to "for all", as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already declared (cf. Sacra Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Declaratio de sensu tribuendo adprobationi versionum formularum sacramentalium, 25 Ianuarii 1974, AAS 66 [1974], 661). Indeed, the formula "for all" would undoubtedly correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord's intention expressed in the text. It is a dogma of faith that Christ died on the Cross for all men and women (cf. John 11:52; 2 Corinthians 5,14-15; Titus 2,11; 1 John 2,2).

3. There are, however, many arguments in favour of a more precise rendering of the traditional formula pro multis:
a. The Synoptic Gospels (Mt 26,28; Mk 14,24) make specific reference to "many" (πολλων = pollôn) 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.

b. The Roman Rite in Latin has always said pro multis and never pro omnibus in the consecration of the chalice.

c. 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.

d. "For many" is a faithful translation of pro multis, whereas "for all" is rather an explanation of the sort that belongs properly to catechesis.

e. 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.

f. In line with the Instruction Liturgiam authenticam, effort should be made to be more faithful to the Latin texts in the typical editions.
The Bishops' Conferences of those countries where the formula "for all" or its equivalent is currently in use are therefore requested to undertake the necessary catechesis for the faithful on this matter in the next one or two years to prepare them for the introduction of a precise vernacular translation of the formula pro multis (e.g, "for many", "per molti", etc.) in the next translation of the Roman Missal that the Bishops and the Holy See will approve for use in their country.

With the expression of my high esteem and respect, I remain, Your Eminence/Your Excellency,

Devotedly Yours in Christ,

Francis Card. Arinze, Prefect

http://www.cwnews.com/offtherecord/offtherecord.cfm


Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:16 pm
Profile

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 284
New post 
John,

I find it devilishly clever how they waited for nearly 40 years to pass by until they did something to correct the errors in their rites. At this point in time most of their priests and bishops aren't valid and their goal is achieved, they have destroyed the faith of millions and still have invalid rites due to the minister's invalidity and not necessarily the rite itself. Now, doesn't Ratzo look so very conservative and traditional? Heaven help those who are on the fence and fall for this baloney.

Lance

PS: It is my contention that there will be a deal very soon with the SSPX. Why wouldn't there be? It seems they are getting all they want and there has been a recent push in the SSPX to instill the idea that the NO's sacraments are valid. Why wouldn't the SSPX clergy or their faithful embrace the NO church? If I were of that mind set, I would already be in the water with my life vest on. But then again, I could be wrong as I have been so many times in the past. :D


Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:41 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 8:21 am
Posts: 176
New post 
Dear Lance,

Quote:
It is my contention that there will be a deal very soon with the SSPX. Why wouldn't there be?


Well, obviously, there is the fear of losing people, whether clergy or laity.

However, I have just been spending the evening with a sedevacantist couple who frequent the SSPX, having nothing better where they live, south of Paris. Their spontaneous estimate was that if Benedict were to authorise the traditional rite, and the traditional rite became available in the parish churches, said by the Novus Ordo "priests", 70% of the SSPX faithful would be off to the parishes at once, without even waiting for Fellay to decide on his deal.

Obviously that is not encouraging!

John


Sun Nov 19, 2006 9:35 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
John Daly wrote:
Their spontaneous estimate was that if Benedict were to authorise the traditional rite, and the traditional rite became available in the parish churches, said by the Novus Ordo "priests", 70% of the SSPX faithful would be off to the parishes at once, without even waiting for Fellay to decide on his deal.


John,

That is to say that the average pew-sitter in France is only attending SSPX chapels because there is no Indult on offer in their locations. Which may well be true - I have no information on it.

In Perth we experienced a course of events which could almost be said to have constituted an experiment in this respect. You know the story. I would estimate that something less than a third of the chapel disappeared to the Indult offerings and some of those returned after varying periods. So yes, disastrous (especially considering the invalidity issue), but the percentages were probably the reverse of those that your friends are predicting. This is not to say that they are wrong, of course - but it is data.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Sun Nov 19, 2006 10:22 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pm
Posts: 284
New post 
Dear John,


John Daly wrote:

However, I have just been spending the evening with a sedevacantist couple who frequent the SSPX, having nothing better where they live, south of Paris. Their spontaneous estimate was that if Benedict were to authorise the traditional rite, and the traditional rite became available in the parish churches, said by the Novus Ordo "priests", 70% of the SSPX faithful would be off to the parishes at once, without even waiting for Fellay to decide on his deal.

Obviously that is not encouraging!

John


I agree and it seems, from what the sedevacantist couple you mention suggest, they are going to lose a vast amount of people anyway if "Joe the Rat"allows an unrestricted indult. I am also sure Fellay knows that too which begs the question, why wouldn't there be a deal soon?

In Domino,

Lance


Sun Nov 19, 2006 10:24 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi


Doubtless that Cardinal Ratzinger was the most dangerous choice for " pontiff". Friends of mine were even a bit rattled from watching his coronation " mass" given its " conservative " and traditional look.

Toward the end of JPII's " reign " when " many" but not all :lol: of the SSPX were starting to lean towards the See of Rome possibly being vacant, one more flaming liberal pretender, imagine Cardinal Martini? Or Kasbar? The vacancy would have been crystal clear to those not sure.

But as Lance stated, the modernist have the devils cleverness....

In Xto,
Vincent


Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:42 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Vince Sheridan wrote:
Or Kasbar?


Brian assures me he never made himself available. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:52 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi !

Dear John :lol: :lol: :lol:

Thanks for catching this, I meant Walter Cardinal Kasper... But glad to know Brian wasnt interested in becoming pontiff :) :)

Hope you and yours have a wonderful week !

In Xto,
Vincent


Mon Nov 20, 2006 12:58 am
Profile

Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 4:05 pm
Posts: 42
New post 
.


Last edited by Brian Kenny on Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:04 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 11:46 pm
Posts: 728
Location: Western Washington, USA
New post 
Pax Christi,

A news paper in Italy( I I don't know if it s national or local) is taking a poll to see how many would be interested in the Latin Mass.....

Quote:

Siete favorevoli al ritorno della messa in latino?

Sì 74.4%

No 25.6%


Numero Votanti: 40063


Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:03 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post 
Vince Sheridan wrote:
Sì 74.4%


So you see the reason that the Froggy "episcopate" is so upset with the idea of "freeing the Tridentine Mass." If only they understood the invalidity of their own Orders, they could relax a bit. :)

_________________
In Christ our King.


Fri Nov 24, 2006 11:02 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 4:15 pm
Posts: 128
New post 
Quote from "cardinal" Arinze, who's niece he visited on occasion at "Franciscan" Univ. of Steubenville... that protestant, charismatic institution dressed in "catholic" array which poisons the minds and hearts of the poor young souls who are sent there by their erstwhile, willfully clueless NO parents: Quote: "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."


Test market, buy time and refine tactics... the clear modus operandi of the counterfeit "church". We have seen it displayed consistently lo these many years of modernist assault. The only encouragement I am able to take from such sinister machinations is that perhaps they are somewhat troubled by the fact that they have not deceived "all"...even if "many", of the faithful.

Pax Christi!

BarJonas

_________________
St. John 14:18; St. John 14:27


Sat Nov 25, 2006 3:15 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.