Catholic Online Forum

A very dear friend of mine, who was ordained in 1953 from St. Mary's in Baltimore, used to have all these photos in his office of the present St. Mary's, the old St. Mary's on Paca Street, and St. Charles in Catonsville, and I just loved to hear his stories of going through the old seminary system with the Sulpicians.

Yes, it was a time when that area was awash in all things Catholic. Those places were bursting at the seam with seminarians. The Sulpician faculty at those schools still had some of the old French priests, who the guys jokingly said were old enough to have known the Carrolls.

It was poignant for me to read your post Dana because my priest friend has recently been called to glory. In pace requiescat.

_________________
Sincerely in Christ,
Fr. Angel

Fr. Angel,



God Bless,

Margaret

_________________
Behold I stand at the door and knock.....
Rev. 3:20

We are still quite fortunate. I read about the shortage of priests in other areas but there is no shortage here. Catholic culture was stronger when I was younger though, sometimes it was quite radical. Local television and radio catered to our faith, with local themes.

I must be getting old Father. I grow nostalgic.

Peace,
Dana

Fr. Angel,
Just wanted to say that you and Fr. Z's posts were very helpful to me personally and appreciate the detailed context they were placed in.

Having said that, I want to return to your 'pendulum' analogy. As a lay person and comitted Catholic I will certainly get out of the way of the pendulum before it smacks me in the face as it changes direction. However, we could be having this same conversation ten years from now and just as I stepped out of the way earlier as the pendulum came toward me, it could smack me in the back of the head as it moves once again in the other direction.

The point is that the amplitude of variability in these kind of changes doesn't seem to be going away - and may never - leaving us lay folk scratching our heads to best find our way in an honest attempt to ascent to the Church's authority.

Why couldn't there be a 'Year of Catechisis' where either at the pulpit or through planned parish meetings, the Priest or Bishop could lead the congregation through Liturgical, GIRM, and other changes with the explanation behind them?

In other words, the Fisherman could be right in our midst. Could such a thing happen?

Pete

_________________
Pete

"You know my name and I weep when hurt and I cheer when you win because you are my son. I will come when you call and I will hear your prayer, I will fight for my name becasue you are my son"

Perhaps a minority opinion, and weighing in late, as usual, but frankly this is a load off my mind. "For all" has been driving me nuts, ever since I noticed that it differed from the Anglican/Episcopal "for many." After I looked it up in the Vatican II Latin Version, and found it said "pro multis," it only drove me more nuts.

So this Latinist gives three cheers to Cardinal Arinze!

Also, I can't say anything about Aramaic, but the Greek polloi is "many;" "all" would be pantes.

Leslie Jameson

_________________
Oh Lord, our Governor, how exalted is thy name

Pete:

In these days when the laity have easy access to church documents, it should suffice for people to read the documents in order to find the reasons for changes that come along. Reading church teaching with a prayerful heart helps us to find the reason behind any change.

_________________
Sincerely in Christ,
Fr. Angel

Leslie:



Better late than never .

_________________
Sincerely in Christ,
Fr. Angel

Hi everyone,
i was just wondering, are the changes to the wording, effective immediately?

Do the priests have to wait for the directive to arrive from the hierarchy to implement the change?....or.....having read about it via the official vatican site, can they go ahead and implement the word changing immediately?

marie

_________________
"He that followeth Me walketh not in darkness," sayeth the Lord

Marie:

Priests should wait until they receive an official directive from the conference of bishops of their respective country. With a directive, we priests are given an official "launch" date so that we implement at the same time. That is how it happens with liturgical directives.

A letter comes from the conference headquarters to the bishops, who pass it on to us, which states that "after such and such a date, the following change may be introduced; then, after such and such a later date after the previous one, the change shall be the only usage and other usages are not permitted in the United States of America."

_________________
Sincerely in Christ,
Fr. Angel

Out of respect to the diocesan bishop, who is like a father over his flock, time is always given for the bishop to be notified and allowed to absorb what is going on in Rome. Sometimes, even the poor bishop is scratching his head. It would be out of place for an individual priest to make a change in his parish, because a father has a right to explain things to his family without one of the kids jumping the gun and doing it for him.

But once the grace time passes, they all try to act with one directive.

_________________
Sincerely in Christ,
Fr. Angel

And he has to figure out his explanation, his catecheses, his justification/rebuttal. Orders come from above, the local bishop must speak to his flock and take a lot of flak.

_________________
Regards,
Mark

Mark,

…or to use the time to devise a feeble, weasel-worded excuse, sorry “explanation” as to why the decision in Rome will not be implemented in Los… er… where ever it may be. Allow me to guess: “we’ve been doing this for some time now; it’s become local custom; we shall continue as we’ve been doing, thanks all the same”.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

Father Angel,



It would be nice, too, if fish were to bait their own hooks. But they do not oblige.

I think Pete's suggestion is a very good one.

Peace,
Dana

Your "guess" might be accurate. And that is precisely the reason that the net must be cast with grace.

Peace,
Dana

Dana,

Dare one speak of obedience and discipline?

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

James said:



Then Dana said:



Now, come on guys. Both of you and Mark need to quit holding back, being so shy and timid, and just speak your mind .

It is nice to see that fighting Irish is still in some people's blood.

_________________
Sincerely in Christ,
Fr. Angel

Father,

Funny you should say that. It troubles me not a little that the gentleman I was referring to (I had in mind certain of his responses to Redemptionis Sacramentum) has an Iridh surname and is of noble birth.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

JMJ

Me, too.

Honestly, it's a non-issue with me. If I had my way, it would be:

"...will be shed for you and for all, so that many will be saved..."

But I'm neither a Latinist or a native English speaker. So I'll swing with the pendulum on this one.

_________________
Pax et bonum,
Marie

JMJ

JmJ



NOR a proofreader. Sorry.

_________________
Pax et bonum,
Marie

JMJ

thanks heaps Fr Angel for explaining the process

marie

_________________
"He that followeth Me walketh not in darkness," sayeth the Lord

Fr. Angel, you said:

With all due respect, what the church documents say and what the individual parish's do may be two entirely different things. Take the GIRM specific to standing during the entire Eucharistic celebration as an example. Although it has been in place since June of 2002 (I think I have the date right) it was left up to the individual Diocese to adopt as they see fit. Consequently, we have a checkerboard adoption of the new direction that's places the laity in a confusing situation - particularly when visiting a different church than you own and you kneel while others are standing. I realize this is different from the 'all' versus 'many' in that it's correcting original syntax versus a modification of celbration posture. Still the laity see both as the pendulum coming at them, it's clear in the church documents, but the intrepretation may be different.

I'll stand by my suggestion of a "Year of Catechisis" from the Church leadership that would go a long way in letting folks like me understand the reasons for the changes and at the same time, being consistent from parish to parish on the timing for the changes to occur.

Pete

_________________
Pete

"You know my name and I weep when hurt and I cheer when you win because you are my son. I will come when you call and I will hear your prayer, I will fight for my name becasue you are my son"

Seamas,

Thank you for your concern with the bishops of the US and what they may or may not do.

As I understand it, the Land Down Under has quite a few problems of its own.

Perhaps one should start there.

_________________
Regards,
Mark

JMJ

Ok, now that it is clear that the correct translation of pro multis is in fact for many, because

1) that is what it means, and what the Church always said that Christ said and she wasn't wrong for 20 centuries, that's for sure, as witnessed by the marvellous diversity in the unity of faith of venerable ancient liturgical texts of rites other than the Roman, all agreeing on for many.

2) as is often the case, the truth is the best solution to protect the faithful from errors, especially errors of a relativistic nature - not so distant from the mentality of certain theologians and liturgists - according to which we'll be saved regardless of our actual choices and creed. So, for instance, the blood that was shed to offer salvation to ALL will in fact save all, even - if not especially - those who have rejected such salvation and denied the Church's faith and morals for all of their lives,

we can more easily prevent personal issues or lack of proper formation from standing in the way of our ability to understand and obey Rome's decisions made at the direction of the Holy Father and to exchange views in keeping with the spirit and the rules of this Forum.

I take the opportunity to invite all to re-read Cardinal Arinze's letter, which btw makes a perfect explanation priests and bishops could use to edify and form the flock unless they think we're all a bunch of retarded rednecks unable to grasp plausible and simply worded arguments. For the exigent reader I insist on Fr. Z's articles

Do not forget the precious passage of the Catechism of Trent quoted above by Dean. Speaking of Catechism, CCC states:


("free offering" and free will play a big role here, and so does the concept of "communion" as understood by sound ecclesiology)





Now, either John Paul II promulgated a Jansenist Catechism or the Church is saying something else with "for many", something we must try to understand and accept even if we don't like it, since this is a crucial matter of understanding and preserving truths tied to the conditions for our very salvation.

_________________
FabrizioParty like it's 1773

No one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist (Pius XI)

As the Vatican “recognitio” of the new Italian version of the Roman missal is nearing its conclusion, the dispute over the translation of “pro multis" in the formula of the Eucharistic consecration has seen new developments.
............
“For many" is the translation that Benedict XVI himself is demanding be adopted in the various languages, as he explained in a letter to the German bishops in April of 2012.
.......
But resistance is also being seen.

It has been noted, for example, that in London, in Canterbury, and in other places in England various priests are intentionally modifying the “for many” of the new English version of the missal approved by the Vatican, and saying: “for many and many.”

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/ar ... 0420?eng=y


For "many and many" does not equal "for all" so what's the point? Why the disobedience? Do they think that they will cause more souls to be saved by repeating "many" many times?

Christ used "many" just once.
For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. Matthew 26:28

_________________
In Christ
Kim, M



"....abstinence and chastity, dispose man very much to the perfection of intellectual operation.” St Thomas Aquinas

Kim,

Thanks for drawing this to our attention. As for the English renegades, the "biological solution" is breathing down their necks. Concerning the new Italian translation, this caught my eye



Remember how that's exactly what was said of the new English translation?

This particular battle has already been fought and won. The correct rendering of pro multis is "for many".

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

James,
When the Church says that Christ shed His Blood for "many" it is implied that not "all" will avail themselves of this shedding of Blood.

I think that the whole thing boils down to wanting to believe that "all" humans will go to Heaven. Which means that actions do not matter which means there is no act that is mortally wrong or sinful (deserving punishment).
But this of course contradicts the very reason for the existence of the Church and its priests. If we all go to Heaven anyway then there would be no need for going to Confession or even to Church.

_________________
In Christ
Kim, M



"....abstinence and chastity, dispose man very much to the perfection of intellectual operation.” St Thomas Aquinas

If not for the children -then for "the less educated, the poorest, those who accept things more through the sensibility than through reason" -quite a noble moral relative argument. The poor victims of truth must be protected from it by those who know better than God what is and what is not indispensable; AS IF -there exists any truth that might be dispensable. However, that is not really what is advanced e.g. that some truth is dispensable so it may as well be eliminated. What is really being advanced is that for the sake of a false peace (no 'problems') truth must be omitted. Moral relative argument is nothing new -it just as much premised the arguments that promoted much of the error evidenced today as it just as much premises the arguments that promote not correcting the error evidenced today.

There is nothing pastoral in promoting error that could lead some astray.

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

Kim,

It is great to see you posting.

This is probably a kindergarden question in a graduate level class, but is there a reason Christ's sacrifice and our Eucharist could not be "for all" without implying every person has or will ever receive it? I would have thought in God's intention it was given "for all" even if I suppose not even one single person receives it...

_________________
Charles MacKenzie

"For nature is one with rapine, a harm no preacher can heal;
The Mayfly is torn by the swallow, the sparrow spear'd by the shrike,
And the whole little wood where I sit is a world of plunder and prey."
-Tennyson

I think you look at things through the temporal perspective of man. God knows all past present and future -God does not hope nor did He intend -He did. As such, in this case I would contend that Christ spoke not of some hoped for future but rather of what He knew.

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

I do not agree with the "new" translation, which is of course nothing but a proper translation of the actual Latin, but it is not my place to criticize the bishops in their decisions for the liturgy. I will obey them and say Amen even if it is not to my liking, and seek to see the wisdom of God in how he orchestrates this world through his Church.

_________________
Jeff Stevens

Even I am guilty of this no matter how I try. Of course, Christ spoke of what He knows.

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

About how I feel.

_________________
Bob C

Why don't you like it, Jeff?

_________________
Andrew McAllister

Respect for the dignity of every innocent human being from conception/fertilization, without exception, without compromise, without apology.

Andrew,

Not Jeff, but for me it is awkward, I suppose I'll get use to it, but I find myself giving the old responses about half the time.

_________________
Bob C

I cannot speak about other languages but I do know that English can be odd. "For many" in everyday usage does seem to imply "not all", but it does not necessarily rule it out. Similarly when we say in the Creed that "He rose again" we do not mean that our Lord was rising a second time.

The "pro multis" argument is really quite a non-issue for me.

_________________
Kent Wendler

Charles,



That is a very important question. But before discussing the theology we need quickly to deal with a simple matter of translation. The English we hear at Mass is a translation of the Latin. The Latin has "pro multis". The correct translation is "for many". All theology aside, any atheist schoolboy (in a good school) can translate "pro multis" correctly. So, why for so many years did we hear "for all"?

Which brings us to the theology. Yes, the people responsible for the 1973 "translation" into English had an axe to grind. The mistranslation "for all" was quite deliberate. There are those who believe (falsely) that Hell is a temporary state of cleansing, after which all will eventually enter heaven. Wishful thinking? Actually, it was formally condemned as heresy at the Council of Constantinople in 543.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01599a.htm

God's grace (won by the merits of Calvary and perpetuated in the Mass) is offered freely to all. Man is free to accept or reject it. While it is logically possible that Hell might be empty, this would mean that for the last twenty centuries not a single person has said "No, thank you" to God's offer of His grace. Not likely.

On a slight, but still relevant drift, it might be worth keeping in mind that the alleged Marian apparition in Bosnia has warned that the majority of people now alive on earth are going to end up in Hell.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

Now that Kim's new thread has been tacked onto the tail end of an old one, my comments seem a little redundant.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

And the Latin was a transaltion of the Greek. And the Greek was a translation of what, Hebrew or Aramaic? I suppose that we would have to go back the the text in the original language to be assured of a correct translation.

_________________
David L (CA)
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.” - Groucho Marx

James, thank you.

I understood that the right translation would be "many." And I have no problem with that. But the discussion did make me wonder about the theological point- was salvation offered to all, and was everyone free to accept it, and you answered my question perfectly.

_________________
Charles MacKenzie

"For nature is one with rapine, a harm no preacher can heal;
The Mayfly is torn by the swallow, the sparrow spear'd by the shrike,
And the whole little wood where I sit is a world of plunder and prey."
-Tennyson

Charles,

You're most welcome.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

David,

May I recommend you read some Adrian Fortescue?

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

I think Daniel's explanation that it operates out of time is more accurate, at least to my way of thinking.

That said, the implication in the modern era of "for many" is that Christ did not die in order to attempt to save all, implying that some are not offered salvation. This is clearly not the case, but it is the implication of the words in today's English.

I think the implication that "for all" means that all are saved is a very weak implication, much weaker than the above implication. I think few take it to mean that all are saved.

So I conclude that more error is likely to occur as a result of the more accurate translation than the less accurate translation. While I acede that Latin is the official language of the Church, I do not believe that something is more right solely on the basis that it conforms better to the Latin.

But again, I acede to those appointed over me. I will not question whether their decision was wise.

_________________
Jeff Stevens

Christ died for the whole human race and He made sufficient atonement for the whole world without exception.
The application of the fruits of this redemption is dependent on the person (subjective).
So Christ's atonement is universal but subjectively speaking it is particular:


[29] Granted, of course, that Christ has sufficiently satisfied for the sins of the human race by His death…….., every single one, for all that, must seek the remedies of his own salvation.
For the death of Christ is, so to say, a kind of universal cause of salvation, ………….But a universal cause must be applied specially to each one, that he may receive the effect of the universal cause. ……….And for this reason each must seek to be regenerated through Christ, and must himself undertake to do those things in which ,the power of Christ’s death operates.

[30] From this it is clear that the flow of salvation from Christ to men is not through a natural propagation, but through the zeal of good will in which a man cleaves to Christ. Hence, that which each accomplishes by Christ is a personal good. Wherefore, it is not passed on to descendants, as is the sin of the first parent, which is produced with the propagation of the nature.

St Thomas Aquinas
Summa Contra Gentiles, Book IV , Chap 55


Reply OBJ 4: As stated above, since Christ's Passion preceded, as a kind of universal cause of the forgiveness of sins, it needs to be applied to each individual for the cleansing of personal sins. Now this is done by baptism and penance and the other sacraments, which derive their power from Christ's Passion, as shall be shown later
…………………
Reply OBJ 1: Christ's Passion works its effect in them to whom it is applied, through faith and charity and the sacraments of faith. And, consequently, the lost in hell cannot avail themselves of its effects, since they are not united to Christ in the aforesaid manner.
Reply OBJ 2: As stated above (A1,r 4,5), in order to secure the effects of Christ's Passion, we must be likened unto Him. Now we are likened unto Him sacramentally in Baptism, according to Romans 6:4: "For we are buried together with Him by baptism into death."
St Thomas Aquinas
Summa
Treatise on the Incarnation
Q 49, A 1 & 3

_________________
In Christ
Kim, M



"....abstinence and chastity, dispose man very much to the perfection of intellectual operation.” St Thomas Aquinas

The Catechism of Trent explains:

The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore ('our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.
With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine.
The Catechism of Trent
THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST

_________________
In Christ
Kim, M



"....abstinence and chastity, dispose man very much to the perfection of intellectual operation.” St Thomas Aquinas

Jeff,



Eh? No, it isn't.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)