OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 25, 2014, 04:57:49 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Pope orders German Catholics to make the 'for many' change  (Read 1079 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« on: May 04, 2012, 07:15:53 PM »

Quote
The struggles German Catholics are having with changes in the eucharistic prayer will be familiar for U.S. Catholics whose Mass language changed in 2011. In 2013, Germans who are used to praying that Jesus died für alle (for all) will be praying that Jesus died für viele (for many).

And the order to make the change is coming directly from Pope Benedict XVI.

In a recent 2,000-word letter to bishops in his native Germany, the pope addressed the translation of the Latin phrase pro multis in the eucharistic prayer, in which Christ told his disciples at the Last Supper that his blood was poured out, according to literal translation, "for you and for many." He said there had been since the 1960s an "exegetical consensus" built on the idea that the original Hebrew sources implied not "for many" but "for all." However, Benedict wrote, this had been an "interpretation" rather than a "translation," and the Vatican had since asked local churches to revert to the more accurate phrase "for many."
....
In his letter to the German bishops, Benedict said he is aware that the return to the "for many" translation "poses a great challenge for all those tasked with interpreting the word of God in the church, since for regular church visitors it will almost inevitably appear to spell a rupture in the holiest of spheres. They will ask: Did Christ not die for all? Has the church changed her teaching? ... Well, the church derives this formulation from the institutional narrative of the New Testament; and she does out of respect for the word of Jesus, to remain true to him."
....
In his NCR interview, Arens noted that Germany's Evangelical church, known as the EKD, and Jewish faith groups backed use of the term "for many." He added that he believed most Catholics would accept the new translation "without resistance."
« Last Edit: May 04, 2012, 07:16:14 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,422


fleem
WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 04, 2012, 07:20:15 PM »

I think it's another step in the right direction.
Logged

Charlie Rose: "If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?"

Fran Lebowitz: "Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisified."

spcasuncoast.org
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,202


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #2 on: May 04, 2012, 07:58:00 PM »

He said there had been since the 1960s an "exegetical consensus" built on the idea that the original Hebrew sources implied not "for many" but "for all." However, Benedict wrote, this had been an "interpretation" rather than a "translation," and the Vatican had since asked local churches to revert to the more accurate phrase "for many."

Which "Hebrew sources" is he referring to?
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 04, 2012, 08:01:11 PM »

He said there had been since the 1960s an "exegetical consensus" built on the idea that the original Hebrew sources implied not "for many" but "for all." However, Benedict wrote, this had been an "interpretation" rather than a "translation," and the Vatican had since asked local churches to revert to the more accurate phrase "for many."

Which "Hebrew sources" is he referring to?
That's the question. The Greek is "peri pollon".
« Last Edit: May 04, 2012, 08:04:47 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 05, 2012, 07:39:30 AM »

He said there had been since the 1960s an "exegetical consensus" built on the idea that the original Hebrew sources implied not "for many" but "for all." However, Benedict wrote, this had been an "interpretation" rather than a "translation," and the Vatican had since asked local churches to revert to the more accurate phrase "for many."

Which "Hebrew sources" is he referring to?

I think it's the Hebrew sources/translations of the Gospels. Matthew says "for many" for example.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #5 on: May 05, 2012, 08:34:21 AM »

He said there had been since the 1960s an "exegetical consensus" built on the idea that the original Hebrew sources implied not "for many" but "for all." However, Benedict wrote, this had been an "interpretation" rather than a "translation," and the Vatican had since asked local churches to revert to the more accurate phrase "for many."

Which "Hebrew sources" is he referring to?

I don't know for certain what he means; but in my experience, arguments for "for many" usually include some speculation on what Hebrew words Jesus used (which the Evangelists translated into Greek).
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,202


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #6 on: May 05, 2012, 08:48:08 AM »

Jesus was speaking in Hebrew to his disciples? On what basis would people speculate that such a thing happened?
« Last Edit: May 05, 2012, 08:48:33 AM by Asteriktos » Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,422


fleem
WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 05, 2012, 10:25:02 AM »

Jesus was speaking in Hebrew to his disciples? On what basis would people speculate that such a thing happened?

Maybe he meant to say Greek but messed up.  Huh Well, at least 'for many' is accurate to the Scripture.
Logged

Charlie Rose: "If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?"

Fran Lebowitz: "Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisified."

spcasuncoast.org
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,709



WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 05, 2012, 11:50:23 AM »

He said there had been since the 1960s an "exegetical consensus" built on the idea that the original Hebrew sources implied not "for many" but "for all." However, Benedict wrote, this had been an "interpretation" rather than a "translation," and the Vatican had since asked local churches to revert to the more accurate phrase "for many."

Which "Hebrew sources" is he referring to?

I don't know for certain what he means; but in my experience, arguments for "for many" usually include some speculation on what Hebrew words Jesus used (which the Evangelists translated into Greek).
Peter,

Why do you assume Jesus was speaking Hebrew when he said this?

Greek was a common language at the time, and the New Testament often cites from the Greek Septuagint, rather than what apparently developed into the Hebrew Masoretic.

Naturally Jesus knew Hebrew to read the Old Testament liturgically, but it seems he could know Greek too, in order to use the Septuagint.

Anyway, the Greek used here, pollon, means "many".

I am confused why "Jewish faith groups backed use of the term "for many" ", since the quote is taken from Matthew 26, which is not part of what they accept as their religion.
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #9 on: May 05, 2012, 12:54:44 PM »

He said there had been since the 1960s an "exegetical consensus" built on the idea that the original Hebrew sources implied not "for many" but "for all." However, Benedict wrote, this had been an "interpretation" rather than a "translation," and the Vatican had since asked local churches to revert to the more accurate phrase "for many."

Which "Hebrew sources" is he referring to?

I don't know for certain what he means; but in my experience, arguments for "for many" usually include some speculation on what Hebrew words Jesus used (which the Evangelists translated into Greek).
Peter,

Why do you assume Jesus was speaking Hebrew when he said this?

Greek was a common language at the time, and the New Testament often cites from the Greek Septuagint, rather than what apparently developed into the Hebrew Masoretic.

Naturally Jesus knew Hebrew to read the Old Testament liturgically, but it seems he could know Greek too, in order to use the Septuagint.

Anyway, the Greek used here, pollon, means "many".

I am confused why "Jewish faith groups backed use of the term "for many" ", since the quote is taken from Matthew 26, which is not part of what they accept as their religion.
There are two possible reasons why the Jewish groups support "for many". One, is that the Matthew 26 quote is actually referring to a quote from the Hebrew Bible that is translated as "for many". Two, if Jesus died "for many" (and not "for all"), then that might mean that Jesus died for the gentiles, not the Jews, and thus the Jews can stay the Jews instead of having to become Christian. Roll Eyes
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #10 on: May 09, 2012, 08:35:59 AM »

He said there had been since the 1960s an "exegetical consensus" built on the idea that the original Hebrew sources implied not "for many" but "for all." However, Benedict wrote, this had been an "interpretation" rather than a "translation," and the Vatican had since asked local churches to revert to the more accurate phrase "for many."

Which "Hebrew sources" is he referring to?

I don't know for certain what he means; but in my experience, arguments for "for many" usually include some speculation on what Hebrew words Jesus used (which the Evangelists translated into Greek).
Peter,

Why do you assume Jesus was speaking Hebrew when he said this?

Sorry for the delay -- I just now read your post.

I'm not claiming that Jesus was speaking Hebrew so much as relating that that's what I often hear from those who support the "for all" translation.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #11 on: May 09, 2012, 08:37:49 AM »

He said there had been since the 1960s an "exegetical consensus" built on the idea that the original Hebrew sources implied not "for many" but "for all." However, Benedict wrote, this had been an "interpretation" rather than a "translation," and the Vatican had since asked local churches to revert to the more accurate phrase "for many."

Which "Hebrew sources" is he referring to?

I don't know for certain what he means; but in my experience, arguments for "for many" usually include some speculation on what Hebrew words Jesus used (which the Evangelists translated into Greek).
Peter,

Why do you assume Jesus was speaking Hebrew when he said this?

Greek was a common language at the time, and the New Testament often cites from the Greek Septuagint, rather than what apparently developed into the Hebrew Masoretic.

Naturally Jesus knew Hebrew to read the Old Testament liturgically, but it seems he could know Greek too, in order to use the Septuagint.

Anyway, the Greek used here, pollon, means "many".

I am confused why "Jewish faith groups backed use of the term "for many" ", since the quote is taken from Matthew 26, which is not part of what they accept as their religion.
There are two possible reasons why the Jewish groups support "for many". One, is that the Matthew 26 quote is actually referring to a quote from the Hebrew Bible that is translated as "for many". Two, if Jesus died "for many" (and not "for all"), then that might mean that Jesus died for the gentiles, not the Jews, and thus the Jews can stay the Jews instead of having to become Christian. Roll Eyes

As you say, those are possible reasons that the article said "Jewish faith groups backed use of the term "for many" ". As the saying goes, "anything's possible".
« Last Edit: May 09, 2012, 08:40:19 AM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,594


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 09, 2012, 08:58:14 AM »

I was always under the impression that Jesus spoke Aramaic or Greek (to non Jews) in day to day life, but Hebrew liturgically.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,245



« Reply #13 on: May 09, 2012, 11:01:26 PM »

Why all the talk about what may or may not have been in the Hebrew?  We don't have the Hebrew, even if one existed, but it still is guesswork. What we DO have is the Greek and it says "peri pollon" which means "for many." Even if we did have a Hebrew antecedent, in what language can the words "all" and "many" be conflated to mean the same thing?  I doubt there's one.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,709



WWW
« Reply #14 on: May 11, 2012, 12:01:43 AM »

There are two possible reasons why the Jewish groups support "for many". One, is that the Matthew 26 quote is actually referring to a quote from the Hebrew Bible that is translated as "for many". Two, if Jesus died "for many" (and not "for all"), then that might mean that Jesus died for the gentiles, not the Jews, and thus the Jews can stay the Jews instead of having to become Christian. Roll Eyes

Jetavan

What you say makes sense.

The first reason you give seems unlikely, because I didn't see a concordance matching the phrase "for many" with someplace in the Old Testament.

Here is what we see:

KJV Matthew 26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many (Greek peri pollon) for the remission of sins.

Exodus 24:8
Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, "This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words."

Jeremiah 31:31
"The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.

By the way, the Russian Orthodox translation of St John Chrysostom's liturgy says "for you and for many":
Иерей: Пиите от нея вси, сия есть Кровь Моя Новаго Завета, яже за вы и за многи изливаемая во оставление грехов.

So in conclusion, there doesn't appear to be an Old Testament equivalent of either "for many" or "for all." Instead, these phrases are based on New Testament passages.

Thus, the second reason you gave is the one that makes sense.
Logged
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #15 on: May 11, 2012, 12:09:07 AM »

I was always under the impression that Jesus spoke Aramaic or Greek (to non Jews) in day to day life, but Hebrew liturgically.

PP

To my knowledge this is correct. Hebrew was only a sacred language in the first century, so the only place for it would be the synagogue and the Temple. Jews would use Aramaic and Greek in daily life.

Why all the talk about what may or may not have been in the Hebrew?  We don't have the Hebrew, even if one existed, but it still is guesswork. What we DO have is the Greek and it says "peri pollon" which means "for many." Even if we did have a Hebrew antecedent, in what language can the words "all" and "many" be conflated to mean the same thing?  I doubt there's one.

Yeah, I don't really know what "Hebrew sources" they're trying to talk about here. None of the Gospels were written in Hebrew, and Christ isn't quoting from the Old Testament. St. Matthew's Gospel might've originally been in Aramaic...but that's still not Hebrew.
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,709



WWW
« Reply #16 on: May 11, 2012, 12:31:08 AM »

Peter,

Why do you assume Jesus was speaking Hebrew when he said this?

Sorry for the delay -- I just now read your post.

I'm not claiming that Jesus was speaking Hebrew so much as relating that that's what I often hear from those who support the "for all" translation.

Peter J,

Regarding the claim that Jesus was speaking Hebrew,
I recommend the thread "Did Matthew compose his Gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic?"
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37747.0.html

There's sites making the claim he typically spoke Hebrew, and I was interested in this claim because the OT was in Hebrew. But the sites I found didn't show well that he was speaking Hebrew instead of Aramaic. At best they showed he was speaking a Semitic language that could have been either one.

However, alot of those who sympathize with the Hebrew claim actually say it was Semitic in the form of Aramaic. I have seen at least one page start off talking about what it described as the real "Hebrew" New Testament, but then explain that it was in Aramaic.

To make a full real Hebrew-language version, proponents of a would-be "original" Hebrew version either translate from Greek or Aramaic, or use the Hebrew-language Shem Tov version, which I believe is a medieval creation.

Anyway, the Aramaic Peshitta version says "for all", just like the Greek version does:
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/index.php

So in conclusion, there doesn't appear to be a serious textual basis to say that in Hebrew- even if that was actually the language used- Jesus was saying "for all".

Instead, the most likely explanation appears to be that "for all" is a commentary-based interpretive change, as the article in the OP explains.

In fact, to give a similar example of this interpretive thinking, I read on a Russian website, that "For you and for many" means everyone (ie. all) should drink from the cup.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2012, 12:35:47 AM by rakovsky » Logged
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #17 on: May 11, 2012, 12:35:03 AM »

Since when is liturgy done by textual criticism?
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,709



WWW
« Reply #18 on: May 11, 2012, 12:38:45 AM »

Since when is liturgy done by textual criticism?
Well, the OP says the former RC version was using an "interpretation" of the Greek text.

In the Slavonic Liturgy, however, it just repeats Jesus' words "for many".

So to answer your question:
Sorry, I am not sure when the RC Church introduced this interpretation version, and what text criticism they used to get from Jesus' words to their version.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2012, 12:38:57 AM by rakovsky » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #19 on: May 11, 2012, 07:38:03 AM »

Peter,

Why do you assume Jesus was speaking Hebrew when he said this?

Sorry for the delay -- I just now read your post.

I'm not claiming that Jesus was speaking Hebrew so much as relating that that's what I often hear from those who support the "for all" translation.

Peter J,

Regarding the claim that Jesus was speaking Hebrew,
I recommend the thread "Did Matthew compose his Gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic?"
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37747.0.html

There's sites making the claim he typically spoke Hebrew, and I was interested in this claim because the OT was in Hebrew. But the sites I found didn't show well that he was speaking Hebrew instead of Aramaic. At best they showed he was speaking a Semitic language that could have been either one.

However, alot of those who sympathize with the Hebrew claim actually say it was Semitic in the form of Aramaic. I have seen at least one page start off talking about what it described as the real "Hebrew" New Testament, but then explain that it was in Aramaic.

To make a full real Hebrew-language version, proponents of a would-be "original" Hebrew version either translate from Greek or Aramaic, or use the Hebrew-language Shem Tov version, which I believe is a medieval creation.

Anyway, the Aramaic Peshitta version says "for all", just like the Greek version does:
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/index.php

So in conclusion, there doesn't appear to be a serious textual basis to say that in Hebrew- even if that was actually the language used- Jesus was saying "for all".

Instead, the most likely explanation appears to be that "for all" is a commentary-based interpretive change, as the article in the OP explains.

In fact, to give a similar example of this interpretive thinking, I read on a Russian website, that "For you and for many" means everyone (ie. all) should drink from the cup.

Hi rakovsky. Good post, but I don't know if you'll get a response, b/c I don't know if any of the people who argue the point are on this thread.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,709



WWW
« Reply #20 on: May 11, 2012, 11:28:14 AM »

Hi rakovsky. Good post, but I don't know if you'll get a response, b/c I don't know if any of the people who argue the point are on this thread.
Well, next time you run into them, you can point them to the thread "Did Matthew compose his Gospel in Hebrew or Aramaic?"
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37747.0.html

I spent hours "scratching my head" and researching the question, and put my results there.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,170



« Reply #21 on: May 11, 2012, 12:09:59 PM »

I'm getting a little off-topic, but there's was a recent thread on catholic.com about Jesus calling Peter "rock/petros". As I recall several different posts repeated that it didn't matter that the Gospel text said "petros" not "petra" because Jesus wasn't actually speaking Greek. Frankly, I didn't bother engaging them in conversation, but if you're interested the thread shouldn't be too hard to find.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,709



WWW
« Reply #22 on: May 12, 2012, 11:34:10 AM »

I'm getting a little off-topic, but there's was a recent thread on catholic.com about Jesus calling Peter "rock/petros". As I recall several different posts repeated that it didn't matter that the Gospel text said "petros" not "petra" because Jesus wasn't actually speaking Greek.
1. It's true that Matthew 16 says I call you Petros and on this petra I will build my church.

2. Even if Jesus said this in Aramaic, it seems like it still matters what the gospel says, because you want to get the right translation. For example, When using Greek and Greek Liturgy, should he be called Petros or Petra?

Then you add in the fact that alot of names in English are actually the Greek version of the name- Moses rather than Moshe, for example. And besides, the root petro-(rock) has come into English with words like "petroglyph."

So if you want to know the English version of Peter's name, it helps to know the Greek one. Unless you want to change all the other normal English names to literal Aramaic and Hebrew-sounding names. nd if that's important, we might as well change Saint Petersburg to Sankt Peterburg, and Georgia to Gruzia, for starters.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2012, 11:34:55 AM by rakovsky » Logged
Wieliczkowski
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #23 on: May 14, 2012, 10:04:35 AM »

He said there had been since the 1960s an "exegetical consensus" built on the idea that the original Hebrew sources implied not "for many" but "for all." However, Benedict wrote, this had been an "interpretation" rather than a "translation," and the Vatican had since asked local churches to revert to the more accurate phrase "for many."

Which "Hebrew sources" is he referring to?

I don't know for certain what he means; but in my experience, arguments for "for many" usually include some speculation on what Hebrew words Jesus used (which the Evangelists translated into Greek).
Peter,

Why do you assume Jesus was speaking Hebrew when he said this?

Sorry for the delay -- I just now read your post.

I'm not claiming that Jesus was speaking Hebrew so much as relating that that's what I often hear from those who support the "for all" translation.

Isn't the "for all" heretical and forbiden according to pre-Vatican II ordinary-extrordinary magisterium?

"Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1439: "All these sacraments are made up of three elements: namely, things as the matter, words as the form, and the person of the minister who confers the sacrament with the intention of doing what the Church does.  If any of these is lacking, the sacrament is not effected."[21]

The problem with the validity of the New Mass comes with the form, those words necessary to confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist.  The form necessary to confect the Eucharist in the Roman Rite was declared by Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441: “…the holy Roman Church, relying on the teaching and authority of the apostles Peter and Paul… uses this form of words in the consecration of the Lord's Body: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. And of His blood: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS."[22]

In Pope St. Pius V’s Decree De Defectibus, we find the same words repeated:

Pope St. Pius V, De Defectibus, chapter 5, Part 1:
"The words of Consecration, which are the FORM of this Sacrament, are these: FOR THIS IS MY BODY.  And: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS.  Now if one were to remove, or change anything in the FORM of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not consecrate the sacrament."[

The Catechism of the Council of Trent, On the Form of the Eucharist, p. 227:
"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 has 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 and 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."
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/new_mass_vs_traditional_latin_mass.php
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.119 seconds with 51 queries.