Currently when the priest consecrates the Precious Blood, he prays in Jesus words: "Take this all of you and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all* so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.
*From 1970 to about the very early 1980's, the priest said, "For you and for all men." Men was dropped because it sounded to exclusive to feminists who only heard men being saved.
The 2010 new English translation will be:
TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT,
FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD,
THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT,
WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY
FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.
DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.
From the blog, Gotta Sing, Gotta Pray, Jerry Galipeau, D. Min. quotes, Father Paul Turner who spoke at a recent liturgical convention in Salt Lake City:
One of the issues that Father Turner raised was the need for catechesis before, during, and following the implementation of the new translation. One of the issues that will need catechetical attention is the translation of pro vobis et pro multis in the institution narrative of the eucharistic prayers. Currently translated "for you and for all," the new translation is "for you and for many."
Father Turner tackled the issue by alerting us to the fact that in Matthew's Gospel, the English translation reads: "Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins." And, similarly in Mark, "This is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed for many." The hearers of these words would have recognized an allusion to the Suffering Servant Song in Isaiah: "Through his suffering, my servant shall justify many" and "he shall take away the sins of many, and win pardon for their offenses."
My comments:
This is precisely the problem with our current translation: IT ISN'T PRECISE and IT LOSES ITS BIBLICAL REFERENCES AND PRECISION HERE AND IN MANY OTHER PLACES!
In addition just as the words of consecration from 1970 to the early 80's "For you and for all men" sent the wrong message to "many" people, so too has "For you and for all." Because of this wording, many believe that everyone will be saved. That's simply not true.It is heretical.
The Latin is "Pro-multis" from the Scriptures that Father Turner highlights above. "For the many or the multitudes. In other words, the sacrifice is for everyone but properly nuanced: everyone who doesn't reject it! I don't think that means "all."
Not everyone accepts the sacrifice? Am I wrong in this assertion? Therefore the Sacrifice is not a magic act for those who reject the gift outright through mortal sinfulness or and informed decision not to join the Catholic Church and be baptized.Salvation is a gift, not imposed, but to be received. Salvation is not automatic! So in reality, not all are "saved" or there would be no dogma concerning hell.
Suffice it to say that if through no fault of one's own, one does not accept the gift, that person will be saved by Jesus and His sacrifice. It's only those who make a conscious, informed decision not to convert, but knowing the truth, decide their old way of life and immorality is more comfortable.
But praying for almost 40 years that everyone will be saved during the consecration has led how "many" Catholics to believe that no one is in hell? Aren't there many, but not all who do not receive the gift of salvation or reject it outright?
The dragnet of Jesus' words contained in the Gospels at the Last Supper, always in the Latin version of the Mass and now for the first time in 40 years in the new English Translation makes clear that "the many" means the masses, the multitudes, a huge, gigantic group of people form every age and place. God knew and certainly Jesus knew that not all would accept Him. He was indeed rejected and by many, but not all, wasn't He? Why in the world would he say for "all" at the Last Supper, when He knew darn well beforehand who would be saved and who wouldn't? It would be many, not all!
Finally, the proper Biblical translation of this will make us more ecumenical once again (although we already are in the Latin version). The Episcopal Book of Common Prayer uses "for many" in their consecration of the wine and so do the Lutherans and most Protestants. They want biblical accuracy even if they don't want "transubstantiation." Should we not only want transubstantiation but also Biblical accuracy? The Protestants are on to something!
Discuss.
5 comments:
You are asking a former Calvinist if there is going to be anybody in Hell...Bwa-hahahahahahaha...*takes breath*..hahahahaha!!!
Whew...heh, heh...now, on a more serious note. I have often wondered when and from where this "all" business sneaked in. Every translation I used in college and grad and theology school said "for many." But, think back to your college sophomore philosophy and philosophy of religion courses...I remember the discussions about the "logic" of salvation (soteriology...that's for you Ignotus) to wit, "if God is all good, and omniscient, and omnipotent and man is incapable of not sinning ("non posse non pecarre"...for you again, Ignotus),then God's goodness cannot be reconciled with eternal damnation and the existence of actual evil. Ergo, ultimately all men (and women, of course) must be saved. This was in the late 60's and early 70's when everybody thought Jesus was a hippie and God a liberal democrat. I suppose Heaven was Woodstock.
Then, there was the more respectable and more theological view that the Triumph of Grace in Christ was so complete that evil could not possibly stand before it and so must ultimately perish. When Christ descended into Hell, not only did He free the captive souls there, He trampled evil and Satan underfoot once and for all. As Karl Barth, Calvinist Reformed theologian, said quite nicely, "Christ descended into Hell so that no one would ever have to do that again." Fine, as far as it goes. What Barth dodges are the eternal consequences of sin...men may not have to go there, but what if they choose to?
The first of these notions is based upon philosphical logic, and the second upon "theo-logic." Both impose human reason upon God's Word and Judgement by subordinating God's Word (mystery) to human reason. This is a no-no.
I believe the "all" business is born of the 60's/70's feel good inclusive mentality that is still with us to some extent.
In the Apostolic Constitution Cum occasione of 31 May 1653 Pope Innocent X declared that it is orthodox Catholic teaching to say that Christ shed his blood for all human beings without exception.
It is also orthodox Catholic teaching that not all will necessarily avail of the redemption obtained by the shedding of Christ's blood. While Christ's redemptive suffering makes salvation available to all, it does not follow that all men are actually saved. This seems never to have been authoritatively defined, since it has remained uncontroversial.
The Roman Catechism, also known as the Catechism of the Council of Trent, stated: "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."
Very good, Pater Ignotus. At least we agree on something.
Both, and.
Post a Comment