1984 ROMAN CATECHISM KOs Botched US Catholic Consecration Formula

"The alternative expression, FOR ALL, was properly omitted, because here it is only the fruit of the Passion which is spoken of; and for the elect only does the Passion bear the fruit of salvation." page 224

In what may have been a desperate attempt to gain their American Catholic colleagues time, both Father Bradley and Kevane stuck this footnote Number 18, willy-nilly on the bottom of this same page:

"18. This disjunction in meaning between MANY and ALL, although valid on the terms of the theological distinction made in the text, is unnecessary on purely philological and historical terms.

"The POLLOI of the original New Testament text means BOTH MANY and ALL interchangeably.

"Taken as an exact equivalent of that Greek word, the Latin MULTI can -- and should -- convey both senses.

"And therefore both equivalents in English, MANY and ALL, are justified."

Sorry folks! If that's the case why do even the bulk of American Catholic Bibles in circulation today still leave the word MANY alone, except for some drivel in a footnote?

Now, here's the text of the ROMAN CATECHISM:

"24. The Appropriateness of the Special Mention of the Passion in This Consecration

"...The next phrase, FOR YOU AND FOR MANY, is taken partly from St. Matthew, partly St Luke (Mt 26:28; Lk 22:20). Guided by the Spirit of God, the Catholic Church has made it a single phrase. It is meant to designate the actual effectiveness of the Passion.

"If we consider its potential efficacy, we would have to say that the Blood of the Savior was shed for ALL MEN.

"But if we look to what it actually achieves in terms of mankind's acceptance of it, we see that it does not extend to the whole, but only to a large part of the human race.

"When, therefore, he said, FOR YOU, he meant those only who were present at the Supper except Judas; or he may also have meant all the disciples whom we had chosen along with the Twelve.

"And when he added FOR MANY, he was including all the other elect from among the Jews and the Genties until the end of time.

"The alternative expression, FOR ALL was properly omitted, because here it is only the fruit of the Passion which is spoken of; and for the elect only does the Passion bear the fruit of salvation."

Something for we rank and file American Catholics to ponder, humm??

Or, is this whole FOR ALL MEN business just another routine example of a lack of even merely academic integrity that we still insist in putting words in the mouth of Jesus Christ, the better to make Him both idologically and politically correct?

Dennis

Ah, a cogent post! A well-stated vanity (please do read up about vanities. I'm not saying not to post them -- I do post them myself -- but I cite sources as sources only, and make clear that I am the author of the post).

Please note, however, that your point has already been won: The new official translation of the mass plainly forbids the use of the phrasing, "for all." Nonetheless, it is scandalous that so few priests, fully aware of the translation, are waiting to be forced to make the change, rather than willingly correcting what they know to be a false translation.

Yo, dangus!

Point well taken, thanks!

You were 100% right in what you said, inasmuch as in normal English usage, setting original sources aside by flanking the excerps with quotation marks [ " ]before the beginning, and another set of [ " ] at the end -- plus the cites and page numbers -- would have done the trick, as least back in the Stone Age, so far as enabling a reader to determine for herself (or himself) just WHICH is the cited material and WHICH is the submitter's personal knee-jerk opinion.

Then again, maybe I'm just lucky 'cause I learned the fundamentals by going to a more or less podunk public high school over 40 years ago.

"Back when we were still using clay tablets and a stylus.."

Thanks for the input, especially for what you said about all this having been already taken care of, since in the Diocese of El Paso, reality is whatever the individual priest makes it, and what he makes it is up to him.

As Bishop Ochoa told us genially one afternoon during the pm Mass, when he'd just come back from that particular meeting:

"Some of these changes I can live with, with others well, we'll just have to see."

Another priest told us it would be like 3 to 5 years or who knows (or cares) before all this is "supposed" to be implemented. (Heh! Heh!)

Dennis

Yo, Tax-chick!

Good advice, but because of my dual handicap of being BOTH "Motivationally Impaired" and "Intellectually Challenged," I settled for a brisk hike, at a moderate altitude of 3,800 feet or so.

By the way, if you REALLY want us to believe you're a bonafide pistol-packing member of the IRS' Criminal Intelligence Division, better yet, a CID officer with a solid background in Narcotics and Vice, working out of some office like the one in Buffalo, New York, why not prove it by getting our neighbor Dangus and me his "missing cite," which he can't find for himself, nor I for myself?

Man!

With all the clout you CID officers have, it shouldn't be too big a challenge.

What say?

See you guys...

Dennis

PS I picked Buffalo, because in the early Spring of 1983 at least, they were a very aggressive bunch of-getters.

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.