www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Revision of Novus Ordo in America

Yes John, the Orthodox Study Bible (a misnomer as it is really only the New Testament) is a non-Catholic Bible.

Just was I would not expect a Catholic to use the notes from a protestant study Bible to support Catholic Teaching one can not use an Orthodox Study Bible to do so. Just take a look at the notes within it for Matthew 16:18 and you will see that it is not Catholic as this is one of the proofs of the papacy yet as the Orthodox deny the papacy (not looking for an argument here) they do not have the same understanding of this verse as Catholics do.

Theist Gal,

"However - those Missals were for private use. They were not official liturgical translations. The translation "for many" was never the "official" translation, because the Mass was never "officially" translated into English.

Once the Mass was translated into English - officially - the Church made the decision to use the phrase "for all". So "for all" is the only official Church translation of the Latin words "pro multis".

Not so, the Divine Liturgy was officially translated into English in the 50's by the Ukrainians and the Rusyns in the 60's, both use "for many".

We must remember we get these words from the Gospel which in Greek reads polloi (many), not pantes (all) and in Latin reads multis (many), not omnibus (all.

Also the Church did not make the decision to use "for all" ICEL did. Why ICEL chose to translate the Canon as "for all" when not a single Catholic transaltion of the Bible into English does so is puzzling. Imagine, on Holy Thursday Mass one will here the Gospel proclaimed with "for many" while the the Canon proclaimed with "for all".

At the time Rome chose to allow it. Rome is now saying that was a bad decision and texts should be translated faithfully as Fr. Incognitus has pointed out. "Pro multis" is "for many". "For all" would be "pro omnibus".

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Father Deacon,

I had no idea that the current translation had been changed. Thank you for this new information.

Eli

Dear all,

Seems to me that one could know what to look for in Scripture translations and thereby know what to take for one's own and what to leave, just as it is demonstrated here.

So that it would be perfectly possible to use any Scripture translation to teach a Catholic truth. The criteria there would be, of course, knowing the Catholic teaching, and not the genesis of the particular bible translation, or the particular translation of Genesis. Whatever. :p

Hope you don't find this note to be nasty or I'll get my butt tossed out of here. No offense intended. I'm trying to get these blue jeans to fit. Bear with me.

Eli

Dear Friends,

All these are excellent reasons why one should stay away from English in the Liturgy as far as possible!

Alex

Eli,

The translation has not been changed as of yet, but I fail to see how the cuurent one will be allowed to remain given the directives of Liturgiam Authenticam and Cardinal Arinze's recent comments. Rome is simply not going to allow the loose translation ICEL was famous for.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Now there is a gospel truth!

Eli

Fr Deacon Lance,
I must respectfully disagree with you on this statement.

While Rome might not have translated it to "for all" it did make the decision to accept what ICEL did, so basically, by approving this Rome did make the decision as it was their's to make and only their's to make.

When one has the utlimate authority in a matter one can not say that they did not make the final decision as is the case here.

Dear Father Deacon,

I agree that there will be efforts to suppress all loose translations as much as possible and even to insist that those American bishops and pastors that rushed out, nearly a decade or more ago now, and bought and employed the forbidden Canadian Lectionary, cease and desist from using that heavily restricted Lectionary.

I do not know how much success those orders will have here in the Untied State of the American Church. Might have to call out the Guard. We still have a Guard, don't we?

At any rate, and back to the issue of many, all and the multitude:

The ZENIT article located at EWTN that was referenced earlier in this thread has a great many good things to say. I read it when it first came out, and I read it yesterday and a few moments ago, and frankly I do believe that on this issue, the commentators have as great a chance at winning the day, as do the literalists.

But that of course is only my opinion, and like you, I will patiently await the answer from Rome. Final answer!

Eli

David,

Theist Gal stated the Church decided. Well in that context the Church is an Ecumenical Council or the Pope speaking for the Church. In this case a Roman congregation gave approval to a decision of ICEL. While it was with in its competency and the USCCB only published what was approved I don't think one can make the statement the Church decided. The Roman Curia ,as pointed out by the Melkite bishops at Vatican II, cannot substitute for a Council, Synod or the Pope. Therefore, approval from the Curia cannot be construed as a definitve judgement of the mind of the Church which only a Council or Pope can render.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Father Deacon,

All bishops, including the pope as a bishop and the supreme primate, have ordained power and authority, and canonical power and authority to delegate their episcopal power, and to decide on matters that may be delegated, and to determine the nature of the matter at hand as universal or particular.

So over the centuries there has been a continued process of delegation and administration from and within the various Sees depending upon whether or not they are universal or particular.

How is this curial act of approval any different from any other papal delegation of the power and authority of his [various] office[s]? I suppose one could ask "Which one?" but the fact that it is a delegation of ordinary ordained power and authority is not at issue.

Eli

Eli,

But that is the whole arguement of many Eastern Bishops, that a Hierarch cannot/should not delegate his decision making authority to another, but with his Synod should rule on the matter directly. In the case of the Poep the Melkites suggested replacing the Curia with a permanent Synod with representativesfrom all the Catholic Churches to deal with inter-Church matters. Local matters would be settled by local synods, even in the Latin Church.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr Deacon Lance,
As far as I know it is not the job of Councils to deal with disciplines.

As the form of the Mass and its translations are disciplines of the Church it is not for a Council to deal with.

Added to that, the Curia is nothing more than a body of the Latin Church to deal with disciplines, so the Church did decide. Just as when a synod of bishops appoints a bishop in the Byzantine Church. The Church decides who the bishop is to be.

To limit all decisions of a single Church to an ecumenical Council is foolish and not a true thing.

As for what the Melkite bishop said at Vatican II. That was the opinon of one bishop and as you can see, one I do not find much agreement with.

And one further note. When I say that the Church has spoken on this point and made its decision I am speaking of the Latin Church, which is the only Church that needs to speak on this matter as the form of the Mass and its translation is a discipline of the Latin Church. An Ecumenical Council has nothing to say on this matter as it is a matter of one Church, not of the whole Church. Or do you believe that we need an Ecumenical Council to restore our traditions?

But it is within the authority of any bishop to delegate his decision makeing authority to another no matter what others opinions of this are.

Anyways, even if a Synod, which I believe the Curia could be veiwed as one, can not make any decisions for the Church as you have said the only body that can do so is an Ecumenical Council.

David,

It was not one Melkite bishop but all the Melkite bishops. A Council may or may not deal with discipline. Most of the Latin Councils after the Great Seven were by and large dealing with discipline in the Latin Church, which is another reason some do not consider them truly ecumenical. Normally, however, it is for a Synod to deal with disciplines. A Synod is an entirely different thing than a curial congregation. A Synod is made up of bishops of real eparchies united with their patriarch/archbishop. It is an apostolic sanctioned way for those graced with the order of the episcopate to govern their Churches. A congregation is headed by Cardinal who has a title and no Church, and has non-episcopal members. It is a bureacracy and a holdover from medieval Papacy and the sooner the Curia is disbanded in favor of a premanent Synod in Rome the better.

Fr. Deacon Lance