And With Your Spirit

[Papist]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1301848995' post='2225640']
Its just that in those " Spanish Masses " they seem to talk in some kind of foreign language that I do not understand !

ed
[/quote]
It's like they got a different word for everything.[img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif[/img]

[bmb144]

Small thread highjack-


Um...what about those who don't speak Latin. Are there resources around so it can heard? I have text books here but I still need to hear it to get it right.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='In His Light' timestamp='1301970962' post='2226024']
Small thread highjack-


Um...what about those who don't speak Latin. Are there resources around so it can heard? I have text books here but I still need to hear it to get it right.
[/quote]
Definitely. For the commons, the best way to learn is to listen to recordings of the chants. They're usually easy to find on youtube.

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1301943953' post='2225909']
It's like they got a different word for everything.[img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif[/img]
[/quote]


Yeah ! You noticed that too, huh?

ed

[Tally Marx]

Does anyone have any insights...?

In the present text, in the First Eucharistic Prayer, the priest says:

[quote]

Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the [b]cup[/b] of my blood, the blood of the new and [b]everlasting[/b] covenant. [b]It[/b] will be [b]shed[/b] for you and [b]for all so that sins may be forgiven.[/b] Do this in memory of me.

[/quote]


The new text will read:


[quote] Take this, all of you, and drink from it: [b]for[/b] this is the [b]chalice[/b] of my Blood, the Blood of the new and [b]eternal[/b] covenant[b]; which[/b] will be [b]poured out[/b] for you and [b]for many for the forgiveness of sins.[/b] Do this in memory of me. [/quote]

I was just wondering if anyone knew why Jesus' Blood was shed for "many" instead of "all".
....I'm certain I can get in touch with one of the priests instrumental in this change having been made... but I'd rather not bother him if anyone here would know or be happy to discuss it. I, personally, am clueless.

Edited to Add: [url="http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/examples.shtml"]http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/examples.shtml[/url]

Edited April 6, 2011 by Tally Marx

[Nihil Obstat]

Both "many" and "all" are correct theologically, but in different contexts.


5. Does this mean that Christ did not die for everyone?
No. It is a dogmatic teaching of the Church that Christ died on the Cross for all
men and women (cf. John 11:52; 2 Corinthians 5:14-15; Titus 2:11; 1 John 2:2).
6. Then why do the Latin words of institution say pro multis?
The Latin words of institution say that Christ shed his blood pro multis in the
same sense that the synoptic Gospels use this term, as in the Last Supper
narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark:
Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying,
“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.”3

Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all
drank from it. He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant,
which will be shed for many.”4
“The expression ‘for many,’ while remaining open to the inclusion of each human
person, is reflective also of the fact that this salvation is not brought about in some
mechanistic way, without one's own willing or participation; rather, the believer is invited
to accept in faith the gift that is being offered and to receive the supernatural life that is
given to those who participate in this mystery, living it out in their lives as well so as to
be numbered among the ‘many’ to whom the text refers.”


[url="http://www.rcan.org/images/worship/promultis.pdf"]http://www.rcan.org/images/worship/promultis.pdf[/url]

Also, "for many" is a better translation of the Latin "pro multis".

[MithLuin]

The mass I attended this morning was a mix of Polish and English. The priest began in English, read the first reading in Polish, then switched back to English for the gospel and petitions. The Eucharistic prayer was a mix of both English and Polish, and he switched between them seemingly at random - for instance, the Our Father was in English, but the follow up (kingdom, power, glory) was in Polish. Certainly kept me on my toes following along in the missal! Usually, he just says the mass in Polish for the handful of little old Polish ladies who come to mass every day, but when I'm there, he sometimes says mass in English (since he knows I'm not a Polish speaker). This back-and-forth was new, though!

In Polish, 'And with your spirit' is 'i z duchem twoim', which is one of the few Polish responses I can say without looking at the missal. I know what comes next when the priest says 'Pan z wami' .

This bilingual mass did make me think about something, though. I know that Latin is beautiful, and some people love it just for the sound of it, but the people who appreciate its place in the tradition of the Church's liturgy understand how it has become the language of theology. If you [i]know[/i] Latin...of course you're going to appreciate the mass being in Latin! But as I was listening to the Eucharistic prayer in Polish, I realized that maybe for some people (not even a significant minority...just...some people out there), there might be a tiny fear that the prayers won't 'work' unless they are said in Latin. I know that sounds silly (the mass is not magic), but when faced with something mysterious like the Eucharist, it makes sense that reverence would dictate you don't mess with it. So, there might be some people who are uneasy that God doesn't want to hear these prayers in another language. I'm not trying to resurrect the Three Languages heresy, simply mentioning something about how people feel about changes (of any sort).

Meaning, we all know there is push-back against the new translation from people who are trying to be more 'relevant' or liberal or whatever. But I think that (even when the changes are clearly better versions of the original), there will be some resistance to the change not just because it is different...but because...how can you tweak the words of the mass? So, some understanding of complaints (even frivolous ones) is probably in order, especially when they come from the people in the pews. (I have less sympathy for the 'professionals' who should know better.)

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

[quote name='vee8' timestamp='1301285152' post='2223835']
I like what St Ignatius has to say about obedience
“We should always be disposed to believe that that which appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the Church so decides”
[/quote]

Despite my user name, I still stumble over that statement by St. Ignatius. I plan to ask him about it personally when the time comes.

I understand the arguments both for and against the use of Latin versus the vernacular. And, both arguments make sense to me. (Some people would say that if I understand both arguments, then I obviously don't understand their personal view. To that I say, "Phui.")

But, in the end, "common sense Iggy" wonders, in the greater scheme of things, how important the issue of the vernacular versus Latin is to God, compared to other issues.

If a person is fluent in Latin, and always goes to "the correct" Latin Mass (whichever one that one is), but acts like a condescending jerk, or beats his wife, isn't how the person acts more important than the Mass he or she attends?

If I'm not careful, I'm going to sound like a bad translation of First Corinthians, but you get my point.

For the record: I am NOT calling Nihil a condescending jerk--I was giving a general example. I'm quite sure that Nihil knows I don't think he is a condescending jerk, but I wanted to make sure that people who don't know me think don't think I am describing Nihil that way. Also, Nihil is not married, so he has no wife to beat (or preferably, not beat).

If I were to convert (unlikely at present, so don't get your hopes up), I would probably decide to move somewhere where I could attend the Anglican Use Mass. As far as I am concerned, none of the newer English translations (Catholic or Anglican) comes close to the 16th/17th century Anglican English translation. (It took the Anglicans a hundred years or so to finally agree on THEIR English translation, so from my perspective, it's still early in the game as far as Catholic English translations of the Mass are concerned.)

For the record, I strongly prefer "And with your spirit." I always used to stumble over "And also with you" when I used to go to Mass with my ex-husband. Besides, whatever words I say out loud, in my head, I'm saying, "And with THY spirit." Some things are just instinctive.

Don't get me wrong, I still think the subject of Latin versus the vernacular, and the specifics of the English translation, are subjects well worth discussion. But, I'm not sure they are as important as many other subjects having to do with our faith in God, and how we live that faith.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='IgnatiusofLoyola' timestamp='1302636854' post='2227850']
If I were to convert (unlikely at present, so don't get your hopes up), I would probably decide to move somewhere where I could attend the Anglican Use Mass. As far as I am concerned, none of the newer English translations (Catholic or Anglican) comes close to the 16th/17th century Anglican English translation. (It took the Anglicans a hundred years or so to finally agree on THEIR English translation, so from my perspective, it's still early in the game as far as Catholic English translations of the Mass are concerned.)

[/quote]
There's a traditional Anglican parish in my city that is in the process of converting. If you wanna move here, I'll visit you every week and bring tea. ^_^
Here's their parish: (I think obviously, that it would be better if the tabernacle were on the altar, but as you can tell space is at a huge premium there, and they are clearly trying to do their best with what they have.)
[img]http://www.allsaintscalgary.ca/_/rsrc/1272332632902/home/0408001820%5B1%5D.JPG[/img]

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1302063753' post='2226333']
Does anyone have any insights...?

In the present text, in the First Eucharistic Prayer, the priest says:




The new text will read:




I was just wondering if anyone knew why Jesus' Blood was shed for "many" instead of "all".
....I'm certain I can get in touch with one of the priests instrumental in this change having been made... but I'd rather not bother him if anyone here would know or be happy to discuss it. I, personally, am clueless.

Edited to Add: [url="http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/examples.shtml"]http://www.usccb.org.../examples.shtml[/url]
[/quote]

I think " for the many " is actually more correct as for it to be "all", all would have to accept this offering. Many will and have accepted this, but unfortunately all never have accepted him.

ed

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1302650019' post='2227945']
I think " for the many " is actually more correct as for it to be "all", all would have to accept this offering. Many will and have accepted this, but unfortunately all never have accepted him.

ed
[/quote]
Both are correct, but in different contexts. "Many" is correct in the way you say, but "all" is correct in the sense that Jesus' sacrifice is offered to all, as long as they accept it.
However, "many" is the best translation of the Latin.