Why Does The American Catholic Church Use The Nab?

[amarkich]

This is the third time I am posting this (to make up for the ICEL's singular "mea culpa"):

The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew (26:28), some from Luke (22:20), 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 have 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 or 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. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: "Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many" (Heb. 9:28); and also of the words of Our Lord in John: "I pray for them, I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are Thine" (John 17: 9)

[amarkich]

Spoken4Christ, just because someone is a Priest, that does not mean that his belief concerning the NAB is absolute truth. There are plenty of Priests who find it to have many errors and plenty of Priests who approve it (disregarding the errors). There are some (bad) Priests who think that abortion is acceptable in some circumstances, that the Eucharist is a symbol, that the Church is not necessary for salvation, etc, etc, etc, so when there are conflicting statements or opinions, you have to objectively study the situation. This was never (or very, very rarely) necessary before Vatican II because almost all Priests (if not all) were taught properly, believed what the Church teaches, and were holy. Sadly, 2/3 does not get it cut in this regard (but I do not know many who have even that). In any event, there is evidence that the NAB is unorthodox in translation as well as in its footnotes. There is no answer to this. You cannot reject objective truth. Just because the NAB is approved for use in the USA does not make it a good translation. Does "Credo in unum Deum" also mean "We believe in one God"? I do not think so.

[Saint...Someday :)]

I heard that they were revising the footnotes...

Does anyone know if there's any truth to that ?

[Aloysius]

[quote]The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew (26:28), some from Luke (22:20), 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. [b]For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all[/b]; 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. 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 or 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. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: "Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many" (Heb. 9:28); and also of the words of Our Lord in John: "I pray for them, I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are Thine" (John 17: 9) [/quote]

hey... looks to me like the Council of Trent says both "for all" and "for many" are acceptable, depending on which angle you're looking at it from. the Redeemer shed His blood for all, many receive the fruit. Jesus spoke an idiomatic expression of the time which clearly indicated He was speaking of the fact that He would shed His blood for the salvation of all. A misunderstanding through translation (when they failed to recognized the idiomatic expression and simply translated it pro multis) gave the Church a theologically correct statement as well, in the way Trent defined it, that the fruit is received by many. This simply reaffirms what Trent said about the Latin Vulgate: that it is free from any doctrinal error whatsoever. even when the translation was slightly off because of misunderstanding, it still brought to light a theological truth.

Anyway, is it really such a tradgedy that people say "we believe" instead of "I believe"? we includes I, in case u didn't notice.

Anyway, those are being retranslated to be more faithful to the latin of the Novus Ordo Mass, but as it stands now it is not something evil, it conveys the same truths laid down by Sacred Scripture and Catholic Teaching.

[amarkich]

Aloysius, you are making a defense for something that you already believe to be correct rather than investigating the situation to seek the truth. This is a grave error. Rather than admitting that there are errors in the New Mass translation (and the actual Mass itself) as even the authors of the Mass state, you instead attempt to defend things that they themselves say are errors and are in the process of fixing. With these kinds of statements you lose all credibility. The highlighting of one line from the Catechism of the Council of Trent is laughable because the very next line says why the Mass only uses "for all". You cannot attempt to argue the theology of the matter. The Church has spoken in the Catechism, and the New Mass even follows this theology (otherwise the Latin would say "pro omnibus"); the error is not in the Church using "pro multis", it is with the ICEL translation of this phrase. The Catechism of the Council of Trent says that Christ shed His blood for the salvation of all (of course), but it also says that the Consecration of the Chalice speaks specifically about the [i]fruits[/i] of the Passion (and rightly so), and it specifically states that Our Lord did not use the words "for all" here:

Apparently it was not clear last time, so this time I will highlight the phrases and words that will disprove you (I do not like to highlight unnecessarily, but this is certainly necessary):

They serve to declare the [b]fruit[/b] 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 [b]fruit[/b] which mankind have received from it, we shall [b]easily find[/b] that it pertains [b]not unto [u]all[/u], but to [u]many[/u] [/b]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 [b]for many[/b], He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles. With reason, therefore, were the words [b]for all [u]not used[/u][/b], as in this place the [b]fruits of the Passion [/b]are alone spoken of, and to the elect [b]only[/b] did His Passion bring the [b]fruit of salvation[/b]. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: "Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins [b]of many[/b]" (Heb. 9:28)

You obviously have no case from the Roman Catechism to defend "for all". It is better (for credibility's sake) to simply admit when there is an error and to attempt to fix it rather than being stuck in the error. The New Mass began in 1969, was revised in 1975, and was revised again in 2000. There have already been three missals published in just 30 years. The Mass is obviously still being fixed (not that I believe this is possible). In fact the American Bishops have already said that the Mass will need to be revised about every 20 years because of the changes in the meanings of words. What happened to Latin being the language of the Church and the Mass (for this very reason)??

[Aloysius]

I admit an error that needs to be fixed. However, I argue against the idea that saying for all is somehow wrong theologically or some great evil that needs to be combatted. That quote admits that saying "for all" can mean something else which is also true, but the Mass doesn't say that. I am not arguing that they should keep "for all" but rather that we shouldn't consider "for all" to be some grave offense. I do pray for the day when we say "and with your spirit" and "through my fault, through my fault, through my most grevious fault" and "he took bread into His Sacred and Venerable Hands" and "for many"; however, i do not cringe at the Mass when we say "through my own fault" "and also with you" "He took bread in His hands" or "for all"

[amarkich]

The Catechism is saying that it is a theological error to make the Consecration of the Chalice (which is specifically understood to represent the Passion of Our Lord and its fruits) into something which is simply a narrative or incorrectly manifests the theological symbolism of this part of the Mass. Also, why do you not cringe with the erroneous translations? Do you not have a Latin Mass near you (at least a Latin Novus Ordo).

Edit: I cannot change my signature now or it will be shortened (since I have had this signature since before dUst changed the server), but it is interesting to note that I have "pro vobis et pro multis" on it

Edited August 2, 2004 by amarkich

[Aloysius]

when I am able to drive by myself i plan on going to St. Boniface where they have a Tridentine Mass in communion with Bishop Wuerl, but as for right now I do not see anything gravely wrong with what they say when it is properly understood. for all means something that is theologically correct. it should not be put in the Mass like that but it doesn't make it into a wrong statement.

[amarkich]

That is good to hear. I did not know you were that young (I am about the same age; my brother and I drive to the FSSP Parish for Daily Mass, but it is about 45 minutes from our house). Does that church solely offer the Traditional Latin Mass or is it only offered once per week (or once per month)? Are you in the Diocese of Pittsburgh? I think I will be near there sometime in the near future, and if you could tell me where this church is, it would be greatly appreciated. God bless.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 2 2004, 03:15 PM'] when I am able to drive by myself i plan on going to St. Boniface where they have a Tridentine Mass in communion with Bishop Wuerl, but as for right now I do not see anything gravely wrong with what they say when it is properly understood.  for all means something that is theologically correct.  it should not be put in the Mass like that but it doesn't make it into a wrong statement. [/quote]
Aloysius just remember the Ordoi Missae was approved by the Catholic Church, and in our diocese is always said according to the GIRM.



The traditional Latin (or Tridentine) Mass is offered in the Diocese of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, at St. Boniface Church of Holy Wisdom Parish on the Northside.
Saint Boniface / 2208 East Street / Pittsburgh, PA 15212


There are two Masses every Sunday:
Low Mass at 8 a.m.
High (sung) Mass at 11 a.m.
(If you've never been to the Latin Mass before, we suggest you begin by attending the High Mass.)
High Mass is also celebrated on all Holy Days of Obligation at 7:00 p.m.
Low Mass is offered on the First Friday of each month at 7:00 p.m., and on the First Saturday at 9:30 a.m.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Rosary is recited and Confessions are heard a half-hour before each Mass.
Once each month, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament follows High Mass.
Latin Masses are also offered on:

Ash Wednesday at 7:00 p.m.
Holy Thursday at 7:00 p.m.
All Souls' Day at 7:00 p.m.
Thanksgiving Day at 9:00 a.m.


I suggesy Amarkich you also attend morning prayer and Mass at the Cathedral in Oakland
[url="http://www.catholic-church.org/st.paulcathedralpgh/"]http://www.catholic-church.org/st.paulcathedralpgh/[/url]

where even you won't find anything to complain about.

Edited August 2, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[Aloysius]

i remember that, and am defending it...

the translation is being changed right now, it's not wrong of me to admit that and thus admit the translation is not correct because the ICEL is in the middle of retranslating it to fix the errors.

I'm simply admitting the english version of the Ordo Missae is not correct according to the original latin version of the Ordo Missae and the Internation Commision on the English Liturgy is fixing it. I am also defending the fact that the current translation is free from doctrinal error completely valid and licit.

I will of course continue to go to daily Ordo Missae Mass at my parish and probably won't go to St. Boniface EVERY sunday.

[cmotherofpirl]

St Bonny's is a beautiful Church , but I still prefer St Pauls. Remember parking is a pain at either Church.

[Hananiah]

[quote name='Chrysologus' date='Jul 29 2004, 03:11 PM'] I'm not a priest or religious, but if you'll notice, the person who is saying it's bad "does not represent the Church"--i.e. has frequently expressed un-orthodox opinions (mostly that huge portions of the magisterium have apostosized)--whereas those who support it are faithful to the Church. So, yes, the NAB is a good translation--in fact, it is the only one authorized for use in masses in America. Don't worry about it another bit. [/quote]
Well that's a hefty charge. In fact I'd call it a calumny. My contention that a large portion of the hierarchy is composed of heretics can not possibly be an unorthodox opinion by virtue of the simple fact that it has happened once before. It was called the Arian heresy, and the majority of the bishops of the Catholic Church embraced it. Now, you may believe me to be mistaken in my belief that the Catholic Church is currently in a state similar to her state during the Arian heresy, but that is the strongest charge you are entitled to make: mistaken. There is nothing intrinsically unorthodox about my position.

On the other hand, I am in a position to make a much stronger statement about you. If you agree with the commentary of the NAB then you directly dissent from [i]Providentissimus Deus, Lamentabili Sane, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Spiritus Paraclitus, Divino Afflante Spiritu, Humani Generis,[/i] Vatican I, and the decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1906 and 1909. In fact you explicitly reject the central thesis, stated forcefully and repeatedly, in some of those documents. You also reject one of the beliefs (i.e. biblical inerrancy) of the moral unanimity of the Church Fathers. You are no better than the Catholics who dissent from [i]Humane Vitae[/i].

By the way, the article has been updated again: [url="http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/nab.asp"]The New American Bible: Is It Good for Catholics?[/url]

[MorphRC]

The Footnotes are killers. The translation isnt bad, minus Luke 1:28.