EWTN says GET ONE WORD WRONG MASS INVALID

[brendan1104]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1018359' date='Jul 6 2006, 02:12 PM']
Many is more correct than all, so I don't see why EWTN is saying all this carp. I hope it reverts to many in the new translation.
[/quote]

It's not going to. I watched the debate on the World Over.

[Resurrexi]

That's too bad

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='brendan1104' post='1018385' date='Jul 6 2006, 02:31 PM']
It's not going to. I watched the debate on the World Over.
[/quote]
I would rather have "many," but at the same time, we must trust that Christ will take care of it all, ultimately.

Rome still has to accept the changes. Maybe they will force them to change it to "many."

[pyranima]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1013815' date='Jun 28 2006, 08:19 AM']
He seems to imply that even if done accidently, the mass is invalid. That is not true, since you assume that the priest intends to do it right.
[/quote]
I smell SSPX... we are using English which means we are using translated texts. The Latin "For many" is an implication of for all because we know God wills all men to be saved thus Christs death was for all, i am an advocate for the Latin Mass and for proper tranlation in the English text.(i have done a personal translation of the Latin into English) I am glad that we will have a new translation soon being a new Catholic i dont mind the change at all.

There are 2 kinds of translations, just like there are 2 standard versions of the bible, one is a 'loose' translations also known as Dynamic and 'tight' translations also known as Formal equivalence. our current text (also the current bible read in Mass) is dynamic, which i dislike greatly, we are converting to a Formal translation which attempts to get as close as it can to the original text.

Dynaimc Translations: This translation does not worry so much about word order or grammar as much as it does preserving the original meaning of the text.

Formal equivalence Translations: This form of translation trys to give as literal of a translation as possible, thus compromising the original text less.

It is recommended that you own both Dynamic and Formal equivalence.

here are some examples of Matthew 9:16-17

NIV(dynamic)
16"No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse. 17Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved."

NAS (Formal)
16"But no one puts a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the patch pulls away from the garment, and a worse tear results. 17"Nor do people put new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wineskins burst, and the wine pours out and the wineskins are ruined; but they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved."

Douay-Reims or Protestant Equiv KJV(Formal)
16And nobody putteth a piece of raw cloth unto an old garment. For it taketh away the fulness thereof from the garment, and there is made a greater rent.

17Neither do they put new wine into old bottles. Otherwise the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish. But new wine they put into new bottles: and both are preserved.


CEV(Dynamic)
16No one uses a new piece of cloth to patch old clothes. The patch would shrink and tear a bigger hole.

17No one pours new wine into old wineskins. The wine would swell and burst the old skins. [a] Then the wine would be lost, and the skins would be ruined. New wine must be put into new wineskins. Both the skins and the wine will then be safe.


however the most craptastic bible is called 'The Message' and i wont bother to ref. it if you want to know what a good job it does look at biblegateway.com and look at John 1 on the NIV NAB and The Message.

From personal experience as one who reads the Latin Vulgate it is difficult to translate things from one language into another the text we use now are not wrong, however they are not as accurate as they could be. here is a real life example of what translation is like, If i see a car speeding and a Cop asks me "what color was it" and i say 'blue' but the care was baby blue then i am not telling a lie to the cop but i am not being as accurate as i could be.