11 April, 2011

New Missal translation called ‘archaic, sexist’ | Holy Post | National Post

New Missal translation called ‘archaic, sexist’ | Holy Post | National Post

10 comments:

  1. Well, people were whining about it while it was still in the works, I can't imagine why they'd stop now.

    I, for one, anticipate a missal that treats us like we can think, and which gives something to savour. You know...dark chocolate instead of Nestle's Quick.

    And I really wish inclusive language would go the way of sin in the confessional.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "The phrase (pro vobis et pro multis) is translated for you and for all in the current missal."

    That is incorrect. "Multi" means "many," not "all." If "all" had been meant, the correct Latin would have been "omni."

    "...people may be led to ask, "are there some for whom Jesus did not die?'"

    Yes -- those who refuse the offer. To think otherwise is to deny the right of choice and to embrace the concept of pre-destination.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lady Janus
    Jesus did die for ALL and , because we have a free will, we can refuse Him but one's refusal does not change the truth...i can tell u i donated to a charity and u can say i don't believe you but the unbelief does not change the truth that i did do it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Larry Green13 April, 2011

    Lady Janus, isn’t "many" a relative term which can include "all".
    There are no human beings for who's sake Jesus' saving act was not for. Through His death on the cross he created a path to God for every single individual human being. There are still plenty of paths to "choose" from.
    Predestination does not exclude the gift of free will either because as Thomas Aquinas said "predestination places nothing in the predestined, only in the person who predestines.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mary, according to the Latin, you are incorrect.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Lady Janus perhaps you are correct about the nomenclature but i believe with every fiber of my being that He did die for EVERYONE and St. Paul (in his letter to the Hebrews Chapter 11) "that faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen". We also have Jesus' instruction to go out the preach the Good News to all the earth....His instruction excluded NOBODY and i believe it is a promise to meet all of us just where we are and He will tell us who He wants to be for us and who we are to be for Him.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "...isn’t 'many' a relative term which can include 'all'."

    No. The words are very specific, if you'll simply refer to what I originally said. If "all" had been meant, the word would have been, "omni." "Many" very specifically excludes "all."

    "There are no human beings for who's sake Jesus' saving act was not for."

    Actually, there are: anyone who was not yet born at the time of his death. Unless, again, you want to embrace the concept of pre-destination. And yes, predestination does exclude free will. What was Aquinas smoking when he said that?

    Mary, you are free to believe as you wish, but you are not free to put that belief on someone who does not want it. What is a "gift" to you could very well be anathema to someone else. You've heard of the idea of the white elephant?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Larry Green14 April, 2011

    Lady Janus,if 4 fingers and one thumb completes a normal functioning hand, what number of fingers in your world would constitute many?

    You said "Actually, there are: anyone who was not yet born at the time of his death. Unless, again, you want to embrace the concept of pre-destination. And yes, predestination does exclude free will. What was Aquinas smoking when he said that?" I see a conclusion in this argument but no indication whatsover what it was formed from.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Larry Green14 April, 2011

    Sounds like you might be smokin a little somthin' there Janus!

    ReplyDelete
  10. I don't understand either your question or your comment.

    And I don't smoke.

    ReplyDelete

Followers of this blog:

Blog Archive

Google Analytics