But that is small potatoes when compared with her seriously entertaining the idea that the words of the Gospels were not really included therein originally -they were, you know, added by anonymous members of the community later. (Biblical Community Activists ?).
So, she doesn't believe the words of the Gospels are what the Catholic Church have always taught - the inerrant word of God composed by Saints under the guidance of the Holy Ghost - but, rather, whatever it is the latest faithless historical-critical clown claims it is; and those claims are as shifty and they are constantly shifting.
Don't be a mooncalf when it comes to Gospel Truth; be skeptical seems to be the bottom line.
Who controls the past controls the future and when the One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church of Tradition is kicked to the curb regarding the trustworthiness of Scripture, the tentative conclusions of modern skeptical "scholars" rise in its place.
Good luck with all of that :)
In any event, back to the Jerk J. Jeremias.
She cited this man who is taken to task here over the translation of Pro Multis. The Lutheran, not too surprisingly, was wrong. If he were reliable about these matters he'd have been a Catholic.
Why is that so difficult to understand?
In any event, here it is:
Professor Joachim Jeremias
Without the slightest fear of contradiction we can assert that the original “discoverer,” progenitor and prime mover of the “explanation” for changing Our Lord's words is one Professor Joachir Jeremias. In point of fact, in documenting this official “explanation” the ICEL cites Dr. Jeremias as its “authority” for making this particular change. And rightly so, because to him belongs due credit Indeed as far back as Jan.1963, an article in The Expository Times of Edinburgh mentioned this great discovery of Dr. Jeremias that Our Lord really said “for all men,” noting that this interpretation harmonizes with the idea of “the final salvation of all mankind from the powers of evil, sin and death.”
This evil and dangerous doctrine of “the final salvation of all mankind,” so absolutely at variance with the Church's teaching and so opposed to the clear teaching of Christ Himself, is the actual cornerstone of the whole edifice of heresy being promoted today under the guise Of “ecumenism.” Although this doctrine is not preached openly, explicitly, and in these precise terms (at least not yet on a wide scale), nevertheless it is believed by many; it is the animus of what parades as “'ecumenism.”
Who is Dr. Jeremias, the man whose idea was so powerful that it changed the Form of Consecration of the Mass? Born in 1900, Joachim Jeremias, a non‑Catholic, is the distinguished occupant of the Chair of New Testament in the University of Gottinsen.": Although he started his career in writing some forty years ago, it is not until fairly recently that his “learned works and monographs” began receiving wide acclaim. Included among his books that have been translated into English are: “The Eucharistic Words of Jesus”, “The Prayers of Jesus”, and “"Problems of the Historical Jesus”
His Approach to Scripture
It is not with the eyes of faith that Professor Jeremias approaches Holy Writ, but with the eyes of a critical gramarian, armed with his lexicons and many rules about aorist subjunctives, etc. As he himself tells us: “The investigation of the eucharistic words of Jesus themselves is best begun by discussing the problem of literary criticism.” While “literary criticism” perhaps has its slot as a valid tool for investigating the meanings of the Sacred Writings, Catholics who wish to maintain a correct attitude towards the Holy Scriptures must ever be mindful of the condemnations and cautions given by the Supreme Authority of the Church. Thus loyal and orthodox Catholics are aware that in the ”Syllabus of Errors of the Modernists” of Pope St. Pius X, the following proposition was condemned: “Those who believe that God is really the author of Sacred Scripture display excessive simplicity or ignorance.” (#9). And in #12 of the same Syllabus the following is also condemned: “The exegete...must first put aside all preconceived opinions concerning the supernatural origin of Sacred Scripture, and must not interpret it otherwise than merely human documents.”
It is certainly not evident that Dr. Jeremias looks upon Holy Writ as the authentic Word of God, nor upon the Evangelists as men singled out by God to be His scribes who, inspired by the Holy Ghost, wrote down exactly what God intended to be revealed to men. “We need not trouble ourselves in any detail,” writes Jeremias, “over the question whether the..‑passages in which God is addressed as ‘Father’ in the prayers of Jesus are authentic or not.”(P.O.J., p.57). (Note: The code, P O.J., is used herein for The Prayers of Jesus, a published collection of essays by J. Jeremias, and the code, E.W.J., refers to his book entitled “The Eucharist Words of Jesus”.)
“Now it is very probable that parts of the passages in the gospels which mention Jesus' prayer are to be attributed to the editing of the evangelists.” (P.O.J.,p.76) Christ at the Last Supper did not really say everything that St. Paul records, for “Paul adds to the word over the wine” (E.W.J.,p.115). But everyone will be relieved, we are sure, to learn that the phrase, “My Blood of the covenant,” quite possibly was actually spoken by Our Lord because it passes all of Jeremiast linguistic tests.”(The possibility [emphsis] added; that Jesus spoke of the covenant at the Last Supper cannot be disputed”" (E.W.J., p.l95).
St. Matthew “"has added,” claims Dr. Jeremias, “on his own initiative” to what St. Mark wrote in 10:40 (P.O.J.,p.44). Christ's parable of the cockle (Matt.13:36‑43) was obviously a fabrication of St. Matthew since it “bears such strong traces of Matthaean linguistic peculiarities” (P.O.J., p.31).
Unlike Dr. Jeremias, St. John has missed “the central point of Jesus' message,” because of his “ignorance of the way in which the message was limited to the group of disciples” P.O.J., p. 53).
So much for Joachim Jeremias' attitude towards Sacred Scripture and the Evangelists. Next we move on to his “theolosy.” Infected as he is with the Modernists' mentality, he has in his writings countless doctrinal errors, inimical to the Catholic Faith. Had his works appeared during the reign of St. Pius X (for example), and had there been even the slightest indications that Catholics were actually reading them, that august and saintly Pontiff would have summarily placed them on the Index of Forbidden Books. Ominous it is that this author is now cited as the “authority” for making over the Catholic liturgy.
The “Theology.” of Dr. Jeremias
Any Catholic who understands the Mass should consider it an insult to his intelligence as well as an attack upon the Faith to be told: by anyone that the “meal celebrations” (i.e., the Masses)of the early Christians were celebrated without wine! But nonsense such as this, when it comes from Dr. Jeremias' brilliant pen apparently does not bother the ICEL Innovators, least of all does it discredit in their eyes their “great authority.” The early Christians, explains the professor, who “were mastly from the poorer strata of society, did not always have wine available,” and thus the practice of using only the bread “not only was freqent in the earliest period, but was actually the rule" (E.W J., p.ll5). Adduced as “evldence” to support this outrageous claim is, believe it or not, a passage from St. Paul's account of the Last Supper. In Our Lord's command: “This do ye as often as you shall drink, for the comemoration of Me” (I Cor. 11:25), the phrase “as often as vou shall drink” was, so Jeremias surmises, added by Paul, and what Paul meant by this insertion was this: As often as you have the wine! which, of course, proves that they often didn't have wine, and therefore were forced to go ahead and celebrate under the one species of bread alone! All this, mind you, from the wizard whom the ICEL consulted to help on the translation of “pro_multis”!
Not surprisingly, Jeremias attacks the doctrine of transubstantiation, not openly but by subtle inference. Numerous passages of his either say or imply that the 'Words of Institution were spoken as a similitude (E.W.J.,p.202, pps. 223‑25, e g.). Moreover he even goes so far as to imply that St.Paul himsel did not consider the “gift of the Eucharist to be the true Body and Blood of Christ.” "To share in the atoning death of Jesus', he writes, “and to become part of the redeemed communitv‑‑ that is, according to Paul the gift of the Eucharist. This interpretation tallies with our exegesis given in detail” (E.W.J.,p.237). “As recipients of Jesus' gift the disciples are representatives of the new people of God” (ibid.).
Attacks The Divinity of Christ
When Dr. Jeremias speaks above of “the atoning death of Jesus,” one must not mistake or think that he means the unique expiatory Sacrifice of the Son of God according to Catholic teaching. “Every death has atoning power,” he explains, “even that of a criminal if he dies penitent” (E.W.J., p.231). Any innocent death “offered to God has vicarious power of atonement for others,” and thus Christ's Death “is the vicarious death of the suffering servant” (ibid.).
Referring to Our Lord as “the suffering servant of God" is a favorite theme of Professor Jeremias. Granted that the word servent is used allegorically in reference to the Messias in a few places in the Old Testament; for Dr. Jeremias, however, the use of this term is only one of his many subtle ways of attacking the Divinity of Christ. To rebut this heresy we can do no better here than to repeat the words of Pope Adrian I :
“O you impious, and you who are ungrateful for so many benefits, do you not fear to whisper with a poisonous mouth that He, our liberator, is...a mere man subject to human misfortune, and what is a disgrace to say, that He is a servant? ... Why are you not afraid, O querulous detractors, () men odious to God, to call Him servant, He has freed you from the servitude of the devil? ... For, although in the imperfect representation of thc prophet He was called servant [cf. Job 1: 8 ff. ] because of the condition of servile form which He assumed from the Virgin ... we understand that this was said both historically of holy Job and allegorically of Christ.”[Emphasis added.]
Can Joachim Jeremias be called a Christian? Does he believe that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God the Father, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Word made flesh? Or does he believe only in the humanitv of Our Lord, that Jesus was a remarkable man who had a “special relationship” with God and who received a “full revelation” from God?
“None the less we can see from the simile [emphcsis added: the 'simile' is Christ's Words of Institution at the Last Supper]. that Jesus did expect a violent death (E. W. J. p.225). As true God, Jesus did not “expect” a violent death; from all eternity He knew what death the Son of Man would die. As St. John tells us, He even foretold the manner of His Death: “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to Myself. Now this He said, signifying by what death He was to die.” (John 12:22)
When Our Lord said: “Do this for a commemoration of Me,” what He actually meant, if we are to believe Professor Jeremias, was this: “Do this so that God may remember me” (E.W.J., p.252 and p.255).
Taking up the passage from Matt.11,27: “A11 things are delivered to Me by My Father,” Dr. Jeremias explains it as meaning: “God has given me a full revelation”(P.O.J.,p.49). This “full revelation” was granted to Jesus at some point in time. Listen to Jeremias: “We do not know when and where Jesus received the revelation in which God allowed him to participate in complete divine knowledge‑‑as a father allows his son to share in knowledge [emphasis added] ... Perhaps we should think of the baptism” (P.O.J., p. 52). Now perhaps Joachim Jeremias may wish to conjecture that at Our Lord's baptism He received “"the revelation,”" but true Christians believe:
" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him: and without Him, was made nothing that was made.”
“Jesus' use of abba expresses a special relationship with God"" (P.O.J., p.621 “With the simple 'Abba, dear father', the primitive church took over the central element of Jesus' faith in God”" (P.O.J., p.65. ‑‑Emphasis added. No further comment.).
“I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to the little ones” (Matt. 11:25 and Luke 10:21). “Jesus counted himself among 'the little ones”, Dr. Jeremias tells us ‑and this is too much!‑‑‑ “He rejoices that he is the 'little one' of God, his beloved child, to whom the revelation has been given”(P.O.J., p. 52).
‑
Could Jeremios Be Right' About “AII Men”
The reader must not construe the foregoing discussion as a personal attack upon Professor Joachim Jerermias. It was merely a necessary exposition of the ideas, philosophy and theological thinking of the man who furnished the impetus behind the mutilation of the Consecration Form. The reason for giving so many quotations from his works is to obviate the frequently repeated accusation of “quoting out of context.”
And yet, one may ask, isn't it possible at least, that, despite his demonstrable heterodoxy, he is nevertheless correct in his assertion that “all men” is the proper wording in the place in question? To see how he could be correct is difficult. There is simply too much Catholic teaching in favor of “for many” : the words of Holy Scripture as they have always been understood, the universal liturgical Tradition of the Church, the teachings of several Popes, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, which explicitly rejects and repudiates the “for all men” rendition, and, finally, the lucid explanations of several Doctors of the Church(e.g., Sts. Thomas Aquinas and Alphonsus).
Very forcibly to our minds come these words of St. Pius X, writing about the Modernists: “To hear them talk about their works on the Sacred Books,...one would imagine that before them nobody ever even glanced through the pages of Scripture, whereas, the truth is that a whole multitude of doctors, infinitely superior to them in genius, in erudition, in sanctity, have sifted them, have thanked God more and more, the deeper they have gone into them, for His divine bounty in having vouchsafed to speak thus to men." (Pascandi) ‑
ICEI's Sole “Explanation”
As promised earlier, we will now with no further delay take up the ICEL's “explanation.”’" It is not based on sacramental theology, nor on Holy Scripture as such, nor on Tradition. Neither does it invoke the authority of the Magisterium or that of the Doctors of the Church. But all this goes without saying, because, as mentioned just above, all these sources are opposed to the “all men” rendition. On precisely what grounds, then, do they stand in attempting to justify their unprecedented meddling with the FORM OF A SACRAMENT?
Philology is the answer! Yes indeed, it is from a so‑called study of literary texts and linguistics that these great scholars have discovered that Our Lord at the Last Supper, in consecrating the wine, really said: This is... My Blood...shed for all men. “Proof” of this is offered on pp. 34‑5 of the ICEL's booklet, “The Roman Canon in English Translation” Here in toto is the learned “explanation” :
line 65: Pro multis.
Neither Hebrew nor Aramaic possess a word for ‘all’. The word rabbim or ‘muliitude’ 'thus served also in the inclusive sense for ‘the whole’, even though the corresponding Greek and the Latin appear to have an exclusive sense i.e.. ‘the many’ rather than ‘the all’. Cf. J. Jerermias The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (NewYork, 1966, pp. 179~1S2, 229
(The preceding excerpt is a photographic reproduction of the original, with slight reduction in size. I.e. in the original publication, ed.)
Let us make sure we understand this "explanation." Our Saviour spoke Aramaic, and not Latin or Greek. In the Aramaic language (and also in the Hebrew) there is not a single word meaning “all”. This indeed is the main plank of the araument : “Neither Hebrew nor Aramaic possess[sic] a word for 'all'.”" Hence, infers the ICEL, anyone wishing to express in those languages the idea “all” was forced to use a word with a double meaning, a word which in some instances could be construed to mean “many” (the so‑called 'exclusive sense'), and in other instances was construed to mean “all” (its socalled 'inclusive sense'). Thus handicapped by this linguistic impediment, a quirk of His native language, Our Lord was forced to employ this ambiguous word when He said: This is My Blood...shed for all men. For over nineteen centuries, all over the world and in a multitude of languages, this ambiguous word was incorrectly given its 'exclusive sense' of “many,” but the 'inclusive sense' of “all” was what Our Lord actually meant.
The foregoing paragraph (which, for the sake of absolute clarity, is necessarily somewhat longer than the ICEL's terse “explanation”), is an accurate re‑phrasing of their case. Merely to point out how slavishly the ICEL has followed Dr. Joachim Jeremias, we here reproduce the supporting excerpt which the ICEL cites from p. 179 of his book The Eucharistic Words of Jesus:
15.14.24 pollon (Greek for ‘many’). While ‘many’ in Greek (as in English) stands in opposition to ‘all’, and therefore has the exclusive sense (‘many, but not all’), Hebrew rabbin can have the inclusive sense (‘the whole, comprising many individuals’). This inclusive use is connected with the fact that Hebrew and Aramaic possess no word for ‘all’.
(The above is a photographic reproduction of the original, with slight reduction in size. Again n the original – ed.)
Some Preliminary Comments
First of all and let this be stressed, the above is the sole explanation the ICEL has offered for making this change to “for all men.” Every reasonable man will agree that if this, the sole reason, is exploded as being absolutetly groundless and founded on a falsity, then the whole justification (pretext is a better word) for the “for all men” rendering has collapsed; and there remains no longer the slightest excuse for continuing to use this mutilated form, nor tolerating its use. Their Excellencies, the bishops in our country, are doubtless reasonable men.
Before proceeding in earnest with our demonstration, let us make several incidental observations:
(1) The chief piece of “evidence” (Exhibit A, as it were) in the ICEL's case is the word rabbim, which is a hebrew word. Nov, whereas it is certain that the everyday language of Our Lord was not Hebrew, but Aramaic (a fact which Jeremias himself notes on p.196); and whereas there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that Our Lord spoke at the Last Supper in Hebrew (another fact attested to by Dr. Jeremia‑ himself on p.l98); and whereas these words or orginally came down to us via St. Mark’s Gospel, which that Evangelist wrote, not in Hebrew, . but in. Greek; therefore, how does the Hebrew word 'rabbim' even begin to enter the picture at all?
(2) When expounding their “red herring” Hebrew word, rabbim, ~he ICEL Innovators are very emphatic (even bordering on clarity); but when they get around to the “corresponding Greek and Latin”" ‑‑ the Greek being what is really to the point‑‑, they lapse into vagueness. The Greek word far many used by St. Mark, so they say, only “appears” to have the exclusive sense of “many.” “appears” indeed. In this assertion they are contradicted even by Jeremias, who concedes that “many” in Greek (as in English) stands in. opposition to “all”, and therefore has the exclusive sense (cf. the excerpt presented earlier).
But enough! These comments wil1 seem somewhat superfluous anyway, once we have gotten around to their main plank. namely: In the Aramaic language there is not a single word meaning “all”.
Cordinal Wiseman Exposes A Houx
At this point it will be very instructive to study an earlier theological controversy into which “philology” became similarly intruded The 16th‑century “reformers,” who denied the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist when confronted with His words: “This is My Body,” claimed that Our Lord really; meant by these words: This siqnifies My Body. Some of the earliest of these deniers,inclvding Calvin himself, concocted the absurd argument that in Hebrew (at that time it was‑ generally thought that Our Lord spoke Hebrew) there simply is no word at all which means signifies. And so, Christ, having to make do wth the language He spoke, was forced to use the expression : This is My Body, in order to covey the idea : This signifies My Body.
Cardinal Wiseman, writing much later, reviewed the case: “"Calvin...and others argued against the Catholic interpretation: of the Words of Institution, on the ground that Our Saviour spoke Hebrew, and not Greek; and that in the Hebrew language, there is not a single word meaning to represent. Hence they concluded, that anyone wishing to express in that language that one object was figurative of another, he could not possibly do it otherwise than by saying that it was that thing.”
“Wolfrus, after Hackspaan,”' continues Wiseman, “rightly answered to this argument, that if the Hebrew had been ambiguous, the Evangelists, writing in Greek, a languagse in which the verb substantive was not ambiguous, would have used a verb more accurately explaining to their readers what they conceived the meaning of Our Savior's phrase to be.” (and this is precisely the line of argument we presented in Interdum #1, explalaing that St. Mark., the interpreter of St. Peter, most certainly would have written “all men,” if that is what he and St. Peter believed Christ had really intended.)
Dependent as it was upon the supposed quirks of the Hebrew language, Calvin's argument was eventually derailed, because, as Cardinal Wiseman observed: “But this precise ground could be no longer tenable. For all philologers now agree that the language spoken by our Saviour could not be Hebrew, but Syro‑Chaldaic." (Note: Syro‑Chaldaic = Chaldeo‑Syriac = Aramaic.)
But some fables never die. During Wiseman's day the protestant attack on the Real Presence was vigorously renewed, and‑‑lo and behold! ‑ Calvin's old argument was resurrected. Only now instead of Hebrew, it was Aramaic that was supposedly the “problem” language. “Such a shifting,” noted the Cardinal, “as might suffice to continue a catching argument like this, was easily made; it could cost only a word; the change of a name; for few readers would take the trouble, or have it in their power, to ascertain whether Syro‑Chaldaic any more than Hebrew, had any such terms.”
Some well‑respected scholars did not hesitate to risk their very academic reputations on the promotion of this hoax. Again Wiseman:
“A good bold assertion, especially coming from a man who, has a reputation for knowledge in the department of science to which it belongs, will go a great way with most readers, and a negative assertion no one can expect you to prove. If I assert that in a language there is no word for a certain idea; if I say, for instance, that in Italian there is no equivalent for our word 'spleen' or 'cant,' what proof con I possibly bring, except an acquaintance with the language? I throw down a gauntlet when I make the assertion; I defy others to show the contrary; and one example overthrows all my argument.”
However, no assertion could be, I suppose, too bold against popery, and no art too slippery, to gain an argument against its doctrines. Dr. Adam Clarke, a man of some celebrity as an Orientalist, fearlessly cast his credit upon the assertion that Syro‑Chaldoic affords no word which our Saviour could have used, in instituting a type of His Body, except the verb 'to be.'
These are his words ‑‑ 'In the Hebrew, Choldee and Chaldea‑Syriac languages; there is no term which expresses to mean, signify, or denote; though both the Greek and Latin abound with them. Hence the Hebrews use a figure, and say is, for it signifies.”
Once advanced by an eminent scholar, this learned argument became parroted far and wide by many others. The above passage of Dr. Clarke was transcribed nearly verbatim by a certain Mr. Hartvrell Horne, who touched it up a bit with a brilliant concluding remark: “Hence it is that we find the expression it is so frequently used in the sacred writings for it represents. A similarly brilliant claim, which we have heard often of late, is that many is frequently used in the Sacred Writings for all. This, of course, like Mr. Horne' s remark, proves exactly nothing about the specific case at hand .
And thus the hoax spread. “It is no wonder,” observed Cardinal Wiseman, “that other authors should have gone on copying these authorities, giving, doubtless, implicit credence to persons who had acquired a reputation for the knowledge of biblical and oriental literature.”
All the excerpts we have quoted thus far from Cardinal Wiseman's pen,though they are in themselves plenty devastating, are actually only what might be thought of as His Eminence's “warm‑up.” Next comes his coup de qrace. On page 287 of his book (from which we have been quoting) he displays a table which summarizes his findings. This tabular arrangement indicates FORTY‑FIVE different words in Aramaic which Our Lord could have used if He had wanted to say: This signifies.(!) “And this is the Syriac language,” the redoubtable Cardinal dryly concludes, “of. which Dr. Clarke had the hardihood to assert that it had not one single word with this meaning.”
The Cornerstone
Now, at length, let us hie ourselves back to the ICEL and the cornerstone of these Innovators' “explanation” namely, that Aramaic has no word at all which means “all”.
Just as certainly as Aramaic has a word for “certainly”, and a word for “arrogance” ‑‑arrogance as in ICEL‑‑,so also it has a word which unequivocally, and as opposed to the idea of “all”, means “many”; and this word for “many” happens to be (aramaic word is given – ed.) And also the aramaic language has a word for “"all”", as opposed to “many”, and we are coming to that.
Although certain Hebrew texts are recognized as translations from an Aramaic original there is in the entire Old Testament only a handful of places where actual Aramaic passages occur, notably certain sections from the Book of Daniel. And it so happens that “All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing," which is from Daniel (4,32), is one such passage where texts in the original Aramaic are extant. The Aramaic phrase for “all the inhabitants of the earth" ‑‑ and this is getting quite close to “all men,” wouldn't you say? ‑is as follows: (Aramaic word given – ed.) This passage illustrates exactly how the Aramaic word (all) is used in an actual biblical phrase.
A series of volumes entitled Porta Linguarum Orientalium (The Gateway of Oriental Language has been published in Weisbaden, Germany, by Otto Harrassawitz. Included as No. V in this series is a valuable little text, published in 1961, having been authored by Franz Rosenthal. This particular text, which bears the title, A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic, devotes an entire section to an explanation of the ancient Aramaic word for “all,” “every” “everyone” etc. In the process of illustrating the uses of this particular word ‑‑ which is the same . word (kol) mentioned above, a variation of which is (kolia) : ''everyone"‑‑ this grammar text even furnishes as an example the expression in Aramaic for “all mankind”! A part of this section (i.e., XII) of this book, from. pp. 41‑2, is photographically reproduced here, slightly reduced in size:
_
~
96…….. is a noun meaning “totality.” cf. ……kolla “everything, everyone” D2:49. 4:9, 18, 25. This form may also be used I a quasi-adverbial manner: …….”well being completely” E 5:7. (…. Indicates the Aramaic which I have not the ability to transcribe. –ed.)
Preceding…eg.n oun without the article, it means “every, any.” Preceding a determined noun in the sg., it means “entire, whole.” And preceding a determined noun in the pl. or a collective eg.(i.e. …………”all mankind” or being followed by the pl. of the pronominal suffix, or the elative pronoun, or the demonstrative pronoun used as a noun (……”all this”), it means “all.”
What temerity! Oh, what unmitigated depravity! To dare to tamper with the Sacred Words of the Saviour Himself! To meddle with the sacramental form, the unchangeable substance, of the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist! .And this those arrogant Innovators have done, offering as their sole reason the absurd fraud that Aramaic has no word for “all”!
Indeed Joachim Jeremias and the ICEL's subversives rust be reckoned as the world's greatest ventriloquists, as they have made their bogus words, “for all men,” to be heard issuing forth from the lips of their tens of thousands of dummies. Oh, but we are told, this “form” simply must be valid because the bishops have approved it. The Son of God will not be mocked again Mocked He was once, by a blind and ungrateful people. But never again by His own, though the blind and ungrateful are still among them.
How many of those unsuspecting priests ‑‑ we mean those of the true and orthodox stripe ‑would be “obediently following their bishops” and reciting this counterfeit "form" if they did but know the facts about “for all men”"? if they did but know the “theology” of Professor Joachim Jeremias, their head ventriloquist.
(Patrick Omlor)
Is it possible this Professor did not know the real facts about Pro Multis?
Perhaps, after all, he was not Catholic and so he spiritually swam in a sea of ignorance, error, and superstition.
But then why would he be cited as an authority having to do with anything Biblical in opposition to orthodox Saints and Scholars and an infallible ecumenical council?
Who knows?
O, and she also cited Fr Bouyer as an expert but ABS knows he is of the New Theology and while he was drinking with a buddy in a seedy section of town, the two of them wrote the Eucharistic Prayer 2, the faux prayer of ancient origins the Lil' Licit Liturgy shoves down our throat every Sunday...
Take it away, Fr. Hunwicke:
7 September 2017
"Hippolytus"; or "The Second Eucharistic Prayer"
How able, how cunning, the Enemy is in his plots to bring Evil out of Good. I will illustrate this by considering his use of a Eucharistic Prayer still sometimes linked with the name of the early third century antipope Hippolytus.
My distinguished predecessor at S Thomas's, Dr Trevor Jalland, wrote 'The widespread interest evoked by the visual demonstrations of the Hippolytean Eucharist, which have been given in various parts of the country [by Dix since July 1948], testify to the deep indebtedness not merely of scholars, but of the ordinary worshipper, to Dr Gregory Dix in making available for English readers the text of Hippolytus' invaluable treatise The Apostolic Tradition.'
One aspect of this rite which particularly appealed to Catholic Anglicans was the presence of the phrase 'we offer unto thee this bread and this cup'. This seemed to provide an alibi for smuggling back into the mainstream worship of the Church of England a formula expressive of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, absent from our Parliamentary Liturgy since 1559. Thus in 1966 the English Liturgical Commission recommended a rite ('Series II') which contained this phrase; justified on the ground that 'It confines itself to the simple language of the first two centuries. It is the language used by Hippolytus ... The use of the phrase is in line with the Anglican appeal to antiquity'.
At about the same time the pot-Conciliar revisers of the Roman Rite incorporated a mangled version of 'Hippolytus' Eucharistic Prayer' as an alternative to the venerable Canon Romanus, the invariable Eucharistic Prayer of the Roman rite for so many centuries. The version which those revisers adopted had been confected by Dom Bernard Botte and Fr Louis Bouyer in between caraffes of wine in one of Rome's seedier areas of Testrevere.
By 1989, however, Bouyer, at least, had given up the idea that 'Hippolytus' really was by Hippolytus, or even had any connection with the Roman Church. This doubt has now become the academic orthodoxy. (If necessary, one murmurs here the name of Professor Paul Bradshaw.)
Unfortunately, 'Hippolytus' failed in the laudable struggle to recatholicise the worship of the Church of England; the Evangelicals vetoed the crucial phrase. The Enemy saw to that.
But the version put out by the Roman revisers did, by the Enemy's able machinations, succeed in almost entirely eliminating the Canon Romanus from the worship of most ordinary RC churches, where its extreme brevity appealed to priests and people alike (despite the rubrical guidance given that the Canon Romanus was for Sundays and 'Hippolytus' for other occasions). The passion for brevity, which made dear old Fr O'Murphy I say the Old Mass with such unholy rapidity, made his trendier nephew Fr O'Murphy II select 'Hippolytus' with unholy regularity in the New Mass.
So, in the one body, 'Hipplolytus' failed to achieve the hoped-for good of restoring the Eucharistic Oblation; and in the other body it did massive positive harm by edging out of use the Eucharistic Prayer which did express the full doctrine of that Sacrifice.
Satan's Smoke! Killing two birds with one stone!
Prot. convert wrecking his new home...
http://pblosser.blogspot.com/2016/03/disappointment-with-louis-bouyers.html
My distinguished predecessor at S Thomas's, Dr Trevor Jalland, wrote 'The widespread interest evoked by the visual demonstrations of the Hippolytean Eucharist, which have been given in various parts of the country [by Dix since July 1948], testify to the deep indebtedness not merely of scholars, but of the ordinary worshipper, to Dr Gregory Dix in making available for English readers the text of Hippolytus' invaluable treatise The Apostolic Tradition.'
One aspect of this rite which particularly appealed to Catholic Anglicans was the presence of the phrase 'we offer unto thee this bread and this cup'. This seemed to provide an alibi for smuggling back into the mainstream worship of the Church of England a formula expressive of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, absent from our Parliamentary Liturgy since 1559. Thus in 1966 the English Liturgical Commission recommended a rite ('Series II') which contained this phrase; justified on the ground that 'It confines itself to the simple language of the first two centuries. It is the language used by Hippolytus ... The use of the phrase is in line with the Anglican appeal to antiquity'.
At about the same time the pot-Conciliar revisers of the Roman Rite incorporated a mangled version of 'Hippolytus' Eucharistic Prayer' as an alternative to the venerable Canon Romanus, the invariable Eucharistic Prayer of the Roman rite for so many centuries. The version which those revisers adopted had been confected by Dom Bernard Botte and Fr Louis Bouyer in between caraffes of wine in one of Rome's seedier areas of Testrevere.
By 1989, however, Bouyer, at least, had given up the idea that 'Hippolytus' really was by Hippolytus, or even had any connection with the Roman Church. This doubt has now become the academic orthodoxy. (If necessary, one murmurs here the name of Professor Paul Bradshaw.)
Unfortunately, 'Hippolytus' failed in the laudable struggle to recatholicise the worship of the Church of England; the Evangelicals vetoed the crucial phrase. The Enemy saw to that.
But the version put out by the Roman revisers did, by the Enemy's able machinations, succeed in almost entirely eliminating the Canon Romanus from the worship of most ordinary RC churches, where its extreme brevity appealed to priests and people alike (despite the rubrical guidance given that the Canon Romanus was for Sundays and 'Hippolytus' for other occasions). The passion for brevity, which made dear old Fr O'Murphy I say the Old Mass with such unholy rapidity, made his trendier nephew Fr O'Murphy II select 'Hippolytus' with unholy regularity in the New Mass.
So, in the one body, 'Hipplolytus' failed to achieve the hoped-for good of restoring the Eucharistic Oblation; and in the other body it did massive positive harm by edging out of use the Eucharistic Prayer which did express the full doctrine of that Sacrifice.
Satan's Smoke! Killing two birds with one stone!
Prot. convert wrecking his new home...
http://pblosser.blogspot.com/2016/03/disappointment-with-louis-bouyers.html
With experts like these, Truth needs no enemies.