Logo
登入
<<<

名稱: 密碼:

加入 | FAQ | 聯絡我們
全部區域 > 神學 > 禮儀與聖事 > Translation of "Pro Multis"

頁:  1 回 應
作者 內容

edward


Posted -
2006/11/20 下午 06:50:28

[To their Eminences /Excellencies,
Presidents of the National Episcopal Conferences]

CONGREGATIO DE CULTU DIVINO
ET DISCIPLINA SACRAMENTORUM

Prot. n. 467/05/L
Rome, 17 October 2006

Your Eminence / Your Excellency,

In July 2005 this Congregation for the Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, by agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote to all Presidents of Conferences of Bishops to ask their considered opinion regarding the translation into the various vernaculars of the expression pro multis in the formula for the consecration of the Precious Blood during the celebration of Holy Mass (ref. Prot. n. 467/05/L of 9 July 2005).

The replies received from the Bishops’ Conferences were studied by the two Congregations and a report was made to the Holy Father. At his direction, this Congregation now writes to Your Eminence / Your Excellency in the following terms:

1. A text corresponding to the words pro multis, handed down by the Church, constitutes the formula that has been in use in the Roman Rite in Latin from the earliest centuries. In the past 30 years or so, some approved vernacular texts have carried the interpretive translation “for all”, “per tutti”, or equivalents.

2. There is no doubt whatsoever regarding the validity of Masses celebrated with the use of a duly approved formula containing a formula equivalent to “for all”, as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already declared (cf. Sacra Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Declaratio de sensu tribuendo adprobationi versionum formularum sacramentalium, 25 Ianuarii 1974, AAS 66 [1974], 661). Indeed, the formula “for all” would undoubtedly correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord’s intention expressed in the text. It is a dogma of faith 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).

3. There are, however, many arguments in favour of a more precise rendering of the traditional formula pro multis:

a. The Synoptic Gospels (Mt 26,28; Mk 14,24) make specific reference to “many” ([Greek word transliterated as polloin])) for whom the Lord is offering the Sacrifice, and this wording has been emphasized by some biblical scholars in connection with the words of the prophet Isaiah (53, 11-12). It would have been entirely possible in the Gospel texts to have said “for all” (for example, cf. Luke 12,41); instead, the formula given in the institution narrative is “for many”, and the words have been faithfully translated thus in most modern biblical versions.

b. The Roman Rite in Latin has always said pro multis and never pro omnibus in the consecration of the chalice.

c. The anaphoras of the various Oriental Rites, whether in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, the Slavic languages, etc., contain the verbal equivalent of the Latin pro multis in their respective languages.

d. “For many” is a faithful translation of pro multis, whereas “for all” is rather an explanation of the sort that belongs properly to catechesis.

e. 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 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.

f. In line with the Instruction Liturgiam authenticam, effort should be made to be more faithful to the Latin texts in the typical editions.

4. The Bishops’ Conferences of those countries where the formula “for all” or its equivalent is currently in use are therefore requested to undertake the necessary catechesis of the faithful on this matter in the next one or two years to prepare them for the introduction of a precise vernacular translation of the formula pro multis (e.g, “for many”, “per molti”, etc.) in the next translation of the Roman Missal that the Bishops and the Holy See will approve for use in their country.

With the expression of my high esteem and respect, I remain, Your Eminence/Your Excellency,

Devotedly Yours in Christ,

Francis Card. Arinze
Prefect

Augustine


Posted -
2006/11/21 下午 02:21:27

Would the diocese of HK following the instruction by the Cong. of Divine Worship, to issue an accurate translation of the canon in 1 or 2 years and replace the existing missalettes?

Men like Karl Keating, James Likoudis and James Akin, who are known as "conservative" catholics in the US have defended the "for all" translation with much efforts before, against the critique of "for all" translations by catholic traditionalists.

So, this time the error of the "for all" translation maintained by traditionalists is not really a "private judgement"? how the "pro multis" in the Canon had been wrongly translated to "for all"

The Roman Catechism spoke of the reasons why "for all" is wrong (under: Explanation Of The Form Used In The Consecration Of The Wine):.
Reference in the Catechism of Council of Trent

edward


Posted -
2006/11/21 下午 04:22:24

在此一問題上,中文版《信友彌撒經書》將「pro multis」譯作「眾人」是正確的,因此並沒有改正的必要。

反而問題是出在一些比《信友彌撒經書》更新的感恩祭經文版本。例如:《婚姻禮儀》就把這一句譯成「將為你們和所有人傾流」。

小弟堂區的獻堂禮,原初聖祭禮儀的版本亦是「為所有人傾流」。不過教區禮委的手足們是非常樂意聆聽不同人士意見、且從善如流的。所以在最終出街的版本,大家聽到的是「為眾人傾流」。

靚仔


Posted -
2006/11/21 下午 04:43:55

按禮部尚書的文件看,我們不能稱"FOR ALL"為錯,只是"FOR MANY"更準確吧了.

Augustine


Posted -
2006/11/21 下午 05:32:41

Edward I mean the English missalettes.

THOMA


Posted -
2006/11/22 上午 12:34:49

我們的祝聖聖血經文是採用瑪竇福音26:28,拉丁通行本譯作:qui pro MULTIS effunditur in remissionem peccatorum,而中文思高譯本亦譯作為「大眾」而傾流,以赦免罪過。另外,根據英文的Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible亦譯作"which shall be shed for MANY unto remission of sins.",就撇開神學思想來說,單憑文字就知道是譯錯,本人真不明白為何ICEL會有這般嚴重錯誤呢?

THOMA


Posted -
2006/11/22 下午 01:29:33

Actually, One of the most striking changes in the post-Vatican II liturgy involved the rites and prayers for the dead. such as: "Alleluia" replaced the traditional verses "Eternal Rest Grant unto them", A typical funeral in Hong Kong at least, was turned into something akin to a canonization cerenomy.

I have found out that the 1970 missal contains 114 orations for the dead, of which about 25 come from the old missal. The orations retained which were insufficently optimistic.

and among others, I've found a oration appeared in the Eucharistic Prayer II, which is:

Latin Version:
Memento etiam fratrum nostrorum, qui in spe resurrectionis dormierunt, omniumque in tua miseratione defunctorum, et eos in lumen vultus tui admitte.

中譯本為:
「求你也垂念懷著復活的希望而安息的兄弟姊妹;並求你垂念我們的祖先和所有去世的人,使他們享見你光輝的聖容。」

therefore, Is there also any paper say that it is incorrect. (although, this is not a mis-translation, but it is a great propblem in our faith.)

edward


Posted -
2006/11/22 下午 08:06:05

多瑪兄:

omniumque in tua miseratione defunctorum, et eos in lumen vultus tui admitte

若是直譯的話,我會把這句以中文表達如下:

「〔求你記念〕所有在你慈悲內〔去世〕的亡者,恩准他們得見你面容的光芒」

原文的意思不是說「所有亡者」,而是說「所有在天主慈悲內的亡者」。

至於甚麼是「天主的慈悲」,則按小弟的愚見,或者可參考以下的一篇集禱經(常年期第廿七週):

Omnipotens sempiterne Deus,
qui abundantia pietatis tuae et merita supplicum excedis et vota,
effunde super nos misericordiam tuam,
ut dimittas quae conscientia metuit,
et adicias quod oratio non praesumit ...

「et adicias quod oratio non praesumit」:相信這就是教會祈禱所能冀望的「界限」了。

THOMA


Posted -
2006/11/23 上午 11:09:08

愛德華兄:

本人十分認同閣下的譯文,原文確有這樣的意思,但本人所引的譯文是來自現今通用的每日彌撒經書(即紅色小書),那麼,的確在翻譯的時候,是否忽略參看原文呢?由於本人沒有英文版本在手,上網又找不到,可否告知他們如何翻譯以上句子?

事實上,譯錯的例子有好多,(未包括在禮儀改革後更改的禱文),例如:將Deus Sabaoth譯作God of All,又例如:Domine non sum dignus, ut intres sub tectum meum變作Lord I am not worthy to share at your table,,,,等

有一些字,好難準確從拉丁文翻譯過來,好似信經中的consubstantialem,英文譯作"of the same nature",顯然地就神學而言尚有不足,可能由於這個是哲學的用語,或許較難用本地語文譯出。

因翻譯錯誤而引致信仰出現偏差,或引致含糊,這問題實在有需要正視。

edward


Posted -
2006/11/25 上午 08:05:06

多瑪兄:

西諺有云「Traddutore, traditore」(翻譯者乃出賣者),多少也反映出一點點智慧。

教會對於禮儀翻譯的態度,與合約條款差不多:若拉丁文與本地譯文之間產生任何歧義,則一概以原文為準。儘管本地譯文的水準各有參差,但為明瞭教會的意向則須返回原文、且以原文的意義來闡釋譯文的意義。

說回為亡者祈禱的問題。

小弟參看了梵二後禮儀改革執行委員會「Consilium」的一些相關文件。發現原來在感恩經第二式的籌備過程中,的確是有一種「力量」要求加入「omnium defunctorum」(不加區別地說「所有亡者」),但在最後出街的版本,則是現時加入「in tua miseratione ...」的段落了。

小弟的假設是:不少禮儀改革的「專家」認為教宗保祿六世的定案實在過於保守,於是將「戰場」推移到本地教會的禮儀翻譯工作上。也許這可以解釋:為何梵二禮儀憲章、甚至新訂禮書的禮規和經文所沒有明言的事物,可以「梵二精神」的形象,堂皇地出現在教會的禮儀中。

若要深入反省的話,則其實這種現象可能反映著大家的一些心態,儘量希望在禮儀中「覆蓋」和「包涵」所有人,以減少公教信仰甚至主耶穌在世間作為「sign of contradiction」的一面。

試舉一個近期的例子:十一月二日的「追思亡者」,其實不是應該譯為「所有已亡信友紀念日」嗎?

THOMA


Posted -
2006/11/25 上午 11:54:13

First of all, according to the Pre-Vatican Missal "In Commemoratione Omnium Fidelium Defuncturum"
should be translated in "The Commemoration of al the Faithful Departed" and in Chinese"追思已亡信友紀念日"

Secondly, here is the keynote of Cardinal Arinze which address to the Gateway Liturgical Conference in St. Louis. Inside the keynote, some of points are regarding the Mass text translation into the vernacular. I think these can help us to improve our liturgical text translations.

On Translations into the Vernacular

The translation of liturgical texts from the Latin original to the various vernaculars is a very important consideration in the prayer life of the Church. It is a question, not of private prayer, but of the public prayer offered by holy Mother Church, with Christ as the head. The Latin texts have been prepared with great care as to sound doctrine, exact wording "free from all ideological influence and otherwise endowed with those qualities by which the sacred mysteries of salvation and the indefectible faith of the Church are efficaciously transmitted by means of human language to prayer, and worthy worship is offered to God the Most High" (Liturgiam Authenticam, 3). The words used in the sacred liturgy manifest the faith of the Church and are guided by it. The Church, therefore, needs great care in directing, preparing and approving translations, so that not even one unsuitable word will be smuggled into the liturgy by an individual who may have a personal agenda, or who may simply not be aware of the seriousness of the rites.

Translations should, therefore, be faithful to the original Latin text. They should not be free compositions. As Liturgiam Authenticam, the major Holy See document that gives directives on translations, insists: "The translation of the liturgical texts of the Roman Liturgy is not so much a work of creative innovation as it is of rendering the original texts faithfully and accurately into the vernacular language" (n.20).

The Latin liturgy expresses not only facts but also our feelings, our sentiments, for example, in front of God's transcendence, majesty, mercy and boundless love (cf Liturgiam Authenticam, 25). Some of these Latin expressions are difficult to translate. The best experts in liturgy, classics, patrology, theology, spirituality, music and literature are needed so that translations beautiful on the lips of holy Mother Church can be worked out. Translations should reflect that reverence, gratitude and adoration before God's transcendent majesty and man's hunger for God which are very clear in the Latin texts.

Many liturgical texts are steeped in biblical expressions, signs and symbols. They resonate with prayer patterns that date back to the Psalms. The translator cannot afford to ignore this.

Intelligibility should not be pushed to mean that every word must be understood by everybody at once. Just look carefully at the Credo. It is a "symbol", a solemn summary statement, on our faith. The Church has had to call some General Councils for an exact articulation of some articles of our faith. Not every Catholic at Mass will immediately understand in full such normal Catholic liturgical formulae as Incarnation, Creation, Passion, Resurrection, Transubstantiation, Real Presence…., Translators should not become iconoclasts who destroy and damage as they go along. Everything cannot be explained during the liturgy. The liturgy does not exhaust the entire life activity of the Church (cf Sacrosanctum Concilium, 9).

Indeed, we can say that the most important thing in divine worship is not that we understand every word or concept. No. The most important consideration is that we stand in reverence and awe before God, that we adore, praise and thank him. The sacred, the things of God, are best approached with sandals off.

As if putting together these various elements needed in order to produce good liturgical translations…..from the above considerations, it follows that the Church needs to exercise careful authority over liturgical translations. The responsibility for the translation of texts rest on the Bishops' Conference which submits them to the Holy See for the necessary recognitio (cf SC 36; CLC Canon 838; Lit. Authenticam, 80).

It follows that no individual, even a priest or deacon, has authority to change the approved wording in the sacred liturgy. This is also common sense. But sometimes we notice that common sense is not very common. So Redemptionis Sacramentum had to say expressly: "The reprobated practice by which priests, deacons or the faithful here and there alter or vary at will the texts of the Sacred Liturgy that they are charged to pronounce, must cease….." (Red. Sacramentum, 59; cf also General Instruction on Roman Missal, n. 24).

The Original text of Cardinal Arinze's Keynote

edward


Posted -
2006/11/25 下午 09:06:37

多馬兄:

閣下所引的那篇演說,小弟較早前亦已看過了。

「追思」己亡教友「紀念日」,是否雙重地譯了「commemoratio」一詞?

不過,在處理梵二禮儀改革的禮儀經文時,可不要犯了時差。當人們在討論新禮的翻譯時,兄卻引出舊禮的原文來,豈不是牛頭不搭馬咀嗎?

THOMA


Posted -
2006/11/26 下午 06:55:09

問:當人們在討論新禮的翻譯時,兄卻引出舊禮的原文來,豈不是牛頭不搭馬咀嗎?

答:抱歉,事實上本人家中並無太多新彌撒經書,故才引舊彌撒經文以作對比,並無任何原因。

edward


Posted -
2006/11/26 下午 07:53:46

Dear Thoma,

If you look carefully into the Latin Liturgy (old & new), you will find that in place of "ef/funditur" according to Vulgate, the word "effundetur" was used in our liturgy instead.

What did Our Lord really say?

Effunditur

THOMA


Posted -
2006/11/28 下午 12:52:05

本人認為儘管希臘七十賢士本用上Έκχυννόμενον(意思是“傾流出來”,現在式分詞,被動語態。)一字,然而,教會在欽定祝聖聖血經文時,均是參照拉丁通行本,(註:在拉丁通行本Vulgate上的所有福音均用上effundetur / fundetur(將來式,被動語態)一字。)但即使與原本聖經意思是有所出入(時態上),但不致違反耶穌教導及教會信理。

靚仔


Posted -
2006/11/28 下午 08:15:27

多默兄:

我想你不太知道自己在說甚麼,也誤解了愛德華兄的句子.
七十賢士本是希臘文的舊約的譯本,並不包括新約.所以我想兄是誤會了.
二是,現在的問題是羅馬禮無論新舊的成聖血經用的是"effundetur",而非拉丁通行本的"effunditur",而拉丁通行本的時態是和希臘文新約原文一致的.所以你的註內所說的是錯誤的.

THOMA


Posted -
2006/11/29 上午 11:36:38

靚仔兄:

多謝 閣下的指正!

但本人手上的拉丁文聖經(1954年由辣匝肋書局出版的)確是用上effundetur,本人不知是否版本上不同,因而有所不同,還望指教!!

另外,本人家中翻查的希臘文聖經是由聖經公會聯合印行的。(由於該書中並沒有刊登出處,故本人才誤為七十賢士譯本,真對不起,特此更正!)

靚仔


Posted -
2006/11/30 上午 12:03:54

多馬兄:

我用的拉丁文聖經是梵蒂崗網頁上的Neo-vulgate.


THOMA


Posted -
2006/11/30 上午 12:15:45

靚仔兄:

我亦翻查過較舊的1927年出版的拉丁文聖經,一樣是用effundetur,那麼會不會是新拉丁聖經的譯文有所更正呢?還望再次指較!

edward


Posted -
2006/11/30 上午 08:43:33

Dear Thoma,

I will investigate into the matter more deeply.

Interim, the Jerome Vulgate in my PocketPC and those Vulgate versions commonly occurring in the internet use the present tense form "funditur" rather than "fundetur" - which correspond more closely with the Greek version.

Different tenses & grammatical expressions of a biblical verse do lay different emphases on particular facets of truth. There are much debate about the precise theological meaning of a particular article (e.g. Greek "ho") or conjunction being included as part of the inspired writ.

Iota unum aut unus apex non praeteribit a lege donec omnia fiant.

Care et cave!

edward


Posted -
2006/12/25 下午 10:22:04

小弟家中共有兩份《拉丁通行本》的版本。

第一本是反映克萊孟八世傳統的,如多馬兄所言,譯成「effundetur」。

另一本是較後期的審訂版本,是譯作「effunditur」的。註釋上寫明:Amiatinus, Mediolanensis, Fuldensis的版本、希臘文皆如此,而其它版本則作「effundetur」。

頁:  1 回 應