Bp. Trautman: “pro multis” confusing

My good friend Mr. John Allen formerly ubiquitous and still writing for the NCR presented a provocative headline:

Trautman says change on ‘pro multis’ may confuse teaching that Christ died for all

According to a press release issued by a member of the academy’s Executive Committee, Jesuit Fr. Keith Pecklers of Rome’s Gregorian University, Trautman “contended that the new translations do not adequately meet the liturgical needs of the average Catholic,” and he “expressed fears that the significant changes in the texts no longer reflect understandable English usage.”

And this reminds me of the small dog on the other side of the fence, always willing to bark a bit more:

Trautman also challenged a recent ruling from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments that the Latin phrase pro multis in the formula for the consecration of the Precious Blood should be rendered as “for many” rather than the current English phrase “for all.”

 

And here is the meat:

Trautman encouraged members of the academy to speak out in opposition to such changes.

“Bishop Trautman challenged Catholic liturgical scholars of North America to assist the bishops in promoting a liturgy that is accessible and pastorally aware,” the release said. “He urged them, in a spirit of respect and love for the Church, to be courageous in questioning those developments that would render the liturgy incomprehensible and betray the intention of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65).”

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to Bp. Trautman: “pro multis” confusing

  1. Kenjiro Shoda says:

    I think Bishop Trautman should do the honourable thing and resign.
    Or maybe Benedict XVI should do the honourable thing and retire him.

    Either way, the honourable thing for the Church would be to wholesale dismiss Truatman and like people totally….

  2. I thought Diogenes at cwnews.com/offtherecord captured the seriousness of Bishop Trautman’s latest screed pretty accurately when he said “Comparably devastating to the new translation endeavor were the remarks of Dr. A.J.P. Funicello, Director of the Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Marcoux Professor of Christodramatics at Cal State Fullerton,” who said

    Well uncle di we here at livermore believe that language like is a dynamic and not a static reality so when you try to make it sacred or sacral it doesn’t speak to my own experience as a mature educated adult and a person of gender.

  3. RC says:

    What sort of Mass does Fr. Pecklers like?

    But “Sundays at Caravita” was going to be more than just another mass in English; the focus would be on returning to that Ignatian vision embodied in the spirit of Caravita. Lay ministry would be an important component of the project. We wanted pilgrims, strangers, and regulars alike to take part in a participative liturgy that reflects a faith that does justice.

    The worship space is inviting. At the entrance is a bowl of baptismal water, a table with candles, bread, and wine, and a basket for offerings (there is no formal collection). People pick up a hymnal, sign the guest book, and take one of the 75 seats in an oval around the altar.

    What does Fr. Pecklers say about the Vatican’s qualifications for priests?

    There’s a certain implication in the document that homosexuals, gays and lesbians, are not capable of living affectively mature — emotionally mature lives.

    And, of course, we know from modern psychology and just from the lives of gay men and lesbians that many do indeed live very faithful, generous lives.

    Surely he belongs on any list of the Usual Suspects.

  4. Bede says:

    Hmm. Perhaps the good Bishop is hoping that he too will merit a phone call from Pope Benedict?

  5. Gary says:

    If there are 2 things that annoy me on the part of our good Bishops they are:

    1. the invocation of a non-existent “spirit of Vatican 2″ that somehow overrides the letter of Vatican 2. “Accessible and pastoral” celebration of mass, ignores what Vatican 2′s documents wanted: chant, latin, no removal of high altars etc

    2. the disobedience of Bishops to the wishes of their boss (to whom, last time I looked, tlooked they swear an oath of allegience.

  6. dcs says:

    You know, I might criticize my boss in front of my wife, in front of my friends, and even in front of my colleagues if need be; but I would never criticize him if I expected my criticism to become public, unless perhaps in the most dire circumstances; and if I did criticize him publicly I would expect to be fired. Translations aren’t a matter of the Faith.

  7. John E. says:

    How long will we have to endure people like Trautman? I left a church founded in the sixteenth century to enter THE CHURCH only to discover that church was interpreted by too many bishops as having been founded in the nineteen sixties. On Saturday I went to St. Michael’s Russian Catholic Chapel and there heard the words “for many.” No one seemed confused. They also still say “And with your spirit.” How did we get bishops like Trautman?

  8. Paul Haley says:

    Bishop Trautman, meet St. Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, who said in no uncertain terms: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” II Thess, Ch2, v 14. Tradition has held for over 2,000 years that pro multis is translated “for many”. Is it your intent to elevate yourself as an authority above St. Paul himself? Why do you continue your obstinate denial of Tradition? We all know the difference between sufficiency and efficacy and why is it that you continue to emphasize the sufficiency aspect of Christ’s Passion, Death and Resurrection? Is it not the efficiency aspect, the acceptance of Christ’s Divinity, His Teachings and belief in His Church that gets us to heaven and was not St. Paul taken up into heaven to receive revelations direct from God? Oiy vey!

  9. Flambeaux says:

    John E.,

    You wrote “How long will we have to endure people like Trautman?”

    I suspect the answer is, “Until the Parousia.” Bishops like His Gracious Lord Erie have been with us since the beginning, they’ll be with us until the end. Nothing we can do about it besides prayer, penance, and become saints ourselves.

    On an unrelated note, Fr.Z I’m really enjoying the security word choices you’ve made. Even if I’m not posting a lot of comments, I’m checking combox threads just to see the latest.

  10. michigancatholic says:

    Getting very close to that long-rumored schism, aren’t we? I personally think that some of it is inevitable, indeed already a fait accompli. It’s best we just go on quietly and prayerfully and let the chips fall where they may.

    The truth will out. We can do it the long, hard way and take heavy casualties (as has been chosen up til this point), OR we can just out with it and get better.

    Trying to avoid schisms is a bit like trying to avoid the dentist by ignoring your teeth. Doesn’t work worth a damn.

  11. michigancatholic says:

    Does it ever dawn on Bp Trautman that saying, “And also with you” instead of “et cum spiritu tuo” might confuse us? In no way is that a translation. In light of that example, I don’t understand what his point might be unless it’s something entirely different than what he’s claiming–ie this is all a subterfuge which *he* thinks is clever. — :p

    Somebody should inform Bp. Trautman that perhaps he’s the only one who seems not to understand what “consubstantiation” might mean. I think he’d ought to stop talking about laypeople so poorly. Many of us undoubtedly have better educations than he does! He’d ought to be glad of that–it’s the source of 100% of his funding in the last analysis.

    ICEL is the body that performed the last “translation,” grammatical errors and all. I suspect that the “liturgy for dummies” problem belongs to the bishops and their ilk, not us. *They* need to get up to speed.

  12. At the end of the day, is anyone on this blog surprised by Bishop Trautman’s words? Don’t most of us expect that some priests are
    going to ignore the “for many” translation anyway? We can’t even
    get all priests to follow the GIRM for heaven sake.

  13. Diane K says:

    “Bishop Trautman challenged Catholic liturgical scholars of North America to assist the bishops in promoting a liturgy that is accessible and pastorally aware,” the release said. “He urged them, in a spirit of respect and love for the Church, to be courageous in questioning those developments that would render the liturgy incomprehensible and betray the intention of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65).”

    &$#$*$&#@#*@&#@(#$@#)$&(#

    Oh, pardon me – I tripped over my keyboard when I read that paragraph

    What I would like to understand is whether Pope Benedict or Cardinal Arinze will get copies of this “news” report and alleged quote.

    Can the US Bishops actually stall on putting this out there.

    Someone help me to understand the process of how it gets from that motu proprio to the altars where English is used. What will prompt priests to use the new language and when should we technically see it if there were no roadblocks? And, what kind of things can the US bishops do to thwart that?

  14. michigancatholic says:

    Diane, you are standing on the table?? (just kidding)

    It’s a mess, yes. The structure is such that the bishops can indeed attempt to stop things cold, and some will. It is up to laypeople to see that they don’t get away with it.

    It brings to mind the situation with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Every attempt was made to short circuit that document, from composition through translation and on to distribution–but the Vatican took an end run they way they distributed it themselves through a variety of publishers–and we picked it up at the bookstore. The rest is history.

    We also must “catch” the pitch from the Vatican on this. Support priests who are willing to say the mass correctly. Drive past disobedient parishes. And BLOG your heart out. Dissent thrives on ignorance–they insult us daily and it’s time they heard about it.

    Fr. You have me laughing at these anti-spam words. Are you using them as ideological filters or what? I can just imagine somebody from NCR sliding over here and having to type in FREE THE LATIN MASS! in order to whine. =)

  15. Janet says:

    Richard, I have a ray of hope for you concerning explaining to the laity about the pro multis change: our pastor explained it to us a couple of weeks ago, quite properly just as you described in your post. No one passed out from shock or started petition drives against it.

    And in a further note of hope, our bishop in the diocesan newspaper explained the change concerning cleansing of the sacred vessels that now can no longer be done by the extraordinary ministers. It was a very positive and reassuring letter, and he explained that if there are many vessels and only one priest, that they can be covered in a particular way and set in a specific place (some side table I think) where the priest can then wait til after mass has ended to cleanse them properly.

    Would I be greatly wrong to assume that my parish and my diocese (Birmingham, Ala) is such a great rarity in this country? We’re handling the changes with understanding, knowledge, calmness, and great faith in the leaders of our church.

    Janet

  16. Richard says:

    Thanks, Janet. You have a cool diocese.

  17. John Polhamus says:

    Father, other Fathers, ladies and gentlemen, I’ve been so upset all evening at Trautman’s remarks, that I penned a public letter, which I here submit for criticism or dissemination by anyone who woule like to communicate it to a newspaper, newsletter, blog of Bishop. I really feel sick at Trautman’s incitement to rebellion, and hope I expressed it. See what you think.

    A Pitchfork in the Pews:
    Regarding Bishop Trautman’s Invitation
    to Episcopal Dissent among the Catholic Hierarchy

    Although I am not normally a person who is easily shocked, especially by the internacine politics of the Roman Catholic Church, I must admit that I was saddened and angered – in a word, scandalised – to read, in the National Catholic Register, of the blunt intent, on the part of Bishop Trautman, to resist the correction of the improperly translated texts of the mass, in the face of the decision of the Congregation of Divine Worship. This adolescent and childish attitude is all too symptomatic of the Diocesan Church as we find it today. “Stick that in your tiara, Benedict! We’ll do it our way whether you like it or not! What’re you gonna do, make us?” Maybe he won’t, but…

    We in the pews would like to make something very clear to our local Bishops: there are very faithful elements among the laity, a growing, educated and apologetivcally aware segment in fact, who will no longer tolerate in silence the rebellious opposition on the part of the Catholic Hierarchy to the accurate transmission of the very words of the mass for the ends of a convenient, but false and superficial ecumenism.

    Bishop Trautman’s modernistic and rebellious opinions and the Universal Salvation theology which they represent, fly in the face of simple linguistics. If there is any doubt about that statement simply look in ANY Latin dictionary: “pro multis” = for many; “for all” = “pro omnes.” Cut and dried.

    More seriously, Bishop Trautman’s adherence to “for all” distorts – as well he knows – the meaning of Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross, offered for all, yes; but efficacious only for those who either would avail themselves of his redeeming and salvific act, or who having never known him nevertheless live justly in His sight.

    We are not Protestants. Even without seeking to circumscribe the bounds of invincible ignorance, and in a spirit of charity towards our separated brethren, we nevertheless believe in the Catholic doctrine of free will, and that human beings retain the capability of rejecting Christ to their perdition. We are not robots, holy or otherwise.

    The Catholic faithful expect loyalty from the episcopate, not collegiality used as a screen for disobedience to the authority of the Papacy. The Bishops lead the faithful, and PETER leads the Bishops, we will not have it any other way. If you speak out, which is acting out, against the Holy Father as Bishop Trautman urges, we will speak out (also acting out) against you. We will hold you to the criteria of basic intelligence with which you would do well to credit us, and we will exercise the Free Will with which we are imbued with the likeness of the Creator, not to our perdition, but to the preservation of Catholic doctrine and dogma.

    Bishop trautman cites “liturgical needs” as a justifiable pretext for incorrect translation of the texts of the mass. What justifiable needs are there for the “average Catholic” to be in error as to the correctly translated meaning of Jesus Christ’s words of institution? There are none.

    Bishop Trautman finds that the words “for many” no longer reflects “understandable english,” but that is simply because he cannot reconcile them to the “understanding” he wishes to promote, an understanding that involves the false doctrine of Universal Salvation, and the accomodation of dissenting and relativist sensibilities regardless of the theological facts. We on the other hand, understand their usage very well, better than Bishop Trautman, apparrantly.

    Finally, the Bishop urges dissent “in a spirit of respect and love for the Church,” inciting both lay liturgists and his fellow Bishops to be courageous in “questioning those developments that would render the liturgy incomprehensible.” In other words he is going to fight for his right to continue to adjust and distort understanding to suit a modernist agenda for the Church as he would have it, rejecting and subverting a decision of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. Very well then, that would be the same “spirit of respect and love for the church” that we manifest in condemning and denouncing Bishop Trautman and those revising relativists who follow him.

    What is incomprehensible is how the simple knowledge of the meaning of “pro multis” as opposed to “pro omnes” has evaded otherwise presumably educated excellencies and eminances for forty years…or perhaps we do understand it better than he thinks we do.

    To paraphrase the psalm, “Forty years we have endured this generation. I say to you now, they are a generation whose hearts go astray. Who’s rest, exactly, do they think they are going to enter into?”

    Make no mistake: we take this matter to be of basic and fundamental importance to the concept of Roman identity and the tramsmission of Catholic doctrine and dogma. It would be a grave mistake for our Diocesesans to follow Bishop Trautman’s invitation to dissent. We follow the Pope.

    In Nomine Iesus,

    _______________________

  18. Eric says:

    Somebody should inform Bp. Trautman that perhaps he’s the only one who seems not to understand what “consubstantiation” might mean. I think he’d ought to stop talking about laypeople so poorly. Many of us undoubtedly have better educations than he does!

    Umm, you just proved his point. “Consubstantial” means “one in being,” which is how it is translated in the Creed now. “Consubstantiation” is the Lutheran view of Real Presence. But of course, you’re smarter than the bishop…

    And the issue about “for all” or “for many” is not about Latin translation. It was put that way in some versions according to an approved method of translating established by the Vatican in the document Comme le prévoit that called for translations to be adapted to the contemporary usage, rhythm and idoscyncracies of each language as it is spoken (NOT written), rather than striving for accuracy in translation from the Latin. In addition, the principle of ressourcement was often applied, which meant that translations could be influenced by going back to earlier texts than Latin. The translators made a decision to use “for all” because it was felt that was a closer English word to the original Aramaic.

    Now the fact that the rules have changed, and the Vatican now wants a closer translation from the Latin, does not make the previous translation “wrong.” It was never meant to be a word-for-word translation from the Latin according to the rules set out at the time. The difference is a change in the rules for translating. That’s all.

    So this is not an occasion to hoot and holler, to brandish spears and trot out your high school Latin to prove that you’re smarter than the people who dedicated their lives to studying these matters and doing their best according to the rules they were given and severe time constraints. It’s a change in rules. That’s it.

    So please, enough with the smug satisfaction and the victory dances. It’s quite unseemly, given the subject.

  19. John Polhamus says:

    Funny thing, Eric, but you know, every edition of the Daily Roman Missal I have from the late 1800′s up through 1962 is a Vatican approved translation, and “pro multis” never translates as “for all.” Wrong is wrong, sorry. 2+2 has never equalled five, no matter how you may wish to adapt it, so you’re arguing in the face of common sense. No adaptation necessasry, and wrong = incorrect. Try getting tested on it in latin class, and see how right your adapted answer is. I’m not crowing, I’m telling. I work in a Novus Ordo parish, and hear and see some of the most outrageous crap every Sunday. It’s a big active genial parish, but now even some of those most willing to go along with the improvisations are pulling out.

    “Now the fact that the rules have changed, and the Vatican now wants a closer translation from the Latin, does not make the previous translation “wrong.” It was never meant to be a word-for-word translation from the Latin.”

    You’re kidding, right? Christ’s words of institution are adaptable? not meant to understood literally? no need to translate them directly? is that it? You’ve got to be kidding. And your assertion that the truth is subject to rule-changes from time to time is laughable. Cut the agit-prop, those days are done. With the words of institution, close doesn’t count. It’s either accurate or not; right or wrong; correct or incorrect; omnes or multis; all or many…or nothing. Back to Latin class with you, Eric, and you’re staying after school!

  20. Diane K says:

    John said:

    Although I am not normally a person who is easily shocked, especially by the internacine politics of the Roman Catholic Church, I must admit that I was saddened and angered – in a word, scandalised – to read, in the National Catholic Register, of the blunt intent, on the part of Bishop Trautman, to resist the correction of the improperly translated texts of the mass, in the face of the decision of the Congregation of Divine Worship.

    I believe it was the National Catholic Reporter, not the Register. Both are abbreviated the same way.

  21. Diane K says:

    Henry quoted Diogenes: Well uncle di we here at livermore believe that language like is a dynamic and not a static reality so when you try to make it sacred or sacral it doesn’t speak to my own experience as a mature educated adult and a person of gender.

    Perfectly stated in an anti-politically correct way that sounds so politically correct.

    I love that last part, “….as a person of gender”.

    What I want to know is are there any bishops or liturgical “experts” under 65 who are vocal in this regard?

  22. vox borealis says:

    John Polhamus,

    I believe that should be “pro omnibus” rather than “pro omnes.”

  23. RBrown says:

    Umm, you just proved his point. “Consubstantial” means “one in being,” which is how it is translated in the Creed now. “Consubstantiation” is the Lutheran view of Real Presence. But of course, you’re smarter than the bishop…

    No, “consubstantial” does not mean “one in being”–it means “one in substance”. “One in being” does not necessarily contradict Arianism, and, as we all know, Arianism was the occasion for this particular part of the Nicene Creed.

  24. brendon says:

    it was felt that was a closer English word to the original Aramaic.

    Ummm, what Aramaic? Correct me if I’m wrong, but we don’t actually have any Aramaic, only scholarly conjecture on what the Aramaic probably was. It seems foolish to fall back upon conjecture, no matter how learned, when we have authoritative Greek and Latin texts that are part of the Deposit of Faith, either as Sacred Scripture (Greek) or as Sacred Tradition (Latin).

  25. Dan Hunter says:

    I really think that Bishop Trautman is tired of being a shepherd of souls and wants the Holy Father to fire him.I really believe this.I cannot imagine any other reason why he would directly express disobediance to the Holy See.
    Let us pray that Pope Benedict gives him his wish.
    God bless you all.

  26. Folks: Perhaps it would be better to stick to the issues and tone back the ad hominem comments.

  27. Marcin says:

    Janet,

    How fortunate you are, indeed.

    I was on vacations with my family in Myrtle Beach, SC, and we went for a Sunday Mass to a randomly selected parish (that strategy almost never works, but in the unknown locality what else we can do…). The drawing returned St. Andrew’s. In preparation for the Communion, the multitude (I mean more that 10) of EMs gathered around the altar waiting, just waiting to… consume the Body in perfect sync with the celebrant er… presider, and then dispersed around the church. It took my dear wife to brave the obstacles and so under her firm leadership we managed to avoid EM, and boy, it was hard, for they were like legions. Getting back to a purification issue, after Communion all the vessels went to some alcove (or maybe it was a receded entry to the sacristy), what happened with them there I do not know, anyway the chalice and the paten were brought by an EM on a nice wooden kitchen tray back to the altar. A presider gave the chalice two subtle touches (literally) on a rim with a purificator, lady took them back, and that’s it – job done. I am sure the were shining clean beforhand.

    It will take years to enforce the latest instruction.

  28. RBrown says:

    And the issue about “for all” or “for many” is not about Latin translation. It was put that way in some versions according to an approved method of translating established by the Vatican in the document Comme le prévoit that called for translations to be adapted to the contemporary usage, rhythm and idoscyncracies of each language as it is spoken (NOT written), rather than striving for accuracy in translation from the Latin.

    Correct. That was the approved translation then, but it is not approved anymore.

    In addition, the principle of ressourcement was often applied, which meant that translations could be influenced by going back to earlier texts than Latin. The translators made a decision to use “for all” because it was felt that was a closer English word to the original Aramaic.

    Incorrect. The text is written in Greek (peri pollon) not Aramaic and is not correctly translated as “for all”. Any attempt at the Aramaic is not ressourcement but rather une conjecture (guess).

  29. TJM says:

    Look folks. Every dog has his day, and Bishop Trautman
    knows his is over. Funny how the 1960s “progressives”
    are today’s reactionaries, trying to canonize the
    style au courant in the 1960s and 1970s per omnia
    saecula saeculorum. Every time I attend Mass celebrated
    by a young priest (no offense Father Zulhsdorf)I am
    struck by how faithfully they follow the texts and rubrics
    in contrast to their elders. Also, they tend to vest
    themselves correctly. I guess they understand better
    than the “double-knit dinosaurs” that the Liturgy is
    not “all about them.” They give me great hope for the
    future and help me realize that Bishop Trautman is more an
    annoyance than a real threat. Best wishes to all, Tom

  30. Dan Hunter says:

    Father Zuhlsdorf,
    The man, and what he says are intertwined.
    My previous statement is not an attack on the bishop,by any means,but wht I see as his reasons for ststing something that does not make any sense.
    Most Catholics I know understand what Pro Multis means,as well as consubstantial with the Father and Incarnate of the Holy Ghost..
    These are issues which are important,but most Catholics understand them.
    Thank you and God blessyou

  31. dcs says:

    I have an idea: bring back the silent Canon. That way no one will hear what the priest says and no one will be scandalized. Right?? ;-)

  32. dcs: Excellent point!

  33. Brian Mershon says:

    “I was on vacations with my family in Myrtle Beach, SC, and we went for a Sunday Mass to a randomly selected parish (that strategy almost never works, but in the unknown locality what else we can do…). The drawing returned St. Andrew’s”

    Ah, Msgr. Chet. Do you know he won some Papal recognition award under the leadership of our then Bishop Thompson and the Vicar General and Vocations Directors who both left the priesthood to get married?

    Msgr. Chet, my old pastor in Taylors, SC. What a wonderful Mass that must have been. I hope it was valid–seriously.

  34. RBrown says:

    Look folks. Every dog has his day, and Bishop Trautman
    knows his is over. Funny how the 1960s “progressives”
    are today’s reactionaries, trying to canonize the
    style au courant in the 1960s and 1970s per omnia
    saecula saeculorum.

    I don’t think he does know. He’s a progressive. What does Chesterton say: The job of the progressive is to keep making the same mistakes over and over.

  35. John Polhamus says:

    Not so much with the Silent Canon idea really. Whether we hear it or not is really irrelevant, since we’ll be following it in our Missals anyway, thus ensuring “actual” participation, which implies mental involvement of the will and intellect, rather than the incorrectly tranlated “active” which merely implies physical action. But then, I know you know that.

    I do hate to appear humourless, and I’m aware that a new day is dawning in the clergy, and that Trautman has had his day, but his shameless display really did make me nauseous, I felt sick to my stomach. So I needed to reply, and writing helped. I’m much cheerier today.

  36. TJM says:

    RBrown, Thanks for the great Chesterton quote, it made
    my day. Regards, Tom.

  37. RBrown says:

    Another Chesterton dandy:

    Democracy is having a foot race between two coal miners, and the winner gets to be Duke of Norfolk.

  38. Michael says:

    it was felt that was a closer English word to the original Aramaic.

    Ummm, what Aramaic? Correct me if I’m wrong, but we don’t actually have any Aramaic, only scholarly conjecture on what the Aramaic probably was. It seems foolish to fall back upon conjecture, no matter how learned, when we have authoritative Greek and Latin texts that are part of the Deposit of Faith, either as Sacred Scripture (Greek) or as Sacred Tradition (Latin).

    We have an Aramaic version of the Bible dating back to the fourth century. That version, the Peshitta, uses the Aramaic word for “many” (transliterated as “sageeah” or “saggi’an”) not the Aramaic word for all (“kol”) in its accounts of our Lord’s words at the Last Supper.

    A word-by-word translation of the Peshitta’s Holy Gospel according to St. Matthew from Aramaic into English is available here, with the words in question from Matthew 26:28 highlighted here.

  39. Michael says:

    The second link in my post somehow evaporated. For people that do not want to wade through pages of text in an unfamiliar alphabet, a three word excerpt of the Aramaic version of Matthew 26:28, with each word translated into English, is available at
    http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=1397184&postcount=114.