FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Priest calls translation of "pro multis" to "for many" a "heresy"!
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Yesterday marked the one-year countdown for the imposition of the new, corrected translation of the Novus Ordo Mass in English.  The new translation, which corrects "for all" and all many other mistranslations, is set to go into effect on the first Sunday of Advent 2011.

In the process of researching the opposition to this, I wasn't surprised to find plenty of liberal Catholics (lay and clergy) lamenting about the changes, but I was, I admit, just a little surprised to see a Catholic priest, Fr William Grimm, actually declare that to translate "pro multis" to "for many" instead of the incorrect "for all" is actually "heresy", and that in doing so, the Vatican is forcing priest to teach "heresy!"

But that is what he said, indeed. His words, in "Small Word, Big Problem" (http://www.ucanews.com/2010/09/10/small-...g-problem/):

"Good Latin but heretical English will have priests proclaiming that Christ shed his blood ‘for you and for many.’"

"In English, “many” without the article is an indeterminate word. It can mean a handful, a few dozen, a few thousand. It never means, however, the majority, let alone everyone.  On the other hand, “the many” can mean everyone. In order to be slavishly faithful to Latin grammar, Rome is telling us that we must pray heresy, saying in effect that Jesus shed his blood for quite a few, but certainly not all.  That presents priests with a dilemma. We can obey men who obviously do not know what they want us to talk about or we can continue to proclaim the actual faith of the Church."

Apparently, according to Fr Grimm, the "actual faith of the Church" is that the Magisterium has been in total error for hundreds of years by specifically denoting the words of consecration as "for many," nevermind for teaching that, indeed, not "all men" are "saved."  But he continues:.

"Currently, the words over the cup during the Eucharistic Prayer speak of the Lord’s blood being spilled “for you and for all.” That translates the idea of the probable Aramaic words of Jesus and the Catholic faith that God’s will is that all be saved. The Latin text reads, “pro multis,” which also implies all-inclusiveness."

Now, I'm not sure what his knowledge of Latin is, and not that I'm a Latin scholar or by any measure, but I know simply from my Litanies that "omnius" and "omnibus" for the "all-inclusive" terms, not "multi."   We don't say "multi-potent God", we say "omnipotent God."  But never mind his lack of knowledge of Latin, because the true issue here is his lack of knowledge of the Faith.  Besides thinking and desiring to teach some sort of "universal salvation," he is rejecting the teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium, and even rejecting Holy Scripture.  He states his interpretation of what he thinks were the "probable Aramaic words of Jesus," and in so doing, places his own silly ideas over the specific writing and testimony, and official and infallible record, of what Jesus really did say and what really was recorded by his Apostles, now Saints!   This is just silly!   :laughing:  But too, too dangerous.  And too, too common.  Is this not precisely what the Modernists wanted: personal interpretation of historicity and scripture, universal salvation, rule of "conscience", complete relativism, and rejection of authority and truth?

Another issue for some (particularly the very liberal "Catholics") with the new translation is that it is going to include----brace yourself!---a bow during the Credo when the words "and was made man" are said.  Some are shocked!  "They can't make me bow!"  Of course, at the TLM, we straight-up kneel during at those wonderful words, and it is appropriately bolded and CAPITALIZED in our Missals so that we can be made to think hard about it.  But, I have read, this act of reverence for our Lord is going to be distorted into a source of rebellion, as certain people are intentionally going to refuse to bow to make some kind of "point" that they don't like the changes, or something like that. 

That is how lost so many are: that they would use the praise of our Lord as a chance to defy revering Him!   :(


Utterly ridiculous.
Detestable, even
This just shows how badly this new translation is needed.
(11-29-2010, 09:12 PM)quotidianum Wrote: [ -> ]Another issue for some (particularly the very liberal "Catholics") with the new translation is that it is going to include----brace yourself!---a bow during the Credo when the words "and was made man" are said.  Some are shocked!  "They can't make me bow!"  Of course, at the TLM, we straight-up kneel during at those wonderful words, and it is appropriately bolded and CAPITALIZED in our Missals so that we can be made to think hard about it.  But, I have read, this act of reverence for our Lord is going to be distorted into a source of rebellion, as certain people are intentionally going to refuse to bow to make some kind of "point" that they don't like the changes, or something like that. 

That is how lost so many are: that they would use the praise of our Lord as a chance to defy revering Him!   :(

I'm puzzled as to what is "new" about this (bowing during the Credo). I go to the NO Mass every Sunday, and in the Missallettes that they use (right now), it says to bow during those lines, and I always do (in fact, it bothers me that no-one else seems to do this). It also says this in my St.Joseph Sunday Missal. Both of these (Missallette & Missal) are the current translation, not the new one. It may be "new" if people actually start doing it, but there's nothing new about the instruction -- it's already there.
(Many) priests are idiots.

Quote:Another issue for some (particularly the very liberal "Catholics") with the new translation is that it is going to include----brace yourself!---a bow during the Credo when the words "and was made man" are said.

Actually, the bow at the Credo already exists in the Novus Ordo. It's been around since the beginning, along with bows at the mention of all three persons of the Trinity, slight bows at the name of Jesus, etc. It's all there in the General Instruction. Of course, this is hardly ever observed.
Quando  i demoni salto di mettere il mio culo .
tim

(11-29-2010, 09:25 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, the bow at the Credo already exists in the Novus Ordo. It's been around since the beginning, along with bows at the mention of all three persons of the Trinity, slight bows at the name of Jesus, etc. It's all there in the General Instruction. Of course, this is hardly ever observed.

Hmmmm, thank you, because that is very interesting.  Perhaps, then, there will be made some announcements to try to enforce it more, or something?  This is one of the pages I was reading which cited it as a "change":  http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2008/d..._2942.html

"The changes are particularly striking in the Nicene Creed, with the most obvious being the replacement of 'We believe' by the accurate 'I believe' (Credo). 'Visible and invisible' replaces 'seen and unseen' and 'Only Begotten Son of God' replaces 'only Son of the Father'. The earlier attempt to drop 'men' from 'for us men and for our salvation' (propter nos homines) has been overruled and 'men' remains (not 'people' this time for homines).

At the words 'and became man', the people are to bow (in the pre-Vatican II Mass, people were required to genuflect at the et incarnatus est). The faithful likewise will bow during the words 'who was conceived by the Holy Spirit ...'. Significantly, the approved Order of Mass allows for use of the Apostles' Creed as an alternative to the Nicene Creed, especially 'during Lent and Easter time'. "


Could it be that the bowing is not actually universal right now, but after the new changes it will be? 
(11-29-2010, 09:39 PM)quotidianum Wrote: [ -> ]Could it be that the bowing is not actually universal right now, but after the new changes it will be? 

One possible interpretation might be that the norms for bowing only apply to the ministers, not the laity. Here's what the GIRM currently says on bowing:

General Instruction on the Roman Missal Wrote:275. A bow signifies reverence and honor shown to the persons themselves or to the signs that represent them. There are two kinds of bows: a bow of the head and a bow of the body.

A bow of the head is made when the three Divine Persons are named together and at the names of Jesus, of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and of the Saint in whose honor Mass is being celebrated.

A bow of the body, that is to say a profound bow, is made to the altar; during the prayers Munda cor meum (Almighty God, cleanse my heart) and In spiritu humilitatis (Lord God, we ask you to receive); in the Creed at the words Et incarnatus est (by the power of the Holy Spirit . . . made man); in the Roman Canon at the words Supplices te rogamus (Almighty God, we pray that your angel). The same kind of bow is made by the deacon when he asks for a blessing before the proclamation of the Gospel. In addition, the priest bows slightly as he speaks the words of the Lord at the consecration.

This interpretation might be true, but it's also a bit of a Tridentinism, for lack of a better word. What I mean by that is that in the Tridentine Mass, there are technically no rubrics for the laity on anything. Bows and when to sit/stand/kneel are just customs that can very by country or even diocese (back in the old days). For example, everyone might genuflect at the Credo in the Tridentine Mass, but does everyone bow their heads at adoramus Te and the other parts in the Gloria at sung Mass? Probably not. What the Novus Ordo Mass wanted to do was basically impose rubrics for the laity for uniformity of worship, among other things.
HK, you're right, but we, the old, followed the priest and when he bowed, or genuflected, or made the sign of the cross, we followed suit. These are the reasons today why you guys make the sign of the cross at the Indulgentiam, absolutionem, et remissionem peccatorum... There are no rubrics for this, for the folks in the pews, but we followed the priest. And this is not aimed at HK, but this is the organic growth  of the Mass, and it never stands still, nor is it archaeology. I've come to this realization the High Mass is the past and the Missa Cantata or the Recitata or the Dialogata is the way forward. It is the way to re-join all of us.
tim
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6