11-29-2010, 09:12 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-29-2010, 09:14 PM by quotidianum.)
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! :(
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! :(
![[-]](https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/images/fisheaters/collapse.png)
