The Blovina Bloviator, the Abbot and Taylor Marshall have all beaten me to the punch, but I must say that I am quite pleased with the announcement that the Vatican is moving to clean up the English translation of the Mass:
At the Consecration, the priest will refer to Christ’s blood which is “poured out for you and for many”– an accurate translation of pro multis– rather than “for all” in the current translation.
In the Nicene Creed the opening word, Credo, will be correctly translated as “I believe” rather than “we believe.”
When the priest says, “The Lord be with you,” the faithful respond, “And with your spirit,” rather than simply, “And also with you.”
In the Eucharistic prayer, references to the Church will use the pronouns “she” and “her” rather than “it.”
In the Agnus Dei, the text cites the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world,” rather than using the singular word “sin.”
In the preferred form of the penitential rite, the faithful will acknowledge that they have sinned “through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault.”
I am particularly taken by the proper re-translation of pro multis from “for all” to “for many”. In addition to being more literally correct, I think it serves as a warning bell to those who may feel that they don’t need to put any effort into their faith.
Alas, I mentioned this to a friend the other day, a convert like myself. He smacked his hands together and, grinning, started speaking of the Church becoming “leaner and meaner”, tossing out the Cafeteria Catholics, the Lites and the post-Vatican II hippy-dippies. To me, this isn’t the right spirit. Yes, I am all for the move toward Orthodoxy, but it strikes me that this should be accompanied by an effort not to exclude the lukewarm or the wandering, but to try and bring them into the fold as well.
Of course, one can only extend the invitation. And there are always going to be those who won’t accept it. But I don’t believe that there ought to be any glee attached to dealing with such people.
1 comment
Comments feed for this article
July 31, 2008 at 11:48 am
The Abbot
I think it is more a case of sharpening the spear than becoming leaner and meaner. Fr. John Zuhlsdorf waxes profound from time to time on the subject of the “Hermeneutic of Continuity” and the “Hermeneutic of Discontinuity.” In my understanding of it, there are folks who believe Vatican II was a rupture with past councils, and those who believe it was a continuation of what the Church has always been. Those who believe in rupture fall into two schools — liberals, who see the rupture as a good thing, and rad-trads, who see the rupture as a bad thing. The Church’s hierarchy in the 1960s and 1970s was influenced a lot by the liberals, but neither JP II nor Benedict XVI fundamentally believed in rupture. They disappoint liberals and rad-trads alike, because they steadfastly hew to the ground that there was no fundamental rupture. The Church is what the church was. If you believe the Holy Spirit oversees Ecumenical councils, as I certainly do, then you will see that there can be no fundamental ruptures, only differences in Emphasis. I read the conciliar documents like Lumen Gentium and Gaudium et Spes and I see nothing that even implies rupture, never mind causes one. I look at things like the Catechism of JP II, the Theology of the Body of JP II, Summorum Pontificum of Benedict XVI and what I see is the Papacy saying to the “rupture” crowd on both sides is “You’re wrong, there is no rupture, there is only the church.” Benedict can recover the Traditional Latin Mass not because he believes Vatican II was invalid, but because he believes there was, at heart, no break with tradition, no matter how much the guitar mass crowd wants to believe there was, or the SSPX regrets that there was.
The Pope is the rudder, gently correcting the mistakes and steering away from the shoals. Because to believe in rupture is to throw out the validity of an ecumenical council, which naturally calls the legitimacy of the whole church into question. JP II and Benedict understand this. Many do not.