So in your mind the 2 bad translations cancel each other out and result in 1 good translation? It's not for me to tell you what to believe, but that doesn't work for me. Both parts are supposed to be accurate translations, but in fact neither are, they are both wrong.
Also, the quote from De Defectibus relates to a simple Priest altering the Mass at will, not the Pope decreeing revisions to it.
It doesn't actually say that, does it?
It doesn't actually say that, does it?
Sure it does, right at the start of the document:
1. The priest who is to celebrate Mass should take every precaution to make sure that none of the things required for celebrating the Sacrament of the Eucharist is missing.
Which the document then proceeds to copiously list.
Of course, I doubt you've ever read the whole thing through (just like CatholicGuy has pointed out how you folks have missed St. Pius V terming the Tridentine Mass a "new rite" in "Quo Primum"), whereas I was the person who initially typed up the version now circulating around on the Web (on so-called "Fr." Morrison's Traditio site, Daily Catholic, the-pope.com, etc.) way back around 1997 and posted it to Jim McNally's Sedevacantist mailing list at that time. I know this, because every version out there has the Post-Vatican II rules for the Eucharistic Fast in Paragraph 28: "28. If a priest has not been fasting for at least one hour before Communion, he may not celebrate. The drinking of water, however, does not break the fast." See I took the document straight out of a 1964 or 1967 Latin-English Missal I obtained from the ex-Most Holy Family Monastery, Berlin, NJ.
Compare to this French translation from a 1962 Missal on the web with the Pius XII fasting rules: "1. Si avant la messe le prêtre n'est pas à jeun depuis trois heures au moins pour ce qui concerne la nourriture solide et la boisson alcoolisée, et depuis une heure au moins pour la boisson non alcoolisée, il ne peut pas célébrer. Toutefois boire de l'eau ne rompt pas le jeûne."
So why not read the whole document now?
Max, I've come to expect better of you. Come on now and try a little bit harder.
Doctrinally and efficaciosuly in confecting the sacrament, yes. In terms of correct translations, no. As I've said before, the translation is "dynamically equivalent" (the ICEL's term), not "literally exact".