Ideology and Patterns in Translation Error

Translation1 involves the production of a text in one language that was inspired by an existing text in another language, such that the two texts are in some sense 'the same.' Exactly how this is accomplished is open to question. In Sullivan 1984, I show the relationship between proper translation and paraphrase. It involves decoding the message from an existing text and re-encoding the message in a new text. This results in two texts different in form with the same message. Translation parallels this except that the source and target texts are in different languages.

Paraphrases vary in quality as a function of their accuracy, i.e. the degree to which the message they convey, when decoded, matches the message of the original text. This is true whether they are translations or not. Since translations are often performed in formal and public circumstances, the question of accuracy is raised with a greater percentage of translations than with monolingual paraphrases. But accuracy is important in all cases, and a complaint regarding accuracy should be taken seriously. Literary translations adhere to a higher standard of quality, a standard that considers the form of the text as well as the message transmitted. The target text in a good translation is adjusted in form so that it corresponds to the source text. That is, the translation of a sonnet should be a sonnet, and the translation of a joke should be funny. Thus a translation may be criticized on both form and semantic content. In the present study, however, I focus on the latter.

Errors in translation are defined here as encodings that distort the message evoked by the source text. I distinguish between major and minor errors: Minor errors permit misunderstanding via imprecise encodings. Consider, for example, the Latin greeting common to early Christians: pax vobiscum 'peace (be) with you.' The customary reply, et cum spiritu tuo, 'and with your spirit' is now rendered, 'and also with you.' When I objected that this is inaccurate, I was told that it is 'what et cum spiritu tuo actually means.' That is, it is a personal reply, returning the good wishes to the greeter. Of course it is, but it was more in the original. The Latin text makes it clear that this exchange is a personal and spiritual one between co-religionists. It has to do with inner peace. It is not concerned with world peace or peace and quiet but with the peace of the soul. And also with you does not block the interpretation I suggest, but it also permits the alternatives mentioned. So the approved 'translation' unnecessarily introduces ambiguities, which in turn permit misunderstanding. Conversely, major errors introduce and require misunderstanding. In the course of this study I concentrate on the major errors in the English translation of the Novus Ordo Missae of the Roman Catholic Church. Exactly how major errors require misunderstanding becomes clear as we proceed.

I am interested in two sides of translation error: the locus of the error and the effect of the error on the message. Consider first the locus of the error. I assume that the distribution of errors may be significant. That is, if the translator is incompetent in the grammar of the language, this will show up in syntactic and morphological errors. [Editor's Note: Syntax is word order that forms meaning. The difference between the two clauses "Are you here" and "Here you are" is syntactical. Morphological differences have to do with changes in words such as the change of "flower" to "flowery" by the addition of the letter "-y."] Incompetence in discourse structure will show up in errors in pronoun or other deictic reference, verb sequencing or tense, arrangement of subordinacy, etc. Insufficient familiarity with the subject matter results in inapt or arbitrary vocabulary choices from dictionary entries.2 General incompetence should show up as mistakes randomly scattered throughout linguistic structure. Morphology, syntax, discourse structure, and the lexicon all participate. In short, the distribution of error loci will give some indication about the translators' competence. The distribution of the effect of errors, on the other hand, may tell about the translators' intent. That is, the occurrence of ideologically random effects would be a sign of honest mistakes. However, if the effect of errors is frequent and patterned, it suggests an unconscious bias or even a conscious ideological predisposition on the part of the translators.

In 1971 the new Roman Catholic Mass commonly called the Paul VI Mass was introduced.3 Controversial from the beginning in some quarters, not all of them conservative, the Paul VI Mass was made obligatory and the older Pius V Mass was banned. In the United States the bans went further: Only the English translation of the Paul VI Mass was permitted in most dioceses; the Latin original was banned.4 One of the reasons for controversies surrounding the English translation of the Missa Pauli Sexti concerns the quality of the translation. An Irish priest told me that the bishops of Ireland and the United Kingdom were unhappy with the English text produced by the American Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy and had refused to accept it for several years.5 There was a rumor that the English text had numerous errors. Both texts of the new Mass are translations from the authorized Latin text and should presumably be equivalent or nearly so.

However, in 1979 I attended Mass for the first time in Poland and was struck by major discrepancies between the Polish and English texts. The discrepancies I noted were so great that I considered the English and Polish texts substantively different. At least one of them, in my opinion, had to contain serious translation error. But this was merely my inference. The proper approach to verifying (or invalidating) this inference is to obtain a copy of the authoritative Latin text and compare the three. This was not easy to do as no publication of the Novus Ordo Missae had been authorized for the laity in the United States. Recently (fall, 1991) I found a priest (it is politic to leave him unnamed) who was willing to let me copy his Latin text. Using this text, I was able to compare the two translations, concentrating on major errors only. The findings are both shocking and disappointing: The Polish text has no major errors that I could find; I estimate that the English text has at least 300. I turn now to a description, classification, and analysis of these errors.

Taking the Latin text of the Missa Pauli Sexti as the source text, I compared the approved Polish and English translations to the original. Only about 30% of the total text was available to me in Polish, so the detailed comparison was limited to that portion of the text. The text comprises most of a single complete Ordinary (the fixed prayers), including one of the four Canons and the default Preface for Sunday. No Propers (Bible readings proper to a given day) were included, and some prayers recited privately by the priest were also omitted from the Polish text. Minor errors were ignored. Major errors were classified according to linguistic type and semantic effect. No major errors were discovered in the Polish translation. For the sake of brevity, therefore, I henceforth ignore the Polish text and concentrate on the major errors in the English translation.

There are three major types of error in the English translation. First, something in the source text may be omitted. Second, something not in the source text may be added to the target text. Third, there may be a mistranslation of one sort or another, a point to which I return below. Finally, there may be errors which combine any two or even all three. There are several types of mistranslation. They may be purely lexical, e.g. translating magoi as 'astrologers' (Sullivan 1984:371-73). But there are many possible grammatical errors. Among the morphological errors are the confusion between singular and plural in both nouns and verbs, and the confusion of count nouns with collectives. The syntactic errors include a rearrangement of word or phrase order, confusion between subject and object, the substitution of a finite predicate for a participial phrase, and the confusion between active and passive voice. There are discourse structure errors involved in the rearrangement of sentences or even smaller blocks of text. I now give some examples of each type.

The simplest type of error is the omission of something in the original text. This may be as little as a single word or as much as an entire phrase. The phrase totiusque ecclesiae suae sanctae, 'and all his holy Church,' was translated without the word 'holy.' This is a major error in that it removes the adjective that identifies the ecclesia in this prayer with the unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam ecclesiam in the Nicene Creed and that distinguishes it from any other church. That is, it blurs a siginificant distinction, whether between Catholic and Protestant or between Christian and non-Christian, I cannot say. I do not know the intent of the translators for sure. But a significant distinction is nonetheless blurred, and this is a major error.

There are also instances of omission of an entire phrase. The phrase mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, 'through my fault, through my fault, through my very great fault,' was dropped from its position in the confession of sins (Confiteor). A single 'through my fault' was inserted after 'I have sinned.'6 Also, the phrase 'through my very great fault' is dropped completely. This blurs the distinction between venial sins and mortal sins. Absent this distinction, the confession of sins becomes a fairly general condemnation of sin. The individual's assumption of responsibility for his or her own sins is significantly diluted.

The text studied contains many omissions; so many in fact, that it is difficult to assess exactly how many there are. Some omissions are single words, some as long as a clause. Considering semantic effect reveals another side of the picture. Some omissions are clearly major errors; some appear to be minor; the status of some are debatable. But they all have one thing in common: each one could have been avoided.

Additions to the text are somewhat less common than omissions but are equally avoidable. They are exactly what they sound like. Something is put in the target text that is not in the source text. For example, the item, Tibi gratias agens, 'again giving You thanks' is translated, 'again he gave you thanks 0and praise0.' Ignore, for present purposes, the syntactic or discourse block error involved in changing a participial phrase into a finite clause. Although that is a distinct error, my primary focus rests instead on the addition 'and praise,' which is not in the Latin original. I do not pretend to theological expertise, so my comments here should not be taken as definitive. Yet I see this as a major error. This section of the Consecration summarizes the Gospel texts on the Last Supper. The unnamed agent of agens is Jesus and Tibi refers to God the Father. In the Catholic tradition, humans praise God in general and each Person of the Trinity separately. At the Last Supper, as Jesus performed the original Consecration of Bread and Wine, He was acting as God. Putting the praise of God into His mouth at this point makes Him less God-like and more man-like. Again, as with the omission of 'holy,' discussed in section 2.3, this change blurs a significant distinction, in this case, the distinction between Divine and human. Worse, the distinction is blurred with regard to Jesus Christ, 'true God and true man,' Who is the Incarnation of this distinction. Clearly, I feel that this is a major error.

Now my analysis of this error could be disputed. What cannot be disputed is the nature of additions to the text. It could be argued that omissions might result from inadvertant carelessness; no such argument, however, is possible as regards additions. They must be deliberate. Although their motivation could be debated, a point to which I return below, they can hardly be called accidental. To the extent that they can be shown to be major errors, then, additions and their semantic effects are important. Another important, if sometimes subtler, form of error is found in linguistically-based mistranslations, to which I now turn.

Mistranslations may be lexical, morphological, syntactic, or sememic (discourse structure) in nature. There are plenty of lexical errors in the translation of the Paul VI Mass. Return to the Orate fratres, 'Pray, brethren,' and remember that this is being said by the priest to the congregation. The first phrase following the opening invocation is ut meum ac vestrum sacrificium, 'that my sacrifice and yours.' This is translated, 'that our sacrifice.' It is argued that mine + yours = ours. They may be equivalent, but only if my sacrifice and your sacrifice are the same sacrifice, i.e. that there is only one sacrifice involved. The original prayer has the priest and congregation making different sacrifices. The translation conflates them, blurring the distinction between priest and laity.

Now consider structural errors. There are several morphological errors involving the singular-plural distinction. They are found with both nouns and verbs. For example, consider a formula that occurs several times during the Mass: Agnus Dei ... qui tollis peccata mundi becomes 'Lamb of God...who takes away the sins of the world,' is rendered, 'you take away the sin of the world.' Again, ignoring the shift from subordinate to independent clause, the important error here involves the replacement of 'sins' by 'sin.' The Latin peccata is clearly a neuter accusative plural: 'sins' is therefore correct. By using the singular 'sin,' the approved translation gives the text a collective reading, as if it should be understood, ' take away the sinfulness of the world.' What makes this important is that it downgrades individual responsibility for individual acts. This parallels the effect of removing mea culpa from the Confiteor (see section 2.3). Moreover, the first occurrence of erroneous sin is in the Gloria, which immediately follows the Confiteor. The juxtaposition is striking.

The opposite mistranslation (rendering singular as plural) occurs throughout the Credo or Creed. Credo in Unum Deum, 'I believe in One God,' is translated as 'We believe in One God.' Two other first-person singular verbs in the Credo (confiteor, 'I confess' and expecto, 'I await') are translated with 'we' wherever they occur. This is a particularly insidious error. Since the Creed is recited in unison by the entire congregation, the use of 'we' is not generally striking. But remember that the Creed is a profession of faith, of beliefs. Religious beliefs are held by individuals. They are not the product of the democratic process as in, 'We elected Bill president.' Again, individual responsibility is shifted to a community sense.

In the interest of brevity I give no examples of error in text structure. Those interested may look at the radical and extensive reordering of clauses in the Gloria and draw their own conclusions. A beautiful example of combined errors is found in the translation of qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur, 'which for you and for many will be shed.' This phrase is part of the consecration prayer. It is translated, 'It will be shed for you and for all men.' Note the shift from subordinate to main clause (syntactic), the translation of multis as 'all' instead of 'many' (lexical), and the addition of men to the text.7 There is no need to analyze the error in adding men, but the shift of multis to 'all' deserves discussion. This error has been justified by appeal to a putative tradition of the early Church that salvation is given to everyone. Ignoring the fact that 'salvation is offered for everyone'--the actual tradition, in my reading of the Acts--differs from 'salvation is given to everyone' (another blurred distinction) one can more importantly note that there are at least three Latin expressions which would have sufficed in this ancient prayer and which would have made more sense to translate using 'all': pro omnibus, 'for all,' pro multitudine, 'for the multitude,' and pro his multis, 'for the many.' But none of those occur. Pro multis is a much weaker expression than any of the other three. In their absence, translating pro multis as 'for all' is hardly justifiable. A dominant early Christian tradition of universal salvation would surely have introduced one of the stronger expressions. The general thrust of these errors should be clear.

All the error types discussed are found in the English translation of the Missa Pauli Sexti. There are 39 omissions, 8 additions, 19 lexical mistranslations, 10 morphological mistranslations, 23 syntactic mistranslations, and 5 discourse block mistranslations that I would call major. This is a total of 103 major errors. When faced with a 'combination' error I counted it as an error in each of the relevant categories. This may have inflated the count somewhat, but there is an offset. I don't know how to classify the introduction to the Lord's Prayer. There are four versions, none of which bears much resemblance to the Latin original. As a result, I have not counted these errors. I feel that 103 major errors in 30% of the text is a realistic estimate. Assuming that the remaining 70% of the text has errors at the same rate, the entire English translation may have over 340 major errors.

Omissions constitute the largest category (39). No other simple category comes near this. However, the distinction between morphemic and syntactic mistranslations or between syntactic and discourse mistranslations is not always clear-cut. That is, a syntactic mistranslation almost always involves a morphemic mistranslation. In counting, I tended toward the conservative in my assignments of error types. That is, I tried to assign the error to the minimal category, such that a single morphological correction (with any necessary ancillary corrections) would eliminate the error. In this way I hoped to produce a conservative estimate of the numbers. However, I have no real check on my consistency in classification here. So distinguishing between different types of structural errors may be questionable. They should probably be grouped together. If we add the different types of structural errors, we get a total of 38, which compares nicely to the 39 omissions. Each of these is roughly twice the size of the 19 lexical mistranslations, a little more than twice the size of the 8 additions. This gives roughly a 1::2::4::4 ratio for the four categories. Ratios aside, it is clear that the types of mistranslations are spread over all existing categories.

The examples chosen all have clear effects. I group them into two general categories: the reduction of personal responsibility and the blurring of important distinctions. I consider them in turn. The omission of mea culpa (cf. section 2.3) eliminates an acceptance of personal responsibility for sins in a prayer that is supposed to be a personal confession of sins from the Confiteor (= I confess). The translation of peccata, 'sins,' as a singular (cf. section 2.5), which occurs in the Gloria, immediately after the Confiteor, and at five other places in the Mass, reduces individual sins to some kind of general sinfulness. Translation of credo, 'I believe,' as 'we believe,' substitutes community consensus for a personal profession of faith. All three reduce or eliminate individual responsibility by either distracting attention from the presumably responsible individual or by reducing the seriousness of the acts for which the individual is responsible.

The other errors show a different effect, the blurring of distinctions. Adding 'and praise' to the consecration (cf. section 2.4) reduces the God-like character of Jesus and blurs the distinction between Divine and Human. Translating pro multis, 'for many' as 'for all' blurs the distinction between the many, who accept Jesus as the Messiah and Savior, and all, a word that includes those who actively reject Him. Translating ut meum ac vestrum sacrificium, 'that my sacrifice and yours,' as 'our sacrifice,' blurs the distinction between priest and laity. Examples of these two types of effects occur everywhere in the English text. Each effect occurs with every error type, and almost any error has one or the other effect. In at least one case8 a phrase is translated so as to combine both types of effect.

The 103 errors are evenly divided between the two general effects: reducing individual responsibility and blurring distinctions. The distinctions blurred may be between Divine and human, between Catholic and non-Catholic (or Christian and non- Christian), or between priest and laity. It could be argued in some cases that what is blurred is the distinction between religion and its absence. Yet these are all important distinctions. I group them together because they are the questions whose answers constitute the stuff of religion, in this case Catholicism.

The error types are universally distributed throughout all possible types. This shows that the errors are not due to the translators' incompetence in some part of Latin structure or vocabulary (or, for that matter, in some part of English). It does not rule out general and universal incompetence for all the translators,9 but this is an unlikely scenario. Moreover, there are too many errors to be ascribed to mere carelessness without further evidence. In fact, there is evidence against concluding either general incompetence or massive carelessness. Incompetence or carelessness could produce the distribution of error types seen in the text. However, the error effects should also be random, and they are not. They fall into two categories. Such a clustering suggests that there is an ideological motivation behind the mistranslations. An examination of the error effects will demonstrate that they complement each other and will expose that ideology.

Reducing individual responsibility and blurring distinctions do not appear to be aimed in the same direction at least at first glance. Consider first the reduction of personal responsibility. It is aimed directly at the faithful, the ordinary church members. It tells them that they have less to worry about, in terms of fulfilling personal obligations, a message often justified in terms of non-judgementalism or the like. Certainly reduced responsibility is one way of reducing the guilt that often comes with (inevitable) failures. In traditional Christianity--outside the most rigid Calvinist lines--and in Catholicism in particular, however, there is a different mode of reducing guilt: The individual accepts responsibility for sins and depends on God's mercy receiving absolution in return in the sacrament of Penance (now renamed Reconciliation).

Reducing individual responsibility reduces or even eliminates the need for absolution. One of Luther's dogmatic disagreements with Rome was over the definition of sacraments, and Penance is one of the sacraments he defined out of existence. Hence the reduction of individual responsibility in the English translation of the Missa Pauli Sexti also blurs the distinction between Catholic and non-Catholic.

The two error effects are also complementary. As shown above, the reduction of individual responsibility is aimed at the Catholic faithful. The blurring of distinctions is aimed at the institutional Church by undermining its theology. So together, the error effects of English translation of the Paul VI Mass aim at both parts of the temporal Catholic Church. A concerted attack of this sort, it may be assumed, is not accidental. Instead, it is driven by an underlying ideology. I now turn to the character and identity of this ideology.

Both error effects are examples of moral relativism, which characterizes Modernism. Modernism was condemned as error over a century ago by Pope Pius X in his encyclical Pascendi.10 It infected much of liberal Christianity (i.e. mainstream Protestantism) during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and it is my impression that the Fundamentalist movement was to at least some extent a Protestant reaction to Modernism. Over the years some Catholic theologians also adopted Modernism in error. In the period before World War II, some of them were stripped of the title 'theologian,' and their writings were officially suppressed. But the Modernist influence was strong in some countries (e.g. France and the U. S. A and it blossomed in the post-Vatican II era, producing the translations we have today. The only problem with this analysis is that it puts the blame on Catholic priests and bishops--the very people entrusted with protecting the Faith. On its face, then, it seems unlikely. Yet there are two kinds of separate evidence to show that the analysis is accurate.

There are two independent sources of evidence for Catholic Modernism in the United States. The first of these is a list of contemporary liturgical practices which are complete breaks with Catholic tradition and which were not mandated by Vatican II, but which are almost universally enforced in the country today. This list includes replacing the altar with a Communion table, requiring that the priest face the congregation, substituting 'seasonal' texts or congregational hymns for the Bible texts proper to a given day, dropping the Confiteor and the Gloria altogether, banning the Mass of the Catechumens, etc. At least some priests also refuse to wear liturgical colors. What remains is almost identical to a Presbyterian Communion Service. Still, it could be maintained that these practices are merely coincidental. What is not coincidental is the preface to Bates (N.D., paragraph 1): 'The two previous editions, 1971 and 1975...attempted to move American Catholics more toward the mainstream of Christian hymnody. The present edition reflects our perception of that growth.' And this is a document approved by the American Bishops and their Committee on the Liturgy. Q. E. D.

The English translation of the Missa Pauli Sexti has hundreds of major errors. The errors are of all types: omissions and additions, lexical and structural mistranslations. The effects of the errors distort the text to reduce individual responsibility on the part of the faithful and to blur distinctions which are important in traditional Catholic doctrine. These effects are complementary attacks on traditional Catholicism (and even Christianity, in general). Both effects reflect the moral relativism which is a mark of Modernism. The mistranslations were introduced into the post-Vatican II American Catholic Church by influential members of the clergy and approved by bishops who were clearly infected with Modernism. The Modernist clergy's intent is to subvert traditional Catholicism and remake it in the image of liberal mainstream Protestantism.

Lest it seem I am too hard on liberal Protestantism here, I wish to state that I have no such intent. If anyone, including a Catholic priest or bishop, feels that some branch of liberal Protestantism is right and Catholicism is wrong wherever they disagree, that is fine by me. They should have the courage of their convictions and become practicing members of some mainstream Protestant religion. My sincere best wishes go with them. Failing that, they could bring their ideas out in the open and attempt to convince other Catholics, openly and honestly, that Modernism is correct and Pius X was wrong. However, I see no excuse for Modernist Catholics trying to subvert Catholicism into becoming their image of a church. They refuse to debate these questions openly, perhaps because they know that the opposition to their intentions would be massive, coming from both clergy and educated laity, and from orthodox liberal Catholics as well as traditionalists. Instead they attempt to achieve their goals by bringing in an erroneous translation of the Mass and relying on the old maxim: lex orandi, lex credendi, 'the law of praying is the law of believing,' or, in more colloquial phrasing, 'as we pray, so we believe.' Believe me, this is not what the Second Vatican Council ordered.

Batastini, Robert J. (ed.) (No Date) Worship: A Hymnal and Service Book for Roman Catholics. Chicago: GIA.

Sullivan, William J. 1984 'Stratificational Theory and the Fallacy of "Literal" Translations.' In the Tenth LACUS Forum 1983, A. Manning, P. Martin, and K. McCalla (eds.), pp. 267- Press

A modified version of this article appeared in the May 1995 issue of Homiletic and Pastoral Review. Reprinted with permission.

William J. Sullivan teaches Slavic and Linguistics in the Program in Linguistics at the University of Florida

Notes:

I never thought I would find myself having to defend the Novus Ordo mass, but then I never thought to hear such attacks on the Church and the Apostolic See from a "traditional Catholic".

As long as the Church has existed it has been made clear that the Pope and the bishops, as successors of the apostles, are guarded from error, given the wisdom needed to carry on Christ's work and that unity with them is essential for salvation. When the apostles held council at Jerusalem and broke from the 'traditional' Jewish laws, would you stand with the Pharisees accusing them of heresy? Why accept the Tridentine Mass? If God did not protect Bl. John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II from error, how do you know St Pius V was protected? Why is Latin the *only* acceptable language, why not go back to Aramaic or Hebrew?

As I said, I prefer the Latin and wish myself it would be restored, but the language is not the point. When St Thomas went to spread the gospel in India did he say mass in Latin you think? I doubt if all the apostles even knew Latin. Why did Jesus give them the "gift of tongues" if they were to only speak a single language? I think the Latin language was invaluable at giving the Church a sense of its own united identity, of being a seperate 'nation', truly the Kingdom of God on earth. But, I can't make language the most important thing, as much as I love the Latin Mass, I see too many people making it into their own "golden calf".

Marcel Lefebvre could never be a saint. When he was ordained he took a vow to be obedient to the Church, the bishops and the Holy Father, just as men and women vow to be faithful to each other in marriage, he vowed to be faithful to the Church and obedient to his superiors. Yet, he broke that vow just as an adulterer breaks the vow of marriage. No matter how many good points he had, there is no justification for breaking an oath to God. He could have remained in the Church and been the conservative answer to Cardinal Mahoney, he could have ensured that the Tridentine Mass was offered as much as possible in his diocese and built up a stronghold for the Tridentine rite *within* the Church, to be an example to others, he could have beat the liberals at their own game--but he didn't.

Where would we be if St Catherine of Sienna had taken his attitude toward the Church and simply broken away instead of doing all in her power to set things right? He could have been a St Pius V or a Martin Luther, and he chose to be a Luther. Moreover, he took the name of my beloved St Pius X, a man who stressed over and over the need for unfailing loyalty to the Papacy and authority of the Church.

There is a word for Christians who do not recognize the Pope as their supreme leader on earth or the authority and special protection of the Church: they're called "Protestants"

I never thought I would find myself having to defend the Novus Ordo mass, but then I never thought to hear such attacks on the Church and the Apostolic See from a "traditional Catholic".

That is the irony that I find most amusing. I am an ardent supporter of the Latin mass and am a member of an indult community where I live. I'm not a big fan of the N.O. mass, but when these bozos start spreading their indiscriminate calumnies about the pope and Catholics who these clowns think aren't quite as Catholic as they, or even Catholic at all, one has to assume the role of defender for the sake of Truth.

I utterly denounce John XXIII. I do not believe he is "Blessed." I do not believe he was free of error his failure to denounce the evils of Stalinism and his failure to denounce the some 100 million murders committed in the name of communism is a stench before the living God. His entire papacy was an error. Paul VI as well as John Paul II both stood by idly as the church was being destroyed from within. I owe no obedience to any of the afore mentioned. I thank John Paul I however for being a saintly and good man. He did not live long enough to be a participant in the modernist destruction of the Church I was baptized into. I must admit I go much farther than SSPX but that is my own personal view. I claim no infallibility none of the above mentioned Popes have ever spoken infallibly. John XXIII may the Lord hold him accountable for the evil destruction of the faith that he was responsible for!

So, would you say Blessed John XXIII was in error when he called out for the council to be ended? Bl. Pope John and Pope Pius XII are both innocent of the same "crime", and that which many others have been judged for: they condemn sin, in every form, and the Communists are not the only ones to worry about. Evil is evil no matter if it is committed by Stalin or the "Free World" (whose leaders were not always pure as the driven snow).

Pope Paul VI was guilty of inactivity against the modernists in my opinion, but this was a judgement decision. He wanted to teach, through supporting Eucharistic adoration, the family as the domestic Church and combating contraception, rather than simply throwing people out. He's not my favorite pope by far, but that does not change his position or the respect I owe his office.

With John Paul I, I'm rather surprised you did not mention his refusal to be crowned; ending that tradition disappointed me, but again, -does not change his position.

God will hold all Popes, along with the rest of humanity, responsible for everything they have done; which includes Lefebvre for being a Luther rather than a St Catherine, as well as those who think their judgement is superior to bishops in union with the Pope, who deny the infallibility of the Church to teach Truth, or that the Holy Spirit guards the papal elections and assembled councils--all will be judge, rest assured.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.