Posted on 06/11/2007 6:24:49 AM PDT by marshmallow
Rottenburg, Jun. 8, 2007 (Kath.net/CWNews.com) - Priests in Rottenburg, Germany have voted to reject the Vatican translation of the phrase pro multis in the Eucharistic liturgy, the Kath.net news service reports.
The priests' council of the Rottenburg-Stuttgart diocese announced that the members had decided by a "democratic vote," to retain the current German translation of pro multis as "for all."
The council dismissed a directive from the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship. Cardinal Francis Arinze (bio - news), the prefect of the Congregation, wrote to the world's bishops last November, announcing that all translations of the liturgy should render pro multis as "for many"-- a translation that is more faithful to the Latin text and to the theological reality that while Christ's redemptive suffering makes salvation available to all, it does not follow that all men are saved.
The Rottenburg priests argued that the use of "for many" would be confusing to the faithful "in this day and age." They added that the original Scriptural text read "for all," citing as their authority a Protestant scholar of the 18th century whose analysis the Catholic Church has rejected.
"The promise of salvation is directed to all people," the German priests said. "This truth of the faith is put most clearly in the 'for all.'"
Yet another example of how the modernists pull out the "confusion" card when it suits them. A similar example of faux concern for the faithful was voiced recently by Trautman et al., over the prospect of rectifying the English translations.
Ironic, since we've lectured for nigh on 40 years about the need to become relevant and modern.
Good grief. I don’t think it’s really in their job description to be able to “accept” or “reject” anything. Aside from the fact that there is absolutely no way of denying that “pro multis” means “for many,” the sheer gall of these twits believing that they can impose their bizarre liberal agenda on Rome is stunning.
Wow, is the Vatican becoming more Calvinistic these days? Are the Germans becoming more Romenistic? Life is so complicated. ;O)
**************
I demand a recount!
It’s never been the Catholic position that all men will be saved, simply that in theory, they could be. However, obviously, that depends on whether they accept the redeeming grace of God or not, and it is clearly apparent from the words of Jesus himself in the Gospels that there will be some, possibly even many, who will not do so.
But the Church has always had to fight against Pelagianism, the “all men are naturally good and we all get saved by our own efforts” theory, and it seems to have become a particular problem again after VatII. Pelagius was a 4th-5th century British heretic, and saints such as St. Augustine and St. Patrick were very active in preaching against his heresy and eventually overcoming it. But it crops up again and again. I think there was a lot of it circulating behind the scenes at VatII, particularly among the German, French and American periti.
Rome has to approve any translation, and will simply refuse to approve it if it contains “für alle” instead of “für viele.”
Whatever one thinks on the subject, if one espouses catholicism, one must concede authority to rome. If these priests don’t like the directives from the vatican, perhaps they ought to form their own church. Otherwise, knuckle under Johannes.
This is what happens when the liturgy is allowed in the vernacular. “For all” was never ever the translation when the Mass was in Latin and the vernacular translations that ran along side the Latin were accurate. The Church is reaping what it has sowed in the severe disobedience since the 1960s. Sad that these priests don’t realize that their bad example is taken up by the laity. When these priests want the laity to do everything they say and the laity balk, they become furious. This is but one more example of the need to pray for all the priests of the Church.
Actually, this is a bunch of renegade bishops in a national bishops conference, which in itself is a non-canonical organization (that is, it has no status in Church canons) that has simply operated by seizing power through inertia, like any good bureaucracy. I don’t think the Pope is going to let them get away with this, and in fact I think it’s pretty well known that he takes a dim view of these bishops conferences in general. I read that he believes that they are trying to create little national churches and dilute the Universal Church, which is obviously exactly what they are trying to do.
Poor Pope Benedict! He has so many rebellious folks all around him, on every issue.
That experiment has already been underway for almost 500 years. I'm not sure it's working out.
That isn't what the German priests are saying. The German priests are saying salvation is directed to all people, not many people.
BTW-It does seem odd that I'm arguing the Church's official position on this one. Just don't ask me to do any "Hail Mary's".
You aren't.
It's Catholic dogma that all men are given sufficient grace to save their souls, and also that the merits of the atonement are infinite and therefore sufficient to win forgiveness of all sins.
The contrary position(s) are held by Calvinists and Jansenists; both positions are condemned heresies.
That all men are not saved is due to their own freely-chosen fault, not to any insufficiency of the atonement.
The promise of salvation is directed to all people. That doesn't mean that all are saved, however.
I think I have to disagree with you on that one!
CCC 605 says:
“The Church, following the apostles, teaches that Christ died for all men without exception: ‘There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer.’”
From Trent:
“The Council of Trent declares (Sess. VI) that Christ died for all men, it condemns (Canon XVII) the main propositions of Geneva, that ‘the grace of justification comes only to the predestinate,’ and that ‘the others who are called receive an invitation but no grace, being doomed by the Divine power to evil.’”
The thing that is causing the problems with “for all” is that while, in one sense, it may be true that Christ died for all men, in reality - which was what Jesus himself was talking about when He said those words - there are people who will not be saved because they have not cooperated with the grace offered them by God. Karl Rahner - another German! - was a great exponent of the automatic salvation theory, and his theology was very influential during and after VatII. So in terms of the Catholic Church, you’re seeing an old heresy popping up again, but dressed in modern clothing. And it comes from that misguided idea that God is warm and fuzzy and kumbaya personified. None of this Just Judge stuff.
It’s like, it’s like so MEAN to say that some people won’t be saved, like, you know, man?
Then you're agreeing with the priests?
Ah yes, man's continual efforts to self-correct are evident in unending varieties! All the more evidence upon which to build our thanks to God for sending His Son to finish the work we could never, ever undertake.
I agree. But what the priests are saying that Christ died for all men. The Council of Trent changes the terms. What I would like to know is when this was changed? Did this happen when they did away with the Latin mass or was there some sinister and diabolical plot by some monk in a Swiss mountain retreat that changed the text? I try to error on giving the benefit of the doubt that it was simply overlooked.
I think he (Campion) is just agreeing with the Church - see my post above. What the Germans are saying at that point is not wrong, but what they want to do to the translation in the canon is wrong, because they are intentionally using it to deceive. It’s a mistranslation: multis doesn’t mean all, and from earliest times, for example in some of the very ancient Eastern rites, it has always, in all languages, been translated into the equivalent of “many.” This is because the reality is that not everyone will be saved.
However, the German “theologians” - who have also spent a lot of time rejecting the concept of sin, not only original sin, but any kind of sin - don’t want this unpleasant fact mentioned. It might make the congregation - uh, worry about their salvation and check out their lives and beliefs. Not a bad thing, in my mind, and more of us could stand to do it.
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.