Looked at from the point of view of somebody not terribly literate, these alterations in the inspired texts are easy to understand. Why should we imply that the Almighty himself actually leads us into temptation? The answer (in my view the correct one) is that temptation, peirasmos, does not here mean that nasty little voice within us which tempts us to eat the last chocolate in the box while nobody is watching, but means Persecution; the 'testing' to which we are subjected when we are being persecuted ... when our Faith is being put to the test.
But, be that as it may, I prefer the advice given in Liturgiam authenticam, that admirable and scholarly document on the methodology of liturgical translation put out in the pontificate of S John Paul. It is now sneered at by the sort of people who have filled up the offices of the Congregation for Worship after the ejection of scholars and academics. It points out that, when there is doubt about which of more than one interpretation of a Latin text is preferable, it is best to go for a fairly literal rendering of the original which leaves each option open and available.
This is, of course, exactly the sort of open-minded preference for liberty which so runs against the grain of Bergoglianity.
And the rendering of "for many" as "for all" illustrates this. 'Many' can mean 'for a lot' or it can mean 'not for all'. My own view is that the Lord is proclaiming the availability of the Salvation he brings is for absolutely everybody. All they need to do is to 'receive' him and to 'believe on his name'. I do not believe that the Lord has removed from any human heart the faculty of rejecting him.
The problem here for many traddies is that "for all" appears to select and impose the notion that every human will ultimately be saved ... you might call this "Universalism". I rather sympathise with their suspicion in this regard.
There is a very amusing whimsicality here. In one of its Offertory prayers, the Authentic Use of the Roman Rite does indeed pray that the Chalice may be accepted "pro nostra et totius mundi salute". But the Vandals ... or was it the Visigoths ... of the 1960s chopped that out!
In other words, the Modernists of the 1960s were convinced that the vera et certa utilitas Ecclesiae demanded (exigat) that this prayer be excised (Sacrosanctum Concilium 23). Half a century later, the Bergoglianists, the Modernists of our own time, are convinced that the idea be shoved back in ... so strongly convinced that they cheerfully mutilitate the Lord's words in order to do so!
To be concluded.
The "for all"/"for many" issued is addressed explicitly in the Catechism of the Council of Trent. The catechism made it very clear why "for many" is used and why with reason "for all" is not used - namely that what is being referred to is the fruits rather than the efficacy of Christ's passion.
Cardinal Arinze's 2006 letter explained that "for many" had been used in many approved translations for the past thirty years
* A text corresponding to the words pro multis, handed down by the Church, constitutes the formula that has been in use in the Roman Rite in Latin from the earliest centuries. In the past 30 years or so, some approved vernacular texts have carried the interpretative translation "for all," "per tutti," or equivalents.
* There is no doubt whatsoever regarding the validity of Masses celebrated with the use of a duly approved formula containing a formula equivalent to "for all" as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already declared (cf. Sacra Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Declaratio de sensu tribuendo adprobationi versionum formularum sacramentalium, 25 ianuarii 1974, AAS 66 , 661). Indeed, the formula "for all" would undoubtedly correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord's intention expressed in the text. It is a dogma of faith that Christ died on the Cross for all men and women (cf. John 11:52; 2 Corinthians 5:14-15; Titus 2:11; 1 John 2:2).
After explaining the advantages of "for many", Cardinal Arinze ended the letter by implying that "for many", "per molti," etc would be required "in the next translation of the Roman Missal that the Bishops and the Holy See will approve for use in their country"
As I understand it, it has taken a very long time to approve translations for some countries and some have been with "per tutti", etc. I don't think that possibility was excluded by a strict reading of Cardinal Arinze's letter
In support of Father's proposition in his fourth paragraph, one could adduce the Angelic Doctor's distinction (borrowed from John of Damascus) between the antecedent will of God, which can fail because He entrusts it to fallible created causes, and the consequent will which cannot fail. Thus we know from Scripture and from the Lord himself that it is the Father's will that not one be lost. But that is the antecedent will which human willfulness and perversity can thwart if we really want to.
The best evocation of the consequent will I can recall is from CS Lewis, who observed that the most dreadful words we could ever hear from God would be 'very well, THY will be done.'
Needless to say, I agree entirely that it is the rankest presumption to think that we can improve on the words or teaching of the Lord.
Sorry, my first paragraph should have read:
Cardinal Arinze's 2006 letter explained that "for all" had been used in some approved translations for the past thirty years
If one does not think the Faith has been changed, just compare the prayers and Catholic content of the real Raccolta with the prayers approved of by Paul VI after he ditched the beautiful prayers of the Raccolta.
"Lead us not into temptation ..."
Matthew 4.1: "Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil." (RSV) In the Jerusalem Bible a footnote to this verse makes it clear that it is the Holy Spirit leading Jesus into temptation. In the Lord's Prayer we simply ask the Lord God not to lead us into temptation. Christ himself was led by the Spirit into temptation: it is possible that we too might be, but we pray that we not be tempted as Christ was, knowing our spiritual strength to resist the evil one is rather less than Our Lord's.
"the sort of open-minded preference for liberty which so runs against the grain of Bergoglianity". As in many things, Bergoglianity seems to be following the lead of our global elite which find an open-minded preference for liberty to be distasteful.
Dear Father. I think "The Catechism of Perseverance" by the great Abbe Jean Joseph Gaume is the best and most comprehensive catechism ever produced and my hard copies of it are filled with notations. I first learned about it eons ago in "The Wanderer" which used to produce lengthy quotations from it.
One great thing about the internet is one can find the entire Catechism online here
And one can find a satisfying explanation of "lead us not into temptation" here
It is be wished that some Catholic organization will produce a reprint of this classic and invaluable Catechism. In the meantime, one can find reprints/reproductions of it by Kessinger's Legacy Reprints. When one reads it one understands why the Church has not been led into to temptation to reproduce if for the faithful.
It would undermine all of the mendacious modernism we all have been infected by - especially those of us who imagine we have entirely escaped its tenacious tentacles.
Pope Francis did not mandate "for all" but rather approved a translation proposed by the Italian conference of bishops which maintained "for all" and his remarks on the Our Father do not imply a mandate to change translations.
In both cases they are based on relatively old options of the Church: One of allowing the translation in for all, and the other the way of handling in tentationem that one sees in Spanish "no nos dejes caer en la tentación."
Liturgiam Authenticam asks for faithful translations that respect the letter. Fine! But the Vulgata of Jerome (excellent as it was) did not always represent a faithful translation, and it has been improved in many particulars on by posterior Biblical Scholarship as witnessed to by the Nova Vulgata. And you can say "Yes but the tradition of the Church..." So you have to make up your mind what your criterion is: faithful translation OR the hidden wisdom of Tradition (which has to do with pastoring).
I want both.
You can criticize PF all you want, but avoid double standards. I speak of the Double Standard of criticizing him for "careless translations" on the one hand and criticizing him for "lack of respect for tradition" on the other. He may of course be guilty of both things, and he may be guilty of employing double standards. But the pot should avoid calling the kettle black.
Post a Comment