It's Deja Vu, All Over Again
This is not new news, but last November, Cardinal Arinze, the prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of Worship, informed the Church that the liturgy would be changed in the next one to two years. The change in the Liturgy is to more accurately reflect the correct translation of the Latin liturgy of the Eucharistic prayer, which is the norm for the Church.
"The translation of pro multis has been the subject of considerable debate because of the serious theological issues involved. The phrase occurs when the priest consecrates the wine, saying (in the current translation):
...It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.
The Latin version of the Missal, which sets the norm for the Roman liturgy, says:
...qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.
Critics of the current translation have argued, since it first appeared, that rendering pro multis as "for all" not only distorts the meaning of the Latin original, but also conveys the impression that all men are saved, regardless of their relationship with Christ and his Church. The more natural translation, "for many," more accurately suggests that while Christ's redemptive suffering makes salvation available to all, it does not follow that all men are saved. "
What is "new" news is that a group of dissident priests in Wittenberg--Oops! I meant Rottenberg, Germany are refusing to accept the Vatican's mandate that the Liturgy be changed. On June 8th, it was reported that they decided by "democratic vote" to reject the Vatican's instruction to use pro multis and continue to use the phrase pro omnibus during the consecration portion of the Liturgy. These protesting priests argued that the use of "for many" would be confusing to the faithful "in this day and age" citing an 18th century Protestant scholar for their justification. The fact that a group of dissident priests can vote to disobey the Vatican is just plain mind-boggling to me. This is not the first time a German priest decided to stand up against the Vatican.
posted by Russ Rentler, M.D. | 4:23 PM
7 Comments:
I can't comment on original languages, of course, but I would ask what "for all" really means. The word all as used in Scripture (and everyday life, for that matter) does not typically mean "every and all things in all situations at all times." When the Pharisees whine about Jesus that "All the world has gone after him," we know that they don't mean every single person everywhere in the world has become a disciple of Christ. When we say that "I went to a party and everyone was there," we mean that many or most of the people within our sphere of influence or acquaintance was in attendance. I certainly would agree, however, that all must not be describing a universal salvationism, and since the RCC does not want to convey that, I can understand their concern to change the wording. As a Protestant, of course, I would say that all is a reference to all those who will be saved. On the other hand, there's something to be said for liberty of conscience in such matters, but I'm mindful of the last time a priest followed his conscience! ):
Here's what I think. I'm boggled that anyone in the Church, religious or lay, does not thank God every day for having a Holy Father. I'm annoyed that people think they are "standing up to the Vatican" when they disagree with the Pope, especially when they have a responsibility toward a flock to comprehend what the Pope is saying and communicate it. He's not saying it because there's no good baseball games on that day and he had nothing else to do. Here's a parallel I would use. Suppose the arithmetic teacher teaches one day to the class that 1+1=2. Suppose "Johnny" decides to "stand up to the teacher" and insist that 1+1=3. Is that standing up to the teacher or is that just kind of being willfully dumb? And do you want to get in the car years later when Johnny is driving and he drives off the road like SNL's toonsis the driving cat because he still follows directions believing that 1+1=3? I think the most important thing is that even if a priest "refuses" to use the proper words that the parish as a whole understands the teaching by the Pope that is underlying the change, because there is an important theological implication in the change.
Good one TJ. As Rich says, thought, the sad thing is, most "sheep" in the in the fold won't even notice...or perhaps not even care!
THANK GOD FOR BLOGGERS!
While I was still a-searching, I went to an Episcopal service. The priest, after excoriating the practice of saying banns and various and other traditions, then loudly proclaimed, "All, not some, all!" when quoting Jesus' statement "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (This is from the NKJV, by the way.)
The moment he said "all" in such a way I knew I didn't want to be within a hundred miles of that church.
Yes, I think regardless of what side of the Tiber we're on, we can pretty much agree that that kind of emphasis
makes it sound like they are pushing the agenda that everyone "gets in."
The corrected Liturgy impresses the point that this is not so.
I meant to do this
:)
I wonder how many times I've done that wrong! Now I'm paranoid.
(:(
Post a Comment
Home