There is an old Italian adagium which says: Traduttore, traditore, in Castilian (Spanish): Traductor, traidor, in English: Translator, traitor. It’s one of those brief proverbs that say so much in so few words, graced with common sense, popular wisdom, and not without reason!
For indeed in just two words, this proverb sums up a fact, proven beyond any reasonable doubt: that translations oftentimes are so lacking, are so bad, as to provoke a traitorous assault on the original meaning.
Be that as it may, translation is fascinating work, but it certainly has its shortcomings. It can be very easy sometimes, but usually, it requires some very careful thought in order to faithfully put into words, the same meaning of words from a different language. There are times when literal translations simply won’t do, because of peculiar idiomatic expressions in different languages.
A great philologist of our time was the great Catholic English author, +J.R.R. Tolkien (1892-1973), the inspired author of The Silmarillion, The Hobbit, and The Lord of the Rings.
+Arthur, Tolkien’s father, had died very early on. And his dear mother, +Mabel, a valiant convert to Catholicism in a hostile 1900 England, died only a few years later, but providentially had willed that Father Morgan care for her two children: John Ronald Reuel and +Hilary, his younger brother.
And Tolkien, of course, loved the Scandinavian languages, particularly Finnish, which served to create his own Elvish languages of Sindarin and Quenya.
So he most obviously had acquired the expertise necessary to translate from one language to another, and to translate faithfully in doing so. In fact, his entire Catholic mythology had languages as a main inspirational base, and all the history behind a culture who spoke a given language.
In other words, Tolkien’s literary expertise, finesse, and theory—called subcreation—is rather similar to God’s Creation through his Word: God spoke his Word (Logos), and things came into being: Let there be light, and light came to be. First there was the eternal Word, and then created realities came into being. Tolkien, as a sub-creator author, uttered his inspired word: let there be Hobbits, and there were Hobbits…
And so, when on the First Sunday of Advent, in the year of Our Lord 1969, the Novus Ordo Missæ came unto being by the utterance of a papal word (Paul VI), official translations from the Latin editio typica had already been taking place in anticipation.
Truth be told, said translations were undertaken with hastiness, indeed, much like the entire liturgical “reform” was undertaken with undue hastiness. So much so, that some official translations—despite approval by the local Episcopal Conferences, and even official approbation for liturgical use by Rome—were quite deficient. Hence that old adage: Translator, traitor, can readily be applied here.
It turns out that J.R.R. Tolkien was a very devout traditionalist Catholic, who loved the Traditional Latin Mass, which he attended daily. Needless to say, he wasn’t too keen on the Novus Ordo liturgy, disliking the new rite itself, and particularly disliking the official English-language translations for Great Britain.
He thought the official English liturgical translations were woefully deficient in their vain attempt to convey the beauty and meaning of the original, traditional Latin prayerful expressiveness, which he knew and loved so well.
His grandson, Adam Tolkien, tells what his grandfather did when they went to Holy Mass together: when the celebrant, instead of the timeless Dominus vobiscum, said: The Lord be with you, and the congregation was now to respond: And also with you, Tolkien would continue to respond, loud and clear: Et cum spiritu tuo!
His grandson admits to having felt a bit uneasy, but he assures us that his grandfather was merely doing what he sincerely believed was right and had to do when attending Mass…
So yes, alas, the Novus Ordo liturgy, even to this very day, has some translation problems. Oh, but not only problems in translations from the original Latin to the various vernacular languages.
There are also problems in some original vernacular texts, which do not appear in the official Latin. Indeed, this is one particularly serious issue, because there in fact exist some liturgical texts that appear exclusively in local language “Roman” Missals, but are not included in the Latin typical edition of the Missale Romanum.
One cannot but wonder, stupefied, at the worrisome lack of prudent uniformity of worshiping the same universal faith with the same liturgical texts—and with the same liturgical texts, the same faith (i.e. lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi)—everywhere where a supposed “Roman” Missal is to be used in a supposed “Roman” Rite…
At the same time, one cannot but recognize and admire the language of Latin—its sonority, its densely precise expressiveness, its endearing applicability for music, chanting, and singing, its prayerfulness, its sacredness, its timelessness… A truly Catholic—that is, universal—language chosen by God’s providence for his One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
Ah… but that’s not all… even the original Latin expressions relating to the theology of the Novus Ordo Missæ, can actually contain very fundamental doctrinal errors. Take for instance #27 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, third typical edition (2002): In Missa seu Cena Dominica… / {Spanish} En la Misa o Cena del Señor… / {English} At Mass, or the Lord’s Supper…
Let us permit this to sink in… The Mass, or the Lord’s Supper… Really? This begs the question: when has the Catholic conception of the Mass ever been identified with the Lord’s Supper? Easy answer: never! That is, until 1969. But, alas, we are talking about a new rite of Mass, aren’t we?
And even less so, as it were, when the Council of Trent specified the dogmatic aspects of the Sacrament of the Eucharist: under Pope Julius III, Session XIII, 11 October 1551 (cf. Denzinger {1958} nos. 873-893); and the later the dogmatic aspects of the Eucharist as Sacrifice of the Mass in Session XXII, under Pope Pius IV, 17 September 1562 (cf. Denzinger {1958} nos. 937-956).
Grammatically speaking, the current third typical edition of the Paul VI Roman Missal, dating from the year 2002, equates the Mass with the Lord’s Supper, as if these two realities were one and the same thing!
That the institution of the Eucharist has something to do with the Lord’s Last Supper, does not mean that the Mass, the Sacrifice of the Mass, is the same thing as the Lord’s Last Supper! But that’s what the new theology behind the Novus Ordo Missæ states. Obviously, this is clearly a Protestant view of the Mass.
Not for naught did Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci elaborate their famous theological critique to Paul VI in 1969, commonly known as the Ottaviani-Bacci Intervention.
How ironic indeed that the new, un-Catholic theology behind the Novus Ordo Missæ has not really attracted more Protestants to become Catholics—this, in addition to postconciliar false ecumenism, well, of course not!—and yet many Catholics have become de facto Protestants because of it.
The official Latin is unmistakably clear in its meaning, and the two official Spanish and English translations offered—specifically for Spain and the United States—are completely literal and accurate vernacular versions from the Latin.
What’s even worse, however, is not that this is what the current, third typical edition of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (2002) says… it’s been expressed like this right from the start: the first typical edition since 1969! In other words, it’s never been corrected!
But then again, why should it be “corrected” if that’s precisely the Protestant theology that the liturgical “reformers” wanted to impress on the New Rite of Mass all along? For ecumenical purposes, of course…
So, here’s a sampling of some of the doctrinal errors that can be found in the Novus Ordo Roman Missal, second typical edition for Spain (1975), which by the way, is still the current, official version, since the third typical edition (2002) has yet to incorporate the changes and prepare the new translation.
For starters, let’s begin with a Communion Antiphon (Eph 2: 4; Rom 8: 3) for the third ferial day (Tuesday) during Christmastide, before and after the Epiphany of the Lord (6 January). The Latin text reads: Propter nimiam caritatem suam, qua dilexit nos Deus, Filium suum misit in similitudinem carnis peccati.
The official Spanish text translates: Dios, por el gran amor con que nos amó, envió a su Hijo en una condición pecadora como la nuestra. And here’s the official English translation: Because of that great love of his with which God loved us, he sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.
The decisive word in this Communion Antiphon, inspired by St. Paul’s epistles, is similitudinem or likeness. Scandalously enough, that word in Spanish—semejante or a semejanza de—is completely absent from the Missal, thereby rendering the understanding that God, in loving us, has sent his Son in our own sinful condition. Not in a similar (i.e semejante) sinful condition like our own, but in the same sinful condition as our own!
It is true that the adverb como means like, so a literal English translation from the Spanish reads: God, in his great love with which he loved us, sent his Son in a sinful condition like ours. Now, can this very poorly-phrased expression be understood in an orthodox manner? Well, to be fair, yes… but it sounds extremely awkward, and it’s not the obvious meaning.
One could argue that the translator does not wish to convey the heresy that Christ’s humanity is sinful because he himself is a sinner like we are, but… that’s exactly what the official Spanish liturgical text conveys, notwithstanding local approval in Madrid, and subsequent approval in Rome. Who does the translating? Moreover, who is responsible for the revision and approval?
Another example: one of the Orations after Communion, during the Mass for the Dead. The Latin text reads: Sumpto sacramento Unigeniti tui, qui pro nobis immolatus resurrexit in gloria, te, Domine, suppliciter exoramus pro famulo tuo N., ut, paschalibus mysterii mundatus, futuræ resurrectionis munere glorietur.
The official Spanish text reads: Alimentados con el Cuerpo y Sangre de Cristo, que murió y resucitó por nosotros, te pedimos, Señor, por tu siervo N., para que, purificado por el misterio pascual, goce ya de la resurrección eterna.
The official English translation reads: Having received the sarament of your only Begotten son, who was sacrificed for us and rose in glory, we humbly implore you, O Lord, for your departed servant N., that, cleansed by the paschal mysteries, he/she may glory in the gift of the resurrection to come.
Comparing the second typical edition Roman Missal for Spain with the third typical edition of the Roman Missal for the United States, it would seem that the third typical edition incorporates a more faithful vernacular translation from the Latin typical edition.
The decisive words in the Spanish text are ya and resurrección eterna, which in context, give the Oration its materially heretical meaning.
What the Spanish text is saying is that we are praying for a dearly departed whom we hope is already, now (i.e., ya) enjoying the eternal resurrection (of the body), which is, of course, impossible, for that will only occur and the end of time, not “now,” that is, with the advent of the Second Coming of Christ in all his Majesty.
The Spanish text prefers the singular paschal mystery instead of the original plural paschal mysteries, but this may just be a question of literary style. Sadly, however, the Spanish Oration itself represents a very common doctrinal error in our times, regarding the eschatological dimension: that which sustains that upon dying, the dead resurrect with a different body, beyond the confines of this material world. It’s quite simply a gnostic heresy that despises the material, or the visible of God’s Creation.
Truth be said, though, I have noticed that in some re-printings of the second typical edition of the Roman Missal for Spain, the word ya has been eliminated, so it would seem that others have also caught this glaring doctrinal error and had it duly removed…
The Latin and the English texts better express the hopeful prayer that the dearly departed may experience the gift of the (bodily) resurrection that is yet to come, in the future. It reasonably presupposes—though it does not state so specifically—that it’s the same body that is buried now, which will receive in due time its eternal retribution, hopefully the gift of the resurrection for life eternal. And that expresses the Catholic faith on the matter.
One more particularly worrisome example: Preface X for Sundays in the so-called Ordinary Time, or Per Annum. This Preface X does not form part of the Latin typical edition of the Missale Romanum. Therefore, it’s not a question of a faulty translation from the original Latin. And that’s precisely why this is especially so worrisome.
It’s a Preface specifically composed for the Spanish Misal Romano. It sings the praises of Sunday, the Lord’s Day, Dies Domini, which certainly has a beautiful biblical and patristic underlying theology.
Here’s the main body of the Preface: … porque hoy, tu familia reunida en la escucha de tu Palabra y en el Pan único y partido, celebra el memorial del Señor resucitado, mientras espera el domingo sin ocaso en el que la humanidad entera entrará en tu descanso. Entonces contemplaremos tu rostro y alabaremos por siempre tu misericordia…
And here is an unofficial, but faithful English translation: … because today, your family, reunited to listen to your Word and in the breaking of the one and only Bread, celebrates the memorial of the Risen Lord, while awaiting the Sunday without eventide, in which the entirety of humanity will enter unto your rest. Then we will contemplate your countenance and forever praise your mercy…
The allusion to the breaking of the one and only Bread is inspired in the expression in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 2: 42). But the celebration of Sunday, the memorial of the Risen Lord, rather ignores the fact that Mass is being celebrated, that is, the Eucharist as the Sacrifice of the Cross, notwithstanding that it’s Sunday, the day of Our Lord’s Resurrection.
From a theological viewpoint, the supreme act of our Redemption is the Sacrifice of the Cross, the Priestly Passion and Death of Our Lord God and Savior, Jesus Christ.
The Lord’s Resurrection therefore, is the blessed consequence of the Lord’s Sacrifice, and though the Resurrection obviously has a salvific dimension, it’s not the redemptive act, proper.
The redemptive act proper is the Lord’s Priestly Sacrifice, which is celebrated at Mass, though it be Sunday… Preface X merely disregards the essential sacrificial nature of the Mass, despite it being Sunday, the day of the Lord’s glorious Resurrection. Again, a Protestant view of the Mass, denying its fundamental sacrificial nature.
Furthermore, an even more problematic expression in this Preface X is the materially heretical affirmation regarding the eternal Sunday: … in which the entirety of humanity will enter unto your rest. Then we will contemplate your countenance and forever praise your mercy…
The text presumes that the entirety of humanity, that is, all of humanity will enter unto the eternal blissful rest of the Lord, on that celestial Sunday without a sundown, which is Heaven.
The problem with this expression is not the description of Heaven as being an eternal Sunday, which is inspired by biblical and patristic theology—i.e., Sunday being the day after Saturday, the first day of the week, the eighth day of the week—but rather that all of humanity will enter unto the Lord’s rest.
That is quite simply heretical, specifically an ancient heresy of the III century: the Apokatástasis which held that everyone would be ultimately saved, even the devils, the fallen angels.
But that’s never what the Catholic faith has taught. That we should pray that everyone be saved in the end—in the subjunctive sense of the verb—most certainly does not mean the same as presuming that everyone will be saved in the end, and celebrate this false assuredness in a liturgical setting.
Pope Pius XI said that the sacred liturgy is an organ for the Church’s Ordinary Magisterium. This is so because the liturgy of the Church expresses the Catholic faith of the Church; if you change the meaning of the words, you change the comprehension of the faith.
Only those who ultimately are saved in the end will be the ones—the only ones—who will contemplate the Lord’s countenance and forever praise his mercy, as Preface X goes on to say.
We must remember: this liturgical text was composed directly in Spanish, and was duly approved (sic) by the Liturgical Commission of the Episcopal Conference of Spain, and also from the Roman Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments.
Alas, a very problematic Preface, and this time, we cannot blame the doctrinal errors contained therein to a bad translation from the Latin… because there is no official Latin text to translate from!
And so, taking very seriously into account the truth behind the intrinsic relationship between faith and liturgy—lex credendi, lex orandi, lex vivendi / the law of belief, is the law of prayer, is the law of living the faith—some official vernacular translations from the official Latin are notably deficient in this regard.
All the more so when there are glaring heresies, without even the poor excuse for losing the meaning in an inexcusable faulty translation.
How many doctrinal errors—with the accompanying obstacles to true evangelization—are there in the various officially-approved vernacular editions of the supposedly reformed “Roman” Missal after Vatican II? God only knows…
We would do well to remain firmly attached to the Traditional Roman Rite. It can trace its roots to the apostolic era. It is the Rite of the Holy Catholic Church, as handed down faithfully through the centuries, along with the Roman Breviary and the Roman Ritual of the Sacraments. And with regards to the Sacrifice of the Altar, it’s the Mass of All Times.
Doubtless, J.R.R. Tolkien, a profoundly Catholic philologist, who knew so well the absolutely crucial importance of words, meanings and expressions, and how an entire culture is defined by its language and history, was right all along…
I am glad we have people like you, Louie, who can see how what seems to be an innocent word can be the jumping off point, a course correction, of dogma. That is all that is needed to get the heresy rolling. I was there before it all began. We loved the Mass which was obviously marked by filled churches with the need of Mass in auditoriums and basements so many were the faithful in the mid-fifties. The point was not so much the form or the language, but the power of the Presence that was so obvious which touched our souls. The Gregorian chant as masterful as it was found its way into our being to uplift us and experience inside that which was inspiring us outside. It was a moment when we could behold the Eternal. It was not a sentimental movement, but a soulful faith experience. That is what was taken away. I remember such “seemingly minor” corrections like the removal of the Basilian Hymnal with songs that came from our heart like “Mother dear O pray for me…”, “Jesus my Lord, my God, my All”, “O what could my Jesus do more…” , “Heart of Jesus, meek and mild” and so many more. All gone for the sake of the New People’s Hymnal filled with so many of the Reformation songs. I had the chance to assist at the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom and participated in their English hymns like the “Cherubim Hymn.” That took me back to the 50s with its power to uplift again. I think what most of us noticed that the Mass was no longer that experience of faith that we knew. Once the guitars came in, we were certain something had really changed. It is not the guitars, the organ, the choirs, the language, but rather the experience of holiness that was missing. We know when we have entered a true sanctuary for it exudes the reality of faith. At Mass we need to glimpse the Eternal which when faithfully and meticulously presented makes that moment possible for us in time and in grace.
“Grammatically speaking, the current third typical edition of the Paul VI Roman Missal, dating from the year 2002, equates the Mass with the Lord’s Supper, as if these two realities were one and the same thing!”
The Holy Sacrifice of Mass is not valid till the priest partakes the Body and the Blood of Christ, the Eucharist, so in a sense the Mass is also the Lord’s Supper besides it is the a worship of sacrifice offered to God the Father.
Padre Marques,
–
“But that’s never what the Catholic faith has taught [universal salvation]. That we should pray that everyone be saved in the end—in the subjunctive sense of the verb—most certainly does not mean the same as presuming that everyone will be saved in the end, and celebrate this false assuredness in a liturgical setting.”
Exactly – and that’s what the likes of Fr Barron can’t seem to get their head around.
Even Our Lady of Fatima (after showing the three shepherd children hell FILLED with human souls, and more falling therein like snowflakes) asked us to pray at the end of each decade of the rosary, “Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins, LEAD ALL SOULS to heaven, especially those in most need.”
May I suggest exploring the heresy of universal salvation in future posts?
It seems this is a popular heresy these days and a lot of people are falling into its trap.
From my own (non expert, layman) point of view, I’d argue the heresy derives from the theology of Protestantism, in that it denies free will in man, in the sense that because man’s nature is hopelessly, irreversibly corrupted (in the protestant sense) he is ultimately impossible to sustain himself in good works and in the state of sanctifying grace even with God’s help. Once man’s ability to co-operate with God’s grace to obey the commandments is eliminated, this ultimately leads to the theology of “once saved, always saved” irrespective of the works one may do during one’s life. And from “once saved, always saved” to “all are saved” is a logical progression of thought from one error to another (bigger) error.
This is so true that protestants will ask among themselves: “Which date were you saved?”, obviously an absurd question to a catholic.
–
Isn’t it true to say that most “catholics” these days, who may engage in all sorts of sins, from cohabitation, to adultery, to contraception etc etc still believe they will ultimately be “saved” because – well – just like proddies they “believe” in the Lord Jesus and, after all, Jesus “loves them”, and surely he wouldn’t be so harsh as to condemn one for all eternity for disobeying his commandments??
rcaamo: I think Louie agrees with me! 😉 Certainly, words have meanings, and the usual suspects of heresy usually attribute different meanings to the words. But in the case of the Novus Ordo liturgy, some of the translations themselves are just simply erroneous. By oversight? Or design?
Danielpan: I see your point but the Catholic Mass is NOT the equivalent of the Lord’s Supper. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (Paul VI) clearly makes a grammatical equivalent: “At Mass or the Lord’s Supper…” In other words, to say Mass is the same as saying the Lord’s Supper, interchangeably. That’s the obvious meaning of the text as written since 1969. But that is erroneous, since that is just simply a Protestant view of the Mass.
Thanks Father, is it a dogma defined in the Councils or Papal Bulls? Or it is considered Ordinary and Universal Magisterium that has been always believed? If it is a Protestant idea then was it rebuked at the Council of Trent?
” that’s what the likes of Fr Barron can’t seem to get their head around”
Well it is definitely not helpful that Fr. Barron said it is reasonable to hope all be saved. He actually believe somewhere around 98%. But that is not outright universal salvation. But JP II did hold the belief of universal salvation. So it is not fair for Voris to condemn a priest whose influence on Catholics is nowhere close to JP II because he holds a proximate heresy when a Pope held an authentic heresy position.
Danielpan: if you look into the dogmatic references to the Council of Trent given in the article, you will find your answer! And besides, the Sacrifice of the Mass was never identified as being the same thing as the Lord’s Supper. You see, that the Eucharist, as a sacrament, was instituted at the Lord’s Supper, it does NOT follow that the Mass is, therefore, the Eucharist as a “sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.” The sacrament of the Eucharist presupposes the Sacrifice of the Cross which is the action that takes place on the altar. THAT’S the Mass, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The Eucharist is formally first the Sacrifice, of which the sacrament of the Eucharist is the subsequent sign. Without the Eucharistic Sacrifice, that is, the Mass, there would be no Eucharistic sacrament to be instituted at the Lord’s Supper. What He did was anticipate His Sacrifice of Good Friday to Holy Thursday. The Lord’s Supper is NOT what redeems us. What redeems us is what the Lord does at the Last Supper: institute the sacrament of His Sacrifice. And THIS is precisely the Mass.
Where did you get that 98% figure?
If you have a close look at what Fr Barron has said previously on this subject it’s more like, “we have a reasonable hope hell is EMPTY”.
I repeat: EMPTY.
He goes around this non-sense by saying, well “we can’t know this for certain but we can have a ‘reasonable hope’ “.
No.
You can’t have a “reasonable hope” God isn’t just in dealing with and punishing evil-doers. That’s heresy, and what is more, a mockery of God.
God is both infinitely just and merciful.
It’s the “just” part these heretics are missing from their distorted view of God, so their whole theology become warped as a result.
Thank you, Father Campo. You have clearly demonstrated how translations can be a vehicle for traitors. No wonder the Novus Ordo missals are always being re-translated. The vehicle has not yet arrived at the desired destination—total and outright heresy. However, it’s getting closer all the time.
Barbara,
–
I posted a belated reply to your question at the top of the thread in “The NO: Stones from Holy Mother?”
Prayer for communion for mass for the dead:
“Alimentados con el Cuerpo y Sangre de Cristo, que murió y resucitó por nosotros, te pedimos, Señor, por tu siervo N., para que, purificado por el misterio pascual, goce ya de la resurrección eterna.”
“…goce ya de la resurrección eterna”!!!
(Literal) Translation:
“…enjoy NOW the eternal resurrection”!!
What are priests learning these days in the seminaries??!!
It is interesting that you point that out. Exodus 12 prefigurement where God commands the Israelites to kill an unblemished lamb, but instead of burning it etc. they are to EAT it. The sacrifice must be consumed by those who are to be saved – that is the completion of the SACRIFICE.
1And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt: 2This month shall be to you the beginning of months: it shall be the first in the months of the year. 3Speak ye to the whole assembly of the children of Israel, and say to them: On the tenth day of this month let every man take a lamb by their families and houses. 4But if the number be less than may suffice to eat the lamb, he shall take unto him his neighbour that joineth to his house, according to the number of souls which may be enough to eat the lamb. 5And it shall be a lamb without blemish, a male, of one year: according to which rite also you shall take a kid. 6And you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month: and the whole multitude of the children of Israel shall sacrifice it in the evening. 7And they shall take of the blood thereof, and put it upon both the side posts, and on the upper door posts of the houses, wherein they shall eat it. 8And they shall eat the flesh that night roasted at the fire, and unleavened bread with wild lettuce. 9You shall not eat thereof any thing raw, nor boiled in water, but only roasted at the fire: you shall eat the head with the feet and entrails thereof. 10Neither shall there remain any thing of it until morning. If there be any thing left, you shall burn it with fire. 11And thus you shall eat it: you shall gird your reins, and you shall have shoes on your feet, holding staves in your hands, and you shall eat in haste: for it is the Phase (that is the Passage) of the Lord. 12And I will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and will kill every firstborn in the land of Egypt both man and beast: and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the Lord. 13And the blood shall be unto you for a sign in the houses where you shall be: and I shall see the blood, and shall pass over you: and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I shall strike the land of Egypt.
I got that 98% from one of Voris’ episode in which he said someone at a dinner with Fr. Barron told Voris that what Fr. Barron said when pressed how empty is hell. But Fr. Barron is only a priest expressing his private liberal opinion while JP II had the authority as the supreme teacher as a Roman Pontiff, if I am not mistaken the notion that we don’t know if Judas is in hell also came from him. I was trying to use that as an example how misguided Voris’ editorial policy is, when someone was influenced by a heresy promoted by the Pope he did his best to criticize that person but not the source of confusion.
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/2276/pope_francis_teaches_that_everyone_is_saved_wow_hold_on_wait_a_second.aspx
Thanks a lot, Father, I think I will order Denzinger. Should I order the 1958 edition quoted by Louie? I guess I was confused “Eucharist” and “Mass”. So what you said is there are two meanings of Eucharist one is the same as the Sacrifice of Mass the second meaning refers to the Sacrament of Eucharist, the Body and Blood of Christ.
I see.
Yes, you have a point. I’m not sure if JP2 explicitly promoted that heresy (although it may have been implicit in a number of things he said), but as you point out regarding Voris’ “do not go there” policy for the popes, JP2, for instance gave the red hat (cardinalate) to the notorious heretic Hans Urs von Balthasar, who was the main promoter of the heresy of universal salvation, and I’m sure this fact would be glossed over in any discussion of this topic by Voris.
Regarding the 98% figure, if Fr Barron indeed said that, he was flat out lying. He was probably trying to squiggle out of being asked uncomfortable questions.
Unless words have lost their meaning, what he teaches is a reasonable hope for a 100% salvation rate, nothing else.
Danielpan: I quoted the 1958 Denzinger in the article, which corresponds to the 31st edition, i.e. the “classic” numbering of paragraphs. That’s the version we used in my seminary days here in Spain. Beginning with the 32nd edition the book was known as the Denzinger-Schönmetzer, and started a new numbering system, as well as publishing Magisterium from John XXIII and Vatican II. As far as I know, the most recent edition is the 38th, published in 1995, the Denzinger-Hünermann, which obviously incorporates papal Magisterium up to that year. I believe that English-language versions of the Denzinger are normally the 30th (1955) or 31st edition (1958), which will do just fine… 😉
Video is relevent to Fr’s post
http://youtu.be/1xU9_A9r2Ac
When in doubt always order an older copy. I have the 1958 edition recommended by my pastor.
Father or anyone here if Fr. Camp is busy, could you answer two questions regarding what you said in your posts
1) when you said “Magisterium” from John XXIII and Vatican II, does it imply the “Magisterium” is part of the deposit of faith, for example, Ordinary Universal Magisterium(assuming no Extraordinary Magisterium from John XXIII and Vatican II)?
2) Going back to the Eucharist, I would like to know what is the Church teaching on this Sacrament. My understanding is that is the Most Blessed Sacrament among all the Sacraments yet it seems it is not necessary for salvation like Baptism or to a less degree the Sacrament of Confession. So how does the Church interpret the Scriptures when Our Lord said unless you eat the My Body and drink My Blood you have no life in you? I don’t know if I have some Protestant thinking left in me that needs to be destroyed. On one hand the Church teaches the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist on the other hand if I understand the Sacraments right it seems to me the Sacrament of Eucharist is not required for Salvation, maybe Our Lord meant something else when he said “you have no life in you”, something that is not “eternal life” or “salvation”?
Danielpan: It is a Commandment of the Church that one must receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist at least once a year at Easter time. The Commandments of the Church are binding under pain of mortal sin. This would indicate that the Church teaches that the reception of the Eucharist is required for Salvation.
Not in the same sense as Baptism, which is required to attain a state of grace; the Eucharist is required in order to preserve the state of grace.
tufty What you said is Church Laws which exist to serve divine law. If that is true we have to assume all the Japanese were not saved after the priests got kicked out from Japan for 200 years. Or the situations in the former Soviet and most of the time in Communist China in which the Church Law of reception of Eucharist in Easter is not met by many if not all.
Danielpan: the Denzinger usually makes a selection of papal and conciliar Magisterium of a more dogmatic nature. Thus, beginning with the 1965 (?) 32nd edition, the Denzinger-Schönmetzer incorporates Ordinary Magisterium from John XXIII and also some Magisterium from Vatican II, up to the dates of publishing the successive editions.
There are three requirements for a sin to be mortal. The nature of the sin must be serious. The sinner must know the sin is serious. The sinner must freely consent to commit the sin anyway. Your example precludes the third requirement for a mortal sin. Obviously, the people involved could not freely consent to omit Communion at Easter time if there were no priests available. You seem to just want to argue Daniel. I will not be answering you again. The answers you seek are readily available from many reliable sources online. Of course there’s not going to be anyone to argue with.
Wow, Fr. Campo, you are really looking under the hood here. Thank you for sharing your disturbing findings and, not for the sake of scandal. but for reasons of finding a remedy. I believe the remedy you declare to be the simplest one, to use your own words:
“We would do well to remain firmly attached to the Traditional Roman Rite”
Knowing what we know now, by experience after 50 years of liturgical innovations, doesn’t it seem so crystal clear that both pillars of the Church, namely Tradition and the Bible, ought never to be tampered with. That from the start the Traditional Roman Rite, as the most profound and sublime, major living Tradition of the Church, ought never to have been tampered with or altered. And, the very fact that Catholics have tampered with and altered the Mass is, therefore in itself, a clear vindication of the Protestant heresies, which claim to this day ‘sola scriptura.’
I am certain amongst the readers and commenters of this site, this conclusion will seem utterly trite, but it is also becoming more and more incontrovertible, namely, acting with equanimity by treating the Bible and Tradition equally as two pillars of the Catholic Church, the Novus Ordo Mass must simply and entirely be annulled, abrogated and abolished.
that is really one of the most important issues some Catholics argue if there are not traditional Mass in their area they should stay home and observe the Lord’s Day without receiving the Eucharist. Some said it is in the Church Law to go to Mass on Sundays even it is NO Mass. I lean towards the former but not 100% sure.
Amen.
Thank you Father, and God bless you, this new mass has been a very stressful struggle with many questions about it, Because I have no official learning in matters of catholic theology and doctrine, and knowing that there is something seriously wrong with the new mass, but couldn’t quite put my finger on it, I’ve prayed for answers concerning this mass, and Our Lady has really helped. I thank Almighty God for Her and for all the faithful within Our Church. I’m very grateful. Your in My rosary everyday.