I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
USMC,
USMC:
The Roman Catechism is not a product of the solemn magisterium. Thus, its authority is that of the ordinary magisterium, the same authority as the Acta Apostolicae Sedis which answered the “pro multis” question in 1974. Observe,
“The Holy See examines the translation of a sacramental form into the vernacular and, when it judges that the translation rightly expresses the meaning intended by the Church, approves and confirms the translation. In so doing the Holy See is stipulating that the meaning of the translation is to be understood in accord with the mind of the Church as expressed by the original Latin text” (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Instauratio liturgica, 25 January 1974, in AAS 66 [1974], p. 661 - English translation in ICEL: Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979 [The Liturgical Press: Collegeville, Minnesota, 1982], p. 299).
For a very thorough treatment of the arguments often employed contrary to the judgment of the authentic magisterium on this matter, see the following article:
THE SACRAMENTAL VALIDITY OF "FOR YOU AND FOR ALL"
by Fr. John F. McCarthy, J.C.D., S.T.D.
rtforum.org/lt/lt89.html
I agree that “for many” ought to be the translation, for it better expresses the original Latin text. However, the Church can in no way accept your proposition, already condemned by Pius VI, that what she has officially established as approved ecclesiastical discipline is either harmful or dangerous to the faithful. You can disagree that such a translation is prudent. But when you claim that it renders the Mass invalid, you assert a condemned Jansenist proposition.
I believe what the Catechism says, but I don’t see the false dichotomy that you propose in the current judgment of the magisterium as compared to the magisterium that produced the Roman Catechism.
The Roman Catechism is not a product of the solemn magisterium. Thus, its authority is that of the ordinary magisterium, the same authority as the Acta Apostolicae Sedis which answered the “pro multis” question in 1974. Observe,
“The Holy See examines the translation of a sacramental form into the vernacular and, when it judges that the translation rightly expresses the meaning intended by the Church, approves and confirms the translation. In so doing the Holy See is stipulating that the meaning of the translation is to be understood in accord with the mind of the Church as expressed by the original Latin text” (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Instauratio liturgica, 25 January 1974, in AAS 66 [1974], p. 661 - English translation in ICEL: Documents on the Liturgy 1963-1979 [The Liturgical Press: Collegeville, Minnesota, 1982], p. 299).
For a very thorough treatment of the arguments often employed contrary to the judgment of the authentic magisterium on this matter, see the following article:
THE SACRAMENTAL VALIDITY OF "FOR YOU AND FOR ALL"
by Fr. John F. McCarthy, J.C.D., S.T.D.
rtforum.org/lt/lt89.html
I agree that “for many” ought to be the translation, for it better expresses the original Latin text. However, the Church can in no way accept your proposition, already condemned by Pius VI, that what she has officially established as approved ecclesiastical discipline is either harmful or dangerous to the faithful. You can disagree that such a translation is prudent. But when you claim that it renders the Mass invalid, you assert a condemned Jansenist proposition.
