German priests reject Vatican directive on translation

[Walking_Home]

It seems our Pope has “democratic” revolt on his hands.

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=51676

German priests reject Vatican directive on translation

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.

 

[Caesar]

If they dont want to listen to the Congregation for Divine Worship, then perhaps they will listen to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Ah, if only these were the good ol’ days of the Holy Office of the Roman Inquisition…

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

It seems our Pope has “democratic” revolt on his hands.

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=51676

German priests reject Vatican directive on translation

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.

I would think that a “Priests Council” would have very little authority. I’m sure the German Bishops will have the final say.

 

[Caesar]

I would think that a “Priests Council” would have very little authority. I’m sure the German Bishops will have the final say.

And the German Bishop’s will differ on this ruling? These are the same Bishops who tried to vote away exorcisms…

 

[Walking_Home]

I would think that a “Priests Council” would have very little authority. I’m sure the German Bishops will have the final say.

---

Does not seem—that the German bishops were up to using their authority to stop this revolt in its tracks to begin with.

 

[jay29]

And the German Bishop’s will differ on this ruling? These are the same Bishops who tried to vote away exorcisms…

How in the world can you vote away EXORCISMS?

 

[Caesar]

How in the world can you vote away EXORCISMS?

In the late 1990s the German Conferance of Bishops demanded that the 1614 Rituale Romanum and the Rite of Exorcism be abolished completely. In response, John Paul II allowed for the revision of the Rite, called Of Exorcisms and Certain Supplications. Interestingly, most serious exorcists (including the famous Fr. Gabriele Amorth, chief exorcist of Rome) refuse to use Of Exorcisms and Certain Supplications, calling it useless, and instead have an indult to use the Roman Ritual.

 

[BobP123]

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.”

What is the reason for this? Priests are so used to it that they would probably forget to change the words at consecration time? Why didn’t they leave the Consecration, in fact, all of the Eucharistic Prayer, in Latin? Vatican II certainly didn’t change the words of Consecration or even ask that it be said in the vernacular. Whose bright idea was it to change the words of Christ anyway? Even Protestant Bibles don’t do this.

 

[frommi]

The European Bishops have historically (and recently) been much more willing and able to stand up to Rome when they perceive the decisions being made as being inappropriate. This has happened recently on the Tridentine indult, and now on this.

Personally, I appreciate the fact that some members of both the presbyerate and episcopate are willing to respectfully disagree with some things…it makes me know they actually have a pulse.

 

[Lepanto]

The European Bishops have historically (and recently) been much more willing and able to stand up to Rome when they perceive the decisions being made as being inappropriate. This has happened recently on the Tridentine indult, and now on this.

Ahh yes, bishops from the land of Luther. :tsktsk:

 

[frommi]

Ahh yes, bishops from the land of Luther. :tsktsk:

Ummmm…the last man elected pope is a Bishop from the land of Luther…so I’m not sure what you’re point is here.

 

[Joysong]

Frommi, I think you have a point. Blind obedience often remains blind and sometimes it is needful to question the directions of a superior. Due to beginning another thread, I happened upon these words:

1. What We have thus far said of the Universal Church must be understood also of the individual Christian communities, whether Oriental or Latin, which go to make up the one Catholic Church. For they, too, are ruled by Jesus Christ through the voice of their respective Bishops. Consequently, Bishops must be considered as the more illustrious members of the Universal Church, for they are united by a very special bond to the divine Head of the whole Body and so are rightly called “principal parts of the members of the Lord”; moreover, as far as his own diocese is concerned, each one as a true Shepherd feeds the flock entrusted to him and rules it in the name of Christ. Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent, but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying the ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff. Therefore, Bishops should be revered by the faithful as divinely appointed successors of the Apostles, and to them, even more than to the highest civil authorities should be applied the words: “Touch not my anointed ones.” For the Bishops have been anointed with the chrism of the Holy Spirit.

The bolded words have me struggling at the moment with the concept of collective consensus. A Motu Proprio is issued on the Pope’s sole initiative by his own authority. No problem in my head there, except when it is issued in dire opposition to the collective decisions previously made by the body of Bishops.

With regard to the M.P. on Pro Multis, the US bishops had voted in so overwhelming a majority as to leave no doubt that they wished to maintain the words “for all.” Their decision was sent to the Holy See for recognito, but as we see, it was overruled. It really pains me, since I know instinctively and through Church teachings, that the Bishops are endued through their anointed office, with the help of the Holy Spirit. How then can so many vote one way, but a single individual overrule it without taking into account their deliberations?

Pray for me … I’m sure there will be something I’m to learn from this.

 

[Walking_Home]

It seems some people here do not believe in the authority of the Pope—But what can we expect --with the “Spirit of Vat II”.

 

[Joysong]

When the pope exercises his authority to allow an indult for those who disbelieved papal authority when the Roman Missae of 1970 was promulgated, all thumbs go up.

But what about the disregard for his authority when the rebellion against the Novus Ordo caused many to depart and celebrate their own rite? Indeed, it was disobedience to the Holy Spirit and the Pope who signed into being the N.O.

I am already receiving my answer to prayer after some deep reflection at Mass today. Thankfully, the many scriptures and books I have read all came together in clarity. God always keeps His sheep on the straight path.

 

[Pius_X]

Perhaps Rome should consult with the parish priests before making a decision, as they are the ones who will have to say the new translations, without any (name removed by moderator)ut from them on the matter. Then things like this would not happen.

 

[Walking_Home]

Someones “answer” seems to be coming from the “Spirit of Vat II”.

 

[Joysong]

Pius X,

Dialogue is always praiseworthy and counsel profits many unto wisdom [Prov. 15:22 Designs are brought to nothing where there is no counsel: but where there are many counsellors, they are established.]

There is never an excuse for disobedience to authority once the matter is decided, even if the superior is wrong. Two scriptures came to mind today that are excellent to reflect upon. The first account is of Core and the schism of his followers against Moses in Num. 16.

The other example is from Num. 12 where Aaron and his sister murmured against Moses. If anyone is inclined, Num. 11 also speaks about the murmuring of the people and how displeasing this was to God. God gave them their desire, which they pined for night and day, but in the end it was for their own destruction.

We need to look at history to see how God abhors disobedience and murmuring against those He appoints. I fear for those who continuously fight against the ordinary rite of the Church.

Finally, an example came to mind about St. Teresa of Avila who received authorization from Rome to found several convents of her order. The Lord directed her supernaturally to found one in a particular city, but her superior opposed it, even though he knew the direction was authentic and from God. He preferred that she found in Seville and opposed it. After consulting the Lord to whom she owed allegiance and for whom she was making these foundations, He told her, “You do well to obey, Daughter, but** I Myself will hold him responsible**.”

The Lord indicated that her obedience, even in the face of a wrong decision on the part of the superior, was His desire. And of course, her sisters suffered terribly on account of that wrong directive, but who’s to say their suffering did not accomplish God’s will in ways unknown to them at that time?

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote=Joysong
Finally, an example came to mind about St. Teresa of Avila who received authorization from Rome to found several convents of her order. The Lord directed her supernaturally to found one in a particular city, but her superior opposed it, even though he knew the direction was authentic and from God. He preferred that she found in Seville and opposed it. After consulting the Lord to whom she owed allegiance and for whom she was making these foundations, He told her, “You do well to obey, Daughter, but** I Myself will hold him responsible**.”

The Lord indicated that her obedience, even in the face of a wrong decision on the part of the superior, was His desire. And of course, her sisters suffered terribly on account of that wrong directive, but who’s to say their suffering did not accomplish God’s will in ways unknown to them at that time?​

This are strange times that we live in:

Giving credence to a revolt by saying that a wrong decision was made (God will hold the Pope accountable for the wrong decision)----then come back around and say “obedience” is due to the “Wrong decision”.

 

[Joysong]

Giving credence to a revolt by saying that a wrong decision was made (God will hold the Pope accountable for the wrong decision)----then come back around and say “obedience” is due to the “Wrong decision”.

W. H., though my post was not directed to you, but to Pius X, I see that you have injected uncharitable comments throughout this thread toward me, and indeed in other threads toward any who do not belong to the traditional rite. It indicates an extreme polarity that is bent on splintering the Body of Christ, which we celebrate today.

How can you twist my words into assuming I uphold the revolt of the German priests, when I specifically stated that disobedience is never permissible? OTOH, you uphold the disobedience of traditionists who believe the Pope’s decision is a “wrong one” with V-II and the ordinary rite of the new missal; yet that permits all of you to rebel. Amazing, simply amazing how the mind works to justify one’s thinking!

I guess I’ll have to put you back on ignore, for I see no opportunity to discuss in a charitable openness.

 

[VociMike]

Frommi, I think you have a point. Blind obedience often remains blind and sometimes it is needful to question the directions of a superior. Due to beginning another thread, I happened upon these words:

The bolded words have me struggling at the moment with the concept of collective consensus. A Motu Proprio is issued on the Pope’s sole initiative by his own authority. No problem in my head there, except when it is issued in dire opposition to the collective decisions previously made by the body of Bishops.

With regard to the M.P. on Pro Multis, the US bishops had voted in so overwhelming a majority as to leave no doubt that they wished to maintain the words “for all.” Their decision was sent to the Holy See for recognito, but as we see, it was overruled. It really pains me, since I know instinctively and through Church teachings, that the Bishops are endued through their anointed office, with the help of the Holy Spirit. How then can so many vote one way, but a single individual overrule it without taking into account their deliberations?

Pray for me … I’m sure there will be something I’m to learn from this.

It is said that, at the time of the Arian heresy, at one point 80-90% of the bishops were in favor of the heresy, and yet the popes of the time stood fast against it until it was overcome.

Furthermore, it is only when the bishops gather together in a general council that they can speak in a body for the Church. Holding “votes” in their individual countries doesn’t cut it.