Infallability Question

[fall_fox]

The Holy Father along with the Bishops of the world make up the Magisterium. When the English translation came out in 1973 which was worked on at the behest and the approval of the Magisterium, isn’t that something that should have been protected by the Holy Spirit under the proviso of infallibility?
I want to say that I am just trying to understand.
I also am looking forward to the new translation.

 

[1ke]

no.

 

[FrDavid96]

The Holy Father along with the Bishops of the world make up the Magisterium. When the English translation came out in 1973 which was worked on at the behest and the approval of the Magisterium, isn’t that something that should have been protected by the Holy Spirit under the proviso of infallibility?
I want to say that I am just trying to understand.
I also am looking forward to the new translation.

No. Something like the text of the Mass does not come under the heading of an infallible teaching. Not for the Missal of Pope Paul VI and not for any other Missal.

 

[jimrob]

In the Catholic Church, we have a process for dealing with important matters concerning faith and morals. After the matter has been discussed at various levels in the Church, the Pope has the authority to rule on the matter - and his decision is final.

Jesus promised to be with his Church always and that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against it. I am not aware of any passage in the Gospels that says that hurried translations of the Missal will never go out of date.

 

[JRKH]

As I understand it, the missal is written in Latin and in the ecclesial Latin the most specific terms are used. These terms (along with sentence structure) may or may not have good straight translations into a given vernacular. In addition, vernacular language will evolve over time whereas ecclesial Latin does not.

So -

In making a translation, these different factors must be taken into account. A translation that is perfectly wonderful today, might need to be tweaked in 50 or 100 years due to changes in the common usage vernacular.

Does this mean that the Holy Spirit is not protecting the Official Translations? Of course not…But by the same token, the Holy Spirit recognizes and conveys to the Bishops the understanding that revision (as opposed correction) will likely be needed some years down the road. The Church then - recognizing this Spirit guidance - does not try to hold up a given translation as “infallible”…Though the Church will say that the official and approved translation is inerrant. (Nihil Obstat)

Peace
James

 

[YoungTradCath]

The authoritative text is not the English text, or the Polish text, or the Arabic text. It is the Latin text. There can be mistakes in the vernacular texts. There can be none in the Latin texts. The Latin is infallible. This is why any serious scholar studies from the Latin texts, unless he is comparing translations.

 

[FrDavid96]

The authoritative text is not the English text, or the Polish text, or the Arabic text. It is the Latin text. There can be mistakes in the vernacular texts. There can be none in the Latin texts. The Latin is infallible. This is why any serious scholar studies from the Latin texts, unless he is comparing translations.

I’m a bit concerned here.

The Latin text of the Mass is not infallible. The teaching and doctrine behind it is infallible, but the text itself is not.

The actual texts of the Mass are not part of the infallible teaching of the Church. They may, and indeed they do, contain and express infallible teaching. For example, the Christmas Mass text speaks of the infallible dogma that God became man; the consecration likewise expresses the infallible belief that the bread becomes the Body of Christ; examples can go on and on.

When popes promulgate new versions of the Missal, they do not do so as infallible teaching. I’m not sure why you would think that the Latin texts are infallible.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I’m a bit concerned here.

The Latin text of the Mass is not infallible. The teaching and doctrine behind it is infallible, but the text itself is not.

The actual texts of the Mass are not part of the infallible teaching of the Church. They may, and indeed they do, contain and express infallible teaching. For example, the Christmas Mass text speaks of the infallible dogma that God became man; the consecration likewise expresses the infallible belief that the bread becomes the Body of Christ; examples can go on and on.

When popes promulgate new versions of the Missal, they do not do so as infallible teaching. I’m not sure why you would think that the Latin texts are infallible.

I dunno. I was toying with the idea. My “authoritative” theme went a bit too far, I guess.

 

[Evan]

Does this mean that the Holy Spirit is not protecting the Official Translations? Of course not…But by the same token, the Holy Spirit recognizes and conveys to the Bishops the understanding that revision (as opposed correction) will likely be needed some years down the road. The Church then - recognizing this Spirit guidance - does not try to hold up a given translation as “infallible”…Though the Church will say that the official and approved translation is inerrant. (Nihil Obstat)

Peace
James

Nihil Obstat does not say that the text is inerrant, but that the person that reviewed the text found nothing objectionable on a moral or faith level. There may be many errors, but nothing that would bring you to sin.

For Example: “The horse evolved from wolves” is wrong on all levels of science (that is errant if this is a science book) but could still receive a ‘Nihil Obstat’ because this is not a moral issue.

 

[Windmill]

The official rite of Mass promulgated by the Holy See for the universal Church (Latin* editio typica*) is protected by the Church’s indefectibility. IOW, it contains nothing that is intrinsically harmful to the faithful, has no heresy in it, and it is most certainly valid. To say otherwise would violate the Church’s divine constitution as set out by Our Lord. The Church is indefectible, and if she promulgated invalid sacramental rites, she would fail to fulfill her mission of providing the sacramental means of sanctifying the People of God. That would mean Our Lord lied when he said, “The gates of Hell will not prevail.” That would mean he wasn’t God.

The English version of the Missal does not fall under this guarantee because it is not universally imposed. There may be errors in translation and, as is the case with the outgoing translation of Mass, may contain passages that are theologically problematic. But that is because they are poor translations and the translators did not do their job.

It is not a matter of “infallibility” because a rite of Mass is not a “teaching on faith or morals.” It is a matter of indefectibility. The Church would be denying her very essence.

 

[JRKH]

Nihil Obstat does not say that the text is inerrant, but that the person that reviewed the text found nothing objectionable on a moral or faith level. There may be many errors, but nothing that would bring you to sin.

For Example: “The horse evolved from wolves” is wrong on all levels of science (that is errant if this is a science book) but could still receive a ‘Nihil Obstat’ because this is not a moral issue.

Thank you for the correction.

Peace
James

 

[Digitonomy]

The official rite of Mass promulgated by the Holy See for the universal Church (Latin* editio typica*) is protected by the Church’s indefectibility. IOW, it contains nothing that is intrinsically harmful to the faithful, has no heresy in it, and it is most certainly valid. To say otherwise would violate the Church’s divine constitution as set out by Our Lord. The Church is indefectible, and if she promulgated invalid sacramental rites, she would fail to fulfill her mission of providing the sacramental means of sanctifying the People of God. That would mean Our Lord lied when he said, “The gates of Hell will not prevail.” That would mean he wasn’t God.

The English version of the Missal does not fall under this guarantee because it is not universally imposed. There may be errors in translation and, as is the case with the outgoing translation of Mass, may contain passages that are theologically problematic. But that is because they are poor translations and the translators did not do their job.

It is not a matter of “infallibility” because a rite of Mass is not a “teaching on faith or morals.” It is a matter of indefectibility. The Church would be denying her very essence.

You seem to be playing a bit fast and loose with your terms. First, you claim the rite is automatically 1) not harmful, 2) has no heresy, and 3) valid. When you expand your argument, however, you only defend the “valid” aspect. A rite could be harmful, contain heresy, and yet still be valid. Let’s cook up an example: Take the Roman Canon, change nothing except inserting a short sentence about how in her last hour Mary assumed the form of a turtle and swam out into the Mediterranean.

Such a view would certainly be harmful and heretical, but it would not affect the validity of the consecration. That is an extreme example, and I certainly hope we are protected from such heresy and harm. But more subtle misunderstandings could easily creep in, and I would be interested in seeing your source for the claim that the Church’s indefectibility protects from any and all harm or heresy - the old Catholic Encyclopedia paragraph you linked to does not make that claim.

I also find your take on different translations interesting. Is it only Latin that has this protected status, or is it the first edition promulgated by the Church, or only universal rather than local documents?

 

[ProVobis]

I also find your take on different translations interesting. Is it only Latin that has this protected status, or is it the first edition promulgated by the Church, or only universal rather than local documents?

Per Veterum Sapientia,

…The Church has ever held the literary evidences of this wisdom in the highest esteem. She values especially the Greek and Latin languages in which wisdom itself is cloaked, as it were, in a vesture of gold. She has likewise welcomed the use of other venerable languages, which flourished in the East. For these too have had no little influence on the progress of humanity and civilization. By their use in sacred liturgies and in versions of Holy Scripture, they have remained in force in certain regions even to the present day, bearing constant witness to the living voice of antiquity…

…Thus the “knowledge and use of this [Latin] language,” so intimately bound up with the Church’s life, "is important not so much on cultural or literary grounds, as for religious reasons."6 These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, and indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Church’s nature. "For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time … of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular."7
…
Furthermore, the Church’s language must be not only universal but also immutable. Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority. Thus if the truths of the Catholic Church were entrusted to an unspecified number of them, the meaning of these truths, varied as they are, would not be manifested to everyone with sufficient clarity and precision. There would, moreover, be no language which could serve as a common and constant norm by which to gauge the exact meaning of other renderings.

But Latin is indeed such a language. It is set and unchanging. it has long since ceased to be affected by those alterations in the meaning of words which are the normal result of daily, popular use. Certain Latin words, it is true, acquired new meanings as Christian teaching developed and needed to be explained and defended, but these new meanings have long since become accepted and firmly established.
…

papalencyclicals.net/John23/j23veterum.htm

 

[fall_fox]

I’m a bit concerned here.
The Latin text of the Mass is not infallible. The teaching and doctrine behind it is infallible, but the text itself is not.
The actual texts of the Mass are not part of the infallible teaching of the Church. They may, and indeed they do, contain and express infallible teaching. For example, the Christmas Mass text speaks of the infallible dogma that God became man; the consecration likewise expresses the infallible belief that the bread becomes the Body of Christ; examples can go on and on.
When popes promulgate new versions of the Missal, they do not do so as infallible teaching. I’m not sure why you would think that the Latin texts are infallible.

fall fox

Correct me if i am wrong,but doesn’t the Latin text go as far back as the year
400 AD. Maybe it doesn’t carry the protection of infallibility, but the Roman Church
sure has had a long time to work on it. This is our base line, it will never change.
The version that came out in 1973 was a disaster for the Roman Catholic Church in the U.S., the USCCB wanted to make everything more understandable for us dummies …Lets give them something they can understand…dumb it down.
I keep thinking about the numbers. 75% of those that called themselves Catholic in the 1950’s went to and supported the Church, that 75% is down to about 30%, I wonder if there had been no Vatican ll or if they had used the translation that is coming out now, would the decline been the same. I am 67yrs old and there was a remarkable Spiritual atmosphere in the churches in the 1950’s & 60’s that isn’t there today

 

[FrDavid96]

fall fox

Correct me if i am wrong,but doesn’t the Latin text go as far back as the year
400 AD. Maybe it doesn’t carry the protection of infallibility, but the Roman Church
sure has had a long time to work on it. This is our base line, it will never change.
The version that came out in 1973 was a disaster for the Roman Catholic Church in the U.S., the USCCB wanted to make everything more understandable for us dummies …Lets give them something they can understand…dumb it down.
I keep thinking about the numbers. 75% of those that called themselves Catholic in the 1950’s went to and supported the Church, that 75% is down to about 30%, I wonder if there had been no Vatican ll or if they had used the translation that is coming out now, would the decline been the same. I am 67yrs old and there was a remarkable Spiritual atmosphere in the churches in the 1950’s & 60’s that isn’t there today

It doesn’t make the Latin typical edition of the Missal an infallible document.

We can say a lot of “positive” things about the Mass–surely we can. But the word “infallible” just isn’t applied to the actual text of the Missal (ie the typical edition of the Missal itself), which is what I was addressing in my earlier post.

Keep in mind here, I’m talking about the book. I’m not talking about the Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[Digitonomy]

Per Veterum Sapientia,

I’m not sure how your post addresses my question to Windmill. Are you saying Church documents in Latin are automatically protected from being harmful or containing heresy?

 

[ProVobis]

I’m not sure how your post addresses my question to Windmill. Are you saying Church documents in Latin are automatically protected from being harmful or containing heresy?

Anyone can write error in any language. Or in math symbols, physics equations, or music notation, for that matter. We get that. I think there is some confusion as to what’s infallible (or the truth) and what’s the best expression of it, if the OP’s question hasn’t been answered. Maybe we should be discussing what’s authoritative and what’s not, IMO, but that’s another thread. And that’s all I’m going to say on this thread.

 

[yablabo]

The Holy Father along with the Bishops of the world make up the Magisterium. When the English translation came out in 1973 which was worked on at the behest and the approval of the Magisterium, isn’t that something that should have been protected by the Holy Spirit under the proviso of infallibility?
I want to say that I am just trying to understand.
I also am looking forward to the new translation.

As far as I can find, the 1973 translation of the Mass in English was never approved in its entirety by the congregation of the Curia to whom it was referred…so your question would fail in validity in that regard. Also, a Missal is not a Magisterial teaching, but rather a means of transmitting a ritualized form of worship. While there is doctrine and dogma behind the ritualized form of worship, so to speak, the doctrine and dogma are not the form of worship itself.

The Missal or parts of it could possibly be declared to be inerrant (if it were true), such as the Council of Trent did in its 22nd Session, chapter 4, with the Canon of the Mass used at that time (and to my knowledge this Canon is still used at the Extraordinary Form). But that is not the case with the Missa Latina of Pope Paul VI nor of any translation of this Missal.

However, whether the current (1973) English translation of the Roman Missal contains error or not effects the Church’s indefectability in no way. To say otherwise would be tantamount to accepting that the East-West Schism proves that the Church is defectable from His Divine Majesty as King and Head of the Church.

– Nicole

 

[Windmill]

Regardless of translational errors, we can safely assume that the Masses in English are valid.

Honestly, a lot of this stuff is so over our heads, it really doesn’t help to get into theological technicalities. Let the hierarchy do their job with liturgical refinement. Laymen should be more concerned about spreading the gospel to pagans. The sacraments, English or Latin, will give you the grace to spread Christ’s saving message to souls that need to hear it. The sacraments will also help get your soul to Heaven.

I was big into liturgical debates, Traditional Catholicism, and the like. It got me really down because I saw the doctrinal and liturgical decay all around. But I saw myself headed towards a new Phariseeism whereby I considered myself doctrinally and liturgically pure, and everyone else as blissfully ignorant (including the hierarchy). Then I came across these two talks by Michael Davies, and it brought me a lot of peace, clarity, hope, and focus:

keepthefaith.org/images/MP3_images/2281D.jpg

keepthefaith.org/images/MP3_images/2860D.jpg

They’re $1.50 each, but I consider it 3 of the best dollars I’ve ever spent. If you find yourself in the position I was in, I can’t recommend these talks more enthusiastically.

 

[Sirach2]

Windmill:

But I saw myself headed towards a new Phariseeism whereby I considered myself doctrinally and liturgically pure, and everyone else as blissfully ignorant (including the hierarchy). Then I came across these two talks by Michael Davies, and it brought me a lot of peace, clarity, hope, and focus:

What a lovely testimony!

Sad to say, there is always a new hatching around the next corner, but maybe somebody prayed for you, instead of reacting with more criticism . . turning the other cheek.

I agree that peace, clarity, hope and focus are more important that being doctrinally pure and winning the argument at all costs. Can you share some key points from the books?