Liturgical Reform and the Mass of Paul VI

[Dr.Bombay]

usqueadmortem:

Because Holy Mother Church is Indefectable. You can be sure that whatever Rite is universally promulgated is valid and free of heresy in its original Latin edition. Translations, such as the ICEL one, however, do not enjoy that infallibility. But you CANNOT assume that it is a more pious or fullfilling external rite on that account.

So, the vernacular translations do NOT enjoy the guarantee of infallibiltiy? At the risk of opening this can of worms again, translating “pro multis” into English as “for all” could, theoretically, invalidate the consecration, for example? It seems to me this would call into question every translation, unless it was an exact, word for word mirror of the Latin. Wouldn’t the Church’s indefectability also include vernacular translations *approved *by the Holy See?

usqueadmortem:

P.S. Sorry if I was polemical before, I fall into that habit…

No need to apologize. I was refering to the book I referenced as polemical. I’m looking for a reasoned explanation of the reform, not one that’s agenda driven. Although, I guess every book has an agenda of one type or another.

 

[usqueadmortem]

Dear Dr. Bombay,

Thanks for the reply.
No, infallibility only applies to the latin text since it was promulgated in latin. This is perhaps why Pius XII denounced those who wished to impose the venacular. He said this in extremely strong terms.

In effect, the Congregation for the Discipline of Sac. + W (?) has only rubber stamped the ICEL translation, and though it thereby participates in the authority of the Holy See, it is not thereby protected by infallibility. So it is very possible that the ICEL translation would be invalid.

But to prevent that can of worms from opening up, the ICEL English Mass is indeed valid. “multis” in Latin can be translated as either “many” or “all”.

Thus, at the very least, translators have to be extremely careful. But since it is impossible for the original Latin to be invalid, it is important that we go back to using the original Latin text. The venacular is foreign to the Roman Rite.

I am sure somebody will disagree with me. But I am almost positive this is sound liturgical theology here.

Usque.