Without a doubt, Liberal and Orthodox Catholics have discovered major theological differences, resulting in heated debates on changes to the Mass since Vatican II.  What’s the heart of translation debate?  This can almost be summed up in a debate over one word . . .

MANY!

In the current Novus Ordo during the words of consecration the Blood of Christ “will be poured out for you and for all,”  the new translation will have the correct translation and substitute “all” for the word “many.”   It’s really simple. “Many” is the direct quote from an accurate translation of scripture.  “All” was inserted by liberals believing the word “many” makes Jesus seem “intolerant.”

What is the Root of the Issue?

Liberal Catholics don’t want to believe in hell.  Orthodox Catholics want the full accurate teaching under obedience to the Magisterium of the One, True Catholic Church established by Jesus Christ.

MANY = Hell

ALL = All are saved, but murderers and rapists of course.

Orthodox Catholic = “serious theological problems” of the 1973 missal currently in use.

Liberal Catholic =  “I respond that Jesus died even for those who reject his grace.  He died for all,” says Bishop Robert Trautman.  The new translation could be a “pastoral disaster.”

The following comes from a Fr. Z post who discovered Bishop Mark Coleridge, a courageous bishop, who says the “Vatican II’s reforms were not properly implemented and were taken too far.”

As usual with Fr. Z, with  his emphases and comments.

John Quinn

By Anthony Barich

PERTH, Australia (CNS) — The newly translated Roman Missal to be issued in Australian parishes in 2011 will help address the serious theological problems of the 1973 missal currently in use, said one of Australia’s most senior liturgists.  [Get that?  "Serious" theological problems.  Remember: the way we pray as a reciprocal relationship with what we believe.]

In the process, it will more faithfully implement the liturgical vision of the Second Vatican Council [Because the liturgical vision of Vatican II was never really tried.] and also fulfill the reforms of the much-maligned 1570 Council of Trent, Archbishop Mark Coleridge of Canberra-Goulburn told approximately 200 liturgists gathered in Perth in early February.

Archbishop Coleridge is chairman of the Roman Missal Editorial Committee of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy; he is also chair of the Australian bishops’ Liturgy Commission.

While Archbishop Coleridge acknowledged that the missal used since 1973 has made gains in accessibility, participation, Scripture, adaptation and inculturation, he said it also has “serious problems theologically” and “consistently bleaches out metaphor, which does scant justice to the highly metaphoric discourse” of Scripture and early Christian writers.  [It is important to remember the role that biblical positivists played in the liturgical wars.  Blinkered by their approach to Scripture they effectively evacuated a great deal of the significance of the liturgical texts.]

This is the result of a misunderstanding of Vatican II’s reforms, he said.  [Yes.]

Occasional claims of the Roman Missal revisions being a “merely political right-wing plot of the church” to turn the clock back miss the point of reform and of the purpose of the Mass, which is “a gift from God, not something to be manipulated,” he said.

“Nothing will happen unless we move beyond ideology and reducing the church to politics and the slogans that go with them, which are unhelpful,” he said. “Drinking from the wells of tradition passed on supremely in the liturgy is what this new moment of renewal is all about.”  [Very well said.]

[Note this well:] Archbishop Coleridge’s speech to the liturgists came just two weeks after Benedictine Father Anscar Chupungco, a former consulter to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, said Jan. 22 that the reforms were part of an attempt to turn the clock back 50 years.  [Precisely.  Remember: Liberals want to control the narrative of the Council and the post-Conciliar reform.   They must be set straight.]

Archbishop Coleridge said that one of the ironies of criticism of the new missal is that “we can fail to attend to history even though perhaps the most fundamental achievement of Vatican II was the restoration of historical consciousness to the life of the Catholic Church.”

“A claim that troubles me is that this initiative is somehow a retreat from all that Vatican II tried to promote and enact and a betrayal, therefore, of the (Second Vatican) Council and, by implication, the Holy Spirit,” Archbishop Coleridge said.

He said if that were true, he and thousands of others involved in the missal process “would not have shed the blood, sweat and tears of the last seven years.”

“We would’ve saved ourselves a lot of time and money if we’d just stuck with the Latin, but that’s not what the Spirit is saying to the church,” he said.  [With due respect, I am not sure how that can be demonstrated.  But let’s move on.]

However, Vatican II’s reforms were not properly implemented and were taken too far, he said, after the Latin texts were translated in 1973 with “breathtaking speed.”  [And breathtaking incompetence.]

Since then, the liturgy has largely lost the sense of the liturgy as primarily Christ’s action, [YES!] as something received “not just what we do; a mystery into which we are drawn.”  [Wow… does this sound like WDTPRS?]

“We can’t just tamper with it,” he said. “Celebrants sometimes act as if it’s their own personal property to do with what they like. You can’t.”

An overly cerebral approach to liturgy, loss of ritual, oversimplification of rites, loss of a sense of silence, beauty and an unwitting clericalism [No one is more "clerical" in the negative sense than a liberal.] have all led to the Mass lacking its full potential to catechize the faithful and renew the church, he said.

The Second Vatican Council’s “catechetical thrust” that encouraged priests to catechize in the process of celebration has led to the Mass “drowning under the weight of supposed catechetical verbosity,” he said.

The new translations will attempt to control “clerical verbosity and, dare I say, clerical idiosyncrasy,” he said.

“Let the texts stand as is and let catechesis draw out from the texts in a way that communicates to the community, rather than trying to build into the texts a catechesis that runs the risk of corrupting the texts or diluting their power,” he said.  [Just Say The Black and Do The Red.]

The proposed English translation of the second Latin edition of the Roman Missal was never approved by the Vatican, and a translation of the third Latin edition promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 2002 is near completion, the Vatican said in late January.

What do you believe is the root of the problem? Tell us.