|Young people fleeing the reverence and beauty of the Traditional Mass|
In the column of 4th August, he makes a truly contorted argument against the translation of 'pro multis' by 'for many'. It really is a tour de force of confusion and non-sequiters, which would be too tedious to retype. But, in a nutshell:
|People of all ages being 'alienated' by the ancient liturgy|
1. Pope Francis has said that Christ died for everyone.
2. Hang on, so did Pope Benedict!
3. So Pope Benedict must have been contradicting himself when he said that the ancient liturgical text be translated accurately.
Does Loftus really think that the Pontiff Emeritus is that stupid? And is it really impossible that Loftus has lived so long without coming across the very simple explanation? Let me state it as simply as possible:
Christ's blood is available to all. Christ's blood is actually efficacious not for all, but only for many.
It is true that Christ died for all. It is also true, in a different sense, that his blood is shed - efficaciously, with salvific effect - only for many. I'm not aware of anyone denying the first proposition. Plenty deny the second, and they are wrong to do so; the correct translation of the formula shows that they are wrong, with the authority of this very ancient liturgical text. Until Loftus can produce an authoritative teaching from Pope Francis or Pope Benedict that all are saved, then he can forget about showing that there is anything theologically problematic about the translation. If, per impossibile, this did happen, it would not only contradict the Church's immemorial refusal to accept 'Universalism', the theory that all are saved, but also the liturgical text itself. We'd have to change, not just the translation, but the original. The Latin just does not say 'all', but 'many'.
|Clearly these young folk can't stand all that Latin.|
What a pity, then, that Francis was not Pope in time to abort the monstrously over-intellectual new English translation of the Roman Missal, which far from furnishing us with a 'grammar of simplicity', obfuscates the whole Mass through tortuous constructions, contorted vocabulary, and a plethora of dependant clauses. [Is this a parodying illustration of the style he is criticising? No, it's just the Loftus muse doing her stuff.]
As we wait for all this to be corrected we can at least rejoice that it is highly unlikely that further inroads will be made into the translation of the lectionary readings at Mass, or the Children's Eucharistic Prayers. Or if there is any progress to be made, then it will be in different hands from those which now must be completely disqualified.
... Too much tidiness not only makes for unhappiness, in the Church as in a family, but it particularly alienates the young.
Don't hold your breath, Mgr. It took a decade to get the new translation through. No one is going to undo that any time time.
Loftus, of course, knows all about what alienates the young: he's been an expert at doing it for half a century at least. Does he really think that non-chaotic liturgy and accurate translation alienates the young? The older translation didn't exactly set the Faithful on fire (recall what the sociologist Anthony Archer said about it). But the free-wheeling liturgies Loftus wants have in all seriousness driven two generations of young Catholic out of school Masses and University chaplaincies: hasn't he noticed?
|Congregation at a Mass during the LMS Walsingham Pilgrimage. They must be mad.|
Come and meet them on the Walsingham Pilgrimage next weekend: 22-24 August.
Sign up here.