Friday, November 24, 2006

Qui pro Vobis et pro Multis

For ye and for many

The words of the consecration during the canon of the Mass have caused tension between Traditional and post Vatican II Catholics (as a disclaimer, I remind readers that I am a Traditional Catholic in union with Rome, I attend a Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter apostolate parish, and hold Vatican II to be both legitimate as well as licit, free from heresy, although entirely pastoral and having nothing to do with doctrine, and hold the Novus Ordo Mass to be both valid and licit, containing all the efficacy of the Sacrament).

A portion of the words at the consecration of the Precious Blood of our Lord in the Traditional Latin Mass (henceforth TLM) were as follows: qui pro vobis et pro multis (for ye and for many). After the reforms of Vatican II and the publishing of the Novus Ordo missal of Paul VI (henceforth NO), the same portion of the consecration are as follows: qui pro vobis et pro multis. Do you notice any similarity with the TLM? The words are the same. But somehow when these Latin words are translated into the vernacular, they are translated as follows: for you and for all. This translation does not take place just in the English translation, but in divers other languages as well.

What's the problem with this translation? First of all, the vernacular translation simply does not match up with the official and current Latin text of the NO. The Latin word multis does not mean in any context all, but rather many, a great amount, plentiful, etc. It is simply a matter of incorrect translation.

Secondly, the issue goes deeper into the theological. This portion of the words at consecration deal with Christ telling his apostles at the Last Supper that the chalice He gives is the chalice of the new and everlasting testament (covenant), which shall be shed for you (the apostles) and for many unto the forgiveness of sins. Christ Himself is giving His most Precious Blood so that we men can be forgiven of our sins. The Blood at Mass is the Blood shed on the cross. But Christ did not die for all men. His passion and death gave the offering of salvation to all men, but not all men would accept it. Some men, even despite of Christ's sacrifice, still go to Hell. This chalice given for "you and for many" does not assure the salvation of all men indiscriminately. The Church does not, nor has ever taught that our salvation is universal, i.e. all men are saved regardless of their acceptance or rejection of Christ and His Church.

The translation of qui pro vobis et pro multis as for you and for all can be used (in fact has been used by some) to try and "prove" the existence of universal salvation despite the perennial teaching of the Church. This mistranslation is yet one more tool of the liberals that plague the Church use to advance their liberal, heretical agenda.

Recently, word has come from the Vatican about the Holy Father's wishes for the words of the NO in the vernacular to be properly translated according to the original and official Latin. I hope that, in the interests of orthodox theology, the Holy Father does indeed enforce the correct translation of the NO.

Monday, November 13, 2006

The Queen

I saw The Queen (directed by Peter Frears) last week. I thought I'd share my thoughts about the movie. (Some modest spoilers are included in this review)

Firstly, I must say that I genuinely enjoyed this movie. It was well written, and well acted.
I was a little concerned that it would turn into an anti-monarchist movie, but I do not think it was.

It starts out with the election of the young Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair. He is portrayed as a young and dashing politician, largely unfamiliar with his own country's protocols when dealing with the monarch. He wants to present himself as "the great modernizer," bringing "a breath of fresh air into old institutions." He comes across as a bit of an anti-monarchist. His wife, Cherie Blair, certainly appears to be anti-monarchist, speaking of the Queen "up there on her 40,000 acres" and not paying taxes on her immense income.

When the former Princess of Wales, Diana, dies in a Paris car accident, the royal family is plunged into a crisis it is ill prepared to face. The populace, along with the Prime Minister, wants the Queen to buck tradition to show respect for Diana, while the royal family (with the exception of Charles) wants to hold steady to royal tradition. This crisis ends with a showdown between Blair and Elizabeth, whereby Blair all but demands the Queen give in.

I enjoyed watching the transformation of Blair as "the great modernizer" to a man who comes to support the Queen, even getting into a shouting match with a member of his own staff over Diana, a woman "who threw everything that family gave to her in their faces" (a bit of a paraphrase from memory).

Perhaps the most endearing aspect of the movie is that it shows Elizabeth as a human being, a woman who by her very nature is unused to public displays of emotion, and a part of an institution that by its very nature is slow to change in a culture that demands it. She is a woman whose greatest desire is to serve her people and God to the best of her abilities. A woman who is the Sovereign of a nation, yet overshadowed by her son's ex-wife.

I heartily recommend this movie to all monarchists.

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

The People Have Spoken...

...And the Republicans have lost. Rather than gloat (and what is there to gloat about when we have Democrats leading this nation?), all I have to say is that I hope the Republicans learn their lesson.

Monday, November 06, 2006

This Monarchist's Vote

Some monarchists do not believe in the principal of popular elections, and thus do not vote. Other monarchists vote, for a wide range of reasons. This monarchist does vote. Let me tell you about my vote this year.

Washington state now votes entirely by mail-in ballots, so I actually voted about two weeks ago. How did I vote? I for one do not mind people asking me for whom or how I vote. There were several state and local measures and initiatives that I voted on. I however did not vote for a single political candidate this election. In the primary election, the Republican candidate for senate who actually has a real and substantive pro-life position did not win the primary (no surprise there). The Republican candidate for senate that did win (Mike McGavick) has the same "pro-life" views that Bush has ("We must change the hearts and minds of Americans rather than overturn Roe v. Wade" and "Abortion should be an option"). Which means that he really isn't pro-life. It's a stick he throws at his conservative base, and he knows that since his opponent has an even more liberal view of abortion (on demand), his base will vote for him. All other candidates didn't even address the abortion issue.

So this is the situation I face. We have an immoral, unjust war in Iraq (supported by both parties), a biased, Zionist foreign policy in the Middle-East (overwhelmingly supported by both parties), abortion on demand (the Democrats support it, the Republicans won't do anything about it), and increasing demand for government supported embryonic stem cell research (the Democrats support it, and with the Republicans lack of a pro-life past we can't trust them). So what should we do? The Democratic party is out of the question. The Republican party has failed us pro-lifers, and the only way we can make them pay is to not vote for them. In this case, you can make your voice heard by remaining silent. Get out there and vote, but only for local and state measures and initiatives. Don't vote Republican, and don't vote Democrat. Use your right to vote by not voting for either party. To quote Richard Pryor in the movie Brewster's Millions vote for "None of the Above!"