I assure you, Adam Miller is no fan of Vatican II or of Freemasonry. Yet, he knows better than to deny the validity of the Novus Ordo. Please read.

By which I meant the mistranslation of “pro multis.”

Now, with someone like Sungenis, you have to use the words “error” and “mistake” extremely carefully, because for him (apparently) they mean only “theological,” dogmatic errors. (And, in his view, the Pope is even incapable of making harmful disciplinary decrees!) After all, Sungenis faults Ferrara for calling the mistranslation an error since the document from Cardinal Arinze doesn’t call it an error or scandal. Well, then, if we’re playing this game of “you are forbidden from drawing any inferences beyond the explicit wording of the text” (sola scriptura, anyone?), then Sungenis himself is in the wrong, since Ferrara never specified that the mistranslation was a “theological” error! Sungenis confuses strict theological wording (in which “error” is one step below heresy) and normal English usage (an error is a mistake, an act of malfeasance, etc.). And, after all, the Curia is a human bureaucracy — if they can correct mistakes (for you don’t correct good things, Bob!) without having to specify who’s to blame or allot responsibility, they won’t. So of course they aren’t going to say that “pro multis” was an error or scandal unless they absolutely have to.

And, in any case, we all — as Catholics! — exercise “private judgment” all the time. That’s the major part of prudence. I don’t mean that we make up the criteria for judgment — we get that from right reason and the Church. But we do draw inferences and decide *which confessor is trustworthy or not* (so you can’t say “who needs a brain when you have a good confessor”), which devotion to propagate, when to seek redress for an abuse, etc. So unless someone uses “private judgment” to *contradict* the Church’s teaching, I don’t see how one can simply dismiss a critique as “private judgment” and leave it at that.

So, since he doesn’t convey Ferrara’s actual point, which is more subtle than Sungenis’ categories allow, Sungenis himself draws down upon himself the criticism he lodged in the first place! And that’s why one needs to be very, very careful when it comes to accepting what Sungenis writes.

On the plus side, Ferrara quotes neo-Catholics who dismiss the Roman Catechism since it was not an official document of the Council of Trent and no one ever said it was infallible. Phew! Since the exact same is true of the new “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” I now feel free(r) to (continue) dismiss(ing) that book when I find something objectionable. After all, that book came out long after the *non-infallible* Vatican II and likewise has never been declared to be infallible. “The standard by which you judge is the standard by which you shall be judged.”

http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/conservative.asp

Ex cathedra is the least common form. But for Novus Ordo Catholicism, since it is unhinged from 2000 years of Sacred Tradition, all it has is the ex cathedra doctrines — it has lost confidence or abandoned many of the other traditions that fell under the ordinary universal magisterium. Yet, on the other hand, we’re told that the ordinary universal magisterium must be respected when it comes to a whole whopping 40 years of such novelties as modern ecumenism, a changed understanding of Judaism, the embrace of the Novus Ordo Missae with all its potential dangers for the faith…

http://fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism.html

In your response to KS, you have stated

“Why don’t you join with 2000 years of Sacred Tradition and trust in St. Jerome’s translation - which the Church has infallibly declared to be the official translation.[sic]“

While the Vulgate was declared the official translation, I am not aware that this was pronounced ex cathedra or that any measure of infallibility other than the general infallibility of the Church.

Correct me if I am mistaken, but I caution against rampant assumption of infallibility.

Prosit

Prosit

Bothersome?

Why don’t you join with 2000 years of Sacred Tradition and trust in St. Jerome’s translation - which the Church has infallibly declared to be the official translation.

Rather than taking this neo-Catholic / Protestant position requiring of each generation of Christians the need to rediscover for themselves the Christian mysteries.

For Pete’s sake, will discovering some Aramaic text give us some knowledge or understanding that the Church Father’s and 2000 years of saints lacked? How presumptious and arrogant can we be?

There’s no need to discover anything new. Jesus gave to his Apostles the entirety of the faith. We have nothing new to learn, only to rediscover the Catholic faith that was abandoned over the last 40 years.

No need to wait breathlessly for ancient manuscripts or for that matter for the latest Scott Hahn pop-theology book.

I’ve yet to see these changes implemented?

BTW, yes, Tobias, Matthew originally wrote in Aramaic. St. Irenaeus records that. Plus, three very tiny fragments of said Gospel were found and are now at Magdalen or Oxford in England (I think Magdalen). It is not 100% verified that it is from Matthew’s Gospel, but evidence does support the theory.

I also hear that Jerome once wrote that Matthew’s original Aramaic Gospel was of much value to his Latin translation, but I haven’t seen the citation to prove it.

Peace!
-KJS