Catholics in the world: 1.18 billion
Priests in the world: 410,593
Bishops in the world: 5,065
2011 Annuario Pontificio

Only a priest or a bishop can forgive sins in confession. The ratio of Catholics to Catholic priests and bishops is approximately 2,839 to 1. (From this point on, I’m going to use the term ‘priest’ to include bishops.) This means that if every Catholic goes to confession once a week, and every priest hears the same number of confessions, each priest will need to hear about 2840 confessions per week, which is about 400 confessions per day.

If each confession takes only 2 minutes (a low estimate perhaps), then each priest would have to spend about 13.5 hours each and every day just hearing confessions. If the average confession took 3 minutes, the time needed per day would be over 20 hours, with only 4 hours for sleep, eating, and other activities.

Suppose that each and every Catholic went to confession once a calendar month, instead of once a week. Then each priest would need to hear about 90 confessions per day, every day. At 2 minutes per confession, this would take about 3 hours. At 3 minutes per confession, it would take about 4.5 hours. At 5 minutes per confession, about 7.5 hours each day would be needed to hear confessions.

What if only half the Catholics in the world went to Confession once a month? At a low estimate of 2 minutes per confession, each priest would spend 1.5 hours every day, not just on Saturdays, hearing confessions. An average of 4 minutes per confession would mean 3 hours every day, for every priest, hearing confessions. Such is not the case.

What if only 10% of the Catholics in the world went to Confession once a month? That would be 284 confessions per month, per priest, which is just under 10 confessions per day. But if confessions are mainly offered on Saturdays, this would be about 55 to 70 confessions each Saturday, depending on how many Saturdays in that calendar month. At only 2 minutes per confession, this would take about 2 hours; at 3 minutes per confession about 3 hours; etc.

What percentage of Catholics in the world never go to Confession? It must be a large percentage, because if even 10% of Catholics went to confession once a month, and every priest heard confessions on every Saturday, then each priest would spend 2 to 3 hours, at least, in the confessional every Saturday. Such is not the case.

Add to these considerations, the observation that not every priest makes himself available for confessions each Saturday, and then often only for about an hour or so, and that some Catholics go to confession once a week. This increases the number of confessions per priest. Hence, it is clear that the percentage of Catholics who go to confession at least once a month is significantly less than 10%. If it were 5%, and if an average confession is 2 minutes, then each priest would spend about an hour a week hearing confessions. But the percentage might even be a little lower than that.

The vast majority of Catholics, 95% or more, do not go to confession even once a month. They might go to confession once a year, or they might not have been to confession in a few years, or for many years.

If a large percentage of Catholics suddenly returned to Confession, there hardly would be enough priests to handle the demand. Each priest would have to spend at least a few hours, every day, hearing confessions.

But one more result would occur, which also is on the topic of numbers. Many more vocations to the priesthood would certainly result. Soon there would be plenty of priests to handle the demand for the Sacrament of Reconciliation. So if you have decided to pray for vocations, first pray that Catholics will repent and return to the Confessional. Otherwise, there will be fewer priests, and they will not be as holy.

by
Ronald L. Conte Jr.
Roman Catholic theologian and Bible translator

Decision

Kroenig argues, based on the assessment of the Institute for Science and International Security, that Iran could produce its first nuclear weapon within six months of deciding to do so. Kahl’s reply is that “The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has documented Iranian efforts to achieve the capacity to develop nuclear weapons at some point, but there is no hard evidence that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has yet made the final decision to develop them.”

In philosophical arguments, the assertion that no evidence or no reason exists is, prima facie, weak. What proof can be offered that something does not exist? Kahl cannot prove that no such evidence exists; he cannot prove that Iranian leaders lack the resolve to actually build a nuclear bomb.

But on the contrary, I can offer several points to support my assertion that Iran has decided to build nuclear bombs:

1. Iran has spent billions of dollars, over the course of many years, on its nuclear weapons program. A nation does not spend that amount of money and time on a project to develop nuclear weapons and then not build them. The time and money committed to the project indicates a decision to build.

2. Iran is not merely purifying uranium. According to the IAEA Report (Nov 2011), Iran has developed, manufactured, and tested all of the components needed to make a nuclear bomb (See my list, based on the IAEA Report). Iran has even constructed an underground nuclear bomb testing facility, installed remote detonation equipment, and tested the electronics.

3. Iran has publicly announced:
“we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism,”
and
“the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come, and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started.”
[CNN, Fox News, Commentary]

The Iranian presidential website has stated that “the Zionist Regime of Israel faces a deadend and will under God’s grace be wiped off the map,” and “the Zionist Regime that is a usurper and illegitimate regime and a cancerous tumor should be wiped off the map.” [Wikipedia]

The President of Iran gave a speech in which he stated: “Many who are disappointed in the struggle between the Islamic world and the infidels have tried to spread the blame. They say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan.” [NY Times]

How would Iran be able to defeat Israel and the United States, when both nations have nuclear weapons and the U.S. has a large conventional military capability as well?

Only with nuclear weapons (and the radicalization of other Islamic nations in the region) could Iran think to defeat both Israel and the U.S.

4. A reasonable nation with the capability to build a nuclear bomb might not do so. But the words and actions of the leadership of Iran are not reasonable.

They deny the Jewish Holocaust. They refuse to recognize the State of Israel. They threaten to wipe Israel from the map. They proclaim that the world will soon be without the nations of the U.S. and Israel. They believe that Islamic religious leaders have a right to kill Muslims who convert to Christianity, and to kill non-Muslims who refuse to convert to Islam. Iran supports terrorism around the world, and works closely with the terrorist group Hamas. Iran has called for the assassination of the Saudi king. Iran attempted to hire someone to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. on U.S. soil. Iran has supported the insurgents in Iraq, offering them fighters, weapons, and the technology to make IEDs.

Iran’s leadership is not reasonable. They are seeking power in the world by gravely immoral means. Therefore, if they have the capability to build a nuclear bomb, they would do so.

5. Iran’s leaders adhere to a radical version of Shia eschatology, which asserts that Iran and the other Islamic nations must go to war against the West, against Christians and Jews, in order to hasten the arrival of the end times and to establish a kingdom on earth that is entirely Islamic. They cannot hope to win such a war without nuclear weapons, and they know it.

More on these points in my posts:
Iran’s Nuclear Missile Checklist
How soon will Iran have a nuclear bomb?
Radical Shia Eschatology, Iran’s View of the End Times

Therefore, Iran does intend to build nuclear weapons and to use them in an unprovoked attack against the West. But in my view, Iran will first attack the U.S., not Israel.

Timing

I’ve already discussed this topic in detail in my other posts and in my book. Briefly, then, let’s consider the issue of how soon Iran might make a nuclear bomb.

The IAEA Director General, in a TV interview broadcast on 20 June 2011, stated that Iran could build a nuclear weapon within 6 to 12 months. that interview was 7 months ago.

According to the IAEA report, all that Iran lacks to make a nuclear bomb is sufficient highly-enriched uranium (HEU) and time. All other components and capabilities have been developed and tested.

David Albright has postulated that Iran could make a nuclear bomb within 6 months, if Iran accelerated its uranium purification efforts. He made that assertion in mid December of 2011.

The time need to make enough HEU is uncertain. Despite monitoring by the IAEA, Iran does not allow unfettered access at any time to each facility. Experts cannot say with certainty that Iran will be unable to make a nuclear bomb in 2012. Iran may have more 20% uranium than the IAEA knows. Iran may have already begun to purify 20% uranium into 90% HEU. It is important to understand the difference between what we know that Iran has done, and what they might have done without public knowledge. The assumption that we know the entire extent of their capability and efforts is foolish and dangerous, given that a misjudgment in this regard would mean that Iran obtains nuclear bombs before the world realizes that they have that capability.

More on this topic in my book: Notes on the Apocalypse: 2012 [Kindle Edition]

by
Ronald L. Conte Jr.
Roman Catholic theologian and Bible translator

In the U.S. Supreme Court, conservatives and liberals have nearly equal numbers, with many cases decided by one vote. However, one additional conservative on the Court could result in a pro-life majority, or at least a majority who would be willing to let abortion be decided by the Congress and the States. Six of the SC Justices are Catholic or come from a Catholic background.

Therefore, the over-turning of Roe v. Wade and substantial change in federal abortion law may possibly occur in the near future.

The ideal law, from a Catholic point of view, would prohibit all direct abortion, allow indirect abortion only when absolutely necessary, and prohibit all abortifacient contraception. However, in the present political circumstances, such a law has no chance of passing. A constitutional amendment would be needed, and this approach would require a general consensus among Americans against all direct abortion. That is a hope for the future, but the present circumstances require a more practical approach.

If abortion were suddenly entirely outlawed, by constitutional amendment, we would have a Prohibition situation. When alcohol was outlawed by constitutional amendment, the majority of Americans opposed the change. Alcohol was widely available because such a large percentage of citizens did not agree with law. If abortions were banned entirely and without sufficient support from citizens and the medical community, abortions would be widely available despite the law. Hospitals and physicians would offer abortions by claiming that a different procedure was being done. Abortifacient contraception would be offered on the false claim that it was a medical treatment for some disorder. Speak-easy abortion clinics would be set-up and supported with the money and efforts of all who opposed the law.

Does this sound unlikely? But it is a fact that in places where abortion is illegal, the abortion rate is nearly as high as, or higher than, in places where abortion is legal. “Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates.” (Guttmacher)

Our laws must be changed so as to express true justice, but mere law never makes a people just. The hearts and minds of the citizens of each nation must change also.

The problem with the complete and sudden outlawing of abortion, at the present time, is that the vast majority of citizens favor legal abortions at least in some cases. The vast majority also favor some restrictions. But a complete prohibition of abortion would push most citizens into taking a pro-abortion point of view, because most don’t agree with Catholic teaching that all direct abortion is gravely immoral.

I believe and teach the truth: that direct abortion is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. No intention and no circumstance justifies the direct killing of an innocent human being, whether in the womb, or during birth, or thereafter. However, I also think that, in the current political situation, a constitutional amendment to completely ban direct abortion would be ineffective and would ultimately do more harm than good. The end result would be more support for legalized abortions, and less support for the pro-life cause.

If Roe v. Wade can be overturned, I suggest a twofold approach to the restriction of abortion: at the Federal and the State levels.

1. Federal laws should restrict abortion, to whatever extent can be successfully put into law. The restrictions must have sufficient support from both parties so that they will remain in place despite a change in power from one party to another. But at the every least, no abortions should be permitted once the prenatal is viable: no third trimester abortions and no partial birth abortions. Also, no abortions should be performed at all on minors without permission from a parent. No federal money should be used for abortion. No health care providers or insurance providers should be compelled to offer abortion or abortifacient contraception.

In order to have the overturning of Roe v. Wade result in any meaningful change in the abortion situation, we need at least this level of restriction. But if greater restrictions are possible, at the federal level, then so much the better.

2. States would per permitted to restrict abortion further, even to the extent of outlawing all direct abortion and all abortifacient contraception. But no State would be permitted to loosen the Federal restrictions, so as to make abortion more widely available.

This suggested approach is intended to put the nation on a path of ever-increasing restrictions, so that eventually all direct abortions would be outlawed. Individual States could lead the nation by example, restricting abortion more than at the federal level. Later on, when there is enough support for greater federal restrictions, those would be enacted also. But the States would always be permitted to offer greater restrictions, never fewer restrictions.

Sending the abortion issue back to the States alone, so that one State could allow unrestricted abortion, and another State could outlaw it completely, would be unworkable. Some States would have no restrictions and other States would have great restrictions. In one State, a physician who performs abortions would go to prison for a long time, and in another State he would have no penalty at all. This contrast, in such a grave matter, is unreasonable. Some type of restriction should be applied to the whole nation. And the law must be designed so as to advance these restrictions more and more as time passes.

Pope John Paul II: “A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” (Evangelium Vitae, n. 73.)

See also: How should a constitutional amendment banning abortion be worded?

by
Ronald L. Conte Jr.
Roman Catholic theologian and Bible translator

If the average number of abortions worldwide is 40 million or more, then 25 years of abortion encompasses the deaths of over one billion unborn children: 1,000,000,000 deaths every 25 years. Even if this rate of abortion remains flat, as the world population increases, every additional 25 years represents another one billion innocent prenatals killed. These are not accidental deaths caused by some type of natural disaster. Abortion is a type of homicide; it is the murder of the most innocent of human persons. One billion murders every 25 years.

But it gets worse. Abortifacient contraception is so widespread in society today that there could easily be more abortions from abortifacient contraception than from surgical abortions. It is entirely possible that more prenatals have been killed by abortifacient contraception than by surgical abortions. So the figure of one billion innocents killed is reached much more quickly than every 25 years. It might take only 15 years, or even less than ten years, to reach than number. So it may well be the case that, since 1995, over one billion prenatals have been murdered by abortion and abortifacient contraception together.

Yet the world gives no indication of a willingness to abandon this grave sin against God and humanity. Truly, abortion is a type of genocide, the worst example of genocide in the history of humanity. And it continues unabated. More prenatals are murdered each year by abortion and contraception than all the military and civilian deaths of all wars throughout human history combined. It is as if a World War I and a World War II were compressed into each year, with a higher casualty rate, repeated each year, with the consent of most persons in the world.

Why are abortion and contraception so popular in the world today? It is because these two grave sins, abortion and contraception, allow people to use sex as a form of recreation, without marriage or family or responsibility for procreation. The sins of abortion and contraception allow people to have sex, whenever they wish, without dealing with the consequences: pregnancy, children, and family. These two related sins open the door to promiscuity without concern for the consequences. In order to end the sins of abortion and abortifacient contraception, the world would have to give up its sexual sins. But most persons are not willing. They would rather allow millions of murders of prenatals each year, than give up grave sexual sin.

Humanity is literally committing a vast genocide, each year, in order to avoid having to give up its sexual sins. So then, when the grave afflictions of the tribulation overwhelm the world, do not ask why. One of the main reasons is the sexual sins of the world, and the sins of abortifacient contraception and abortion that enable those sexual sins.

by
Ronald L. Conte Jr.
Roman Catholic theologian and Bible translator

I also favor having multiple forms of the Mass, not just the current Mass translation and the Latin Mass. I think that Anglican converts are permitted to use an Anglican form of the Mass still. I know that was formerly the case.

There is no principle of dogmatic or moral theology that requires only one or two forms, or that disallows any variation from place to place or time to time.

I believe that the Protestant Churches will repent and convert and unite with the Catholic Church. (The process begins in the late 2010′s and is completed in the early 2020′s.) When that happens, there will be at least several different approved forms of the Mass: one for Anglican Catholics, one for Baptist Catholics, one for Lutheran Catholics, etc.

I also find it disconcerting, and more than a little dishonest, when certain Catholic priests, lay leaders, and online commentators expound at great length about the glories of the new Mass translation (NMT), as if finally we have reached perfection in the Mass. They also tend to denigrate the previous Mass translation in the process. It is not true that the new translation is so much greater than the older one. They are simply cheerleading for whatever decisions the fallible temporal authority of the Church makes.

In my opinion, now that I have attended a number of new translation Masses, the new is a little better in a few ways, and a little worse in a few ways, than the old translation. And it is certainly not the vast improvement that some cheerleaders are making it out to be.

Here is a list of the changes in the people’s parts of the new Mass translation: People’s Parts [PDF]

NMT Greeting/Closing

And also with you
changed to:
And with your spirit

This wording is found in several different the Epistles. However, some persons might not understand what ‘spirit’ means. In some contexts, it can mean soul; it can refer to angelic spirits (good or bad). But typically in Scripture it refers to the close cooperation of body and soul in life. So the human person is body and soul, but these two things are united so thoroughly in life that when they work cooperatively together we use a third term: spirit.

[Hebrews]
{4:12} For the Word of God is living and effective: more piercing than any two-edged sword, reaching to the division even between the soul and the spirit, even between the joints and the marrow, and so it discerns the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
So the new wording is somewhat obscure. If ‘with your spirit’ is claimed to refer only to the soul, then it is problematic for us to say that the Lord should be with the celebrant only in his soul. Therefore, I suggest that the above explanation, spirit as the union and cooperation of body and soul, is the correct one.

NMT Penitential Act (Form A)

I have sinned
changed to:
I have greatly sinned

Many of the changes to the wording are evaluated based on subjective criteria, such as how easily the wording will be understood by the average lay person. But this change to the wording has a theological problem. Not all persons at Mass have sinned greatly. Mortal sins are grave; they are great sins. But venial sins were called ‘light and daily’ by the Council of Trent. Theologically, it is not accurate or even correct to say that someone with only venial sins on his or her conscience has greatly sinned. And certainly some persons at Mass, despite the sinfulness of the current age, have only venial sins on the conscience. They have in fact NOT sinned greatly. So the problem is that this wording requires many of the faithful to utter a lie. And the teaching of the Magisterium is that lying is intrinsically evil and always immoral.

Now I’m sure that the cheerleaders for the NMT will invent some type of explanation as to why this new wording is the best possible. But their explanations are dishonest. They do not objectively evaluate the new wording. Instead, they unthinkingly assume that all changes made were the best possible choices, and then devise an explanation as to why it is so wonderful. But they thereby imply, and sometimes also state, that the older wording was deeply flawed.

My view is that both the older and the newer translations are imperfect. The only perfect Mass is eternal life with God in Heaven. The Mass is merely an imperfect reflection of that life.

through my fault, through my fault,
through my most grievous fault;

These added words have the same problem. Some persons at Mass, having only venial sins, do not have a ‘grievous fault’. In fact, in order to obtain a plenary indulgence, a persons must be free from any attachment even to any venial sin. Since the Church often offers plenary indulgences to the faithful, She therefore believes (as I do) that many of the faithful are not attached even to venial sin. Such persons have not “greatly sinned” through a “most grievous fault”. The use of “most” with “grievous” makes this expression only fitting to mortal sin, or to a fault that leads to mortal sin. So some members of the Church cannot say these words in all honesty.

Penitential Act (Form B)

Priest: Lord, show us your mercy and love.
changed to:
Priest: Show us, O Lord, your mercy.

This form lacks the grave problem of requiring some persons to utter a falsehood. But it removes the word “love” from the penitential act. Why? The faithful should be contrite for any sins they have committed, ideally with perfect contrition: sorrow out of true love for God. Dropping the word “love” from the penitential act is a worsening of the wording, not an improvement.

Gloria

peace to his people on earth
changed to:
on earth peace to people of good will

This change is a minor improvement in the wording. The former wording might have been misunderstood as only referring to Christians and Jews. The new wording extends the offer of peace to all who are cooperating with grace, i.e. to all persons of good will.

The other changes and addition to the Gloria are not problematic. They are, in my opinion, neither an improvement or a worsening.

Nicene Creed

eternally begotten of the Father
changed to:
born of the Father before all ages

Now we return to the problem of changes in the NMT that have theological problems. Some of the changes to the translation of the Creed are a wash, neither an improvement nor a detriment. But this change is at best misleading, at worst a theological error. The Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, proceeds from the Father, the First Person of the Trinity, eternally. So procession in the Trinity is not a past event. It did not occur at a certain point, neither within time, nor before time began. It is an ever-present-tense event. The Son is eternally proceeding from the Father, not as an event stretched out in time, but as a timeless event that is always true. The term ‘eternally begotten’ expresses this dogmatic truth concisely and accurately.

The term ‘born of the Father before all ages’ makes it seem as if the Son were begotten of the Father at a certain point, before time began. If any of the faithful were to hold to such a view, it would be a serious theological error. Although we can charitably interpret this inaccurate wording so as to refer to eternal procession of the Son from the Father, that meaning is not so much stated by the wording as (perhaps) implied.

Perhaps the intention of the new wording was to make the phrasing more accessible to the general laity. But if so, that accessibility was obtain at the cost of a wording that suggests a grave theological error.

one in Being with the Father
changed to:
consubstantial with the Father

The new wording is theologically accurate, but so was the older wording. The substance of God is His Divine Nature; it is His Being. The Father, Son, and Spirit are consubstantial because they have one and the same Divine Nature. The difference between the two wordings is that the older wording was more accessible to the general laity. Most are not familiar with the theological term ‘consubstantial’. So they are uttering words that they do not understand. This is not an improvement.

acknowledge one baptism
changed to:
confess one Baptism

The older wording is more clear to the average lay persons. The use of the term ‘confess’ to mean ‘acknowledge’ is archaic. Some persons might be confused as to why ‘confess’ is used to refer to baptism, rather than to Confession.

Apostles’ Creed

He descended to the dead
changed to:
he descended into hell

Many persons claim that Jesus only descended to the deceased souls in Purgatory, not to the deceased souls in Hell. However, the ancient formula has always said Hell, as does Sacred Scripture. Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich explains that Jesus visited both places. He entered Purgatory and visited the souls there, so that they would known Him by whom they were saved before entering Heaven. He also went to the gates of Hell, but did not enter. His visit to Hell allowed the souls there to know Him whom they had implicitly rejected.

“the gates of Hell were thrown open by the angels…. our Lord spoke first to the soul of Judas, and the angels then compelled all the demons to acknowledge and adore Jesus.” (Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, ebook p. 184)

This explanation is in accord with Sacred Scripture, which teaches that all will acknowledge Christ as Lord, even those in Hell:

[Romans]
{14:11} For it is written: “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bend to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.”

[Philippians]
{2:9} Because of this, God has also exalted him and has given him a name which is above every name,
{2:10} so that, at the name of Jesus, every knee would bend, of those in heaven, of those on earth, and of those in hell,
{2:11} and so that every tongue would confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.

So the new wording emphasizes Christ’s visit to Hell. But since he visited all the dead souls, in Purgatory and in Hell, the former wording is perhaps a little better.

Preface Dialogue

It is right to give him thanks and praise.
changed to:
It is right and just.

The former wording is a little better, since we explicitly state what is right: giving thanks and praise to God. The newer wording seems redundant. Are some acts only right, and other acts right and just? Perhaps the redundancy is for emphasis. But the new wording not only transfers the term ‘thanks’ to the priest’s part, it also entirely drops ‘praise’. While right and just are synonyms, thanks and praise are not; these are two different obligations: to thank God for all that He has given us, and to praise Him, not only because of what we have been given, but because He is infinite perfect Goodness. Dropping the word ‘praise’ is a worsening of the wording.

Preface Acclamation

Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might.
changed to:
Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of hosts.

The term “hosts” is more obscure than “power and might”, while “power and might” are redundant, and “hosts” is not. The heavenly hosts are all the angels and souls in Heaven. The heavenly hosts are different from God’s own power and might. This change to the wording is perhaps a wash; it is realty not much better and not much worse.

Mystery of Faith

dropped:
Dying you destroyed our death,
rising you restored our life.
Lord Jesus, come in glory.

The above older wording is theologically accurate and somewhat poetic. It was not an improvement to omit it from the Mass.

Invitation to Communion

Happy are those who are called to his supper.
changed to:
Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb.

The newer wording is, subjectively, a little better; it uses the theological and Biblical term ‘blessed’ instead of the more common term ‘happy’. The new wording also uses ‘Behold’ rather than ‘This is’, which has the same advantage.

Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.
changed to:
Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

The new wording is intended to evoke the meeting described in the Gospels between the Centurion and Christ.

[Matthew]
{8:8} And responding, the centurion said: “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant shall be healed.”

I should note that the above Scripture translation is my own work, translated prior to the new Mass translation. The similarity between the NMT and my translation of Matthew is probably due to the fact that I am translating the Latin Vulgate in a fairly literal manner, and so was the committed that developed the NMT.

However, I’m not convinced that using the wording of Scripture is necessarily an improvement. The figurative use of the term ‘roof’ in reference to the reception of Communion is awkward. But what is much more problematic is the substitution of ‘soul’ for ‘servant’. The Eucharist is Christ, under the appearances of bread and wine. Our Lord is certainly capable of healing body, as well as soul. He did so frequently in the Gospel accounts. He does so even today in miracles around the world. The NMT wording suggests that reception of Communion only heals the soul; a lack of faith in healing for the body (and even the spirit) seems suggested by the wording. There is no good reason to limit the healing offered by the Eucharist to the soul.

The older wording “I shall be healed” references the whole human person (“I”). The new wording narrows the healing unnecessarily. The use of roof makes the wording adhere closely to the Gospel wording, but then the wording needlessly departs from this close adherence by saying soul. A closer wording would be: “but only say the word and your servant (or ‘I, your servant’) will be healed”.

Summary

The NMT is not a vast improvement over the older wording. It is said to adhere more closely to the Latin text of the Mass, but that text itself is not infallible Sacred Scripture. The fact that a wording is found in the Latin text does not establish it as the best wording. The NMT is also — speaking in general — too literal in its translation of the Latin text. As an experienced translator of Latin, I can tell you that the most literal translation is not always the most accurate or the most eloquent.

The NMT is an imperfect version of the Mass. So also is the Latin Mass and the older vernacular translation. The Mass on earth will always be imperfect. Only the “Mass” of eternal life in Heaven is perfect. Therefore, it is dishonest to pretend as if any one form of the Mass were perfect, and all other forms were deeply flawed. My objections to certain points in the new wording are well-grounded. But I do not believe that the new wording is much worse, nor much better than the older wording.

Ideally, I would like the Church to continue to experiment with various changes to the form of the Mass. I would like the Church to allow the development and use of a set of different forms, which dioceses, parishes, and religious orders could use at their discretion, with ecclesial approval.

by
Ronald L. Conte Jr.
Roman Catholic theologian and Bible translator