Call for review of new translation


#1

I have just seen this on PrayTell:

The newly-founded Association of U.S. Catholic Priests has called upon the U.S. bishops to address with Roman authorities the problematic prescriptions of the 2001 Vatican document Liturgiam authenticam which brought about the new English Roman Missal.

The AUSCP, which has a membership of over 600 priests, met for the first time this past June in Tampa, Florida. The body also passed resolutions supporting the Leadership Council of Women Religious and giving them financial support during this time of Vatican-imposed restructuring, supporting the Catholic Theological Society of America and theologians condemned by the Vatican, and networking with associations of Catholic priests in other countries.

The resolution on the new English missal asserts that it has “caused disharmony, disruption and discord among many… frustrating rather than inspiring the Eucharistic prayer experience of the Christian faithful, thus leading to less piety and to less ‘full, active and conscious participation’,” and that it “has created pastoral problems, in particular because of its cumbersome style, arcane vocabulary, grammatical anomalies, and confusing syntax.”

The resolution on the new missal is carefully worded to justify, based on canon law, the right and duty of the new organization to express its opionions for the good of the church. In a sign of the desire of the AUSCP to work respectfully and constructively with bishops, the resolution on the missal was sent first to Cardinal Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, before being issued publicly.


#2

Barf.


#3

That represents less than 2% of the total number of priests in the U.S.
So no big deal… these are probably the same ones that had that web site and were trying to get folks to sign up to prevent the revised translation from being promulgated in the first place. :rolleyes:


#4

Ditto.


#5

Well - they have the right to petition…and the Bishops and the Vatican have the duty to consider the petition(s).
The Bishops and the Vatican also have the right to “say no” to the petition(s) after due consideration.

At that point the priests who submitted it have a duty to accept the decision of the Bishops in obedience…

The question will be - will they accept no for an answer…:shrug:

Peace
James


#6

What does this mean? Is this some sort of American slang?


#7

Yes - it is a colloquialism for vomit…

Peace
James


#8

Thank you for enlightening me, and for your helpful post. I agree that it will be interesting to see what the review says. There will be a reflection in the UK in September which is 1-year on from when the new translation was introduced.


#9

Goes to show English isn’t the same or has the same meanings everywhere. I had some problems myself after moving from London to Chicago. I was in fact pushed down three grade levels on reading comprehension by the nuns.


#10

Not just English but any language…In Italy local dialects from village to another can make it difficult to understand if both speaks in dialect. And look at the huge differences in Spanish and Cataln and Latin America.

Accent is more of an issue, IMO …The last Latin Mass I attended, was said by an Irish priest who made no attempt to pronounce the words properly. It was toe-curlingly painful for all.


#11

Was this commentary from 2012 or 1970? :stuck_out_tongue:


#12

This is a parallel to the 'call to disobedience" group of 400 Priests in Austria. I would guess that the majority of members are nearing retirement age.


#13

Apparently not enough to warrant changing the texts so frequently. And it wasn’t my dialect that was the problem, though I do admit I was self-conscious about my British accent.

Accent is more of an issue, IMO …The last Latin Mass I attended, was said by an Irish priest who made no attempt to pronounce the words properly. It was toe-curlingly painful for all.

That’s why Pius X standardized the Latin pronunciations (to more Italian). If priests don’t conform to those pronunciations, there’s not much that can be done. It could be construed as an abuse IMO. But the point is, the Latin meanings and prayers are the same everywhere, whether one fully understands them in his/her own vernacular or not.


#14

[quote="ProVobis, post:13, topic:291741"]
Apparently not enough to warrant changing the texts so frequently. And it wasn't my dialect that was the problem, though I do admit I was self-conscious about my British accent.

That's why Pius X standardized the Latin pronunciations (to more Italian). If priests don't conform to those pronunciations, there's not much that can be done. It could be construed as an abuse IMO. But the point is, the Latin meanings and prayers are the same everywhere, whether one fully understands them in his/her own vernacular or not.

[/quote]

You know I love you dearly Provobis, but you'll never convince me that only having the mass in Latin again will ever be a desirable option, nor that it will ever happen.

BTW, surely the driver for changing the English texts was not language development but (perceived) authenticity. When the vernacular was announced in the 1960s the UK produced its own translation but ultimately agreed to go with the ICEL versions which was perceived to be a much poorer (again in terms of its faithfulness to the Latin) translation than in other countries.


#15

yuck. Didn’t see this coming. :rolleyes:


#16

In the Rule of St Benedict, those who can’t read, chant or psalmody in a manner that edifies listeners aren’t supposed to.

I can see here why the Holy Father requires a decent grasp of Latin to offer the EF Mass. Having some experience in chant, I think that it’s almost impossible to pronounce Latin in a perfectly italianate manner for some linguistic groups. Anglo-Saxons for instance seem manifestly unable to pronounce the letter R correctly, and their chant can seem painful. The French can also have some weird nuances.

It seems that the only folks who can pronounce Latin like Italian are, well, Italians. And even from them I’ve heard some pretty mangled chant.

I can’t imagine Latin with say a Korean or Japanese accent.

Which is why, even as a big Latin and chant fan, the vernacular is preferable if, to paraphrase St Benedict, the Latin can’t be pronounced in a manner that edifies.


#17

You brought up Latin on this thread. As far as desirability goes, it depends on whom you ask. Perhaps it’s best that only a few do desire it; otherwise you may find Latin more modernized, which is not particularly optimal. It’s still good to know the meanings in Latin haven’t changed and the Church uses the Latin as the authoritive text, whether one hears the “ibus” and “um” and the “am” sounds or not.

BTW, surely the driver for changing the English texts was not language development but (perceived) authenticity. When the vernacular was announced in the 1960s the UK produced its own translation but ultimately agreed to go with the ICEL versions.

If you take ten different translators, you get ten different translations. To me, I’m still studying the reasons how one becomes the standard over the others. Perhaps I’ll find a clue as I study the 50 different English Bibles. :slight_smile:


#18

Again, it depends on which vernacular. Those with many vowel endings (such as Italian) are easier to sing, at least in practice if not in theory. Many languages which pronounce EVERY written letter (unlike English) have a definite advantage when the words are broken up over the notes. Words ending with “D” and “B” and “T” can’t be sustained. And so forth.

How they are heard or understood is an entirely different matter. Slavic can be easier on the ears, Japanese much harder on the ears, as examples. Edification itself a personal thing IMO.


#19

I have a feeling that ‘petition’ will end up in the Vatican ‘circular file,’ where it belongs, haha.

I like the new translation, especially the Credo, which is now properly translated ‘I believe.’ It took 40 years to get an accurate translation of the Latin text. Better late than never!


#20

No big deal? Did you include all those who are reluctant to change the current Spanish consecration por vosotros y por todos los hombres (“for you and for all men”), which appears to be ICEL-influenced?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.