Concern over the new Missal translation

This web link was forwarded by a priest in our area with a comment about how many others from our area had already signed this, thereby giving their support. (especially various religious persons)
[/FONT]http://www.whatifwejustsaidwait.org/

"It is now forty-five years since the Second Vatican Council promulgated the ground-breaking and liberating document on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium. The conciliar document transcended ecclesiastical politics. It was not just the pet project of a party, but the overwhelming consensus of the bishops of the world. Its adoption passed overwhelmingly: 2,147 to 4. In our wildest dreams could we ever have imagined that we would live to witness what seems more and more like the systematic dismantling of the great vision of the Council's decree? But we have."

I was wondering what people here might think of this. I have my own opinions, but don't want to slant the thread until some others comment.

I think that it's ridiculous to compare what is being done with the English Missal with what happend at Vatican-II. The only thing changing, I believe, with the English Missal is words, not actions (actions changed greatly with Vatican-II, such as where the priest faced, etc).
Furthermore, Vatican-II allowed for the Mass to be in the vernacular, and the new English Missal is, indeed, in the vernacular, it's just closer to that of the Latin. It's beautiful wording, and much truer to what was said in Latin. It flows nicely, and isn't awkward at all. Just because something is supposed to be in the vernacular doesn't mean that it's supposed to be dumbed down. Lastly, Vatican-II affected the Mass throughout the world, the new translation of the English Missal does not.

However, that's my opinion, and if someone can show me how that opinion is wrong, then by goodness I'll sign it! However, the new translation of the English Missal passed overwhelming in favor by the Bishops

The whole intent of the new translation was to recover a more literal translation that better expresses the mystery and sacredness in the liturgy that was at times missing or lacking in the previous translations. I would rather see this new translation implemented sooner than later. The Bishops and their committees took years to prepare the new translations and checked, rechecked and double checked everything. They debated the various sections at different meetings and revised and re-revised, if some of the Bishops feel they are losing their voice in this debate it's certainly not for a lack of opportunity.

Yes, the laity will need to be catechized to find out what the new translation is like and to get used to the new rhythm of some of the prayers and to see how some things have changed. However, the best way to accomplish this is not to introduce it randomly on a trial basis, that will only confuse people even more and lead others to think it's okay to pick which version they like or cling to a translation that is no longer approved for Mass. The new translation needs to be introduced in an orderly fashion across all the English-speaking parishes in a way approved by the Holy See in a timely manner. All the various sections have been voted on and duly approved, if some of the "no" votes are still irked that's too bad. As far as I can see the issue is closed and not to be reopened.

Give us the new translation now!

ChadS

I thought we...(The USA) were the only country that has the translation that we use now and by adopting the new translation that we are coming into line with what other countries already and have been using all along....

Paul

[quote="Paul2274, post:4, topic:179913"]
I thought we...(The USA) were the only country that has the translation that we use now and by adopting the new translation that we are coming into line with what other countries already and have been using all along....

Paul

[/quote]

No, the translation we have now, with minor variations, is the translation used by all English speaking countries. The new translation had to be approved by all those conferences of bishops and, as I understand, the USCCB was the last conference to approve it. It's also my understanding that if they hadn't approved the last book (and they argued bitterly about it) Rome was simply going to impose it because everybody else had approved it.

[quote="Paul2274, post:4, topic:179913"]
I thought we...(The USA) were the only country that has the translation that we use now and by adopting the new translation that we are coming into line with what other countries already and have been using all along....

Paul

[/quote]

I know many other countries (like Spain, France, etc) have been using versions that are closer to the Latin than the English is (it's easier because they are Romantic Languages that directly came from Latin).

[quote="TAS2000, post:1, topic:179913"]
This web link was forwarded by a priest in our area with a comment about how many others from our area had already signed this, thereby giving their support. (especially various religious persons)
http://www.whatifwejustsaidwait.org/

I was wondering what people here might think of this. I have my own opinions, but don't want to slant the thread until some others comment.

[/quote]

The new translation is actually a way of following the teachings of Vatican II.

In reality, what these people are upset about is that the Church is reading and understanding and applying the teachings of the Council, instead of what we had in the past which was a liturgical "free for all" where people (like the ones circulating this letter) could just say "that's what Vatican II said" and hope that no one read the documents.

What people who do things like this fear more than anything else is that Catholics will actually pick up and read the documents of Vatican II.

The strongest evidence I can give for the above is this:

The webpage which claims to invoke Vatican II does not have one single quote from the documents of Vatican II to support their claims. That silence speaks volumes.

[quote="bmadamsberry, post:2, topic:179913"]
I think that it's ridiculous to compare what is being done with the English Missal with what happend at Vatican-II. The only thing changing, I believe, with the English Missal is words, not actions (actions changed greatly with Vatican-II, such as where the priest faced, etc).
Furthermore, Vatican-II allowed for the Mass to be in the vernacular, and the new English Missal is, indeed, in the vernacular, it's just closer to that of the Latin. It's beautiful wording, and much truer to what was said in Latin. It flows nicely, and isn't awkward at all. Just because something is supposed to be in the vernacular doesn't mean that it's supposed to be dumbed down. Lastly, Vatican-II affected the Mass throughout the world, the new translation of the English Missal does not.

However, that's my opinion, and if someone can show me how that opinion is wrong, then by goodness I'll sign it! However, the new translation of the English Missal passed overwhelming in favor by the Bishops

[/quote]

You make good points in your answer. Many still do not understand the upheaval that occurred when the order of Mass was changed. Many left the Church because they couldn't deal with all of the changes occurring. I remember that it seemed something 'new' happened each week and it went beyond confusion in many instances. Those that stayed were eventually able to embrace what was happening, but it was a tough time.

The initial English translation was poorly done simply because many on that committee had their own agenda as to what they wanted. Some of the translation was clearly bogus, and I am surprised that the Church allowed it for so long a time. Now, the movement is to get back to the original intent of the Latin and it means translating accurately and as precise as possible, something that wasn't done.

Some American bishops are dead-set against the new translation now because they themselves were involved in the initial one. And their arguments are also bogus. They feel that translating verbatim from the Latin will be irrelevent because people don't use those phrases and meanings anymore. Actually, they think the common faithful are stupid. They always have because the faithful have really never (until the present generation of traditional loving Catholics) challenged anything in this regard. They just accept.

Vatican II also called for the retention of Latin in the Mass. Where has this occurred? So, instead of being alarmed over the new English translation, we should rejoice!

Let's wait???

We have been waiting for a translation of the Roman Missal since the 3rd edition was promulgated on April 10, 2000

We have been waiting for a translation of the Mass ever since ICEL offered it's interpretation in 1973.

We've waited long enough!

It's time for certain people to step aside and stop impeding the progress of the Church. The 1970s are over, and some people haven't yet grasped that fact. We can't continue to live in the past of the old "glory days" of the 60s and 70s. Some people want to live in the past and keep the rest of us from living in the present. We can't just sit back and allow people to transform the Body of Christ into some kind of living museum, a static tribute to the Woodstock era.

If some people want to sit around the fireplace (or the internet) and tell stories about "back in my day, when we took Latin out of the Mass..." that's all well and good. Write a book. Some people are just going to have to come to terms with the fact that the past is over and this is the present.

We need to move forward.

Don't let them hold us back!

Test Market a translation?

A translation is a translation. Either it is correct or it is not.

The people that are competent to evaluate the adequacy of a translation are those with skill in the source language, target language, subject area, and translation.

Not people sitting in the pews who only are going to give an opinion on whether the like what they hear.

By-the-way, if anyone really wants to get their blood boiling, you should check out ncronline.org, a 'Catholic' newspaper (VERY liberal), where they reported on this story. The comments for the the article are liberal.

[quote="PaulinVA, post:10, topic:179913"]
Test Market a translation?

A translation is a translation. Either it is correct or it is not.

The people that are competent to evaluate the adequacy of a translation are those with skill in the source language, target language, subject area, and translation.

Not people sitting in the pews who only are going to give an opinion on whether the like what they hear.

[/quote]

I still have a problem with how dumb Bishop Trautman believes the people in the pews to be. He argued black and blue that nobody would understand expressions like "The gibbet of the cross" because the word gibbet has not been used in general parlance for a few decades. Come on, are we too stupid to learn what words mean? English is my second language and I understand the expression.

Well, I honestly did not expect many posters from CA to come out in support of this. Frankly I was rather hoping someone WOULD present some sort of an argument in favor of this or just about anything on this website so I could try to understand how a thinking person might possibly support it. (I like to hear both sides of an argument to be fair and make sure I'm not just going off half cocked based on my own preferences.)

So far the only thing I can think of is that yes, it will be a change, which is always difficult. Some will jump at it, others sit back and just let it happen, and others will actively resist. But to me it is all in the planning and presentation. Like many here, I have been involved in various parishes that have had to close, merge, or move on, and I have to say that there will always be some people who will resent any change or disruption in their own preferred power group or way of doing things. But the way that it is handled and presented make a HUGE difference in the smoothness of the overall event and its acceptance. So for the life of me, I can't understand how any of the items they are proposing will help that along. :shrug:

A priest has set up a counter-petiton in support of the new translations:

ipetitions.com/petition/enoughwaiting//

A bunch of us from plurk have already filled it out.

Well, I think one of the comments on the posted site made a great argument. How many times in your everyday language do you use the words consubstantial, inviolate, unvanquished, etc. It's not to say that we don't know what they mean (above-average intelligent people could figure them out, based on root words), but do we really put meaning into saying them? Or are they just flowery, poetic words to use because we have a stilted idea of what prayer is?

The Mass is our mission. It forms us and charges us to go out and build the kingdom of God in the world. And the world does not use big words when small ones will do quite nicely. As Catholics, we find the sacred in the ordinary: humble bread becomes Jesus. Olive oil becomes sacred chrism. Plain water gives us participation in the divine life. Should not our Mass, the language of our belief, say what we really mean? Should we not find the sacred in our ordinary speech?

[quote="ChemicalBean, post:15, topic:179913"]
Well, I think one of the comments on the posted site made a great argument. How many times in your everyday language do you use the words consubstantial, inviolate, unvanquished, etc. It's not to say that we don't know what they mean (above-average intelligent people could figure them out, based on root words), but do we really put meaning into saying them? Or are they just flowery, poetic words to use because we have a stilted idea of what prayer is?

The Mass is our mission. It forms us and charges us to go out and build the kingdom of God in the world. And the world does not use big words when small ones will do quite nicely. As Catholics, we find the sacred in the ordinary: humble bread becomes Jesus. Olive oil becomes sacred chrism. Plain water gives us participation in the divine life. Should not our Mass, the language of our belief, say what we really mean? Should we not find the sacred in our ordinary speech?

[/quote]

I think that, with all due respect, you are missing the point here. What happens at the Mass is out of the ordinary. We are no longer in our time, but, in sacred time, in God's time. The language needs to reflect that we are in the presence of the divine majesty of God. It is radically different than you and I having a chat at Olive Garden. There is a greater degree of solemnity, majesty and beauty in the Mass.

The Mass, first and foremost, is not about us, it is about God. Remember, too, that while the Church is in the world, she is not of the world.

Maybe it would help you to read Liturgiam Authenticam so that you can get a better handle as to why the Holy See believed it highly necessary to restore the true language of the liturgy:

adoremus.org/liturgiamauthenticam.html

And, this is what they should have looked like in the first place, not a paraphrase of the prayers.

[quote="benedictgal, post:14, topic:179913"]
A priest has set up a counter-petiton in support of the new translations:

ipetitions.com/petition/enoughwaiting//

A bunch of us from plurk have already filled it out.

[/quote]

Thanks, benedictgal

[quote="ChemicalBean, post:15, topic:179913"]
Well, I think one of the comments on the posted site made a great argument. How many times in your everyday language do you use the words consubstantial, inviolate, unvanquished, etc. It's not to say that we don't know what they mean (above-average intelligent people could figure them out, based on root words), but do we really put meaning into saying them? Or are they just flowery, poetic words to use because we have a stilted idea of what prayer is?

The Mass is our mission. It forms us and charges us to go out and build the kingdom of God in the world. And the world does not use big words when small ones will do quite nicely. As Catholics, we find the sacred in the ordinary: humble bread becomes Jesus. Olive oil becomes sacred chrism. Plain water gives us participation in the divine life. Should not our Mass, the language of our belief, say what we really mean? Should we not find the sacred in our ordinary speech?

[/quote]

I really appreciate the one line you wrote that shouldn't our language of belief reflect what we really mean. I couldn't agree more, but I come to a different conclusion than you. If we were talking about ordinary things then ordinary words would be adequate. However, in trying to talk about the sacred a higher form of language is needed. One of the controversial words you highlighted is "consubstantial." In my mind that word is packed with so much more meaning and clarity than could ever be put into the phrase "one in being with." "Consubstantial," in my opinion, goes further in defining the relationship between God and Christ better and more exact than "one in being with" could ever.

ChadS

[quote="TAS2000, post:13, topic:179913"]
Well, I honestly did not expect many posters from CA to come out in support of this. Frankly I was rather hoping someone WOULD present some sort of an argument in favor of this or just about anything on this website so I could try to understand how a thinking person might possibly support it. (I like to hear both sides of an argument to be fair and make sure I'm not just going off half cocked based on my own preferences.)

So far the only thing I can think of is that yes, it will be a change, which is always difficult. Some will jump at it, others sit back and just let it happen, and others will actively resist. But to me it is all in the planning and presentation. Like many here, I have been involved in various parishes that have had to close, merge, or move on, and I have to say that there will always be some people who will resent any change or disruption in their own preferred power group or way of doing things. But the way that it is handled and presented make a HUGE difference in the smoothness of the overall event and its acceptance. So for the life of me, I can't understand how any of the items they are proposing will help that along. :shrug:

[/quote]

I can understand the author's indignation - afterall, it was the Vatican that approved the current ICEL translation that's in use now. Why was it acceptable then but not now? Doesn't this show a certain amount of disrespect for Pope Paul VI's pontificate? What about when the next Pope comes along, a little more liberal minded, and allows the Bishops' conferences more laxity in this regard?

This is another tick mark in favor or maintaining Latin in the liturgy.

[quote="RosaryCrusader, post:19, topic:179913"]
I can understand the author's indignation - afterall, it was the Vatican that approved the current ICEL translation that's in use now. Why was it acceptable then but not now? Doesn't this show a certain amount of disrespect for Pope Paul VI's pontificate? What about when the next Pope comes along, a little more liberal minded, and allows the Bishops' conferences more laxity in this regard?

This is another tick mark in favor or maintaining Latin in the liturgy.

[/quote]

I then it's not as acceptable now because we've been able to take a breather from Vatican-II. Vatican-II asked that the missals be revised as soon as possible, and in the rush, I think, something were overlooked and were poorly addressed.

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.