BREAKING: Pope Francis gives local bishops more responsibility for Mass translations

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimR-OCDS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As you mentioned to Vadne, this is an anecdote from personal experience.
Click to expand...
Yes, but its one so widely shared that even the head of the USCCB basically agreed.
Besides, the Church isn’t a democracy.
Click to expand...
That’s not exactly true. When it comes to dogmatic definitions of the faith, you’re 100% right. When it comes to how the Church actually functions then it is indeed quite democratic. Local customs exist because if you tried to take them away the people would riot. If you added a bunch of stuff to the Mass that led to people stop going to Mass then those things would be removed rather quickly (or as quickly as the Church does things, lol).
Archbishop Gregory doesn’t elaborate on why the accurate translations are “inadequate” or full of “difficulties”.
Click to expand...
He didn’t elaborate because its readily apparent to those of us who hear from the laity on a regular basis and apparently to the group he was talking to. As I previously noted, its only “liturgy nerds” (a term of endearment actually) that find this translation beautiful. Most people find it stilted, pompous, and meandering. Yelling at the top of our lungs that people need to appreciate its beauty simply won’t make that happen.
 
If we’re going to blame a Missal for Mass attendance drops…I think the 1974 Sacramentary probably gets a special medal in that contest.
 
A more accurate translation, what does this mean ?

To me, it means taking an older text which came out of cultures of the past and literally translating it into English.

This is not what the liturgy is intended to be.

The Mass we attend is in the present as God is in the present and we express our faith in the reality of what is taking place in the Sacred Liturgy.

We are offering Jesus to the Father as a living sacrifice and we are receiving Jesus in the present at the Mass we attend.

To use an abstract quotation from Scripture as in the case of the Centurion is merely a literal translation from Latin and keeps it more of a memorial to the Centurion’s words.

Instead, when we prayed, “Lord I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed,” we are asking for God to make us worthy to receive
in that moment of the Mass. It is the reality of what is taking place in the soul of the person who is about to receive.

JIm
 
The format of the Mass has little if anything to do with the drop of attendance at Mass. People who choose not to attend Mass because they don’t like the format, were attached to the ritual itself,
and not the reason for having the ritual in the first place.

The drop of attendance at Mass has to do with the lack of faith among our society and it’s a different topic for this conversation.

Jim
 
The Missale Romanum is a living liturgy, not merely some “older text which came out of cultures of the past.”

Your posts are replete with de facto contempt for the past, as if all life started at Vatican II…which, incidentally, is now getting pretty on in years itself.

The Church has wanted us to remember the words of the Centurion for centuries at that moment of the Mass. It’s a biblical allusion…that alone should recommend it to the Vatican II crowd that often thinks the Bible was only opened to the faithful at Vatican II. To cut the allusion by a faulty, inaccurate, insipid translation is to deprive the faithful of the Church’s beautiful prayer.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
There are Catholics who have religion and spirituality, but most have religion without spirituality. The new translation serves the latter.
Click to expand...
I’m going to go ahead and be completely frank and honest:

The above quoted text is the biggest load of horse manure I have ever heard regarding the liturgy.

You have got to be kidding, Jim. To say such a thing is so intellectually dishonest and insulting, I can’t fathom how a person could say such a thing in good faith. These views on the “new” translation, which is the accurate translation that has many layers, and what you’ve said about the Centurion proves that you only want a surface level reading, thus your affection for the deficient 1973 ICEL prayers. Like Chunk Monk said, what you said is pretty harsh and it’s unnecessarily insulting to accuse your brothers and sisters in Christ of simply being “religious” and not “spiritual”. Indeed, this particular view is extremely condescending in suggesting that people can’t grasp the Scriptural and spiritual truths that are revealed in these prayers that have evolved in the Latin Rite through the centuries.

As Vadne said, remembering the words of the Centurion is a way that we connect our Sacrifice to Scripture. In the Byzantine Rite, we say a much longer, yet meaningful and moving prayer. Notice the part in bold and tell me what you notice in how it connects to the prayer said in the Latin Rite:
O Lord, I believe and profess that You are truly Christ, the Son of the living God, Who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the first. Accept me as a partaker of Your mystical supper, O Son of God, for I will not reveal Your mystery to Your enemies, nor will I give you a kiss as did Judas, but like the thief I confess to You:
**> **
> Remember me, O Lord, when You come in Your kingdom.
> Remember me, O Master, when You come in Your kingdom.
> Remember me, O Holy One, when You come in Your kingdom.

May the partaking of Your Holy mysteries, O Lord, be not for my judgment or condemnation, but for the healing of my soul and body. O Lord, I also believe and profess that this, which I am about to receive, is truly Your most precious body and Your life-giving blood, which, I pray, make me worthy to receive for the remission of all my sins and for life everlasting.

O God, be merciful to me a sinner.
O God, cleanse me of my sins and have mercy on me.
O Lord, forgive me for I have sinned without number.
Click to expand...
We remember a specific part of Scripture. We remember a man, in both rites, who paid homage to Christ, and asked for His mercy. By mentioning the words of Centurion and the words of the Good Thief, we recognize that we need to have the same faith as these men when we approach the Holy Eucharist. The quotation is not abstract in the slightest; if one thinks that it’s because they’ve glossed over it and totally missed the point. What we see in these two prayers is not a “memorial” to the Centurion’s or the Good Thief’s words; what we see is something that is made very personal; we should have the same disposition as the centurion and the Good Thief, and when we say these two prayers, we think back to the faith that these two men had, and pray that our Lord will be merciful to us as He was merciful to them.

So please, let’s not accuse people of not being “spiritual” because they believe that the 2011 ICEL translations were done for the good of the faithful. Just because someone mistakenly thinks the prayers are pompous or meandering doesn’t mean that they are. If some of the Latin Rite prayers are found to be stilted and meandering, I’d hate to know what people would think of our Byzantine Catholic brothers and sisters, especially when presented with the prayer I presented above. “Noble simplicity” doesn’t mean that we no longer think or contemplate about spiritual truths, or contemplate how our disposition should be when receiving our Lord by reciting the words of Scripture.
 
Last edited:
If you think we’d have the same Mass attendance in the world that we currently do if the Mass was in Latin I have some swamp land to sell you. If everything was Latin then Catholicism would have become a wasteland. The evangelicals would have taken most of the Catholics from Latin America and in the United States we’d be a relic.
 
You just confirmed what I posted, i.e. having religion without spirituality. 🤣

Jim
 
NewEnglandPriest said:
Besides, the Church isn’t a democracy.
Click to expand...
This is a good and fair point. But the Congregation for Divine Worship does have the final say, even with the release of the Motu Propio, in these matters.

And I realize you’re not using “liturgy nerd” as a form of derision. I don’t think I’d quite call myself that yet, but I do find the way that prayers and customs in the liturgy developed to be very interesting! I’m not a priest, but in my experience, everyone I know has been pretty much on board with the new translations, and that’s through at least 3 different parishes that I’ve attended regularly, not to mention ones I visit on a semi-frequent basis. I assure you, no one here is yelling at the top of their lungs, but it would be good for people who mistakenly see the translation of these lovely prayers as “pompous” or “meandering” to dig a little deeper as to why we say these prayers in this way.

In the same way, yelling to modern day iconoclasts that images and statues make a parish beautiful won’t make all parishes beautiful; but in talking about and addressing their specific concerns, things that they had not before considered may come to light in their understanding of such things.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Nice job making a judgement, Jim. You can’t even address an argument and resort to name calling, i.e., that your own brother in Christ lacks spirituality. And it’s really funny (in a sad way) that you miss the spiritual truths in the explanation I gave you of both the Latin Rite and Byzantine rite pre-Communion prayers.

I’ve never said such a horrible thing about you, nor has anyone else here, as I can’t read your soul. Only God can. I’d still, even now, give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re a spiritual person, as you have a love for our Lord. You on the other hand, are content to cast stones and pass judgement. It’s disgraceful.
 
Has anyone ever consulted the actual Catholics regarding these matters, or is it only discussed among the decision makers?

My second question has to do with the future. If the preferred language reflects the current usage as of 1965, when is it going to reflect the language of 2020? Is the next translation going to look thus: “omg, lol, JC bff”?
 
The comparison of the two translations noted by Billy15 in post #12 above exemplify something I often noticed in the earlier ICEL translations. Prayers which were meant as supplications to God or to the Father, instead come out sounding like directives to Him It was as though God and man were being put on an equal level and we were in a position of giving him directions. The tone sounded like a command rather than a plea for mercy.
 
Has anyone ever consulted the actual Catholics regarding these matters, or is it only discussed among the decision makers?
Click to expand...
I always say, if you want to know what people think ask the priests and deacons who deal with them. Asking the average person to voice their concerns to the hierarchy is difficult. Usually the only ones who speak out are either cheerleaders of whatever the cause is, or they are people who hate anything that’s different from the one single way they like something. The people “in the middle” (the majority) usually don’t feel comfortable voicing their disagreement to Bishops.
My second question has to do with the future. If the preferred language reflects the current usage as of 1965, when is it going to reflect the language of 2020? Is the next translation going to look thus: “omg, lol, JC bff”?
Click to expand...
LOL, indeed! I don’t think we need to start using slang and such but the dislike to the current translation has been so strong and so prolonged that even I am shocked (and I don’t shock easily). I figured people would make their peace with it over time but unfortunately that has not been the case around these parts.
 
It really is appalling, Jim, to declare that people who are concerned about accurate translations somehow have religion without spirituality (whatever that means).
 
Billy, lighten up, you missed the emoticon in my reply. 🤣

Besides, you posted that my post was a load of horse manure.

Jim
 
Here’s another point of view on the same subject.
Code: 
> One priest's hopes for the Mass translations
Code: 
The “reform of the reform” has had a few setbacks of late. Less than a month ago,
Pope Francis told the Italian bishops: “We can affirm with certainty and magisterial
authority that the liturgical reform is irreversible.” On Sept. 9, with a new motu proprio,
he delivered another decisive blow to those who would roll back the liturgical reforms
of the Second Vatican Council. “Magnum Principium”restores and strengthens the
council’s call for local bishops’ conferences to have authority with regard to the
approval of translations into the vernacular.

For the marginalized members of the International Committee on English in the Liturgy,
who spent years producing a worthy translation of the Roman Missal only to have it unceremoniously
shelved in 1998, this is a happy day.

And for those of us who worked hard to get Roman Missal III road-tested before it ever got
implemented—but who were ignored by the bishops—this is a happy day.
Click to expand...
More

Jim
 
Last edited:
It’s really astonishing, the sheer arrogance of self-styled “progressives” who simply claim that "Vatican II’ demanded everything they want.

Of course if you ask for where exactly the Council ordered this or that, you often get a reference to the ever popular, “Spirit of Vatican II.”

It’s a Super Council. It’s the Year Zero. Everything before is suspect; everything after is okay so long as progressives want it…otherwise it’s “pre-Vatican II,” “Pharisaical,” “religion without spirituality,” and a hundred such synonyms.

Vatican II and its Spirit wanted everything the progressives want.

Of course the irony in all this is, the progressives want no reform of their reform. They’re happy for the world to be stuck in 1972, even as they decry those who want the 1962 Missal. They truly think the Church reached a zenith somewhere in the 1960s and 1970s, and that everything before was backwards, and everything after an attempt to “turn back the clock” (another of their favorite phrases) until their darling, Pope Francis.

Now they see the 70s everywhere again.

Future historians will have fun with all this.
 
Change is in contradiction to the Catholic faith. Change from tradition, that is. What we’ve been seeing lately is an increasing amount of thirst for change within the Church and it will only get worse as time goes on. If I recall correctly, there is a passage in the Bible where God confused the speech of the people of Babel as a punishment and the people dispersed and separated, causing disunity. Separate language is a disunity for the Church; one language is unity. Separate language is the opposite of what the Church is about. Latin has, for ages, been used to unify and not to confuse. Even the saints attended Latin masses and did not always understand Latin. There is no need of translation or there is no liturgical abuse where there is one language.
 
Last edited:
The Mass changed over the centuries until about 500 years ago when the Tridentine Latin Mass format became the ordinary.

1500 years prior, the Mass along with the other Sacraments went through various changes. At one time private confessions were prohibited.
Another time the Pope banned violins at Mass. His assistant played violin and practice to the irritation of the Pope. That assistant became the next
Pope and returned the use of the violin at Mass.

The point is that such traditions do and have changed.

Using the people of Babel in your argument makes Jesus guilty of not using Latin when He instituted the Sacrament.

Jesus spoke Aramaic and it’s the language He and the Apostles used.

St Paul probably used Greek.

The tradition you refer to is tradition with a small (t) which can and has changed…

Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top