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.
Oh yeah, big differences. We had a Cuban woman as the Hispanic liaison at my former parish, and the Mexicans didn’t like her translations of anything. Also, our Pastor ( a Biblical scholar) couldn’t stand the South American Bibles…and was always wishing for one that the Mexicans would accept and use. Given the huge numbers of Mexican immigrants in this country, I am anxious for a more “Mexican friendly” translation. The many Deacons and priests here that are trying to learn Spanish (in the Mexican form) would find their idioms most helpful. My family is from Spain, and my Mexican friends smile benignly at me when I speak, LOL They think it’s quaint. 😊
 
Of course all of these problems show the wisdom of the Church in the use of Latin. Latin brought unity. The vernacular has brought Babel. And I bet most Catholics exiting Mass still couldn’t tell you what the Gospel was about.
 
The form of the mass should reflect the holiness of the mass. What we see, what we hear, what we smell, what we do should all reflect that something sacred is occurring. While I’m not sure we need the word “consubstantial” in the American English creed (and I understand the word), stripping down the language into a more simplified form (that doesn’t closely align with the “template” that the Latin sets) would seem to me to be making what we hear more common. We keep telling people that the mass is sacred and something holy occurs during it, but some wish to remove all the audio and visual cues that it is sacred. What we do is at risk of not reflecting what it is. The form of the mass should show. We shouldn’t just have to tell people.

Granted, it can go too far. If it’s too frivolous it could be distraction. And the mass should be understandable for everyone.

So yes, there’s my completely unhelpful post. I lean towards the new translation, obviously. I’m sure we all have the proper goals in mind, even if there’s disagreement on how best to show sacredness without excluding.
 
Latin only brings about unity in that it unites people in dislike of it. Any attempt to introduce Latin into the Spanish or bilingual Masses around these parts has been met with eye rolls and complaints. I thought it would be welcome, it was then made known to me by many that it was widely disliked.
 
Code: 
    NewEnglandPriest2d  ontheway1
Has anyone ever consulted the actual Catholics regarding these matters, or is it only discussed among the decision makers?
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”?
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.
Father - In my experience speaking with other Catholic lay people and parish staff, I strongly believe that most priests and deacons hear from a very vocal minority (on both sides of issues) and rarely from the silent majority.

Think about it for a moment. Matthew Kelly says that approx 7% of Catholics are involved with their parish. So I’m sure that the priests and deacons always hear from that 7%. And I’m sure there are at least the same number of people who do nothing but complain. So that’s 14% of the parish the clergy hears from.

Even if the number was 50%, that means there are still a huge number of people who you don’t hear from.

I do door to door Catholic evangelization and outreach. I think you would be surprised how many Catholics leave the Church or stop coming to their parish because they no longer see any beauty at Mass.

Using the terminology of some others (though I’m not in favor of this language), I think there are three kind of Christians:
  1. Ritualistic but not Spiritual
  2. Spiritual but not Ritualistic
  3. Both Ritualistic and Spiritual
To me, it seems like the first two groups are always attempting to push their view on everyone else. But we rarely get to hear from the people in the pews who are both.

God Bless
 
It’s quite true. Clergy usually hear from the very vocal silent minority. That minority includes now older people who were falsely catechized in the 1960s/1970s to believe that Latin had been ditched/banned. They were never taught the chants of Jubilate Deo that Paul VI wanted learned in EVERY parish. They were fed a diet of “Glory and Praise” and the 3rd grade 1974 Sacramentary. They were taught that statues and altar rails and bells were all suddenly wrong.

It was ingenious, really, on the part of the wreckovators: they manipulated an entire generation and more by playing on a sense of “obedience.” Why is Latin gone? Why are the altars turned around? Because the pope wants it so. Obey.

The damage done is incalculable. Not surprising, then, that in many locales, Latin is indeed quite unpopular. And that Tridentine communities are majority on the younger side.
 
Why did this not happen in the past? ‘Evangelicals’ - or something close enough to them - have existed since the so-called Great Awakening in the 18th century. Why should people these days be uniquely allergic to Latin? Why would they be uniquely disregarding of their patrimony, uniquely disdainful of their inheritance? Why is that to be considered inevitable?
 
Times and conditions change. Catholics in Latin America want little to nothing to do with Latin. You can write a billion theoretical articles why you think it is that way but the reality is that’s the way it is. Evangelicals made sweeping inroads amongst Catholics there because of the local community feel to their faith communities rather than the distant ritualistic elements of Catholicism. And that’s with the Mass of Paul VI being the Mass of the day. Do you really think the old Latin Mass would have kept more people in the Church?
 
Bit by bit, the Millennial generation will reverse the damage done. Of course, probably not a total reversion to the status quo ante but something that draws more greatly on 1,962 years of Catholic tradition. We already see the process happening where there are young Priests, and we already see those who were catechized in the 70’s bemoaning it. They know it’s likely to happen and it terrifies them, so they want to solidify their gains while they can. But the problem is they have engendered a culture where simple utterances of the Pope, or deliberately vague documents publicly interpreted disingenuously by those in the hierarchy with a progressive agenda, are considered way too highly, as if they can be agents of sea-changes in Catholic thought. But ultimately that only means their house is built on sand, as everything can reversed by the same methods.
 
There’s huge numbers that NO ONE hears from because often people will only speak up to someone they think shares their view. However those of us who are viewed as making decision certainly hear from all sorts of people, some crazy and some sane. Priests certainly can be prone to burying their head in the sand as much as the next person, that’s true. But on the whole, even if people don’t say it outright we can see Mass attendance grow or shrink. We can hear what people compliment and what they don’t/never compliment. We can see trends at parishes in our region. We have access to people in multiple environments and ways of life. If we keep our ears and eyes open its not hard to see and hear the what and why.

I’m sure there are some silly liturgical parishes that make people roll their eyes and walk away but that door swings both ways. Plenty of people leave parishes considered “backwards” as they do ones consider “liberal.” However, that’s not driving the large numbers out of the Church that we’re seeing. That’s more due to overall cultural trends. In my last parish, it was a conservative suburb. The people there actually liked a little bit of Latin (gloria, sanctus, agnus dei) however they had more than a little dislike of the new English translation. The older generations disliked the new English prayers but could live with it. However most under 40 would roll their eyes and remark how it took away from the Mass for them. And in a culture that says religion is weird, pompous and unconnected to reality this new translation not very helpful.
 
Overall, I prefer the more recent translation, as I believe the translation should reflect the intended meaning of the Latin text as much as possible, and from what I understand, the new translation achieves that. I can live with having to learn what “consubstantial” means. From what I have heard and read, the various translations that were in use were often the product of a sort of “telephone game” – one country would have its own casual translation, and then another would take that translation and re-translate it for their use, rather than going back to the original Latin text. Thus, translations became further and further removed from the original.

I will say that the one thing I don’t understand is why the English translation – in both the older and newer translation – uses the phrase, “for us men and for our salvation.” The word “men” is no longer considered an appropriate synonym for the word “people.” Why use it in that context? Is it somehow more faithful to the Latin to use a word that, in today’s English, generally refers to people of specific gender rather than people of either gender?
 
DaveBj said:
Not my vernacular, and I am a polyglot and an intellectual with an advanced degree. I don’t use words like that in ordinary speech; how much less does a 6th-grader use them.
Click to expand...
Whether the word itself is on a 6th grade level depends. Many years ago they developed a fog index which takes into account the number of polysyllable words in a sentence, among other things. The higher the index, the higher the educational level of the writing. It’s a short sentence so that needs to be taken into account.

BTW “consubstantial TO” was used in a 19th century handmissal which is grammatically more in tune with the Latin as “Patri” is in the dative case. (The “with” is actually redundant.)
 
I don’t know if keeping the Latin would have kept more people in the Church or not, but I do think the sense of tradition in the Catholic Church is more valuable than some people realize. I have even heard some teenagers say that they like it when Latin is used in short prayers during the Mass. Personally, I am more inspired when the church building itself, the format of the Mass and the music remind me that I am part of something greater than myself or even my immediate community – that I am part of a universal Church that encompasses all the saints and angels in heaven as well as the souls in purgatory and the faithful here on earth. More importantly, I am inspired when I am reminded through the building and its decoration, the Mass format and the music of the awesomeness and wonder of the Lord.

I think there may have been a trade-off when we moved away from the Tridentine Mass. Yes, people could understand what was going on, and that can be a major benefit. But, I think we may have lost some of the sense of that connection with the universal Church at the same time.
 
NewEnglandPriest said:
Latin only brings about unity in that it unites people in dislike of it.
Click to expand...
Only among Catholics it seems. Phrases like “quid pro quo” “QED” “e pluribus unum” “pro bono” and the like seem to be somewhat understood and accepted among the average citizens. Just sayin…
 
Last edited:
Indeed, phrases and slogans. However, those are also Latin words that are used as is in the English language. Latin as a gimmick, a quirk, a slogan is one thing. Latin in what is supposed to be the “source and summit” of your spiritual life is something else.
And here, once again, we arrive at a point of trying to explain to people why they should like something that they don’t like.
 
Last edited:
This “people don’t like Latin” argument is so unscientific in its foundation…how convenient to say people don’t like something that was deliberately suppressed five decades ago.
 
I, for one, do not prefer the Mass said in Latin over the 2011 translation.
I understand that some feel it is more transcendent, and so great for them.

I would sooner take either than the ever changing, confusing, inconsistent Masses we endured during the period of improvisation from the 1970s till 2011…

Leaving it up to each Bishop is not something I would like to endure again.
 
Last edited:
Cimachol said:
I don’t know if keeping the Latin would have kept more people in the Church or not, but I do think the sense of tradition in the Catholic Church is more valuable than some people realize.
Click to expand...
I appreciate that. Culture is an important thing. It gives us a sense of history and even in some cases a sense of authenticity. But we must be careful not to turn our culture into a false idol. The idea that people would leave the Church of Jesus Christ because of a change in cultural expression is disturbing to say the least and kind of shallow.

Of course none of us are perfect; i don’t mean to judge.
 
Last edited:
Read John XXIII’s Veterum Sapientia. You’ll quickly be disabused of the notion that Latin is a mere instance of “cultural expression.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top