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.
DignumEtJustum said:
Nonsense. The recent translations were meant to reflect the actual translations from the Mass handed down through the centuries. The previous “translations” were pulled out of thin air and made no sense within the context of the Mass.
Click to expand...
Why is it “nonsense” that people were confused or stressed by the changes. I know many good and holy people who struggled with the whole “and with your spirit” directive. Whether or not it was more correct, it really doesn’t carry well with how language is used, at least in modern America. If someone tells us “have a great day” we say “you too!” and not “I hope your spirit has a good day”

So some of the translations don’t make sense to the laity. It doesn’t mean that they weren’t needed, but give us a bit of mercy.
 
Yes, thank you. I know that PR has their own bishop’s conference (I don’t
understand that one either since it’s not uncommon for Bishops from the US
to become ordinaries in PR - the Bishop of Mayaguez is a good example)

But anyway, I still courious why the picked Mexico’s? I’m not sure it’s a
totally accurate statement to say most Spanish speakers in the US are from
Mexico. Mexicans might be the largest nationality group, but I don’t think
the majority of Spanish speakers in the US are Mexicans.

There must be something else about that translation that they like. I’m
courious what that is?

God Bless
 
Last edited:
ProVobis said:
As a historical note, there was a 1998 translation which never made it to the final cut. I wonder what difference that would have made.
Click to expand...
The one that triggered this response?

adoremus.org

Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal

Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal Rome, 16 March 2002 His Excellency, President of the Conference of Bishops of ______ Your Excellency, After some time to reflect upon contacts in recent months with the Presidents of a certain number of Conferences of Bishops...
adoremus.org adoremus.org
 
NewEnglandPriest said:
Fair enough point, but that still doesn’t explain how we arrive at using words like prevenient, consubstantial, gibbet, etc. that are meaningless to many people. One could revise the prayers with proper emphasis and not throw in “SAT prep” words.
Click to expand...
When the Council of Nicea introduced ‘consubstantialis’ and ‘homoousios’, those were not exactly common, everyday words in Rome or Corinth either, and they have never been common words through all of the Church’s history.

But they were used for a reason, because the DID put the proper emphasis, namely being philosophically and theologically correct in ways that no other words were…

Thus why did the Council choose to propagate that wording, especially under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Did not the Spirit know that your average Roman or Greek would not know those words? Is the average Catholic in the pews not at least as intelligent as the average Roman was in say, in Milan.

Granted, English phrases such as " one in Substance" or “one in Essence” could also be used, but such phrases are no more ‘vernacular’ than 'consubstantial, and are even more ‘wordy’.

One additional point, my 7th grade daughter had ‘Transubstantiation’ as one of her religion class test words. Given that the Church seems to expect middle schoolers to understand what "Transubstantiation’ is, it would hardly be a stretch to expect ‘consubstantial’ to be considered to be any more difficult a concept. Thus hardly a SAT word, unless the SAT is now testing 7th graders…
 
It amazes me the amount of mental gymnastics we put ourselves through to justify something that very few people want. Never mind that “consubstantial with” is actually a poor translation. There were ample alternatives that could have provided the proper emphasis on many prayers but they chose instead a slavish translation that most people don’t like. You wouldn’t translate any language as literally as this new English Roman Missal. Its as if the Missal was in German we would have literally translated the German word for “gloves” as “hand shoes.”

When speaking of the Eucharist and the history of its theology transubstantiation is a common word found in books and sermons. When speaking of the Creed the Latin is rarely if ever used since it was originally written in Greek. Anyone reading about the Nicene Creed is going to read about homoousios not consubstantial. Its a word out of the blue even for people who have done any reading on the Creed.

At some point everyone needs to stop trying to sell what no one is buying…
 
Last edited:
NewEnglandPriest said:
. When speaking of the Creed the Latin is rarely if ever used since it was originally written in Greek.
Click to expand...
I don’t have the dates but weren’t they written around the same time, with the most notable difference being the “Filioque” added to the Latin version?
 
And just who was clamoring for the vernacular in the 1960s? Certainly not the average man in the pew. The average man who still can’t tell you what the day’s gospel was about…let alone the first reading or epistle…when he steps out of church on Sunday. If he’s one of the people still going at all.
 
Last edited:
Brendan said:
When the Council of Nicea introduced ‘consubstantialis’ and ‘homoousios’, those were not exactly common, everyday words in Rome or Corinth either, and they have never been common words through all of the Church’s history.

But they were used for a reason, because the DID put the proper emphasis, namely being philosophically and theologically correct in ways that no other words were…

Thus why did the Council choose to propagate that wording, especially under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Did not the Spirit know that your average Roman or Greek would not know those words? Is the average Catholic in the pews not at least as intelligent as the average Roman was in say, in Milan.

Granted, English phrases such as " one in Substance" or “one in Essence” could also be used, but such phrases are no more ‘vernacular’ than 'consubstantial, and are even more ‘wordy’.
Click to expand...
What makes the comparisons tough is that spacing wasn’t introduced until about 600 AD. Thus it was more probable that “GENITUMNONFACTUMCONSUBSTANTIALEMPATRI” was the actual phrase. The “spacers” could have expanded the “word” to “con sub stantialem” but left it as one word.
 
The Filioque controversy is long after the original Nicene Council. The Creed of Nicea was in 325 AD. The additions to the Creed added at the Council of Constantinople was in 381 AD. The earliest that Filioque appears is in the 6th century.
 
OK, so one top down change was widely and gladly accepted. Another one was widely rejected and unhappily received. So let’s stick with the second one?
 
Widely and gladly accepted? The emptying churches since the 1960s would say otherwise. Oh yes, I forgot: either the Novus Ordo had nothing to do with that, or it saved us from even worse ruin. In any case, where’s the new springtime that was promised by the 1960s crowd who knew best? You know…the crowd that wrote Eucharistic Prayer II in a Roman trattoria in a rush job to get it to Bugnini on time (as one of the authors later detailed in his memoirs, with shame and embarrassment at what he had participated in).
 
Correct. Contrary to the mainstream liturgist arguments of today, there was no popular demand for it.
 
ProVobis said:
I don’t have the dates but weren’t they written around the same time, with the most notable difference being the “Filioque” added to the Latin version?
Click to expand...
You are correct. The Council of Nicaea promulgated the Creed in both Latin and Greek

The Filioque was added in following centuries.
 
Studies have already been done on the mass exodus (pun intended?). The vernacular had little to nothing to do with it. You can keep thinking that correlation means causality but that’s a logical fallacy. The overwhelming majority of people who left did not end up at more traditional groups. These mental gymnastics to inflict things on people that they don’t want for “their own good” is quite amusing.
 
Last edited:
And where are all the “studies” on how people don’t want the 2011 translation?
 
Look around. Bishops are talking about redoing it because its so disliked. Surveys of priests show its widely disliked and part of that is what they’re hearing from the people. Articles in Catholic publications from several English speaking countries are praising Pope Francis’ move to loosen the reigns a bit on the Missal translation.

Is the new translation the “end of the world”? No, of course not. However its not great.
 
Last edited:
??? The reply to “Dominus vobiscum” (“The Lord be with you”) has always been “Et cum spiritu tuo” (“And with your spirit”). Why would anyone reply to a secular comment such as “Have a great day” with something regarding the immortal spirit? And if anyone was confused by the whole thing, so what? Let them be confused. You don’t think people weren’t confused when the experiment commenced which took the Mass as it had been for 1500 years and replaced it with we have now? Any confusion that exists is due to those responsible for the whole mess up of the translation in the first place, and at least one of whom was involved in this has since publicly repented for his role. Little of the language used in the Liturgy is even used in conversational English which is why, despite the liturgy now being in the vernacular, people know less about what the Church teaches today than ever before (with their today being even further removed from having even a slight knowledge of Latin which is sort of needed as almost EVERYTHING ever written in the Church is in Latin, or based on something in Latin). In my experience sermons packed with orthodox Catholic teaching are extraordinary, even in my diocese which is considered “conservative.” I often hear priests barely touch on important issues but won’t mention them by name. A good priest will more than mention such issues and raise his voice in persona Christi doing so. Being a good priest requires a life full of continual study and it’s then their job to dispel confusions by adequately explaining them away. In a time where many priests no longer know the liturgy that well, let alone actually agree with and preach what the Church teaches, I guess this is the real problem.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top