Christ has Died, Christ has Risen USCCB

  • Thread starter Thread starter Reformed_Rob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Reformed_Rob

Guest
Hi, I was watching “The World Over” with Raymond Arroyo today on EWTN, and he briefly reported on a decision by the US Catholic Bishops Council (USCCB) regarding the words or prayer in which the words “Christ has died, Christ is risen” are used. Are they in the Liturgy? I’m not sure, it was a short news piece, and new to me, and I didn’t understand it all. But they said that, “though beloved, the phrase is not theologically sound.”

What do they mean? Like, I know there’s probably something tied up to what they mean about “Christ has died, Christ is risen” being theologically incorrect or unsound, but I’m not sure, the report didn’t give any detail. It’s probably in regard to the way they can be misunderstood in the time/circumstance they are used or prayed, like if in Liturgy.

Does anybody else know about this?

Rob
 
“Christ has died. Christ is risen. Christ will come again” is the memorial acclamation which takes place after the consecration of the blood. The USCCB is considering changing this. Some say it is liturgically incorrect. The Latin version of this was Mortem tuam annuntiamus, Domine, et tuam resurrectionem confitemur, donec venias. This translates in english to We proclaim your death, O Lord, and confess your ressurection, until you come.

matthew
 
Ok, so is the contention with the translation into English, or is it with the theology set forth in the words of the memorial acclimation?

From what I understood on the EWTN News program, the USCCB did, at their recent meeting, where they discussed and ruled on many other things, they did decide to strike/change that acclimation, because though it was “beloved” it is “theologically incorrect.”

EWTN’s reporter (Raymond Arroyo) could be wrong in his report, or I could be wrong via misunderstanding it, or my imperfect recollection, or maybe the USCCB is wrong in it’s ruling? Any of those 3 are possible I suppose.
 
Why don’t they fix the rest of the lousy translations?

For example, bring back the English equivalent of mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! It’s there in the Mass in Spanish!

*Et cum spiritu tuo *translates into **And with your spirit, **not **and also with you!:banghead:

So, how about fixing it, gentlemen?
**
 
40.png
Cradle:
I would like to know exactly how it is not theologically sound.
Click to expand...
In one of the other discussions here, someone pointed out that, with Christ present in the Eucharist, it isn’t exactly proper to speak of Him in the third person, as if He weren’t there.

The former acclamation speaks directly to Christ.

Elizabeth
 
40.png
ElizabethJoy:
In one of the other discussions here, someone pointed out that, with Christ present in the Eucharist, it isn’t exactly proper to speak of Him in the third person, as if He weren’t there.

The former acclamation speaks directly to Christ.

Elizabeth
Click to expand...
So it is a tense issue only? Now that I think about it, the other acclaimations are second person. Still it seems more grammatical than theological.
 
*"Et cum spiritu tuo *translates into **And with your spirit, **not and also with you!"
I agree that most of the ICEL translation is terrible, and needs to be fixed.

But this is the one point I probably disagree with you on.

“And with your spirit” IS the literal translation. But it is the literal translation of an IDIOM in Latin that comes through the liturgical Hebrew. An idiom we do not really have in English. I think, as quaint as “and with your spirit” is, it is probably best to translate idioms in terms of meaning and not literally. And the meaning of this idiom is “and also with you”.

From the Catholic encyclopedia:

“…In either case the answer is: Et cum spiritu tuo. This is a Hebraism that occurs constantly in both the Old and the New Testament. “Thy spirit” simply means “thee” (Cf. e.g. Dan., iii, 86; Gal., vi, 18; Phil., iv, 23; Philem., 25). Nefesh (Heb.), Nafs (Ar.), with a pronominal suffix, in all Semitic languages means simply the person in question.”
 
40.png
ElizabethJoy:
In one of the other discussions here, someone pointed out that, with Christ present in the Eucharist, it isn’t exactly proper to speak of Him in the third person, as if He weren’t there.

The former acclamation speaks directly to Christ.

Elizabeth
Click to expand...
More than likely, trying to assume the best as always, it is something like that. I listened to a long series of lectures titled “Mass Appeal” I got from St. Joseph’s Communications, and boy was I impressed with the defense of the Pauline Missal (the “Novus Ordo”), yet I also learned how even the Tridentine Missal saw it’s corrections and modifications. Mostly grammatical and practical things. And that makes sense, because over the years, when something is in practice amongst thousands of priests, one of them is bound to notice something that could be improved upon or needs to be addressed.

EWTN will have a report on the USCCB Chicago meeting on “The World Over” on June 24. Hey, that’s this Friday!! At 8 pm, Eastern Time. Then it will be on again a few more times through Monday.
 
40.png
JW10631:
Why don’t they fix the rest of the lousy translations?
*Et cum spiritu tuo *translates into **And with your spirit, **not **and also with you!:banghead:

**
Click to expand...
I can see how it might be odd to say “And with your spirit” in the response, like telling the priest, “May the Lord be with your spirit.”

Just sounds odd. To me at least.
 
in regards to the “et cum spiritu tuo”… would the direct translation resonate with the faithful? would they have a clear understanding of what this response means? it does have a very specific understanding attached to it, will they be able to comprehend this?

there will need to be quite a bit of catechesis done. this leads to the question - will it be done?
 
40.png
JW10631:
Why don’t they fix the rest of the lousy translations?

For example, bring back the English equivalent of mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! It’s there in the Mass in Spanish!

*Et cum spiritu tuo *translates into **And with your spirit, **not and also with you!:banghead:

So, how about fixing it, gentlemen?
Click to expand...
What really gets me about “and also with you,” is that when the mass first changed to English, we said “and with your spirit.”
They changed it a few years later :confused: … the same with “through my fault, through my fault, through my most grevious fault.”
 
40.png
ElizabethJoy:
In one of the other discussions here, someone pointed out that, with Christ present in the Eucharist, it isn’t exactly proper to speak of Him in the third person, as if He weren’t there.

The former acclamation speaks directly to Christ.

Elizabeth
Click to expand...
When I heard this on * and saw these two threads, my first thought was, “What’s the big deal?”

However, Elizabeth’s comment makes sense (and it’s the first one I’ve seen that makes sense, too).

DaveBj*
 
40.png
frdave20:
in regards to the “et cum spiritu tuo”… would the direct translation resonate with the faithful? would they have a clear understanding of what this response means? it does have a very specific understanding attached to it, will they be able to comprehend this?

there will need to be quite a bit of catechesis done. this leads to the question - will it be done?
Click to expand...
I think you shortchange the English speaking world’s intelligence.

In Spanish, the response is,
*Y con tu espiritu. *Not - Y contigo tambien. If practicing Catholics in Spain and Latin America have little or no trouble grasping this response, then it should not be that tough for the English speaking Catholic world.

For centuries, the reponse was et cum spiritu tuo. All we need is the correct translation. It really should not be that difficult.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top