Cliffhanger vote on new translation at Bishops meeting

  • Thread starter Thread starter frommi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This part is too funny…it’s so Catholic:

“The rules of the conference require that the text be approved by two-thirds of its members, not just those physically present. **Since there are 250 Latin Rite bishops in the United States, 166 “yes” votes are required to approve it, while 83 “no” votes are necessary to reject it.
**
As it turns out, the Orlando meeting was sparsely attended – one headcount yesterday found just 178 voting members. As a result, this morning’s ballot failed to get enough “yes” votes to approve the text, or enough “no” votes to block it.”

Reading that, I was just like “what!!!”…that’s too funny. I like it.
 
freudmacher said:
This part is too funny…it’s so Catholic:

“The rules of the conference require that the text be approved by two-thirds of its members, not just those physically present. **Since there are 250 Latin Rite bishops in the United States, 166 “yes” votes are required to approve it, while 83 “no” votes are necessary to reject it.
**
As it turns out, the Orlando meeting was sparsely attended – one headcount yesterday found just 178 voting members. As a result, this morning’s ballot failed to get enough “yes” votes to approve the text, or enough “no” votes to block it.”

Reading that, I was just like “what!!!”…that’s too funny. I like it.
Click to expand...
Yeah…I don’t get that…usually if something requires 2/3rds, it requires 2/3rds…not a full 1/3rd to block…but who knows.
 
ncrcafe.org/node/1911
USCCB: Dramatic debate, cliffhanger result on liturgy
Click to expand...
Heading into the U.S. bishops’ spring meeting in Orlando, it didn’t seem likely that a proposed new translation of the Proper of Seasons, part of the prayers and other texts for the Catholic Mass, would stir up much dust. Following a decade and a half of impassioned argument over such texts known colloquially as the “liturgy wars,” many bishops privately expressed fatigue and a desire to move on – suggesting to most observers that approval of this text ought to be more or less a given.
Click to expand...
. . . . .
Click to expand...
All that changed this morning, however, when Bishop Victor Galeone of Saint Augustine, Florida, rose to oppose the proposed text – despite, he said, fear that doing so may be “in vain.” A former Latin teacher who still reads Thomas Aquinas in the original language, Galeone made a forceful argument that the new translation is simply too unclear and awkward to be effectively used in American parishes.
Click to expand...
Among other things, Galeone cited the text’s use of the phrase “the gibbet of the Cross.”
Click to expand...
“The last time I heard that word was back in 1949, during Stations of the Cross in Lent,” Galeone said.
“I challenge anyone to proclaim what’s given here at Mass,” he said. “It’s very difficult.”
Click to expand...
“A good translator has to understand not just the original language, but also one’s own into which these texts are being put,” Galeone said. Despite assurances to the contrary, he said, the new texts are “slavish” with respect to the Latin originals.
Click to expand...
Calling Fr. Z!
So if the choice is too “slavishly” close to the Latin or too vernacular and desacralised, which is better? A show of hands, please.
 
Thats my bishop:thumbsup:

Despite not seeming it here, he is a very great Bishop, and quite orthodox.

edit to add:

I would have no idea what gibbet of the cross meant, and I am a fairly devout Catholic, and above average intelegence-wise.
 
It’s like taking a Chevy (Novus Ordo) and trying to turn it into a Ferrari (TLM). It just can’t happen!. The USCCB still thinks the NAB is the standard, where the rest of the US prefers the RSV CE, for it’s beauty as a modern translation. This doesn’t surprise me one bit. I also never liked mixing languages. In the TLM the Latin and everything else just flows beautifully. In a mixed Latin/English Novus Ordo Mass, it sounds horrible. Maybe having a liturgy like the Anglican Use is the answer.
 
SenorSalsa said:
Thats my bishop:thumbsup:

Despite not seeming it here, he is a very great Bishop, and quite orthodox.

edit to add:

I would have no idea what gibbet of the cross meant, and I am a fairly devout Catholic, and above average intelegence-wise.
Click to expand...
I’m sure his orthodoxy has nothing to do with linguistic tastes, which seem to be spot on in this case. Some of the other changes, like bringing back “consubstantial* with the Father” instead of “one in being with” seem to be called for.

From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: 1gib·bet [merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif](javascript:popWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?gibbet01.wav=gibbet’))Pronunciation: \ˈji-bət
Function: noun
Etymology:Middle English gibet, from Anglo-FrenchDate:13th century 1 : gallows
1a 2 : an upright post with a projecting arm for hanging the bodies of executed criminals as a warning
Click to expand...
[that’ what I thought]
Click to expand...
2gibbetFunction: transitive verb
Date: 1646 1 a**:** to expose to infamy or public scorn b**:** to hang on a gibbet2**:** to execute by hanging on a gibbet
Click to expand...
*Why doesn’t the CA spell checker recognise consubstantial?
 
didymus said:
ncrcafe.org/node/1911

Calling Fr. Z!
So if the choice is too “slavishly” close to the Latin or too vernacular and desacralised, which is better? A show of hands, please.
Click to expand...
In this case, if nobody can relate to the word “gibbet” how does it accomplish what it’s supposed to? I know the word but it hasn’t been used in common parlance in years – would it even be known in countries that didn’t execute by hanging?
 
bkovacs said:
It’s like taking a Chevy (Novus Ordo) and trying to turn it into a Ferrari (TLM). It just can’t happen!. The USCCB still thinks the NAB is the standard, where the rest of the US prefers the RSV CE, for it’s beauty as a modern translation. This doesn’t surprise me one bit. I also never liked mixing languages. In the TLM the Latin and everything else just flows beautifully. In a mixed Latin/English Novus Ordo Mass, it sounds horrible. Maybe having a liturgy like the Anglican Use is the answer.
Click to expand...
I don’t share your opinion. I think it may depend on the Latin/English OF Mass you attend(ed). In ours, it meshes quite beautifully. I’ve heard others (both OF and EF) that sounded awful. In fact, my first EF experience is the reason I don’t have a preference for the EF (not that I dislike it, but I don’t see it as a “Ferrari” at all).
 
We should start a collection and send the Florida bishops a one way ticket to Iran.

I agree with the poster above though, lipstick on a pig pretty much.
 
usccb.org/meetings/2008spring/agenda.shtml

ACTION ITEM #1: ICEL Translation of the Proper of Seasons
*ACTION: Do the Latin Church members of the USCCB approve the ICEL Gray Book translation of the Proper of the Seasons (of the Roman Missal) for use in the Dioceses of the United States of America? *

RESULTS: Inconclusive, goes to mail ballot

VOTE: Two-thirds Latin Church members with subsequent recognitio by the Holy See
Committee on Divine Worship, Bishop Arthur J. Serratelli, Chairman
 
EddieArent said:
We should start a collection and send the Florida bishops a one way ticket to Iran.

I agree with the poster above though, lipstick on a pig pretty much.
Click to expand...
whats wrong with our bishops? And if this happens, can we just have our retired bishop back. Hes pretty awesome too
 
Well, this is one example. The bishop speaking with a “I’m too good for the Traditional Latin Mass” (my wording) on top of the Florida bishops placing their own limits on the Traditional Latin Mass is another example. There’s a whole litany of issues here in Florida.
 
EddieArent said:
Well, this is one example. The bishop speaking with a “I’m too good for the Traditional Latin Mass” (my wording) on top of the Florida bishops placing their own limits on the Traditional Latin Mass is another example. There’s a whole litany of issues here in Florida.
Click to expand...
Thats where I dont think the article quite caught his point. I’ve talked to him personally about the Moto Propio and the EF in our diocese. And he said its not that he dislikes the EF–its what he started out celebrating–but that he doesnt see that great of a need for it. In his eyes, and mine as well, many people that “want the EF” really just want a more reverent Mass. Wether it be vernacular or not. Some may want it more reverent and in Latin. Even less want the EF in and of itself. So his point is an OF Mass, when celebrated properly, is just as reverent as the EF, and can be said in Latin just like the EF. I know that we only have one Church in the St. Augustine diocese that offers EF, and have no stats for Latin OF, but I dont hear complaints form within the diocese. And I think he exagerates when he said he wouldnt celebrate EF if told to do so.
 
No doubt some want a more relevant Mass but others are aware of certain problems with the Novus Ordo and desire more Traditional Mass, such as the Missal of 1962 or an Eastern Rite Mass for instance. Cardinal Hoyos stated that it is the wish of the Holy Father did each church have at least one Traditional Latin Mass each Sunday so as long as a “stable group” of as little as 3 people request it (1 = single, 2 = couple, 3+ = group). What I have a bone to pick with Bishop Galleone is that he calls himself an obediant son of the Church, but in the next sentence said he would disobey the Holy Father if he would be commanded to offer the rite of his ordination.
 
Wow! They were voting on using a new Bible translation for Mass? 🤷:confused: If so, that’s great! 👍 Too bad it wasn’t passed though. What translation were they voting on? 🤷:confused:
 
Holly3278 said:
Wow! They were voting on using a new Bible translation for Mass? 🤷:confused: If so, that’s great! 👍 Too bad it wasn’t passed though. What translation were they voting on? 🤷:confused:
Click to expand...
No, they were voting on the new translation of the mass propers (collects, prayers over the offerings, etc).

The translation of the ordinary of mass (eucharistic prayers, people’s responses, gloria) were voted on a couple of years ago and passed.
 
bkovacs said:
It’s like taking a Chevy (Novus Ordo) and trying to turn it into a Ferrari (TLM). It just can’t happen!. The USCCB still thinks the NAB is the standard, where the rest of the US prefers the RSV CE, for it’s beauty as a modern translation. This doesn’t surprise me one bit. I also never liked mixing languages. In the TLM the Latin and everything else just flows beautifully. In a mixed Latin/English Novus Ordo Mass, it sounds horrible. Maybe having a liturgy like the Anglican Use is the answer.
Click to expand...
That’s a ludicrous analogy.

The Pauline Mass is meant to have parts of it in Latin. Nothing horrible sounding about the daily Mass on EWTN for instance.
 
Uh, do you folks realize how dissident this source is ? The National Catholic Reporter is one of the worst sites on the net. It, or it’s columnists, have no redeeeming qualities at all.

Look at the Catholic Culture review…

catholicculture.org/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=60

Of course if one thinks lesbian “priests” are ok, one may love the site :rolleyes:

Come on, at least find a decent source of info.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top