Concern over the new Missal translation

[Digitonomy]

I still have a problem with how dumb Bishop Trautman believes the people in the pews to be. He argued black and blue that nobody would understand expressions like “The gibbet of the cross” because the word gibbet has not been used in general parlance for a few decades. Come on, are we too stupid to learn what words mean? English is my second language and I understand the expression.

Comparing yourself as a CAF regular to the average person in the pews isn’t a very valid approach. I have to agree with Bp Trautman on this particular phrase. I didn’t know what it meant until I looked it up a couple years ago. Certainly you can teach people a new word. Unless they use the word, or the explanation is especially memorable, many won’t be able to define it for you a year later. That strikes me as a waste of time and effort, for no real gain.

Not every change in phraseology is like that; I rather like the “Lord I am not worthy…” change - even though it’s not as straightforward as the current wording, the meaning is obvious, poetic, and provides a bit deeper insight into what we are saying at that moment. Gibbet is none of the above.

 

[agapewolf]

I really appreciate the one line you wrote that shouldn’t our language of belief reflect what we really mean. I couldn’t agree more, but I come to a different conclusion than you. If we were talking about ordinary things then ordinary words would be adequate. However, in trying to talk about the sacred a higher form of language is needed. One of the controversial words you highlighted is “consubstantial.” In my mind that word is packed with so much more meaning and clarity than could ever be put into the phrase “one in being with.” “Consubstantial,” in my opinion, goes further in defining the relationship between God and Christ better and more exact than “one in being with” could ever.

ChadS

The problem with calling it a higher form of language is that it isn’t. Have you actually read some of the prayers that will be in the missal? There was one sentence that was something like 48 or 68 words long (I was trying to look it up but I can’t find it) It was impossible to diagram, because it was so nonsensical. That is not a higher language, that isn’t even good grammar. Its a bunch of run on sentences with commas in between.

While I believe a revised translation could be wonderful, and I submit to the authority of my church for this, I think that this will also bring problems. Like simple following of some of the prayers.

I’m also concerned about the lack of catechesis that might happen with implementation. “And with your spirit” is very likely to give the idea of a mannicheistic heresy.

Again, I hope this brings deeper faith, but I do have concerns about some things.

 

[bmadamsberry]

All of the changes can be found on the USCCB.org website.

 

[Phemie]

Comparing yourself as a CAF regular to the average person in the pews isn’t a very valid approach. I have to agree with Bp Trautman on this particular phrase. I didn’t know what it meant until I looked it up a couple years ago. Certainly you can teach people a new word. Unless they use the word, or the explanation is especially memorable, many won’t be able to define it for you a year later. That strikes me as a waste of time and effort, for no real gain.

Not every change in phraseology is like that; I rather like the “Lord I am not worthy…” change - even though it’s not as straightforward as the current wording, the meaning is obvious, poetic, and provides a bit deeper insight into what we are saying at that moment. Gibbet is none of the above.

10 years ago I had never heard of liturgy, GIRM, canon law (well, OK 10 years ago I knew we had a new Code but didn’t really know what it meant), and church documents. I was your average PIP but that phrase would have still painted a vivid picture in my head. I guess at my age I must have learned the word gibbet at some point even though I hadn’t heard or seen it written in years.

 

[ChadS]

The problem with calling it a higher form of language is that it isn’t. Have you actually read some of the prayers that will be in the missal? There was one sentence that was something like 48 or 68 words long (I was trying to look it up but I can’t find it) It was impossible to diagram, because it was so nonsensical. That is not a higher language, that isn’t even good grammar. Its a bunch of run on sentences with commas in between.

While I believe a revised translation could be wonderful, and I submit to the authority of my church for this, I think that this will also bring problems. Like simple following of some of the prayers.

I’m also concerned about the lack of catechesis that might happen with implementation. “And with your spirit” is very likely to give the idea of a mannicheistic heresy.

Again, I hope this brings deeper faith, but I do have concerns about some things.

Catechesis will definitely be necessary as it is when any new changes are made. The real question is will the priest’s take the time to do the proper catechesis and to properly prepare their parishoners? I hope so.

I’m not sure how “And with your spirit” will lead to a rise in mannicheistic heresy. The Latin for “And with your spirit” has always been in the liturgy, even in this missal, it’s just now that we’re getting an accurate translation of the Latin.

ChadS

 

[FrDavid96]

In surfing the web, I came across the following page
eriercd.org/bishop.asp

I would like to offer some suggestion to the webmaster on improving the page.

Here is the text as the webmaster originally posted it:

I am delighted to welcome you to the Web site of the Catholic Diocese of Erie! We are, geographically, Pennsylvania’s largest diocese, and our parishes stretch from the sparkling shores of Lake Erie through the majestic Allegheny National Forest. I have come to know and love the scenic and historic towns that dot the highways and byways of northwestern Pennsylvania, where it has been my privilege to serve since 1990. Though our diocese is expansive and includes many people with various gifts and vocations, their faith, generosity and good will unites us. The collaboration of the people, the priests and the religious inspire and refresh me. I continue to give thanks and praise to the Lord for the strong and healthy pulse beat of the Erie Diocese. I rejoice that you have found us online, and I trust you will find the useful, timely and edifying information you seek. Please let us know how we can improve this important instrument of communication if you have any trouble navigating through our pages.
For the latest diocesan news, please follow the link to our latest issue of FAITH magazine. May God continue to bring to fruition the good work he has begun in you!

And here are my suggestions for improvement:

“I am delighted” sounds downright Victorian. It should be replaced with “I’m happy.” Who says “I am delighted” in today’s language?

“We are, geographically, Pennsylvania’s largest diocese” should be replaced with “the diocese is really, really big!”
The word ge⋅o⋅graph⋅i⋅cal⋅ly has 6, count 'em 6! syllables. Come on now. Enough is enough. No word with 6 syllables should be on a webpage.

Do Lake Erie’s shores sparkle? This is most confusing to people. Let’s just say that “the Lake is pretty.”

“The majestic Allegheny National Forest”??? What’s that supposed to mean. I don’t know Allegheny had a king. This is very very confusing to the average person. How about we just say “we’ve got lots of trees here”?

“Highways and byways”? What is this, Shakespeare?. What’s a byway anyway? Why not just say we have some roads and some of them are hard, and some of them are just plain dirt. That sounds much better.

Instead of saying “it has been my privilege to serve since 1990” try saying “I like my job.”

Let’s change “Though our diocese is expansive and includes many people with various gifts and vocations, their faith, generosity and good will unites us.” to read “we have a big diocese, with lots of people, and they’re nice.”

Don’t use the word “collaboration” because that’s not a word in our everyday vocabulary. It sounds too much like church jargon. Just say “we like to get along”

Why say “inspire and refresh me”? It sounds like a cola commercial, for cryin’ out loud. “I like it here” would be much better.

“I continue to give thanks and praise to the Lord for the strong and healthy pulse beat of the Erie Diocese.” This, again, is confusing. Is the webmaster trying to say that no one gets sick there? Does “healthy pulse” refer back to the “highways and byways”?

“Edifying”??? What’s that word mean. How many average 2nd graders know the meaning of the word “edifying”??? I need a dictionary to just read this webpage.

“important instrument of communication” makes one wonder if the reference here is to the webpage or is there a marching band somewhere? Wouldn’t the simple word “webpage” suffice? Why be so wordy???

Don’t say “navigating through our pages” replace that with “clicking” It’s more concise.

And as for the word “fruition” I suppose people who know what “edifying” means would also know what “fruition” means. The rest of us have no clue.

I certainly hope that the webmaster takes my suggestions.

 

[Phemie]

I would like to offer some suggestion to the webmaster on improving the page.

I certainly hope that the webmaster takes my suggestions.

Priestly sarcasm, I love it.

 

[ChemicalBean]

In surfing the web, I came across the following page
eriercd.org/bishop.asp

I would like to offer some suggestion to the webmaster on improving the page.

Here is the text as the webmaster originally posted it:

I am delighted to welcome you to the Web site of the Catholic Diocese of Erie! We are, geographically, Pennsylvania’s largest diocese, and our parishes stretch from the sparkling shores of Lake Erie through the majestic Allegheny National Forest. I have come to know and love the scenic and historic towns that dot the highways and byways of northwestern Pennsylvania, where it has been my privilege to serve since 1990. Though our diocese is expansive and includes many people with various gifts and vocations, their faith, generosity and good will unites us. The collaboration of the people, the priests and the religious inspire and refresh me. I continue to give thanks and praise to the Lord for the strong and healthy pulse beat of the Erie Diocese. I rejoice that you have found us online, and I trust you will find the useful, timely and edifying information you seek. Please let us know how we can improve this important instrument of communication if you have any trouble navigating through our pages.
For the latest diocesan news, please follow the link to our latest issue of FAITH magazine. May God continue to bring to fruition the good work he has begun in you!

And here are my suggestions for improvement:

“I am delighted” sounds downright Victorian. It should be replaced with “I’m happy.” Who says “I am delighted” in today’s language?

“We are, geographically, Pennsylvania’s largest diocese” should be replaced with “the diocese is really, really big!”
The word ge⋅o⋅graph⋅i⋅cal⋅ly has 6, count 'em 6! syllables. Come on now. Enough is enough. No word with 6 syllables should be on a webpage.

Do Lake Erie’s shores sparkle? This is most confusing to people. Let’s just say that “the Lake is pretty.”

“The majestic Allegheny National Forest”??? What’s that supposed to mean. I don’t know Allegheny had a king. This is very very confusing to the average person. How about we just say “we’ve got lots of trees here”?

“Highways and byways”? What is this, Shakespeare?. What’s a byway anyway? Why not just say we have some roads and some of them are hard, and some of them are just plain dirt. That sounds much better.

Instead of saying “it has been my privilege to serve since 1990” try saying “I like my job.”

Let’s change “Though our diocese is expansive and includes many people with various gifts and vocations, their faith, generosity and good will unites us.” to read “we have a big diocese, with lots of people, and they’re nice.”

Don’t use the word “collaboration” because that’s not a word in our everyday vocabulary. It sounds too much like church jargon. Just say “we like to get along”

Why say “inspire and refresh me”? It sounds like a cola commercial, for cryin’ out loud. “I like it here” would be much better.

“I continue to give thanks and praise to the Lord for the strong and healthy pulse beat of the Erie Diocese.” This, again, is confusing. Is the webmaster trying to say that no one gets sick there? Does “healthy pulse” refer back to the “highways and byways”?

“Edifying”??? What’s that word mean. How many average 2nd graders know the meaning of the word “edifying”??? I need a dictionary to just read this webpage.

“important instrument of communication” makes one wonder if the reference here is to the webpage or is there a marching band somewhere? Wouldn’t the simple word “webpage” suffice? Why be so wordy???

Don’t say “navigating through our pages” replace that with “clicking” It’s more concise.

And as for the word “fruition” I suppose people who know what “edifying” means would also know what “fruition” means. The rest of us have no clue.

I certainly hope that the webmaster takes my suggestions.

I understand you are trying to be a smart-aleck, but I would agree that this writing could retain the essence of what he wants to say, yet be more clear. Such revision would be more edifying to his audience.

 

[Alindawyl]

I understand you are trying to be a smart-aleck, but I would agree that this writing could retain the essence of what he wants to say, yet be more clear. Such revision would be more edifying to his audience.

You said edifying

 

[5Loaves]

The new translation is actually a way of following the teachings of Vatican II.

In reality, what these people are upset about is that the Church is reading and understanding and applying the teachings of the Council, instead of what we had in the past which was a liturgical “free for all” where people (like the ones circulating this letter) could just say “that’s what Vatican II said” and hope that no one read the documents.

What people who do things like this fear more than anything else is that Catholics will actually pick up and read the documents of Vatican II.

The strongest evidence I can give for the above is this:

The webpage which claims to invoke Vatican II does not have one single quote from the documents of Vatican II to support their claims. That silence speaks volumes.

Bingo!, FrDavid96. In my experience, they’ll also not refer to V2 documents or to any encyclical or the CCC, in parish teachings or bulletins. I really wonder often how much they really understand at all the depth of the Mass. You can’t teach what you don’t understand. There seems at Mass often to be more a kind of social worker approach than a belief in heaven and earth uniting. There are times when I feel I have done penance participating in a local Roman Rite Mass. (BTW I’ve also participated in Mass with the same language celebrated with such joy and reverence the poor language is elevated by the intention of the celebrant.)

I’m really looking forward to the new translations, returning to an integrity with the Latin that I understand some other language translations had maintained. I really don’t get the enthusiasm for pedestrian language in Mass. I bought a copy of The Book of Common Prayer a couple months ago. It’s a blessing to have the beauty of the prayers preserved in that tradition and to add them back to my prayer life. As a child in the Episcopal Church in the 1950s when there was language in the hymns, beautiful, and prayers, beautiful, I wasn’t used to hearing in daily speech it wasn’t something that disturbed me. I knew it was the language we used in church and it gave me a taste of the power and majesty of God and frankly enlarged my vocabulary.

In Eastern Catholic Churches and Orthodoxy we talk about the Divine Liturgy doing the catechesis. I so agree with this. What is that catechesis going on in the current Roman Missal?

 

[Brendan]

This web link was forwarded by a priest in our area with a comment about how many others from our area had already signed this, thereby giving their support. (especially various religious persons)
http://www.whatifwejustsaidwait.org/

I was wondering what people here might think of this. I have my own opinions, but don’t want to slant the thread until some others comment.

I think that Fr. Ryan is trying to make a tempest in a teapot. I mean really, does he honestly belive that getting the English translation closer to the actual Vatican II Mass, and closer to what all the other languages say would be an abandonment of Vatican II??

He references Sacrosanctum Concillium about the bishops needing to vote, and how the new translation is somehow a step back from collegiality. The bishops voted 200-ish to 17-ish to approve it…

 

[benedictgal]

The problem with calling it a higher form of language is that it isn’t. Have you actually read some of the prayers that will be in the missal? There was one sentence that was something like 48 or 68 words long (I was trying to look it up but I can’t find it) It was impossible to diagram, because it was so nonsensical. That is not a higher language, that isn’t even good grammar. Its a bunch of run on sentences with commas in between.

While I believe a revised translation could be wonderful, and I submit to the authority of my church for this, I think that this will also bring problems. Like simple following of some of the prayers.

I’m also concerned about the lack of catechesis that might happen with implementation. “And with your spirit” is very likely to give the idea of a mannicheistic heresy.

Again, I hope this brings deeper faith, but I do have concerns about some things.

Agapewolf, with all due respect, I have a hard time buying the difficulty with the translations. In the first place, those of us who have assisted at a Spanish-language Mass have been using “y con tu spiritu” (and with your spirit) since the get-go.

Second, the fact remains that the original ICEL stab at the translations was poorly done. Oddly enough, it took a non-native English speaking prefect (in this case, Jorge Cardinal Medina) to tell ICEL that their translations were faulty. Rather than translate the documents literally, ICEL decided that their version would encompass what they think the words should say. Fidelity to the text was thrown out the window. Furthermore, the document they based their translation on was not even an authoritative document of the Church, but some thesis based in France.

The new propers of the Mass have already been out for a year. In fact, as far as catechesis is concerned, if you were to read japhy’s book, it offers a pretty solid explanation as to the what’s and why’s. I wish you would have been at the Gateway Liturgical Conference last year, since the talks about the new translations were very informative.

 

[benedictgal]

Comparing yourself as a CAF regular to the average person in the pews isn’t a very valid approach. I have to agree with Bp Trautman on this particular phrase. I didn’t know what it meant until I looked it up a couple years ago. Certainly you can teach people a new word. Unless they use the word, or the explanation is especially memorable, many won’t be able to define it for you a year later. That strikes me as a waste of time and effort, for no real gain.

Not every change in phraseology is like that; I rather like the “Lord I am not worthy…” change - even though it’s not as straightforward as the current wording, the meaning is obvious, poetic, and provides a bit deeper insight into what we are saying at that moment. Gibbet is none of the above.

Maybe you should read what Liturgiam Authenticam has to say about this:

1. Ever since the promulgation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the work of the translation of the liturgical texts into vernacular languages, as promoted by the Apostolic See, has involved the publication of norms and the communication to the Bishops of advice on the matter. Nevertheless, it has been noted that translations of liturgical texts in various localities stand in need of improvement through correction or through a new draft.11

The omissions or errors which affect certain existing vernacular translations especially in the case of certain languages have impeded the progress of the inculturation that actually should have taken place. Consequently, the Church has been prevented from laying the foundation for a fuller, healthier and more authentic renewal.

1. For these reasons, it now seems necessary to set forth anew, and in light of the maturing of experience, the principles of translation to be followed in future translations whether they be entirely new undertakings or emendations of texts already in use and to specify more clearly certain norms that have already been published, taking into account a number of questions and circumstances that have arisen in our own day. In order to take full advantage of the experience gained since the Council, it seems useful to express these norms from time to time in terms of tendencies that have been evident in past translations, but which are to be avoided in future ones. In fact, it seems necessary to consider anew the true notion of liturgical translation in order that the translations of the Sacred Liturgy into the vernacular languages may stand secure as the authentic voice of the Church of God.12

I find no fault with the translations. In fact, having assisted at an Anglican-Use Mass on several occasions, I envied the beauty of their prayers. As far as the word “gibbet” is concerned, that really is a non-issue since this word has appeared in Catholic literature in times past.

 

[Brendan]

Well, I think one of the comments on the posted site made a great argument. How many times in your everyday language do you use the words consubstantial,

How many times in everyday conversation do you refer to the relationship between the Father and the Son?

The current translation tells us nothing about that relationship. It uses the term “One in being”, which is a statement about existance ( the verb ‘to be’). Well there is no existance apart from the Father. I personally am “one in being” with the Father, so is my cat, and so is my computer keyboard.

But neither I, my cat, nor my keyboard, are CONSUBSTANTIAL with the Father, only the 2nd and 3rd persons of the Holy Trinity share that.

Should not our Mass, the language of our belief, say what we really mean?

Yes, which is precisely why the words are changing, so we CAN say what we really mean. Especially in the relationship of the Holy Trinity. The Church means to say that they share the same Nature, the same Substance. So therefore we should say it.

In addition, that is what all the other languages have been saying since day one.

The Spanish version “de la misma naturaleza que el Padre, por quien todo fue hecho” – (of the same nature as the Father). Or in French “Lumière venue de la Lumière, vrai Dieu venu du vrai Dieu, engendré non pas créé, constubstantiel au Père;”

Do you really think that the French use “constubstantiel” in everyday converstations? Or the Mexican go around declaring something to be of the “same Nature”?

Or is the translations they have been using since Vatican II somehow defective, and only the English version ‘gets’ the true “Spirit of Vatican II”

 

[marci]

I think the argument that the people won’t understand the language is insulting to say the least. When I was in Jr High I went to a non-denominational bible christian school. The bible we were required to use was the King James Version. I thought it was beautiful. When I was in High School and started Confirmation classes we used the New American and I was very put off by the language. I was a teenager and I actually prefered the “older” language.

Why do all of these people have such a hang up about sacredness? The Mass is not supposed to be a neighborhood pot luck. You guys won, they got rid of the Communion rail, Latin, priest’s posture. You got your alter girls, EMHCs, electric guitars. Can’t you just give on allowing at least a truthful translation?

Honestly, I don’t think that this is about the “difficut” language at all. I think it’s about the fear of a lack of inclusionary language. I think that things like “for many” vs “for all” is what has everyone in up in arms.

 

[Brendan]

I know many other countries (like Spain, France, etc) have been using versions that are closer to the Latin than the English is (it’s easier because they are Romantic Languages that directly came from Latin).

Really, so have the Germans, Poles, etc…

I asked our pastor, who is from Slovakia, about their translations. They use “And with your spirit” and “consubstantial” in their translation.

Here is the Dutch version, for example

“En met uw geest.” “And with your ghost\spirit”

And the Polish

“I z duchem twoim.” “And with your spirit”

 

[agapewolf]

Agapewolf, with all due respect, I have a hard time buying the difficulty with the translations. In the first place, those of us who have assisted at a Spanish-language Mass have been using “y con tu spiritu” (and with your spirit) since the get-go.

Second, the fact remains that the original ICEL stab at the translations was poorly done. Oddly enough, it took a non-native English speaking prefect (in this case, Jorge Cardinal Medina) to tell ICEL that their translations were faulty. Rather than translate the documents literally, ICEL decided that their version would encompass what they think the words should say. Fidelity to the text was thrown out the window. Furthermore, the document they based their translation on was not even an authoritative document of the Church, but some thesis based in France.

The new propers of the Mass have already been out for a year. In fact, as far as catechesis is concerned, if you were to read japhy’s book, it offers a pretty solid explanation as to the what’s and why’s. I wish you would have been at the Gateway Liturgical Conference last year, since the talks about the new translations were very informative.

Benedictgal, once again, you haven’t addressed anything I said.

Just because “with your spirit” is being used in other languages, does not mean my point is moot.

How do you know I wasn’t at the conference? You don’t. In fact, this point was addressed there, AND the panel AGREED WITH ME, as well as having discussions/evals with me after the conference was over, over a meal.

My point still remains, there is bad grammar. Run on sentences with over 50 words is not a “higher form” of language as attributed earlier.

 

[Digitonomy]

Maybe you should read what Liturgiam Authenticam has to say about this:

[just the parts you highlighted:]Nevertheless, it has been noted that translations of liturgical texts in various localities stand in need of improvement through correction or through a new draft.11

I assume that even though you quoted my entire post, you’re addressing my view on the word “gibbet,” rather than my preference for the new translation of “Lord I am not worthy…”

It’s hard to imagine that the omission of the word “gibbet” has stood in the way of desired inculturation and renewal. Rather, I suspect they were referring to other omissions and errors.

benedictgal:

As far as the word “gibbet” is concerned, that really is a non-issue since this word has appeared in Catholic literature in times past.

Obviously it is an issue, as there was debate on it. In the end, the issue was decided in favor of keeping the word. I disagree that the presence of a word in past Catholic literature automatically makes it the best choice in the liturgy; even if it did most available alternatives have also appeared in Catholic literature in the past, so it’s not a very useful guideline.

 

[Bailey2]

OK guys, what is a gibbet?

 

[Brendan]

OK guys, what is a gibbet?

It is a post upon which is placed the body of a condemned person for vilification and public humiliation.

A “modern” gibbet would be those body shaped cages with skeletons in them that you see around halloween or in wax museums. Which is how I learned the word.

Back in High School, I was working as a stock boy in KMart. We got in a few boxes of those cage things around Halloween and the invoice said “Decorative Gibbet”

My response was “Oh so THAT’s what those things are called!!”:doh2:

So there, how often do you get to use the term “Decorative Gibbet” in conversation