Concern over the new Missal translation

[bmadamsberry]

Just wondering, is there any timeline as to when the new translation could be implemented?

Advent 2010 is what is being circulated.

Also, all changes can be found at usccb.org, and the parishoner changes specifically at usccb.org/romanmissal/examples.shtml

 

[benedictgal]

Back in 2003 the USCCB and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops recommended

We in the ECCs don’t use it.

Evidently, the recommendation was never taken, since Filoque remains a part of the Creed for the Latin Rite.

 

[plefe]

You make good points in your answer. Many still do not understand the upheaval that occurred when the order of Mass was changed. Many left the Church because they couldn’t deal with all of the changes occurring. I remember that it seemed something ‘new’ happened each week and it went beyond confusion in many instances. Those that stayed were eventually able to embrace what was happening, but it was a tough time.

The initial English translation was poorly done simply because many on that committee had their own agenda as to what they wanted. Some of the translation was clearly bogus, and I am surprised that the Church allowed it for so long a time. Now, the movement is to get back to the original intent of the Latin and it means translating accurately and as precise as possible, something that wasn’t done.

Some American bishops are dead-set against the new translation now because they themselves were involved in the initial one. And their arguments are also bogus. They feel that translating verbatim from the Latin will be irrelevent because people don’t use those phrases and meanings anymore. Actually, they think the common faithful are stupid. They always have because the faithful have really never (until the present generation of traditional loving Catholics) challenged anything in this regard. They just accept.

Vatican II also called for the retention of Latin in the Mass. Where has this occurred? So, instead of being alarmed over the new English translation, we should rejoice!

Amen to your statement Brother. So bring it to us now.

 

[ProVobis]

Fr. David is this use closer to the EF? I don’t have an english translation of the EF, so I can’t compare it.

There isn’t any official English translation of the EF. With those who had multiple missals prior to VII, you learned that each one had a slightly different wording in the English and that the English is only there as **a guide **to understand the Latin, at least for those who didn’t think in Latin. Some could have easily predicted back then that if the Mass were ever to be vernacularized there would be all kinds of disputes as to which version is more accurate. Look at all the Bibles, each one claiming its better than the others. Something is always lost in translations, so now it becomes a matter of determining which version minimizes those losses.

The Latin and its theology presented no problem as that was fixed.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

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.

What it is is an attempt to divide the Church. Why do some people think that they know better that the Holy Spirit who is guiding the Church, the same Holy Spirit that presided over the Second Vatican Council? I believe that people involved in this simply do not understand what the Catholic Church is, have never really studied the Vatican II documents or the History of the Catholic Church or the Liturgy. When one actually studies the V-II document on the Liturgy one finds that many of the things we do today are NOT called for in the document and, many things called for in the document are NOT present in the Liturgy today.