Concern over the new Missal translation

[Bailey2]

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

Well, that’s not what I thought it was… so how does this relate to liturgy?
(You see? We joe Catholics are going to shake our heads and wonder what all the fuss is about).

 

[Bailey2]

Well, that’s not what I thought it was… so how does this relate to liturgy?
(You see? We joe Catholics are going to shake our heads and wonder what all the fuss is about).

I wasn’t being sarcastic. I am really curious how the word, gibbet is used in the liturgy. Is it on any of the links people put on this thread?

 

[FrDavid96]

Well, that’s not what I thought it was… so how does this relate to liturgy?
(You see? We joe Catholics are going to shake our heads and wonder what all the fuss is about).

Uuuhhhmmmm…how do I put this?

Christ was killed by crucifixion, meaning that he was hung on a cross. The cross is a form of gibbet.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your question?

Anyway, all the “fuss” is just a whole lot of smoke & mirrors to distract people away from the real issue which is that the original ICEL interpretations just don’t work. I very firmly believe that when this finally does happen, most people are going to simply accept the new words with very little difficulty–unless of course, those who want to create difficulty succeed in making issues where there are none.

“Joe Catholic” will do just fine. He’s a lot more intelligent than some will give him credit.

The new translation: so easy a caveman can do it!

(sorry, couldn’t help it)

 

[Brendan]

I wasn’t being sarcastic. I am really curious how the word, gibbet is used in the liturgy. Is it on any of the links people put on this thread?

On Wedsday of Holy Week, the priest says this line at one point in the Mass ( I can’t remember at which part)

“Oh God, who for our sake willed that your Son should suffer on the gibbet of the Cross.”

Believe it our not, there are people in the world who think that Catholics will run screaming if they hear a priest say that during Holy Week, or that such a line is a rejection of the “Spirit of Vatican II”

.

 

[Brendan]

The new translation: so easy a caveman can do it!

(sorry, couldn’t help it)

I agree, I cannot honestly see why people like this Fr. Ryan (who created the website the OP listed to) is tying their knickers in a knot over this.

OK, we have to say a few new things, things that articulate our Faith more completely than the current translation.

After going through Japhy’s book, all I can really say it “OK no problem, when do we start”

 

[FrDavid96]

I wasn’t being sarcastic. I am really curious how the word, gibbet is used in the liturgy. Is it on any of the links people put on this thread?

Bailey,
I did not think you were being sarcastic. I just couldn’t figure-out why you were asking the question.

 

[Bailey2]

Uuuhhhmmmm…how do I put this?

Christ was killed by crucifixion, meaning that he was hung on a cross. The cross is a form of gibbet.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your question?

Anyway, all the “fuss” is just a whole lot of smoke & mirrors to distract people away from the real issue which is that the original ICEL interpretations just don’t work. I very firmly believe that when this finally does happen, most people are going to simply accept the new words with very little difficulty–unless of course, those who want to create difficulty succeed in making issues where there are none.

“Joe Catholic” will do just fine. He’s a lot more intelligent than some will give him credit.

The new translation: so easy a caveman can do it!

(sorry, couldn’t help it)

(we posted at the same time)… OK I get the gibbet thing! As for the rest, I think the way it reads now is just fine even though you put it so eloquently in your metaphor above. I like poetry and nuances and richness of language; but frankly, I think joe Catholic is going to care less and is fine with “good,” “pretty,” and “hey.” (no disrespect intended). I do know that my mother used to joke around and beat her breast about the “through my most grievous thought” thing in her relief that it was taken out of the liturgy. Now that it is being put back in, I have to admit I will never be able to keep a straight face. Not a good translation for OCD’s and depressives.

And Fr.D (assuming you are really Fr.), I will confess that I am not joe Catholic but I tend to want to advocate for him on CAF.

 

[Bailey2]

PS. I really didn’t get the gibbet thing and now I really do get it… learned something today!

 

[Brendan]

BTW, the Internation Commitee on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) did write to the US bishops to address some of their concerns about this word

Here is from their letter ( the word used in Latin is patibulum, which is the horizontal bar of the cross )

“None of the critics of this word seems able to produce a workable alternative.

“‘Guillotine’, ‘electric chair’ and ‘syringe’ share the purpose of patibulum, but not its shape. ‘Gallows’ denotes a device similar in shape and purpose to a patibulum, but in modern speech seems only be used for structures designed for hanging by a rope.

‘Yoke’ is a possible translation, but it has the weakness that it denotes the shape of the device but not its purpose, whereas the pati- element in patibulum draws attention to its purpose. A vivid modern translation might be ‘death-machine’, but this would be found unacceptable by those many commentators who prefer blandness in liturgical language.”
…

“In choosing ‘gibbet’ to translate patibulum, the Commitee has also been aware that the phrase ‘the gibbet of the Cross’ was used by Saint John Fisher.”

When the Committee talks about the ‘pati’ part of patibulum, pati in Latin denotes suffering or harsh enduring. It is where we derive our word ‘patient’.

 

[FrDavid96]

(we posted at the same time)… OK I get the gibbet thing! As for the rest, I think the way it reads now is just fine even though you put it so eloquently in your metaphor above. I like poetry and nuances and richness of language; but frankly, I think joe Catholic is going to care less and is fine with “good,” “pretty,” and “hey.” (no disrespect intended). I do know that my mother used to joke around and beat her breast about the “through my most grievous thought” thing in her relief that it was taken out of the liturgy. Now that it is being put back in, I have to admit I will never be able to keep a straight face. Not a good translation for OCD’s and depressives.

And Fr.D (assuming you are really Fr.), I will confess that I am not joe Catholic but I tend to want to advocate for him on CAF.

Once again, we posted at the same time!

Your point about “Joe Catholic” is a good one, and very legitimate. The problem, as I see it, is that too many people (not you) want to present “Joe Catholic” as not having enough intelligence to understand, or even learn a few new vocabulary words. The “gibbet” is a good example. Yes, most of us do not understand the word. It’s strange to us. But then again, it only appears one time in the entire Liturgical year–Wed. of Holy Week. Can “Joe Catholic” not see in the Mass of Holy Week something special? something out-of-the-ordinary? Most Catholics don’t even attend Mass on Wednesday of Holy Week. Those who do, tend to be the most faithful parishioners–let’s face it, it’s not easy to make time to go to daily Mass on Wednesday, when people are also going on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and even Sunday (if they’re not at the Vigil)–even those who want to go.

“Gibbet” has been a huge red herring that people have been throwing out in order to belittle the new translation. I daresay that those who use “gibbet” to criticize the new Mass have already used that word more times in conversation and writing to-date than they ever will in the totality of their future liturgical lives! Ironically, people who didn’t know what gibbet meant in the past, certainly know the word now; all thanks to those who make this word their rallying-point. I thank them! They’ve made the job of explaining the new translation much, much easier.

What “Joe Catholic” needs is a sacred liturgy which will lift him upwards, not a dumbed-down childish “Dick and Jane” rendering of the prayers of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[BernadetteM]

In the Anglican Use form of the Creed the wording is “begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father”. I think this wording is more understandable than the newer translation.

They also use “and with thy spirit”, not your. Of course “thy” is very English, but it sounds lovely, at least to my ears.

I am looking forward to the new translation as it is much closer to the wording of the Anglican Use liturgy and since I came from an Anglo Catholic parish it will be easy for me to adjust to it. Everyone has their own comfort zone, but the changes should be much easier than when the Church went from the Latin Traditional Mass to the OF.

The Church in not uniform in many ways after Vatican II, as far as music and which Eucharistic Prayers are said, that when you go to another parish I think it is more difficult to follow at times. Does anyone know if they are going to have a choice of four different Eucharistic Prayers in the new translation?

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[FrDavid96]

… Does anyone know if they are going to have a choice of four different Eucharistic Prayers in the new translation?

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

The 4 EPs that we have now have all been approved and are expected to be in the new translation. I think there’s some slight hesitation on EP 4, but given that it’s still in the 2000 Latin Missal, and after all, the “new” translation is a translation of that version, it’s safe to say that we will have all 4–at least for the time being.

EP 4 is definately in the “white book” study edition of the new translations (page 33 to make it easy if anyone wants to read it)

Does anyone even use EP 4? I forgot it was there.

 

[benedictgal]

The 4 EPs that we have now have all been approved and are expected to be in the new translation. I think there’s some slight hesitation on EP 4, but given that it’s still in the 2000 Latin Missal, and after all, the “new” translation is a translation of that version, it’s safe to say that we will have all 4–at least for the time being.

EP 4 is definately in the “white book” study edition of the new translations (page 33 to make it easy if anyone wants to read it)

Does anyone even use EP 4? I forgot it was there.

My parochial vicar uses it on occasions. I told him I would rather hear that one than EP 2, but the only bummer is that when you use it, you can only use the preface associated with it. I really like it, though.

 

[BernadetteM]

I favor Eucharistic Prayer I, as it is closer to the Sarum Use. Also the others remind me of the BCP 1928 at the Consecration. I believe that the Sarum Use is similar wording as the EF, but not sure.

In the Anglican Use prayer of Consecration the priest says "Who the day before he suffered, took bread into his holy and venerable hands, with eyes lifted up to heaven unto thee, God, his Almighty Father, giving thanks to thee, he blessed, broke and gave it to his disciples, saying:

Take this all of you, and eat it: This is My Body which will be given up for you.

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.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[Renko]

Personally I am sick of all the changes in our church, Vatican two has done more damage to our church than anything else. Take a look at all the modern churches, they look like cow barns,there is nothing beautiful about them. We have some churches in our area that don’t even have a crucifix or any statues, and what did they do with the blessed sacrament, were they that ashamed of our Lord that they had to hide him in a back room somewhere? Give me the latin mass any day, at least there was reverance for our lord. Before vatican two you could walk into any Catholic church and hear a pin drop, now when you walk into a Catholic church, it is like walking into a convention hall with everyone yaking to there neighbor and carrying on like our Lord isn’t even present in the tabernacle.

 

[Eric_Olsen]

I looked at the link and noticed the church looks like another Father Vosko recovation.

QUOTE=TAS2000;6058586]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.

 

[FrDavid96]

I favor Eucharistic Prayer I, as it is closer to the Sarum Use. Also the others remind me of the BCP 1928 at the Consecration. I believe that the Sarum Use is similar wording as the EF, but not sure.

In the Anglican Use prayer of Consecration the priest says "Who the day before he suffered, took bread into his holy and venerable hands, with eyes lifted up to heaven unto thee, God, his Almighty Father, giving thanks to thee, he blessed, broke and gave it to his disciples, saying:

Take this all of you, and eat it: This is My Body which will be given up for you.

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.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

Who the day before He suffered took bread into His holy and venerable hands, and with His eyes lifted up to heaven, unto Thee, God, His almighty Father, giving thanks to Thee, He blessed, + broke and gave it to His disciples, saying: Take and eat ye all of this, FOR THIS IS MY BODY.

Of course, that’s an unofficial translation, but it does come from the St. Andrew Daily Missal which has a good reputation, and is one of the “standard” missals used at EF Masses.

 

[BernadetteM]

I consider myself very lucky, my parish is very traditional, the priest is older and has the EF liturgy every Sunday, although it isn’t like some I have seen on video, he celebrates it by himself.

Also we have the tabernacle on the Altar and statues and candles. No one speaks outloud, in fact everyone is praying before mass or sitting quietly in their pew. We have all the old hymns too. It is the only parish like it around and draws people from all over for many miles. Many women wear mantillas. I just pray that when he must retire that the Bishop doesn’t close down the parish.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[FrDavid96]

Personally I am sick of all the changes in our church, Vatican two has done more damage to our church than anything else. Take a look at all the modern churches, they look like cow barns,there is nothing beautiful about them. We have some churches in our area that don’t even have a crucifix or any statues, and what did they do with the blessed sacrament, were they that ashamed of our Lord that they had to hide him in a back room somewhere? Give me the latin mass any day, at least there was reverance for our lord. Before vatican two you could walk into any Catholic church and hear a pin drop, now when you walk into a Catholic church, it is like walking into a convention hall with everyone yaking to there neighbor and carrying on like our Lord isn’t even present in the tabernacle.

While I agree with the sentiment behind what you’re saying, we must keep in mind that “Vatican II” is not the source of these problems. The source is people who said (and continue to say) “Vatican II says…” and then insert their own agenda, even though that agenda is, more often than not, the exact opposite of what the Council Fathers wrote.

That has been a defining characteristic of Pope Benedict (continuing from the later years of John Paul II)–giving the Church an understanding of what Vatican II actually said, as opposed to what others-say-Vatican II-said.

In other words, we’ve been lied-to for the past 45 years, and it’s taking some people a long time to come to terms with this fact.

 

[FrDavid96]

My parochial vicar uses it on occasions. I told him I would rather hear that one than EP 2, but the only bummer is that when you use it, you can only use the preface associated with it. I really like it, though.

I recall a responsum ad dubium where the CDWDS clarified the use of prefaces, and gave a rather strict understanding of “proper preface” so that this limitation does not apply as often as many of us think. Your PV might be able to use EP4 more often than he thinks (perhaps, weekdays in Advent?)

I’ll look around, and in the meantime, if anyone has the link, please post it.

Edit

As a follow-up to that, see Fr McNamara’s article
ewtn.com/Library/Liturgy/zlitur107.htm

He refers to an official reply from the then-Congregation for Worship to the Italian Bishop’s Conference in the “mid 1970’s” but gives no further details. Still looking, because I know I read the actual letter from the Congregation somewhere.