Criticism of the New Translation

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheMc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
puzzleannie said:
guess us oldtimers are not in our right mind when we instinctively repeat the words and gestures we grew up with, thanks for the reminder, when I forge my meds I forget how non compos I really am. Just because the present generation is bone ignorant of Latin gives them no right to criticize those who have gone before. If the Latin says it was a chalic, it is a chalice. If it said basin, crater, dish, styrofoam cup or thermos, that is what the translation would be.
Click to expand...
The correct translation of “calix” is cup or drinking vessel not chalice. “Chalice” is the english word derived from “calix” but is not its translation. In modern english usage, a chalice is a jeweled golden cup. The previous translation as “cup” is closer to the latin and had far more dignity. Now we are presented with the rather comical image of Jesus taking a golden chalice at the Last Supper. This is what happens when you start doing a translation with an agenda. Hopefully in ten years or so we will have a more accurate, free flowing and pastoral translation.
 
Thomas_Redd said:
The correct translation of “calix” is cup or drinking vessel not chalice. “Chalice” is the english word derived from “calix” but is not its translation. In modern english usage, a chalice is a jeweled golden cup. The previous translation as “cup” is closer to the latin and had far more dignity. Now we are presented with the rather comical image of Jesus taking a golden chalice at the Last Supper. This is what happens when you start doing a translation with an agenda. Hopefully in ten years or so we will have a more accurate, free flowing and pastoral translation.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: My favourite part was the one in bold. Really made me chuckle considering this translation business and what has happened since VII.

How about this - you email the ICEL with your qualifications on translation (I am sure you are an expert in Latin and language development and that you work closely everyday in Latin translations) and your opinion on their rubbish translation, and they might do the same. After that, let them know what a good pastoral approach is. After that, write to the English Bishops and tell them that they are less guided by the Holy Ghost than you are, and clearly the translation will be bad for the faith. See what happens and report back.
 
Thomas_Redd said:
The correct translation of “calix” is cup or drinking vessel not chalice. “Chalice” is the english word derived from “calix” but is not its translation. In modern english usage, a chalice is a jeweled golden cup. The previous translation as “cup” is closer to the latin and had far more dignity. Now we are presented with the rather comical image of Jesus taking a golden chalice at the Last Supper. This is what happens when you start doing a translation with an agenda. Hopefully in ten years or so we will have a more accurate, free flowing and pastoral translation.
Click to expand...
Chalice means cup:
dictionary.reference.com/browse/chalice
newadvent.org/cathen/03561a.htm
google.com/search?q=catholic+chalice&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=ziX&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=ybHLToSkBq_5sQL4t_jCDg&ved=0CJ0BELAE&biw=1340&bih=521

YOU are the one who says it means something other than cup.
 
Thomas_Redd said:
The previous translation as “cup” is closer to the latin and had far more dignity.
Click to expand...
The Latin could have used “poculum”, but it uses “calix”.

If we’re going to compare words’ dignity, I would say “chalice” has more dignity than “cup”. I’ve never heard of a Dixie Chalice, nor of a male athlete wearing a chalice.
Thomas_Redd said:
Now we are presented with the rather comical image of Jesus taking a golden chalice at the Last Supper.
Click to expand...
We don’t know for sure, do we, what was the quality of the drinking vessel Jesus used at the Last Supper.

We do know, though, that that sacred meal was celebrated in the home of someone who owned servants (one of whom was a man, if that makes any difference) and a house with a large, furnished upper room.

We do know that Jesus knew some wealthy people, such as Joseph of Arimathea, who provided the tomb in which Jesus was laid.

We do know that Jesus was anointed with very costly oil shortly before his death.
 
Irishgal49 said:
First I do need to explain that I suffer with OCD REALLY badly so that’s part of my problem. When there is change I get really anxious. We’ve only been using the new musical responses at this point and I went home having a bad panic attack.

My biggest problem is that they totally ruined my two favorite prayers. These were prayers that really spoke to me with this stupid anxiety disorder I live with and now I don’t have anything to cling to…I’ve read every article, trying to resolve how I feel and basically I’m left really upset. Nothing I can do either. I just sit and don’t participate, but figure if I listen to it enough ( attend mass daily) maybe my panic will go away. I truly HATE some of it…some of it is OK. I feel so lost. I just came home to the Catholic Church in June and now I wish I hadn’t. I’m not leaving but everything in me screams to leave. I just liked the familiar responses, they gave me great comfort. Now I face a mass tonight with the same anxiety. I only have a few days left and my prayers will never be prayed again … it really hurts. :eek:
Click to expand...
Well,my church has done very little to explain WHY the changes were made. They seem like an imposition. But NOW you know how many older Catholics felt back in the '60s when the Church not only abandoned the Tridentine mass but adopted a NEW English translation that was very different from the version we had been hearing for seven or eight years. Many Catholics reacted by staying home. Some were so disillusioned that they defected to fundamentalist churches who at least seem to know what they believed. The pope remembers stuff like this and is trying to RESTORE a sense of continuity with the old rituals. IMHO, the changes that took place then are an example of the worst excesses of clericalism. “WE have decided this? You in the pews don’t like it? Tough, get with the program, get hip!” Now many of these same clerics, now aged themselves , are very, VERY unhappy with the changes. So they are dragging their feet, making things as hard for the laity, wanting THEM to share THEIR resentment.
 
    1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
Click to expand...
Where it is allowed by local law, it is to be preserved in the Latin Rites. Note period at the end of the sentence.
liturgyluver said:
Vatican II was misinterpreted by some to mean that Latin should never be used, and of course this is completey incorrect
Click to expand...
Thank you. So why isn’t the Latin offered as an alternative in every vernacular Missal?
 
ProVobis said:
Where it is allowed by local law, it is to be preserved in the Latin Rites. Note period at the end of the sentence.

Thank you. So why isn’t the Latin offered as an alternative in every vernacular Missal?
Click to expand...
I don’t really think I understand your first statement. The use of Latin is allowed everywhere at all times in the Latin rite. It doesn’t have to be allowed by local law. That quote says “remaining,” as in, if there are exceptions now, they go in to the future. Or is that not what it means? I can’t think of a situation where Latin isn’t allowed.
 
japhy said:
The Latin could have used “poculum”, but it uses “calix”.

If we’re going to compare words’ dignity, I would say “chalice” has more dignity than “cup”. I’ve never heard of a Dixie Chalice, nor of a male athlete wearing a chalice.

We don’t know for sure, do we, what was the quality of the drinking vessel Jesus used at the Last Supper.

We do know, though, that that sacred meal was celebrated in the home of someone who owned servants (one of whom was a man, if that makes any difference) and a house with a large, furnished upper room.

We do know that Jesus knew some wealthy people, such as Joseph of Arimathea, who provided the tomb in which Jesus was laid.

We do know that Jesus was anointed with very costly oil shortly before his death.
Click to expand...
Reminding me of the misuse of the patristic tradition by the liturgical reformers of the '60s. They said many things that were not true. For one thing, whatever vessels the Lord used at the last supper, he was NOT without wealthy supporters.
Mary Magdeline was probably a persons of means–substantial means–which is why her name made the pages of the Gospel. Joseph of Arimathea was another. Further, the mass very quickly a replacement for the Temple sacrifices, in both meaning and in form. That the bishop miter resembles the headgear of the Jewish high priest is but one tradition passed down from the Temple. Vessels from precious metals would have been provided in any church where their were people of means.
 
RobbyS said:
Reminding me of the misuse of the patristic tradition by the liturgical reformers of the '60s. They said many things that were not true. For one thing, whatever vessels the Lord used at the last supper, he was NOT without wealthy supporters.
Mary Magdeline was probably a persons of means–substantial means–which is why her name made the pages of the Gospel. Joseph of Arimathea was another. Further, the mass very quickly a replacement for the Temple sacrifices, in both meaning and in form. That the bishop miter resembles the headgear of the Jewish high priest is but one tradition passed down from the Temple. Vessels from precious metals would have been provided in any church where their were people of means.
Click to expand...
I could just as easily say that you say many things that are not true, but it doesn’t really mean anything.
 
My only critiques (and they are very mild) were in the 2010 revisions from the 2008 text (I have NO idea why they were necessary)…
  1. “May almighty God have mercy on us and lead us, with our sins forgiven, to eternal life” got scrapped in favor of the current version (though it was much closer to the Latin)
  2. “fulfilling their vows to you” from the Roman Canon is scriptural (see Psalm 118)…“paying their homage to you” is all well and good, but that Biblical connection is lost now.
  3. “Spouse of the same Virgin”…expresses the Blessed Mother’s perpetual virginity…just “her Spouse” waters it down.
But overall, I love this new translation…and I do know it will be revised again (the earthly liturgy will never be completely perfect, it’s going to keep getting revised until the day we all celebrate the heavenly liturgy!)
 
I am at a lost to understand the disatifaction for the work of the church. The work done through prayer and years hard work resulted in a translation which does have great beauty. No translation will ever satify everone.
It becomes painful to read that so many are willing to do these critiques. Latin folks, as much as you wish, is not going to become one again the norm. The die has been cast and the venacular is hear to stay.
 
FAB said:
Latin folks, as much as you wish, is not going to become one again the norm. The die has been cast and the venacular is hear to stay.
Click to expand...
In about 200 years this part of your post will be put into a book entitled “Worst prophecies in history”.🙂
 
NewsTheMan said:
In about 200 years this part of your post will be put into a book entitled “Worst prophecies in history”.🙂
Click to expand...
Right next to Ken Olsen’s “There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home,” Decca Records (in their rejection letter to the Beatles) “We don’t like their sound; guitar music is on the way out,” Marshal Ferdinand Foch’s “Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value,” and Charles H. Duell’s 1899 quote that “Everything that can be invented has been invented”?

Might not be that far off…
 
DeaconsSon87 said:
Right next to Ken Olsen’s “There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home,” Decca Records (in their rejection letter to the Beatles) “We don’t like their sound; guitar music is on the way out,” Marshal Ferdinand Foch’s “Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value,” and Charles H. Duell’s 1899 quote that “Everything that can be invented has been invented”?

Might not be that far off…
Click to expand...
Is this wishful thinking on your part or do you have way of seeing the future?

I make my prediction on human nature. Very few of the generation who are pre-vatican two generation want to rturn to latin. They remember the most the days of not being able to understand the mass, or being able to hear the priest consecrate the bread and wine. They remeber the days of sitting in the pews, praying the rosary, because they had a small role in the liturgy, and needed the ringing of the bells so they would know when somrthing important happend.
The immidiate post council generation, such as myself, don’t want latin back because remeber just enough of not knowing what was going on and fondley remember the great day when we understood the mass and became full participants.
The generations following have only know mass in the venacular, and have no use for Latin.
There is a very small minority wants Latin, it’s not a movement that is growing even with the use of the TLM.
There is also no movement with the bishops to bring back Latin, and even the pope celebtrates the mass in the venacular in the ordinary form of the mass.
I also believe that the revised translation in English, and the commitiment to revise the mass in all other languages put a final nail in the thought that Latin will be the norm again. With the revised translation, this is a firm commitment by the Church to ahve the mass said in the venacular.
 
FAB said:
Latin folks, as much as you wish, is not going to become one again the norm. The die has been cast and the venacular is hear to stay.
Click to expand...
NewsTheMan said:
In about 200 years this part of your post will be put into a book entitled “Worst prophecies in history”.🙂
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss this. After all, the Roman Church is just following after the Eastern Churches.

I see the vernacular staying but along side Latin. That is there will be parts of the Mass done in Latin, while the majority of it is done in the vernacular.
 
ByzCath said:
I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss this. After all, the Roman Church is just following after the Eastern Churches.

I see the vernacular staying but along side Latin. That is there will be parts of the Mass done in Latin, while the majority of it is done in the vernacular.
Click to expand...
Brother,
I always respect your post and your knowledge. I don’t ever see venacular and Latin being incorporated into the mass as a norm. We have tried to use parts of the mass in Latin i.e the Holy and the Lord’s payer, but only in certain seasons and the practice was not really embraced. There were those who would not accept anything but the venacular.
Since this is a traditional site, it resembles a echo chamber and little consideration is given to waht is acctually going on in the universal Church.
Your point with the Eastern church’s is interesting when we look at reunification in the future, but also remember there are a number of orthodox congregations already in union with Rome with little effect.
Notice I said the Norm. I think there will be enough folks to keep the TLM alive, but only as second to the Ordinary Form.
Since I hope to be in eternal bliss 200 years form now, no worries about predictions.
 
FAB said:
Brother,
There were those who would not accept anything but the venacular.
Click to expand...
Problematic don’t you think? Go read Sacrosanctum Concilium particularly 36 and 54.
Since this is a traditional site, it resembles a echo chamber and little consideration is given to waht is acctually going on in the universal Church.
Click to expand...
Ironic statement considering the amount of fervor that young Catholics have for the Latin Mass and orthodoxy today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top