Criticism of the New Translation

[ProVobis]

If it becomes of value for diocesan church employees to know some Latin, that will also increase the likelihood, but the way things are now, that’s not very likely either.

It is not important to know the Latin required to read Church documents or Cicero. Very few could do that even in the early centuries. I don’t know who started the falsehood that one must know all (or any of ) the Latin grammar rules to understand the basic Latin Mass. And what guarantee is there that even if you spoke Latin fluently, you would understand the Mass?

What the Church is asking for as a minimum requirement (per Jubilate Deo) is to be able to recite the Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Pater Noster, and the Agnus Dei in Latin, if that much. You want your readings or EP in vernacular fine, but who in life is not exposed to a little foreign language at times and enjoys being able to say a few words in that foreign language? A Catholic should understand the Mass whether it’s said in Italian, Polish, or Vietnamese. Who knows, one day he may not have his own vernacular any more and be most happy that he hears a Latin Gloria or Pater Noster. Maybe even this very Sunday.

 

[Dirt]

I have used this example in other posts, so if you have seen it before, i apologize.

My Parish is made up of Hispanic, Vietnamese, Hmoung and English speaking Parishoners. Masses on Sundays are offered:
7:30—English
9:00—English
10:30 English
12:00n —Spanish
5:00p----Contemporary

Holy Day, Christmas and Holy Week Masses are offered using all three languages since only one or two Masses are offered. This means that some Parishoners are always left out of fully understanding what is being said. If the Primary Prayers were in Latin, then all could have an understanding of what is being said after proper translation into their respective languages. The Homily will still be in venacular of the particular Mass, so someone is left out. The readings and responses are printed in all three languages in the Bulletin for each Sunday/Holy Day so we can follow along. There is a distinct separation in the community between the different races. There should not be, but there is. That is why i feel (imho) the use of Latin for the Primary prayers could bring the Universiality of the faith more to the forefront. That to me is what universality is all about. One Church, One People, One language that we all can use to praise God.

 

[Irishgal49]

A. This is not a movie.
B. It’s happened. It’s done. I’m sorry you don’t like it for some reason, but it will help YOU if you stop pouting about it and give it a chance.

Yes it is finished…in more ways than one. I cannot stand that the two prayers that spoke to my soul are gone. Theology, language (I would prefer we go back to Latin personally) and using words that people have no understanding of…how is this helping? I don’t care about all this jargon, I’m just sad and I will miss my prayers. I no longer participate verbally since this nonsense began. I merely pray to myself. Looking for a Latin mass, may just go to that–at least I know they won’t yank my favorite prayers out from under me there.

 

[Irishgal49]

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.

Actually I have voted to stop speaking it altogether. Then I don’t have to worry about the next hair brain idea to re-translate. I will sit and pray…good enough for Great Grandma in Latin mass; good enough for me.

 

[Irishgal49]

I say the same thing about this new mass

 

[Irishgal49]

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.

My husband is Jewish. He said that if this was, in fact, Passover meal, the “cup” that Jesus would have taken would, most likely, have been Elijah’s cup which was reserved for the Messiah. That is never a cup, it’s an ornate, fancy chalice because it was set on Jewish tables for a thousand years waiting for the Messiah. You set a place for the Messiah and that chalice was very ornate and beautiful. Never a plain cup.

 

[brian24]

I actually appreciate the new translation of “that you should enter under my roof.” I never, ever took “receive” to mean that. I always thought of it as “I am not worthy of eating your flesh, but only say the word and I shall be healed.” This is huge for me.

Most parts do seem awkward, but a lot of things seems awkward at first.I remember the first day we were learning the new “amen” melody and I thought it was totally off. Now I like it. Same thing with the profession of faith and the holy holy holy.

One of the most awkward things will be in the Confiteor repeating “I have sinned” 3 times, but I’m sure after 3 weeks it will seem totally normal.

The thing I love most is that the translation is closer to the original. Of course things sound “better” in the vernacular, but that doesn’t mean they are actually correct.

I do find the reactions to be expected. Most of the world are cynics and pessimists. By the glory of God this translation was made. I’m sure everything will be fantastic.

 

[Irishgal49]

I detest the “under my roof” wording because it is distracting from the feeling unworthy part. It was my favorite prayer and now I feel like I’ve lost it and that’s very upsetting. This is all because the church strayed from Latin. If we would have left it alone…it’s so emotionally upsetting to change the only mass many have ever known. I’ve gave up and went to listening. I am not reading anything anymore.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I detest the “under my roof” wording because it is distracting from the feeling unworthy part. It was my favorite prayer and now I feel like I’ve lost it and that’s very upsetting. This is all because the church strayed from Latin. If we would have left it alone…it’s so emotionally upsetting to change the only mass many have ever known. I’ve gave up and went to listening. I am not reading anything anymore.

I dont understand this at all. It says I am unworthy for you to enter under my roof how does that take away the unworthy part? The Mass is not changing some of the engelish words are changing. To bring it correctly to the Latin that you just said you wished they had not changed. in the 1962 missal the engelish side would have read under my roof. so it back to what you wish we had not left.

 

[FAB]

I dont understand this at all. It says I am unworthy for you to enter under my roof how does that take away the unworthy part? The Mass is not changing some of the engelish words are changing. To bring it correctly to the Latin that you just said you wished they had not changed. in the 1962 missal the engelish side would have read under my roof. so it back to what you wish we had not left.

Read Mathew’s Gospel on the centurian, his faith save his servant, this is a direct quote from Scripture, much deeper meaning than the previous statement.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Read Mathew’s Gospel on the centurian, his faith save his servant, this is a direct quote from Scripture, much deeper meaning than the previous statement.

oneGODoneCHURCH gets it, and is trying to explain it to the quoted poster.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Read Mathew’s Gospel on the centurian, his faith save his servant, this is a direct quote from Scripture, much deeper meaning than the previous statement.

I am in total agreement. that is why I do not understand irshgirls issue with the new translation.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Theology, language (I would prefer we go back to Latin personally) and using words that people have no understanding of…how is this helping?

So since, in your opinion, the new translation uses words that people have no understanding of you would prefer we go to a language that the majority of people do not know?

 

[MissRose73]

Subset? Huh? The EF is not a subset and nor are the people who attend it. Anyway, yes, smaller than the OF for sure. But growing year by year!

If I had the EF closer to me, I would go to it every week. Not that I dislike the OF, but the EF has more reverence in it, and by following my missal I know what the priest will say every time not a modification of the words in his own missal that some do but not all do.

 

[YoungTradCath]

So since, in your opinion, the new translation uses words that people have no understanding of you would prefer we go to a language that the majority of people do not know?

Learning and comprehending the Order of Mass in Latin is not hard. I did it in a week.

 

[Thomas_Redd]

Does anyone else notice that the majority of the criticism of the new translation doesn’t actually have to do with the new translation itself, but rather, is really a criticism of the original texts of the Mass, which many are just hearing for the first time? The problem isn’t with the translation, it is with the texts of the Mass itself.

Absolutely not true. I have never once heard a criticism of the Latin mass text.

The problem as everyone knows is the poor english and using words that are not understandable. This was not a pastoral translation but one with an agenda.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

TheMc;8496941:

Does anyone else notice that the majority of the criticism of the new translation doesn’t actually have to do with the new translation itself, but rather, is really a criticism of the original texts of the Mass, which many are just hearing for the first time? The problem isn’t with the translation, it is with the texts of the Mass itself.

Absolutely not true. I have never once heard a criticism of the Latin mass text.

The problem as everyone knows is the poor english and using words that are not understandable. This was not a pastoral translation but one with an agenda.

Wrong!

 

[NewsTheMan]

This was not a pastoral translation but one with an agenda.

What agenda? Please explain.

 

[YoungTradCath]

What agenda? Please explain.

I agree with your sentiments. I hardly think translating in a most faithful way qualifies as an agenda.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Absolutely not true. I have never once heard a criticism of the Latin mass text.

The problem as everyone knows is the poor english and using words that are not understandable. This was not a pastoral translation but one with an agenda.

I am not stupid. I hardly think the majority of English-speaking Catholics are stupid. If you passed senior year high school English class, you can probably understand the new missal.

I am not aware that proper English constitutes “poor English.”