MERGED: Excited about the new translation/Countdown/New Translation 11/27

  • Thread starter Thread starter Annabelle_Marie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Annabelle_Marie

Guest
I’ve attended some classes on the new translation up at the seminary. Our teacher is someone who had a direct hand in the translation. After hearing him talk about the reasons and the higher language that the liturgy will have…I’m so excited about the new translation now that I can hardly wait!

Anyone else out there that can’t wait either?
 
I can’t wait either.

Ah, the reform of the reform is happening, whether people want it to or not. Let us savor every drop of it. It’s times like these when you appreciate your faith that much more.
 
YoungTradCath said:
I can’t wait either.

Ah, the reform of the reform is happening, whether people want it to or not. Let us savor every drop of it. It’s times like these when you appreciate your faith that much more.
Click to expand...
It’s a rich faith…if we just reach out to all that it is around us. Our teacher said yes…we might have to stumble through it while we learn it but that it is our responsibility to do it and learn the new translation. We need to do this to provide those that come after us with the richer liturgy that the new translation will provide.
 
I’m excited about the new translation. I like a lot of the wording and I understand why we want the English to match better with the Latin.

What I’m tired of is the constant “Why the mass is changing:” homilies and lessons. I think I’ve sat through five of them since August.

I wish they would stand up, say what the changes are and then say, “It’s changing because the Pope says so.” That should clear up everyone’s questions and make for a quick talk.
 
kmuestwin said:
I’m excited about the new translation. I like a lot of the wording and I understand why we want the English to match better with the Latin.

What I’m tired of is the constant “Why the mass is changing:” homilies and lessons. I think I’ve sat through five of them since August.

I wish they would stand up, say what the changes are and then say, “It’s changing because the Pope says so.” That should clear up everyone’s questions and make for a quick talk.
Click to expand...
It is not you who are the reason for the long roll out, but the many bishops who are bent out of shape because Rome stepped on their toes. The old translation was what they wanted. I suspect that many of them really don’t subscribe to the theology behind “consubstantial.”
 
RobbyS said:
It is not you who are the reason for the long roll out, but the many bishops who are bent out of shape because Rome stepped on their toes. The old translation was what they wanted. I suspect that many of them really don’t subscribe to the theology behind “consubstantial.”
Click to expand...
An interesting comment.

Robby, please describe how you see the difference between the theology behind ‘one in substance with the Father’, and ‘consubstantial’, then, since you have made the claim that there is one.
 
paperwight66 said:
An interesting comment.

Robby, please describe how you see the difference between the theology behind ‘one in substance with the Father’, and ‘consubstantial’, then, since you have made the claim that there is one.
Click to expand...
According to our class…one in being with the Father is more of an explanation rather than a true translation from the Latin. There are quite a few of those in the old translation. It’s not a “new” Mass…its a better translation of what was a VERY poor translation…and in some spots they put explanations rather then translations.
 
Annabelle_Marie said:
According to our class…one in being with the Father is more of an explanation rather than a true translation from the Latin. There are quite a few of those in the old translation. It’s not a “new” Mass…its a better translation of what was a VERY poor translation…and in some spots they put explanations rather then translations.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Just like “which will be shed for all” is more of an explanation of “which will be poured out for many” when it comes to the consecration of the wine.
 
Annabelle_Marie said:
According to our class…one in being with the Father is more of an explanation rather than a true translation from the Latin. There are quite a few of those in the old translation. It’s not a “new” Mass…its a better translation of what was a VERY poor translation…and in some spots they put explanations rather then translations.
Click to expand...
I agree with you.

But Robby made the claim that ‘many bishops’ don’t subscribe to the theology behind the word ‘consubstantial’ which implied that there was a different theology to that behind ‘one in substance’.

I await his reply with interest, or else must interpret his comment as a cheap and unjust shot at bishops, which should be retracted.
 
YoungTradCath said:
I can’t wait either.

Ah, the reform of the reform is happening, whether people want it to or not. Let us savor every drop of it. It’s times like these when you appreciate your faith that much more.
Click to expand...
Actually, some of it is more of a reversion than a reform!

As someone of a certain vintage, I can recall when the Mass changed from the Latin to the English. As I remember it - I was an altar boy at the time - the ‘Lord, I am not worthy…’ was then as the new version is now. It was later simplified, and lost the direct allusion to scripture, which is why I never liked it, which is why i remember it! Alas, can’t recall when the first usage of ‘and with you’ was. I have the feeling it was later then the actual date of changing to english itself… Any other Oldie recall?
 
At our parish, we’ve been going over the revised wording put to music with the cantor. I was happy that for the first time in many years we actually sang “Lamb of God…” three times, instead of all those other titles that used to get inserted at the Agnus Dei (“Bread of life…”, “Prince of peace…”, “Our risen Lord…”. Good titles, but not “Lamb of God”!). So far, so good.
 
paperwight66 said:
An interesting comment.

Robby, please describe how you see the difference between the theology behind ‘one in substance with the Father’, and ‘consubstantial’, then, since you have made the claim that there is one.
Click to expand...
Just a thought - Is it possible the ‘consubstantial’, whilst used here in a different context, is too close to Luthers’ re-interpretation of ‘Transubstantiation’ to be comfortably used? Less knowing people may beome confused?
 
philial said:
Just a thought - Is it possible the ‘consubstantial’, whilst used here in a different context, is too close to Luthers’ re-interpretation of ‘Transubstantiation’ to be comfortably used? Less knowing people may beome confused?
Click to expand...
That is an interesting point. In two of the sessions I taught people asked, “I thought we Catholics don’t believe in consubstantiation?” They connected the word with the Eucharist and not with the relationship of the Father and Son as proclaimed in the Creed. Perhaps that is why it became “one in being” in the first place.
 
YoungTradCath said:
Exactly. Just like “which will be shed for all” is more of an explanation of “which will be poured out for many” when it comes to the consecration of the wine.
Click to expand...
This is my pet peeve. Shouldn’t “multis” be translated as “multitudes” which means something a little different than just “many” which can mean just about anything?

FWIW, the Italian bishops have voted to keep “per tutti” (“for all”) in the Italian translation.
 
I am.

From reading the Latin to English translations in my EF Mass Missal, I can tell that what we are getting in the OF will be better translated. I hope it will bring back more to the church, and also bring back more reverence & respect for the Mass too.
 
Joannm said:
That is an interesting point. In two of the sessions I taught people asked, “I thought we Catholics don’t believe in consubstantiation?” They connected the word with the Eucharist and not with the relationship of the Father and Son as proclaimed in the Creed. Perhaps that is why it became “one in being” in the first place.
Click to expand...
Could be, but that’s the problem when translating word for word. Anglophones get confused and start believing only in words. It’s the phrase “consubstantionem Patri” (con+sub+stantis+Patri,with+under+exists+Father) that’s at issue here and not a consecration of bread into the Body of Christ expressed in “Hoc est enim Corpus Meum” where Hoc refers to the Body and no longer the bread. “Trans” (as in transubstantiation) is far different than “Con” where it would still be existing (with) the bread.
 
philial said:
Alas, can’t recall when the first usage of ‘and with you’ was. I have the feeling it was later then the actual date of changing to english itself… Any other Oldie recall?
Click to expand...
The Mass was changed to English 500 years ago by the Church of England and several times since then. Someone mentioned that he actually found the “and also with you” phrase in one of the older missals used.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top