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.
paperwight66 said:
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.
Click to expand...
There actually is a difference in theology behind the two different statements, and it was hammered out during the Nicene Council. This is the HOMOOUSIOUS V. HOMOIOUSIOUS controversy of Arianism.

Arius wanted to claim that Christ and the Father are both divine and both God, and both the same, but that somehow Christ had been generated by the Father, after the Father in time. Whereas, Athanasius maintained that Christ and the Father are the same in every respect and equal in every respect, such that Christ had existed before time, just like the Father – and this is called, in a direct translation of the Latin word describing this concept, consubstantial.

It’s not that the 1973 mass is wrong exactly. It’s that it’s so vague when it says “of the same substance,” that you can’t tell what it means, and so it doesn’t clearly say the whole truth about this one way or the other. Using the word “consubstantial” makes it very clear what is meant–the view of Athanasius, which is the theologically correct view, is the one that’s meant.

Note that all these old heresies crop up over and over throughout the history of the Church and they need to be remembered correctly once they are identified, and spoken of correctly to prevent relapse and error from creeping in.

Now you may think that this technical explanation is a little over the top for every Sunday, but on the other hand, you know that argument that says: Is Christ immanent or transcendent? Is Jesus your buddy or your judge? That’s the same argument as the Arian/Athanasius argument in modern disguise. It still crops up and we need to be clear about it when we find it.
 
philial said:
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?
Click to expand...
I was there. Actually, it’s a continuation. We wandered around in traffic for a while it seems and we’ve now returned to the continuing thread of the Catholic Church. From here, we go forward.
 
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...
No, I think you mean “consubstantiation.”

Consubstantial and consubstantiation are two different words that describe two different concepts.
 
AntalKalnoky said:
The word “Consubstantial” has always been a difficult to understand new word invention of us humans. “One in Being with The Father” is more expressive wording attempt, by Holy Mother Church of Our Lord.

Thank You, Lord!. Only a few more weeks…:signofcross::byzsoc:
Click to expand...
The phrase “one in being” may be more “expressive” but the phrase is there for a reason, which is to define the Arian controversy out of the Creed, and it doesn’t do that. “One in being” doesn’t really mean much of anything theologically, and could have been taken by either Arius or Athanasius as partly true, but not wholly true.
 
paperwight66 said:
To be honest, I find it a bit bemusing that there is any excitement. We have been using it in the UK for a few weeks and, in our parish at least, we are now word-perfect most of the time. It really isn’t that big a difference and doesn’t make the Mass seem any more reverent, imo.

Actually. a lot of the changes seem almost ‘change for change’s sake’, in other words, minor re-arrangement of word order or vocabulary that hardly seem worth printer’s ink. I’m talking about the words used by the congregation. The words for the priests are more changed and more formal and they seem to find them difficult to say smoothly. No doubt that will come with time.

In our parish we certainly didn’t have any classes, just a note on the bulletin that cards would be available after a certain weekend.

I think if someone is expecting Mass to be transformed they are going to be disappointed.
Click to expand...
From the viewpoint of normal good laypeople, there may not be much of a difference, but from the viewpoint of dissidents, this was a HUGE deal, because of the assertion of rightful authority by the Holy See, and because of the increased clarity in the texts. There are high profile powerful liturgists who are absolutely livid over this and have been for an entire year. The tussle over who had the power to determine this revision took nearly 30 years to resolve. IT was, and still is, a very big deal to them.
 
You have to understand my recent exposure to the Holy Mass to understand this question.
Is this an admission that it was broken and needed to be fixed for decades if not hundreds of years?
 
I don’t know much about it yet, we will start soon though.

My question is the part where we say. We bless you God or something like that. How can man bless God? God doesn’t need any blessings and certainly not from man, it’s the other way around. ???
 
StrawberryJam said:
You have to understand my recent exposure to the Holy Mass to understand this question.
Is this an admission that it was broken and needed to be fixed for decades if not hundreds of years?
Click to expand...
No Strawberry. The Mass has been valid and lawful for the entire time. It’s just that the texts that we were using were originally translated rapidly right after Vatican II to get them into English, and so the translations weren’t the best quality–meaning that they simply needed to be improved when time permitted. That time has come as we always knew it would.

Mass texts have been improved and added to many, many times in history. This is just the latest time. Everything is fine and we are now in more continuity with the long history of the Church, rather than less, although we were always in some continuity. It’s all good.
 
iloveangels said:
No Strawberry. The Mass has been valid and lawful for the entire time. It’s just that the texts that we were using were originally translated rapidly right after Vatican II to get them into English, and so the translations weren’t the best quality–meaning that they simply needed to be improved when time permitted. That time has come as we always knew it would.

Mass texts have been improved and added to many, many times in history. This is just the latest time. Everything is fine and we are now in more continuity with the long history of the Church, rather than less, although we were always in some continuity. It’s all good.
Click to expand...
Vatican II was how many years ago? Early sixties?
 
Oh well, the important thing is that it’s getting done, and we’re on our way forward now.
 
So this is the last Sunday of the old translation. I was thinking that I should take a couple of missalettes home. Will they have any collector value? You know…if I keep them 10-15 years and then try to sell them at a Call to Action conference, will they bring in high value? Maybe if I take out an ad in National Catholic Reporter, one of their 3 readers would buy them for $500 each?

Is there a chance I could try to sell them on Pawn Stars?
 
pacog said:
so this is the last sunday of the old translation. I was thinking that i should take a couple of missalettes home. Will they have any collector value? You know…if i keep them 10-15 years and then try to sell them at a call to action conference, will they bring in high value? Maybe if i take out an ad in national catholic reporter, one of their 3 readers would buy them for $500 each?
Click to expand...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa!!!
 
hehe…

But I did get a missal from the 1950s and found out it’s worth a nice little hunk of money on amazon. It would take a while before anything you keep from this year would be worth anything. 😉
 
Wait. Don’t most people at CTA conventions have to spend their Social Security checks on feeding the over 80 cats they have at home?
 
PacoG said:
So this is the last Sunday of the old translation. I was thinking that I should take a couple of missalettes home. Will they have any collector value? You know…if I keep them 10-15 years and then try to sell them at a Call to Action conference, will they bring in high value? Maybe if I take out an ad in National Catholic Reporter, one of their 3 readers would buy them for $500 each?

Is there a chance I could try to sell them on Pawn Stars?
Click to expand...
Not here. The new translation has been delayed for a year.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top