Most Irish priests want Mass translation revised or scrapped

[YoungTradCath]

This is just my opinion on what took place, and I’ll stand corrected if I’m wrong.

I recall watching Mother Angelica, back when the new English translation was being worked on.

She had a priests on the program who had participated in talkis with the commission developing the new translation.

From what he said, there were two camps involved with agendas of their own.

One camp, wanted inclusive language in the new translation, the other, which the priest on the program was part of, want to be sure inclusive language would not be used. I opposed the use of inclusive language so sided with much of what he said.

However, according to him, when a debate between the two camps came to an impasse, those in the board on the commission chose to use the literal translation from the Latin as the compromise.

This may sound the right approach, but the problem is what we see in the new translation, that the Latin was from a time and culture which no longer exist, especially in English speaking nations.

So, what we have now is awkward.

At Mass, I still hear people tripping over the responses using the old ones instead of the new, despite having cards in the pews which they could use. Although, I’ve noticed that some of the cards are missing and some pews which use to have two, only have one now.

Anyway, I liked to old translation, but now tolerate the new.

“Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.” I still have a problem with this which is abstract and requires explanation, which really is a stretch to justify.

“Lord I am not worthy to receive you,” is so closer to the reality taking place at Mass compared to the new translation. For me, this was contemplative in that I knew that Chirst was about to be received into my very being.

Jim

I love literary gymnastics!!

Anyway, sure, I think there are some parts of the new translation that are a bit ridiculous (NO NOT consubstantial et alia), but I really don’t think we should take an “equal opportunity” philistine poetry-hating approach either. Anyway, the 1973 translation was just awful. Looking back on it, it was so devoid of poetry it was like sitting in a concrete box with no windows.

 

[YoungTradCath]

How wonderful for you.

However, not everyone was on your intellectual plane. ’

What about them ?

Jim

Oooh oh oh oh, so it is an intellectual thing then? People understand Mass better now?

Quiz Catholics on the myriad doctrinal points and dogmatic beliefs contained in the multitude of prayers in the Mass (English translation). I don’t think a translation has helped understanding in any way. Neither do I think it has hurt it, for the record.

 

[eamonnroma]

This is just my opinion on what took place, and I’ll stand corrected if I’m wrong.

I recall watching Mother Angelica, back when the new English translation was being worked on.

She had a priests on the program who had participated in talkis with the commission developing the new translation.

From what he said, there were two camps involved with agendas of their own.

One camp, wanted inclusive language in the new translation, the other, which the priest on the program was part of, want to be sure inclusive language would not be used. I opposed the use of inclusive language so sided with much of what he said.

However, according to him, when a debate between the two camps came to an impasse, those in the board on the commission chose to use the literal translation from the Latin as the compromise.

This may sound the right approach, but the problem is what we see in the new translation, that the Latin was from a time and culture which no longer exist, especially in English speaking nations.

So, what we have now is awkward.

At Mass, I still hear people tripping over the responses using the old ones instead of the new, despite having cards in the pews which they could use. Although, I’ve noticed that some of the cards are missing and some pews which use to have two, only have one now.

Anyway, I liked to old translation, but now tolerate the new.

“Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.” I still have a problem with this which is abstract and requires explanation, which really is a stretch to justify.

“Lord I am not worthy to receive you,” is so closer to the reality taking place at Mass compared to the new translation. For me, this was contemplative in that I knew that Chirst was about to be received into my very being.

Jim

In Italian - a language which is closer to Latin, the following is used. ‘non sono degno di partecipare alla tua mensa ma dì soltanto una parola e io sarò salvato.’

Translated would be: I am not worthy to be at your table, but just say the word, and i will be saved.

 

[Brendan]

It is also used as a base translation for courntries that have very few, if any, Latin scholars (which is the case in many parts of Africa, and other parts of the world).

I can tell you from personal experience that the Swahili version did not use English as it’s source text.

I spend a lot of time in Tanzania, and I do so at the residence of one of the local bishops. Back in 2011 is was very much looking forward to the revised English translation, as so many of his faithful would ask him why they say one thing in Swahili, and it did not correspond to what the English text said.

Swahili is the most common language, but being a former UK colony, English is common among the educated. So people would look at a missal and see that the content of the texts were different enough that they would bring it to the attention of the bishop.

The revised translation matches much more closely to what was already in use in Swahili.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The current translation is a straight translation from the Latin. When the Mass was first translated into English by ICEL, that’s the translation that should have been used. No one reading the English/Latin Missal ever seemed to question the English translation, because it was exactly correct. The Mass prayers have a scriptural basis. There was a reason for using the scriptural reference to the centurion. I never knew anyone to question it until after the bad translations followed by the current correct translation. Everyone became accustomed to the bad translation.

The Mass is beyond a literal scripture basis, but spiritual.

The centurion was expressing a level of faith and humility to Jesus.

So too, when we are about the receive the Holy Eucharist, we express our faith an humility and the words, “Lord I am not worth to receive you,” is the reality verses under my roof, which has an abstract meaning for the person receiving.

The Mass isn’t just mimicking the words of Scripture, but the spiritual meaning behind those words.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

YoungTradCath

Oooh oh oh oh, so it is an intellectual thing then? People understand Mass better now?

Those who are properly catechized, understand it better in their native language than those of the past who listened to the prayers the priest and altar boys said in Latin.

Quiz Catholics on the myriad doctrinal points and dogmatic beliefs contained in the multitude of prayers in the Mass (English translation). I don’t think a translation has helped understanding in any way. Neither do I think it has hurt it, for the record.

This is my body, this is the cup of my blood is easily understood by English speaking people than,

HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM

HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINES MEI

Luckily, I was able to find a Latin version of the Mass with the English translation next to it, which I hope I copied and pasted correctly, otherwise I would not have know what the words meant.

BTW, I grew up in the Church before Vatican II with the TLM.

Jim

 

[ProVobis]

People found spirituality in the Mass when much of virtually every Mass was said for 400 years sub voce (in low tone, quietly). And not everyone brought a handmissal or rosary to Church.

If you’re properly catechized IMO, you should be able to understand it in any language. The Mass in 2014 or 1973 English isn’t going to be around forever, so fight all you want about this or that translation.

50 years without understanding what Hoc est enim Corpus Meum means? You gotta be kidding me. People must really have this mental block against Latin these days, because kids can be educated in Latin vocabulary and grammar easily, with some support, of course.

 

[Elizium23]

So 4 out of 5 priests in Ireland which the article states are all modernist malcontent priests?

How’d you get that from the article ?

Jim

What I got from the article is that a liberal dissident modernist malcontent fringe organization took a very flawed survey and this rag uncritically parroted the results. I would also accept that Ireland as a country has fallen very far from its Catholic roots and that dissent from Rome, not to mention vanishing vocations and a rapidly aging and dwindling clergy, plays into the results of this survey. But let’s be optimistic. Perhaps there are more faithful priests in Ireland than we think, and they may be unwilling to answer a survey by such a disgusting and repellent organization such as ACP.

 

[Cromwell4]

E23: You are 100% correct. This a trendy wavering group of malcontent priests.
Also the local press esp. Irish Times is rampantly anti-RC, pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality so they tend to distort every story coming out of Ireland. Example: totally distorted account of pre-Vat II babies found in a corner of disused grounds. They were not dumped. Surviving nuns said they were more than willing to co-operate with investigation. Note it is now ‘yesterdays news’ and (like the Air Malaysia flight) totally forgotten.

One should take all ‘popular’ news stories with a BIG grain of salt.