J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
It’s not more sacred. Fact is, the TLM was developed in a time and culture with different customs fromw what we have today.
I agree with Bishop Trautman critique of the new translation…
Jim
New Missal Changes
- Thread starter Nelka
- Start date
- Status
I agree with Bishop Trautman critique of the new translation…
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
Hey Alan,I’m sorry for the above rant, and that others here had to experience it.
Please keep walking; nothin’ to see here …
Alan
Don’t sweat it!!
You have said nothing that I have not thought or said about the whole situation, too! I think the problem is that NONE of us really like change!! But we don’t have to like it, we just have to accept it!!
Peace
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
I think it’s about camels and gnats.Hey Alan,
Don’t sweat it!!
You have said nothing that I have not thought or said about the whole situation, too! I think the problem is that NONE of us really like change!! But we don’t have to like it, we just have to accept it!!
Peace
Alan
M
Miriam1947
Guest
Quote:
Bishop criticizes ‘slavishly literal’ English translation of missal WASHINGTON (CNS) –
Bishop Donald W. Trautman of Erie, Pa., former chairman of the U.S. bishops’ liturgy committee, sharply criticized what he called the “slavishly literal” translation into English of the new Roman Missal from the original Latin.
He said the “sacred language” used by translators “tends to be elitist and remote from everyday speech and frequently not understandable” and could lead to a “pastoral disaster.”
“The vast majority of God’s people in the assembly are not familiar with words of the new missal like ‘ineffable,’ ‘consubstantial,’ ‘incarnate,’ ‘inviolate,’ ‘oblation,’ ‘ignominy,’ ‘precursor,’ ‘suffused’ and ‘unvanquished.’ The vocabulary is not readily understandable by the average Catholic,” Bishop Trautman said. uscatholic.org/news/2009/…slation-missal
Do you realize how Bishop Trautman has insulted us all? We are not familiar with these words. I guess that means that the “average Catholic” is incapable of learning.
And another thing while I’m on this rant. Have you been to a Latin Mass lately? Just pick up that there little red book and well son of a gun, I’ll be durned, if they don’t translate all that Latin into English. We could have had these translations years ago if they just would have read and translated those little red missals at the Latin Mass. I’m thinking 20, maybe 30 minutes tops.
How terribly sad.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
I don’t think it’s the bishop who has insulted us. I’m not impressed by other people using words that are everyday to their profession but don’t mean to me what they mean to them. I make it a point to learn not to speak over the heads of those not trained in my subject. As a sheep, I hope if the Shepherd calls me, He does so using words I don’t have to go get a theology degree to be qualified to fully understand. :hey_bud:
That’s too simple. We’d have missed out on many chances for much scholarly debate and bureaucratic activity, not to mention photo-ops.How terribly sad.
Alan
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
The Mass isn’t the place for the average Catholic to be required to learn words and text outside of his own language.
Also, it’s not just the average Catholic in which the Mass is for, but for the least among us, i.e. those who are incapable of higher intellectual comprehension.
As Bish Trautman stated in the article, bold is my emphasis;
Jim
R
Rolltide
Guest
Why don’t we ask the Orthodox if the meaning of a single word - filoque (in Greek) - is of any consequence to them? The words of the Mass, especially the Creed, were written with incredibly precise language so that it would be impossible to have any theological misunderstandings. Today’s English translation, unlike the translations from most other languages, has some substantial problems that can lead to serious theological misunderstanding. For example, even the aforementioned change in the response from “and also with you” to “and with your spirit” brings with it a major change in meaning. One is just a response to a normal person. The other reflects an address to not only the priest, but to the “in persona Christi” nature of the priest. In other words, Christ is dwelling within him through apostolic succession so that he might perform the miracle of the Eucharist.
The words of the Mass, especially the Creed, were written with incredibly precise language so that it would be impossible to have any theological misunderstandings. Today’s English translation, unlike the translations from most other languages, has some substantial problems that can lead to serious theological misunderstanding. For example, even the aforementioned change in the response from “and also with you” to “and with your spirit” brings with it a major change in meaning. One is just a response to a normal person. The other reflects an address to not only the priest, but to the “in persona Christi” nature of the priest. In other words, Christ is dwelling within him through apostolic succession so that he might perform the miracle of the Eucharist.
A
adrift
Guest
I don’t agree. We have endured for to long absence of teaching the faith. We may not be familiar with the words but they are important concepts that we should have been familiar with but because of the lack of education to the people we aren’t. So instead of thinking how he has failed he just dumbs down the faith more.
A
adrift
Guest
We are not learning a forein language. These are not words and text outside of our own language. These are English words. The first time they were debated they weren’t liked much either.
E
Edward_H
Guest
I encourage you to do some more study on the changes. I’ve just finished reading a short book published by the Magnificat. It’s a companion to the new missal.
Wonderful. It explains the purpose and beauty of the new language and it also explains the reasons behind the changes. In many cases the changes are sharpening slightly the words in order to deepen the meaning.
E
Edward_H
Guest
The key point is that the Anglo speaking people currently have at least 3 different English translations. The new translation will get us back to “one voice” (Romans).
G
Gordon_Sims
Guest
I was bothered by the new translation the first time I read through it. Then I read an explanation not only of the translation but why we’re switching to it. It put a lot of my misgivings to rest. The current translation is the only one I’ve known, so it will take me some time to get used to, but this translation will be the only one my youngest daughter knows once she gets older, and I’m sure by then it will sound just as natural to me as it will to her.
One thing I like about the new translation is the precise nature of the words. Hopefully that will help to dispel some of the shoddy catechesis that seems to permeate so much of the Church now. Words like consubstantial and transubstantiation may be a mouthful, but if they’d been in more common use when I was a kid I think there would have been less chance of priests and teachers telling me that the bread and wine at Mass are just symbols.
On an amusing note, I’ve had a couple discussions with my son about this and he keeps telling me that he doesn’t care what the pope says, he’s going to keep using the old words. I showed him some examples of the new translation and he said that he doesn’t like how it sounds, doesn’t like some of the words and doesn’t want to look silly by messing up the words in front of other people. I asked him if he’d look any less silly saying the old words when everyone else is using the New Missal. I’m still waiting for him to get back to me on that.
One thing I like about the new translation is the precise nature of the words. Hopefully that will help to dispel some of the shoddy catechesis that seems to permeate so much of the Church now. Words like consubstantial and transubstantiation may be a mouthful, but if they’d been in more common use when I was a kid I think there would have been less chance of priests and teachers telling me that the bread and wine at Mass are just symbols.
On an amusing note, I’ve had a couple discussions with my son about this and he keeps telling me that he doesn’t care what the pope says, he’s going to keep using the old words. I showed him some examples of the new translation and he said that he doesn’t like how it sounds, doesn’t like some of the words and doesn’t want to look silly by messing up the words in front of other people. I asked him if he’d look any less silly saying the old words when everyone else is using the New Missal. I’m still waiting for him to get back to me on that.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
That exact example is one I consider the work of pointy-headed academics. For most of us here in English speaking places, the difference in these phrases is so subtle it isn’t worth the printing costs to change it. Besides, if we should say “your spirit” instead of “you,” then why does the priest still say, “The Lord be With You” and not, “the Lord be with your Spirits.”Why don’t we ask the Orthodox if the meaning of a single word - filoque (in Greek) - is of any consequence to them?
Alan
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
These are English words, but they are specialized so that only experts in the field can appreciate what they mean as opposed to some other term. It isn’t about whether they are English; it’s about what do they mean to the people in their hearts. To me, it is a sign of a true professional who can take something of their own expertise and explain it in a way that the “rest of us” can understand.
Alan
A
adrift
Guest
I disagree. I don’t think the vast majority of people are so limited in their intelligence that they cannot grasp why we use the term consubstantiation. It really is an insult to suggest that only “experts” can apprecdiated the changes being made. The new translation is exciting. If I understand, the vast majority will to. It isn’t that complex.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
That reminds me, why are we using that word anyway? Don’t we believe in transubstantiation, or is this a different context?
Alan
A
adrift
Guest
Transubstantiation is the word to describe the process ( can’t think of a better of more accurate word) of the Eucharist. That is when the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus.
The history of this word is fascinating to me. It was brought about because of the Arian heresy which denied the diety of Christ. It claimed that Jesus was a created being. The Arian’s according to Warren Carroll’s history series, had their own interpretation of each scripture passage pertaining to the divinity of Chirst something we see in todays Jehovah Witnesses. An Ecumenical Council was held at Nicaea to resolve the issue and Creed was issued. The terms of homoousios-consubstantiated or one in being was purposed to describe the essential unity of the three persons in the Blessed Trinity. This word was used so that there was no way that Jesus’ divinity could be evaded.
From the Catholic Dictionary:
M
Miriam1947
Guest
I can’t wait for the new translation. Sacred words in the sacred liturgy, what a concept!
R
Rolltide
Guest
Well, as a “pointy-headed academic” myself (Assistant Professor of History), let me answer your question. In these phrases, the priest first asks the Lord to be with us, but God does not dwell within us in the same way that he dwells within the priest during the Mass. That is why we respond “And with your spirit” instead. This emphasizes the importance of Apostolic Succession and the unique role of the priest in being able to have the spirit of Jesus within him to perform the miracle of transubstantiation. Since this is one of the major differences between our faith and Protestantism, it’s an important emphasis. You may be interested to know that virtually every other translation in the world renders this phrase “And with your spirit”. We are simply falling in line with the rest of the world.
Secondly, yes, this seems like a tiny change, but when you add up the many small changes across the Mass, it adds up to some very big changes in emphasis. In fact, among the reasons there’s a new translation in the first place is that the English translation is SO different from every other translation from the Latin in the world. For example, another major change is that “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed" will change to “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.” This is critically important because it is directly citing the centurion’s quote from the Gospel of Luke. Many people were unaware that this referenced this Biblical scene, and it does substantially change the tone of the message.
You have to remember that in the past, there have been wars fought over differences in meaning this small. One reason the Nicene Creed keeps repeating itself is so that there can be absolutely NO WAY to come up with an alternative interpretation (“God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God”, etc…). Even a small difference in meaning can create confusion and misunderstanding.
- Status