New Sacramentary

[FrDavid96]

In our contemporary culture, “roof” refers to the top of a house, not our bodies. “I am not worthy to receive you” therefore holds much more meaning in modern society than “…not worthy that you should enter under my roof.”

Yes. It refers to the top of a house. The quote itself refers to the Gospel event of the Centurion’s servant. There is a value in making references to Sacred Scripture in the text of the Mass–a value which is lost when those charged with translating decide instead to interpret.

You’ve expressed the problem well: when the value is “meaning in our modern society” rather than the value of the Christian faith, we lose perspective in the Mass. It’s not all about “us” and making the Mass more like the modern world. It’s about making the modern world more like the Mass.

And, by the way, we do refer to that part of the body as the “roof of the mouth.”

 

[FrDavid96]

Yes, as in our bodies are temples of the Spirit. However, in the liturgy we are gathering as a community to celebrate, not as a performance with vague illusions. Save that for literature class.

Vatican II called for a liturgy in the common language of the people.

Ah yes. The famous “Vatican II said…” cliche. Would you care to quote the actual words of the Second Vatican Council that actually do say what you claim they say?

We gather as a community to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, not to celebrate ourselves.

 

[MarkThompson]

Yes, as in our bodies are temples of the Spirit. However, in the liturgy we are gathering as a community to celebrate, not as a performance with vague illusions. Save that for literature class.

Vatican II called for a liturgy in the common language of the people.

Did you by any chance mean “vague allusions,” instead of “vague illusions”? What an odd remark.

 

[Brendan]

Yes, as in our bodies are temples of the Spirit. However, in the liturgy we are gathering as a community to celebrate, not as a performance with vague illusions. Save that for literature class.

Your reply here is a great example of why the current translation\paraphrase is so poor. You entirely miss that this is the quote of the centurion taken directly from Scripture.

When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering.”
Jesus said to him, “I will go and heal him.”

The centurion replied, “Lord, I am worthy to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”

**When Jesus heard this, he was amazed **

This is the only time in Scripture that Jesus was ‘amazed’ at someone’s Faith.

This part of the Mass isn’t in regards to Christ coming in the roof of our mouths, or even the Temple of Our Body. If it was it would make no senses, as we are trying to disuade Christ from doing so ( that would be an obsurd prayer)

Rather, it is a prayer for us to have an AMAZING Faith.

But that is lost in our banal, so-called, translation. And people like yourselve miss out on the true meaning of the words we are called to say.

Vatican II called for a liturgy in the common language of the people.

And it is.

 

[Aggiornamento]

Yes. It refers to the top of a house. The quote itself refers to the Gospel event of the Centurion’s servant. There is a value in making references to Sacred Scripture in the text of the Mass–a value which is lost when those charged with translating decide instead to interpret.

You’ve expressed the problem well: when the value is “meaning in our modern society” rather than the value of the Christian faith, we lose perspective in the Mass. It’s not all about “us” and making the Mass more like the modern world. It’s about making the modern world more like the Mass.

And, by the way, we do refer to that part of the body as the "roof of the mouth.

Blessed John XXIII called for us to open the windows of the church! Of course, essential truths are not compromised. The current translation is a more modern translation, but entirely accurate in the faith. Or are you implying that since the 70s the liturgy has been flawed in English speaking communities?

 

[Aggiornamento]

Ah yes. The famous “Vatican II said…” cliche. Would you care to quote the actual words of the Second Vatican Council that actually do say what you claim they say?

We gather as a community to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, not to celebrate ourselves.

Vatican II is not merely a collection of documents, but a movement of the Spirit to renew the church.

 

[FrDavid96]

Vatican II is not merely a collection of documents, but a movement of the Spirit to renew the church.

In other words, you cannot quote the Vatican II document that says what you claim.

That’s been the problem for the past 40 years: people taking their own opinions and their own agenda and saying “Vatican II says…”

 

[FrDavid96]

Blessed John XXIII called for us to open the windows of the church! Of course, essential truths are not compromised. The current translation is a more modern translation, but entirely accurate in the faith. Or are you implying that since the 70s the liturgy has been flawed in English speaking communities?

No, by no means am I implying that since the 70’s the liturgy in English has been flawed.

I am not implying anything of the sort. If I came across as implying that, I apoligize sincerely.

There was no implication whatsoever intended in my comments.

The liturgy has indeed been harmed by flawed interpretations disguised as translations. No implications here. A direct statement.

 

[Elizium23]

Vatican II is not merely a collection of documents, but a movement of the Spirit to renew the church.

There are some documents that you should read and understand before you make assertions in a vacuum. Here’s a good one for you: Liturgiam Authenticam. It is the template which produced the current translation of the Mass. It directly references Vatican II; it identifies weaknesses in previous translations and provides a basis for producing a correct translation.

It seems that the current translation has met with the approval of many of us here at CAF, and more importantly, it has been approved by the Roman Pontiff, who set forth the guidelines in the first place and has supreme authority over liturgical matters. Wouldn’t it be a good idea to consider accepting this authority and take a second look?

 

[VetA]

Yes! You get two tickets to the Pope’s Mass in New Orleans!

c’mon FrDavid i made a mistake

 

[VetA]

Vatican II is not merely a collection of documents, but a movement of the spirit to renew the church.

The so-called “spirit” of Vatican II is the cancer that is rotting away our beautiful Faith. if it was not explicitly stated in any VII document but is done in the “spirit” of VII it is still wrong.

 

[japhy]

The current translation is a more modern translation, but entirely accurate in the faith. Or are you implying that since the 70s the liturgy has been flawed in English speaking communities?

One could argue that “He was born of the Virgin Mary and became man” is inaccurate (both in translation and doctrine). He was incarnate of the Virgin Mary at the moment of His conception in her womb and became man; He did not “become man” at His birth, but at His conception.

 

[japhy]

Yes, as in our bodies are temples of the Spirit. However, in the liturgy we are gathering as a community to celebrate, not as a performance with vague illusions. Save that for literature class.

You meant “allusions”, I assume. And the prayers of the Mass are full of allusions (most of them not vague) to Sacred Scripture. They’re plain to see in the Latin, but many of them are obscured in the present English translation. The new English translation renders them more clearly.

And the texts of the Mass are a very particular sort of literature. Allusion is quite appropriate in the liturgical genre.

Vatican II called for a liturgy in the common language of the people.

Shall we quote Sacrosanctum Concilium back and forth to one another?
34. The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people’s powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.

…

1. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

…

1. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and “the common prayer,” but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution. Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them. …
   When you say “the common language”, I assume you mean the terms Vatican II used: “the vernacular” and “the mother tongue.” Vatican II did not specify the character of the words used in the vernacular; it did not call for “common” (i.e. “base”) speech.

 

[curlycool89]

One could argue that “He was born of the Virgin Mary and became man” is inaccurate (both in translation and doctrine). He was incarnate of the Virgin Mary at the moment of His conception in her womb and became man; He did not “become man” at His birth, but at His conception.

The new translation is definitely better, but if you look at the old statement as sort of a compilation of 2 statements of belief then it’s good (“He was born of the Virgin Mary” and “He became man”). We do tend to do that in the English language. But again, the new translation is much better.

 

[MarkThompson]

The new translation is definitely better, but if you look at the old statement as sort of a compilation of 2 statements of belief then it’s good (“He was born of the Virgin Mary” and “He became man”). We do tend to do that in the English language. But again, the new translation is much better.

Hysteron proteron.

Not that “was born” is much of a translation of “incarnatus est,” but you’re right that it can easily be understood in a doctrinally sound way. We’ve never paid much attention to the Incarnation as an important event, anyway.

 

[japhy]

The new translation is definitely better, but if you look at the old statement as sort of a compilation of 2 statements of belief then it’s good (“He was born of the Virgin Mary” and “He became man”).

But the important fact is that His Incarnation (thus conception) was the work of the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary. Yes, her remaining a virgin was the work of the Holy Spirit as well, but more important is that His Incarnation was the work of the Holy Spirit as well, and not the work of a man.

 

[japhy]

We’ve never paid much attention to the Incarnation as an important event, anyway.

You’re missing an emoticon of some sort here.

 

[MarkThompson]

You’re missing an emoticon of some sort here.

Nah, we don’t even celebrate it with a feast. Just the Annunciation, a Marian event which, by all rights, should pale in comparison. Compare how we treat Christmas – it’s got a whole liturgical season leading up to it, fercryingoutloud.

 

[japhy]

Nah, we don’t even celebrate it with a feast. Just the Annunciation, a Marian event which, by all rights, should pale in comparison. Compare how we treat Christmas – it’s got a whole liturgical season leading up to it, fercryingoutloud.

I can’t tell the tone of your voice, so forgive me if I’m stepping into a playful trap.

We speak of the Incarnation whenever we pray the Creed. The Incarnation is the foundation of the Eucharist. It’s encountered at every single Mass. It is celebrated at the Annunciation, the Nativity, the Epiphany…

 

[MarkThompson]

I can’t tell the tone of your voice, so forgive me if I’m stepping into a playful trap.

We speak of the Incarnation whenever we pray the Creed. The Incarnation is the foundation of the Eucharist. It’s encountered at every single Mass. It is celebrated at the Annunciation, the Nativity, the Epiphany…

I’m half being playful, half not, I guess. On one hand, we pretty much ignore the Incarnation and celebrate the day as concerning an act of Mary, not an act of God. What percentage of sermons on the Solemnity of the Incarnation . . . er, excuse me, Solemnity of the Annunciation, would you say have “Mary said yes!” or a variant as their theme? I don’t know that I’ve ever heard a sermon on the Incarnation itself.

On the other hand, you’re right, we bow or genuflect at et incarnatus est, which is particularly bizarre because the Crucifixion and Resurrection are more important points in our faith, and the incarnation is not generally seen as a particularly solemn moment. (I tried once to find out why the practice developed this way, and just got people’s opinions that it was “beautiful” and so on).

The Incarnation really got the shaft, as far as I’m concerned: it gets a jarring, out-of-place nod during the Credo, yet has no anticipatory season, no octave, no vigil, and heck, not even a proper feast.