Response to the new English translation

  • Thread starter Thread starter dmorgan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dmorgan said:
The Catholic Church is NOT a democracy! She does not use opinion polls to enact discipline. She is in the business of saving Souls and the Holy Father is her Head. Period.
Click to expand...
Although the Church is not a democracy, she has, in the past, “tested the waters.” Sure, Pope Pius IX solemnly defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Ineffabilis Deus and Pope Pius XII solemnly defined the doctrine of her Assumption in Munificentissimus Deus. But both pontiffs preceded their proclamations with the papal equivalent of an RFC (tech jargon, “request for comments”).

Five years before Ineffabilis Deus, Pius IX wrote to the bishops of the world in Ubi Primum. While he wrote in glowing terms of the desire of Catholics around the world in having this wonderful doctrine solemnly defined, he also wrote:
We have appointed certain priests of recognized piety and theological learning, as well as several cardinals of the Holy Roman Church who are renowned because of their ability, piety, wisdom, prudence, and knowledge of the things of God; and We have directed them to make, carefully and thoroughly, a most diligent examination into this most important matter and then provide Us with a complete report. … We eagerly desire, furthermore, that, as soon as possible, you apprise Us concerning the devotion which animates your clergy and your people regarding the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin and how ardently glows the desire that this doctrine be defined by the Apostolic See. And especially, Venerable Brethren, We wish to know what you yourselves, in your wise judgment, think and desire on this matter.
That might not be democracy, but it certainly is discernment among advisors and others competent in such matter.

In a similar way, Pius XII wrote to the bishops in 1946, four years before solemnly defining that other Marian doctrine. In Deiparae Virginis Mariae, he wrote:
In order that We may receive the gift of heavenly light, do you, Venerable Brethren, in pious competition, unite your entreaties with Ours. But, while paternally exhorting you to do this, thus following the example of Our Predecessors, and particularly that of Pius IX when about to define the dogma of the Mother of God’s Immaculate Conception, we earnestly beg you to inform us about the devotion of your clergy and people (taking into account their faith and piety) toward the Assumption of the most Blessed Virgin Mary. More especially We wish to know if you, Venerable Brethren, with your learning and prudence consider that the bodily Assumption of the Immaculate Blessed Virgin can be proposed and defined as a dogma of faith, and whether in addition to your own wishes this is desired by your clergy and people.
Do you see what I mean? The Pope asking for the (name removed by moderator)ut of the bishops, who were to inquire among their clergy and people! It’s not necessarily a democratic move, but it is an action which shows the pastoral wisdom of “a central authority that does … consider itself accountable to the larger church,” to use Fr. Ruff’s language.

I am sure Fr. Ruff has read the documents of Vatican II, whether Sacrosanctum Concilium or Christus Dominus.

What do you think Fr. Ruff is trying to “create doubt and dissent” about? That official translations are infallibly pristine? He is disappointed in the process by which the translation was produced, and also (if I am not mistaken) the drop in the quality of that translation from 2008 to 2010.
 
japhy said:
Although the Church is not a democracy, she has, in the past, “tested the waters.” Sure, Pope Pius IX solemnly defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Ineffabilis Deus and Pope Pius XII solemnly defined the doctrine of her Assumption in Munificentissimus Deus. But both pontiffs preceded their proclamations with the papal equivalent of an RFC (tech jargon, “request for comments”).

Five years before Ineffabilis Deus, Pius IX wrote to the bishops of the world in Ubi Primum. While he wrote in glowing terms of the desire of Catholics around the world in having this wonderful doctrine solemnly defined, he also wrote:
We have appointed certain priests of recognized piety and theological learning, as well as several cardinals of the Holy Roman Church who are renowned because of their ability, piety, wisdom, prudence, and knowledge of the things of God; and We have directed them to make, carefully and thoroughly, a most diligent examination into this most important matter and then provide Us with a complete report. … We eagerly desire, furthermore, that, as soon as possible, you apprise Us concerning the devotion which animates your clergy and your people regarding the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin and how ardently glows the desire that this doctrine be defined by the Apostolic See. And especially, Venerable Brethren, We wish to know what you yourselves, in your wise judgment, think and desire on this matter.
That might not be democracy, but it certainly is discernment among advisors and others competent in such matter.

In a similar way, Pius XII wrote to the bishops in 1946, four years before solemnly defining that other Marian doctrine. In Deiparae Virginis Mariae, he wrote:
In order that We may receive the gift of heavenly light, do you, Venerable Brethren, in pious competition, unite your entreaties with Ours. But, while paternally exhorting you to do this, thus following the example of Our Predecessors, and particularly that of Pius IX when about to define the dogma of the Mother of God’s Immaculate Conception, we earnestly beg you to inform us about the devotion of your clergy and people (taking into account their faith and piety) toward the Assumption of the most Blessed Virgin Mary. More especially We wish to know if you, Venerable Brethren, with your learning and prudence consider that the bodily Assumption of the Immaculate Blessed Virgin can be proposed and defined as a dogma of faith, and whether in addition to your own wishes this is desired by your clergy and people.
Do you see what I mean? The Pope asking for the (name removed by moderator)ut of the bishops, who were to inquire among their clergy and people! It’s not necessarily a democratic move, but it is an action which shows the pastoral wisdom of “a central authority that does … consider itself accountable to the larger church,” to use Fr. Ruff’s language.

I am sure Fr. Ruff has read the documents of Vatican II, whether Sacrosanctum Concilium or Christus Dominus.

What do you think Fr. Ruff is trying to “create doubt and dissent” about? That official translations are infallibly pristine? He is disappointed in the process by which the translation was produced, and also (if I am not mistaken) the drop in the quality of that translation from 2008 to 2010.
Click to expand...
However, the (name removed by moderator)ut of the bishops was received. They voted on this, after all. It seems to me that the points that Fr. Ruff raises are a re-hash of the ones that Bishop Trautmann tried to make when the USCCB took its final vote. The examples that you cite show the Holy Father working with the bishops. Fr. Ruff is addressing something entirely different.

We do not know if the stuff that Fr. Ruff has on his Pray Tell blog (from unnamed WikiSpooks sources) is the final, final thing. I called folks from the CDWDS, ICEL and the USCCB and I received assurances from all three bodies that everything was okay and that there was nothing to worry about. In fact, the folks from the USCCB expressed a particular concern about Fr. Ruff and were disappointed.

The other thing to note is that what ICEL submitted for voting was not the final form of the translations. There is no such thing as a 2008 version of the Roman Missal (unless you consider what happened with South Africa). The bishops of the English-speaking conferences were making their own amendments. South Africa, on the other hand, if memory serves, simply adopted the whole ICEL version and started using it, almost right off the bat. But, as far as the rest of the English-speaking world goes, what we are getting in November is what we are getting.
 
RobbyS said:
I doubt that Father Ruff gave a moments thought about the feelings/opinions of the laity as they saw everything they were familiar with change overnight.
Click to expand...
Since we don’t know his thoughts on that matter (at least from his letter), let’s stick with what the thoughts he has revealed in the letter. If it helps, he believes that the current translation (written according to different translation principles) was not meant to be set in stone; so he’s not opposed to a new translation in principle, he’s just opposed to this translation in particular, because of the process and its quality.
 
japhy said:
Since we don’t know his thoughts on that matter (at least from his letter), let’s stick with what the thoughts he has revealed in the letter. If it helps, he believes that the current translation (written according to different translation principles) was not meant to be set in stone; so he’s not opposed to a new translation in principle, he’s just opposed to this translation in particular, because of the process and its quality.
Click to expand...
From all that I have read about the new translation and all the samples I have seen, the new translation is FAR more faithful to the latin and FAR more easily understood from a biblical standpoint.

Deacon Harold Burke-Sivers (sp?) has a couple good articles on this as does Jimmy Akin, Patrick Madrid, and a few other apologists. I would suggest that you check them out for more information.
 
FidesSpesCarita said:
From all that I have read about the new translation and all the samples I have seen, the new translation is FAR more faithful to the latin and FAR more easily understood from a biblical standpoint.
Click to expand...
I agree that the new translation is more faithful to the the Latin and to the biblical sources. I think Fr. Ruff would agree too. But it is not as faithful as the 2008 text was. (The 1998 text was good too, when it was translating the Latin – but that 1998 text also had a lot of new compositions… but now I’m getting off track.)

Fr. Ruff has not said that he is opposed to a translation that is faithful to the Latin and the biblical sources. The Order of Mass is, by and large, very faithful to the Latin and the biblical sources. The propers are where things get iffy.

Here is an example of the 2010 translation of Preface VIII of Sundays in Ordinary Time:
For when your children were scattered afar by sin,
through the Blood of your Son and the power of the Spirit,
you gathered them again to yourself,
that a people, formed as one by the unity of the Trinity,
made the body of Christ and the temple of the Holy Spirit,
might, to the praise of your manifold wisdom,
be manifest as the Church.
Here is how this passage was translated in the 2008 text:
For, when sin had scattered your children afar,
you chose to gather them again to yourself
through the Blood of your Son and the power of the Spirit,
so that a people made one from the unity of the Trinity
might be revealed as your Church,
the Body of Christ and the Temple of the Spirit,
to the praise of your manifold wisdom.
Which seems clearer to you? At first glance, doesn’t the 2010 text appear to say that God’s “children were scattered afar by sin through the Blood of [His] Son and the power of the Spirit”? The 2008 text is much clearer, because it puts the verb phrase “you chose to gather them again to yourself” before the prepositional phrase “through the Blood of your Son and the power of the Spirit.”

This sort of obfuscation and confusion of meaning is one of the things Fr. Ruff cannot, in good conscience, promote.
 
benedictgal said:
Fr. Ruff and I have sparred on this issue in his blog. He and his associates chided me for having blind faith. I wrote back that I trust the Congregation and its officials.
Click to expand...
What exactly did Fr. Ruff say? (A link to a comment would be helpful.) Be careful not to attribute to him something that someone else on the blog said. Not everyone else there is an “associate” of his.

I’m trying to keep this thread and discussion as objective as possible.
 
japhy said:
I agree that the new translation is more faithful to the the Latin and to the biblical sources. I think Fr. Ruff would agree too. But it is not as faithful as the 2008 text was. (The 1998 text was good too, when it was translating the Latin – but that 1998 text also had a lot of new compositions… but now I’m getting off track.)

Fr. Ruff has not said that he is opposed to a translation that is faithful to the Latin and the biblical sources. The Order of Mass is, by and large, very faithful to the Latin and the biblical sources. The propers are where things get iffy.

Here is an example of the 2010 translation of Preface VIII of Sundays in Ordinary Time:
For when your children were scattered afar by sin,
through the Blood of your Son and the power of the Spirit,
you gathered them again to yourself,
that a people, formed as one by the unity of the Trinity,
made the body of Christ and the temple of the Holy Spirit,
might, to the praise of your manifold wisdom,
be manifest as the Church.
Here is how this passage was translated in the 2008 text:
For, when sin had scattered your children afar,
you chose to gather them again to yourself
through the Blood of your Son and the power of the Spirit,
so that a people made one from the unity of the Trinity
might be revealed as your Church,
the Body of Christ and the Temple of the Spirit,
to the praise of your manifold wisdom.
Which seems clearer to you? At first glance, doesn’t the 2010 text appear to say that God’s “children were scattered afar by sin through the Blood of [His] Son and the power of the Spirit”? The 2008 text is much clearer, because it puts the verb phrase “you chose to gather them again to yourself” before the prepositional phrase “through the Blood of your Son and the power of the Spirit.”

This sort of obfuscation and confusion of meaning is one of the things Fr. Ruff cannot, in good conscience, promote.
Click to expand...
However, are we sure that what Fr. Ruff posted on his blog (by way of WikiSpooks) is the real thing? Furthermore, how certain can we be of his sources? These are things that should be considered.
 
Lormar said:
That is how it was done in the sixties. No one knew from one Sunday to the next what new thing we would be told to do or not to do.
Click to expand...
And certainly this is the sort of thing we all want to avoid, Fr. Ruff included.
 
benedictgal said:
However, are we sure that what Fr. Ruff posted on his blog (by way of WikiSpooks) is the real thing? Furthermore, how certain can we be of his sources? These are things that should be considered.
Click to expand...
And when we’re done considering them, what next?

Don’t you think it a bit odd that, if these texts are complete fabrications, there has been no official repudiation of them at all? That no real texts have been provided in response?

I do trust that Fr. Ruff’s sources have provided legitimate and true texts.
 
japhy said:
And when we’re done considering them, what next?

Don’t you think it a bit odd that, if these texts are complete fabrications, there has been no official repudiation of them at all? That no real texts have been provided in response?

I do trust that Fr. Ruff’s sources have provided legitimate and true texts.
Click to expand...
Japhy, I must respectfully disagree with you there. It seems as though there is some movement to try to thwart what the Church is trying to accomplish. It seems rather strange that Fr. Ruff would suddenly discover these “leaks” in November. While he wrote that they were “not the final” texts, it’s just plain fishy. The whole thing is just suspicious.

Here is the original thread that started this whole thing:

praytellblog.com/index.php/2010/11/18/the-received-text-leaked/

I do not trust the sources that Fr. Ruff provided.
 
benedictgal said:
Here is a sampling of the postings:

praytellblog.com/index.php/2011/02/02/from-a-diocesan-worship-director/#comments
Click to expand...
I don’t see anyone except Jeffrey Herbert using the word “blind”, and that’s not directed at you. All I’m saying is, if someone used language like “blind faith” about you or to you, you should be able to show who it was. I don’t see Fr. Ruff using that sort of language to you.

I don’t agree with Fr. Ruff on many issues, but that doesn’t mean I don’t believe a thing he says, or that I’m willing to write off his comments.
 
japhy said:
I don’t see anyone except Jeffrey Herbert using the word “blind”, and that’s not directed at you. All I’m saying is, if someone used language like “blind faith” about you or to you, you should be able to show who it was. I don’t see Fr. Ruff using that sort of language to you.

I don’t agree with Fr. Ruff on many issues, but that doesn’t mean I don’t believe a thing he says, or that I’m willing to write off his comments.
Click to expand...
I just posted the first thread. I need to hunt down every single thread on the issue where he and I have argued.
 
benedictgal said:
Japhy, I must respectfully disagree with you there. It seems as though there is some movement to try to thwart what the Church is trying to accomplish. It seems rather strange that Fr. Ruff would suddenly discover these “leaks” in November. While he wrote that they were “not the final” texts, it’s just plain fishy. The whole thing is just suspicious.

Here is the original thread that started this whole thing:

praytellblog.com/index.php/2010/11/18/the-received-text-leaked/

I do not trust the sources that Fr. Ruff provided.
Click to expand...
How can a person go into a secure building and copy documents they are working on? geez, how about a stroll into the “closed” archives and let us see all the stuff they are “keeping” from the people until we can “handle” it.
 
benedictgal said:
It seems as though there is some movement to try to thwart what the Church is trying to accomplish. It seems rather strange that Fr. Ruff would suddenly discover these “leaks” in November.
Click to expand...
Why should Fr. Ruff have known about them earlier? He says that a reader of Pray Tell found out about the leaks and shared them with him. The files were not even uploaded until November 11, and Fr. Ruff posted about them a week later.
benedictgal said:
I do not trust the sources that Fr. Ruff provided.
Click to expand...
Okay. So then people are concocting complete and fraudulent Missal texts. That’s a tall order. And again, we have seen no other true text provided to counter these potentially fraudulent texts.

What if you’re wrong, and in a year, we’re hearing exactly the same confusingly-worded prayers we were warned about?
 
Where are you finding the entire text of the new version of the Missal? Other than the Order of the Mass on the USCCB site, I have yet to see an official version released.

Also you stated “Do you see what I mean? The Pope asking for the (name removed by moderator)ut of the bishops, who were to inquire among their clergy and people! It’s not necessarily a democratic move, but it is an action which shows the pastoral wisdom of “a central authority that does … consider itself accountable to the larger church,” to use Fr. Ruff’s language.”

I acknowledge that a Pope will(and should) consult with the Bishops as successors to the Apostles on issues that affect the Church, but what Fr. Ruff states is somewhat different: “how little consultation was done with priests or laity” Do you really feel that the laity should have (name removed by moderator)ut as to the content and translation of the Mass from the Latin? If the Laity and many recently ordained Priests had a working knowledge of Liturgical Latin this entire issue would be mute. We could just use Latin as a Universal language and NO translations would be required. One Universal Church, One Universal Language.

Fr. Ruff also states “But my involvement in that process, as well as my observation of the Holy See’s handling of scandal, has gradually opened my eyes to the deep problems in the structures of authority of our church.”
This statement leaves me wondering what the Fathers opinion on the Magesterium as a whole is.
I will not be surprised if some inside of ICEL have not attempted to change the translations in an attempt to water down the literal interpretations, given the track record of the original translation of the Novus Ordo, but eleventh hour bailouts raise a red flag as to what motives are present. Especially when such actions are publicized in media with a liberal bent.

Pax Christi
 
japhy said:
Why should Fr. Ruff have known about them earlier? He says that a reader of Pray Tell found out about the leaks and shared them with him. The files were not even uploaded until November 11, and Fr. Ruff posted about them a week later.

Okay. So then people are concocting complete and fraudulent Missal texts. That’s a tall order. And again, we have seen no other true text provided to counter these potentially fraudulent texts.

What if you’re wrong, and in a year, we’re hearing exactly the same confusingly-worded prayers we were warned about?
Click to expand...
He is operating on speculation. We do not even know if these are legitimate texts. The reason why we have not seen the true texts is that Rome gave the USCCB specific instructions not to unveil them. That is what the USCCB told me back in November.

What the Midwest Theological Forum has published are selected texts used for study. These have been issued under the authority of the prefect of the CDWDS, himself. I posted the link to these a couple of posts ago.
 
Here’s a thought: Was the situation any different when St. Thomas More opposed English translations of the Bible? No doubt he would have opposed Cranmer’s Mass as well had he not have been beheaded in 1535 AD. (Cranmer realized his vernacular Mass in 1544AD.) Doesn’t history teach us anything?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top