Response to the new English translation

  • Thread starter Thread starter dmorgan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dmorgan said:
catholicreview.org/subpages/storyworldnew-new.aspx?action=9454
Click to expand...
From the article:
“We are saying very clearly that this new translation of the missal is not acceptable,” Father Gerard Alwill, pastor of a rural parish in the Diocese of Kilmore, said during the news conference. “We are deeply concerned that if these new texts are imposed, they could create chaos in our church. Our church doesn’t need chaos at this time.
Click to expand...
“How can we, the priests, be asked to introduce this with any conviction when we ourselves haven’t had any (name removed by moderator)ut into it and when we have such serious doubts and reservations about it?” he added.
Click to expand...
Funny they weren’t saying that 40 years ago.
 
I’m often in Ireland and the liturgical standard I have experienced is not good, it makes this comment from the article sound like utter nonsense:

“We are passionately concerned about the quality of our liturgical celebration and about the quality of the language that will be used in the way we worship Sunday after Sunday,” he said. “If this goes ahead, instead of drawing people into the liturgy, it will in fact draw people out from the liturgy.”

The new translation offers an excellent opportunity for catechesis! What on earth are they on about??
 
“We are saying very clearly that this new translation of the missal is not acceptable,” Father Gerard Alwill, pastor of a rural parish in the Diocese of Kilmore, said during the news conference. “We are deeply concerned that if these new texts are imposed, they could create chaos in our church. Our church doesn’t need chaos at this time.
Click to expand...
“How can we, the priests, be asked to introduce this with any conviction when we ourselves haven’t had any (name removed by moderator)ut into it and when we have such serious doubts and reservations about it?” he added.
Click to expand...
I never realized that “(name removed by moderator)ut” from each and every priest was needed. Sounds like what is being asked for is a vote by all clergy. What happened to obediance to the Church Father? What happened to having Faith that God steers the ship? 😦
 
1 Pet 5:8-9 Brothers: Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour. Whom resist ye, strong in faith:

The Church is not democracy, any temptation toward it is to be rejected.
 
Tietjen said:
I never realized that “(name removed by moderator)ut” from each and every priest was needed. Sounds like what is being asked for is a vote by all clergy. What happened to obediance to the Church Father? What happened to having Faith that God steers the ship? 😦
Click to expand...
Tietjen, without starting a separate topic, this is what has happened due to the abuse of the collegiality established after V-II (CHRISTUS DOMINUS) . Notice the quote from the Irish Priests pointing to the German Bishops. Holy Mother Church is sliding into the separatist model of the various protestant churches. Before anyone jumps on me, yes I understand the authority of a Bishop, but I also understand the Final Authority rests with the Holy Father and it seems clear that many Bishop’s Conferences around the globe are paying less attention to Rome these days and more attention to themselves. Pride is a devastating vice. The Faithful must demand from the Bishops an adherence to the wishes of the Holy Father.

I point to a quote from Bishop Fulton Sheen:
“Who is going to save our Church? Not our Bishops, not our Priests and religious. It is up to you, the people. You have the mind, the eyes, the ears to save the Church. Your mission is to see that your Priests act like Priests,your Bishops act like Bishops, and your Religious act like Religious.”

ref.> vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651028_christus-dominus_en.html
 
dmorgan said:
I point to a quote from Bishop Fulton Sheen:
“Who is going to save our Church? Not our Bishops, not our Priests and religious. It is up to you, the people. You have the mind, the eyes, the ears to save the Church. Your mission is to see that your Priests act like Priests,your Bishops act like Bishops, and your Religious act like Religious.”

ref.> vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651028_christus-dominus_en.html
Click to expand...
The Christus Dominus is clear
  1. Christ the Lord, Son of the living God, came that He might save His people from their sins(1) and that all men might be sanctified. Just as He Himself was sent by the Father, so He also sent His Apostles.(2) Therefore, He sanctified them, conferring on them the Holy Spirit, so that they also might glorify the Father upon earth and save men, “to the building up of the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:12), which is the Church.
  2. In this Church of Christ the Roman pontiff, as the successor of Peter, to whom Christ entrusted the feeding of His sheep and lambs, enjoys supreme, full, immediate, and universal authority over the care of souls by divine institution. Therefore, as pastor of all the faithful, he is sent to provide for the common good of the universal Church and for the good of the individual churches. Hence, he holds a primacy of ordinary power over all the churches.
The bishops themselves, however, having been appointed by the Holy Spirit, are successors of the Apostles as pastors of souls.(3) Together with the supreme pontiff and under his authority they are sent to continue throughout the ages the work of Christ, the eternal pastor

Jesus Christ saved the word, and he trusted the popes as the universal authority, and the bishops for following His work under the authority of the pope.
 
This response smacks of democratic idealism. Why should priests have any say at all? This sort of national-bishops’-council notion seems to have gone way too far. How can anyone say this new translation will create chaos? It will only create chaos if people sew chaotic and riotous notions and priests encourage such planting.
 
Fr. Anthony Ruff, a Benedictine priest who, until recently, headed up ICEL’s music committee developing the chants of the forthcoming English missal, has an open letter to the bishops of the United States in America Magazine. You can read it here.

I think his perspective on the matter is worthy of our serious attention and discussion. Anyone care to chime in?

Let’s keep the discussion civil, charitable, and on-topic.
 
Father Ruff states>“The forthcoming missal is but a part of a larger pattern of top-down impositions by a central authority that does not consider itself accountable to the larger church. When I think of how secretive the translation process was, how little consultation was done with priests or laity, how the Holy See allowed a small group to hijack the translation at the final stage, how unsatisfactory the final text is, how this text was imposed on national conferences of bishops in violation of their legitimate episcopal authority, how much deception and mischief have marked this process—and then when I think of Our Lord’s teachings on service and love and unity…I weep.”

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.

Father Ruff should read Christus Dominus from V-II >
“2. In this Church of Christ the Roman pontiff, as the successor of Peter, to whom Christ entrusted the feeding of His sheep and lambs, enjoys supreme, full, immediate, and universal authority over the care of souls by divine institution. Therefore, as pastor of all the faithful, he is sent to provide **for the common good of the universal Church **and for the good of the individual churches. Hence, he holds a primacy of ordinary power over all the churches.” There is Unity Father Ruff.

I fear the Father is but one of many that will bail out as we approach the implementation of the new version of Mass and attempt to create doubt and dissent amongst the faithful. This is the Modernist viewpoint that H.H. Pope St. Pius X and many others have warned us about. Read PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS found here:
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm

Pax Christi
 
dmorgan said:
Father Ruff states>“The forthcoming missal is but a part of a larger pattern of top-down impositions by a central authority that does not consider itself accountable to the larger church. When I think of how secretive the translation process was, how little consultation was done with priests or laity, how the Holy See allowed a small group to hijack the translation at the final stage, how unsatisfactory the final text is, how this text was imposed on national conferences of bishops in violation of their legitimate episcopal authority, how much deception and mischief have marked this process—and then when I think of Our Lord’s teachings on service and love and unity…I weep.”

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.

Father Ruff should read Christus Dominus from V-II >
“2. In this Church of Christ the Roman pontiff, as the successor of Peter, to whom Christ entrusted the feeding of His sheep and lambs, enjoys supreme, full, immediate, and universal authority over the care of souls by divine institution. Therefore, as pastor of all the faithful, he is sent to provide **for the common good of the universal Church **and for the good of the individual churches. Hence, he holds a primacy of ordinary power over all the churches.” There is Unity Father Ruff.

I fear the Father is but one of many that will bail out as we approach the implementation of the new version of Mass and attempt to create doubt and dissent amongst the faithful. This is the Modernist viewpoint that H.H. Pope St. Pius X and many others have warned us about. Read PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS found here:
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm

Pax Christi
Click to expand...
Great irony.This is classic projection, since this is HOW radical changes in the liturgy were imposed on the Church after Vatican II. 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.
 
Wow! Talk about poisoning the well! Letters like this are precisely the reason why the Church has to spend so much time and resources to implement the new translation–a task which is relatively simple and straightforward, but made difficult by those who want to put their own self-centered priorities above the good of the people of God.

It’s obvious from the tone of the letter that the intention is simply to stir-up trouble.

Facts are distorted. For example: “how this text was imposed on national conferences of bishops in violation of their legitimate episcopal authority” Is a distortion of the simple fact that the conferences have had plenty of opportunity beginning in 1970 to provide the people of God with an authentic translation of the text. For 41 years, that has not happened.

He conveniently leaves out the very relevant fact that the current translation is not a translation at all. In other words, he completely ignores the very problem that brought about this new translation.

It is inflammatory. There is no reason to bring up the issue of “scandal” when writing about liturgical texts. This is an ad hominem attack.

Another example: “how the Holy See allowed a small group to hijack the translation at the final stage,” He conveniently fails to mention that the Holy See began addressing this issue decades ago. This is not a small group hijacking a translation. It is a matter of the translators failing for years to translate the text, and the Holy See finally saying “enough already. Since you’ve decided to sabotage this issue by passive-resistance, we will find someone else to do the job.”

This quote is particularly telling
I see a good deal of disillusionment with the Catholic Church among my friends and acquaintances. Some leave the Catholic Church out of conviction, some gradually drift away, some join other denominations, some remain Catholic with difficulty

And yet, the writer himself is the at that moment, contributing to that very disillusionment which he laments. He stokes the fire, then blames Rome for the flames. Remember “integrity” from the opening?

He says in the first paragraph “I have concluded that I cannot promote the new missal translation with integrity.” That’s not Rome’s fault. The fault is his own. The lack of integrity is his own.

The only thing he gets right is at the very end “I know this is the right thing to do” Yes, Father, it is the right thing to do. The Church is better off having someone promote the new translation who will be honest and faithful about it. We’re all better off if you just step aside and let someone else do the job. Thank you and don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

Shame on him for writing the letter as he did, and shame on America Magazine for printing it.
 
FrDavid96 said:
Wow! Talk about poisoning the well! Letters like this are precisely the reason why the Church has to spend so much time and resources to implement the new translation–a task which is relatively simple and straightforward, but made difficult by those who want to put their own self-centered priorities above the good of the people of God.

It’s obvious from the tone of the letter that the intention is simply to stir-up trouble.

Facts are distorted. For example: “how this text was imposed on national conferences of bishops in violation of their legitimate episcopal authority” Is a distortion of the simple fact that the conferences have had plenty of opportunity beginning in 1970 to provide the people of God with an authentic translation of the text. For 41 years, that has not happened.

He conveniently leaves out the very relevant fact that the current translation is not a translation at all. In other words, he completely ignores the very problem that brought about this new translation.

It is inflammatory. There is no reason to bring up the issue of “scandal” when writing about liturgical texts. This is an ad hominem attack.

Another example: “how the Holy See allowed a small group to hijack the translation at the final stage,” He conveniently fails to mention that the Holy See began addressing this issue decades ago. This is not a small group hijacking a translation. It is a matter of the translators failing for years to translate the text, and the Holy See finally saying “enough already. Since you’ve decided to sabotage this issue by passive-resistance, we will find someone else to do the job.”

This quote is particularly telling
I see a good deal of disillusionment with the Catholic Church among my friends and acquaintances. Some leave the Catholic Church out of conviction, some gradually drift away, some join other denominations, some remain Catholic with difficulty

And yet, the writer himself is the at that moment, contributing to that very disillusionment which he laments. He stokes the fire, then blames Rome for the flames. Remember “integrity” from the opening?

He says in the first paragraph “I have concluded that I cannot promote the new missal translation with integrity.” That’s not Rome’s fault. The fault is his own. The lack of integrity is his own.

The only thing he gets right is at the very end “I know this is the right thing to do” Yes, Father, it is the right thing to do. The Church is better off having someone promote the new translation who will be honest and faithful about it. We’re all better off if you just step aside and let someone else do the job. Thank you and don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

Shame on him for writing the letter as he did, and shame on America Magazine for printing it.
Click to expand...
👍

I was at the Society for Catholic Liturgy Conference in Houston. There was not any gloom and doom and fear of Armaggedon. In fact, there was much anticipation for the coming Roman Missal.

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.
 
japhy said:
Fr. Anthony Ruff, a Benedictine priest who, until recently, headed up ICEL’s music committee developing the chants of the forthcoming English missal, has an open letter to the bishops of the United States in America Magazine. You can read it here.

I think his perspective on the matter is worthy of our serious attention and discussion. Anyone care to chime in?

Let’s keep the discussion civil, charitable, and on-topic.
Click to expand...
Well, anyone who didnt know where America Magazine stands before this article sure does now. This magazine is the epitome of “progressive” Catholicism pushing a modernist agenda. I once had a subscription to it, but have since returned to orthodoxy and cannot support their agenda.
dmorgan said:
Father Ruff states>“The forthcoming missal is but a part of a larger pattern of top-down impositions by a central authority that does not consider itself accountable to the larger church. When I think of how secretive the translation process was, how little consultation was done with priests or laity, how the Holy See allowed a small group to hijack the translation at the final stage, how unsatisfactory the final text is, how this text was imposed on national conferences of bishops in violation of their legitimate episcopal authority, how much deception and mischief have marked this process—and then when I think of Our Lord’s teachings on service and love and unity…I weep.”

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.

Father Ruff should read Christus Dominus from V-II >
“2. In this Church of Christ the Roman pontiff, as the successor of Peter, to whom Christ entrusted the feeding of His sheep and lambs, enjoys supreme, full, immediate, and universal authority over the care of souls by divine institution. Therefore, as pastor of all the faithful, he is sent to provide **for the common good of the universal Church **and for the good of the individual churches. Hence, he holds a primacy of ordinary power over all the churches.” There is Unity Father Ruff.

I fear the Father is but one of many that will bail out as we approach the implementation of the new version of Mass and attempt to create doubt and dissent amongst the faithful. This is the Modernist viewpoint that H.H. Pope St. Pius X and many others have warned us about. Read PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS found here:
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm

Pax Christi
Click to expand...
X2.

And a big thumbs up to FrDavid96. 👍👍
 
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...
Doesnt it just chap your hide when Catholics (especially priests who take the vow of obedience twice IIRC) say things like this?

It is very upsetting to me because it shows a lack of the humility taught by Christ, the Gospels, the entire New Testament, and the saints.
 
RobbyS said:
Great irony.This is classic projection, since this is HOW radical changes in the liturgy were imposed on the Church after Vatican II. 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...
You are correct, Robby. 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.
And a big thumbs up to FrDavid96.
Click to expand...
From me too! 👍👍👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top