E
Elzee
Guest
Does anyone know the status of the revised English translation that was approved by the USCCB a few months ago? Has Rome approved it? When will it be implemented?
- Status
S
shannyk
Guest
Revised translation of…???
C
CatholicNick
Guest
The Novus Ordo Missae
A
Asperges_Me
Guest
I check the major Catholic sites and Blogs every day and the new translation has dropped off of the radar screen since the June USCCB meeting. It should be in the process of review for the recognitio from the Vatican. Card Arinze and his group probably are studying the many amendments proposed by the US. They have a “line item veto” of sorts on these amendments.
The bishops are also supposed to vote on some additional translations (I believe alternate EP’s) at their November 06 meeting, so we should start to hear more then.
The earliest estimate I’ve ever heard for using the new translation was Advent 2007. But the rumor is that in order to get it passed, the bishops were granted a lot of (name removed by moderator)ut as to when and how it would be implemented. Personally, I believe that they will try to stall for as many years as they can, hoping that it will somehow just all go away. Who knows, maybe they are seeing if they can wait out the reign of Pope Benedict XVI.
It doesn’t seem like rocket science to me. Sometimes the bishops are arguing like we Catholics can’t even read. First, you have a lot of articles in the bulletin. Then the priests start some teaching during Mass. Then you hand out the new prayer cards or whatever. Am I missing something here?
Probably the best source for anyone who is interested would be the monthly Adoremus bulletin website.
www.adoremus.org
The bishops are also supposed to vote on some additional translations (I believe alternate EP’s) at their November 06 meeting, so we should start to hear more then.
The earliest estimate I’ve ever heard for using the new translation was Advent 2007. But the rumor is that in order to get it passed, the bishops were granted a lot of (name removed by moderator)ut as to when and how it would be implemented. Personally, I believe that they will try to stall for as many years as they can, hoping that it will somehow just all go away. Who knows, maybe they are seeing if they can wait out the reign of Pope Benedict XVI.
It doesn’t seem like rocket science to me. Sometimes the bishops are arguing like we Catholics can’t even read. First, you have a lot of articles in the bulletin. Then the priests start some teaching during Mass. Then you hand out the new prayer cards or whatever. Am I missing something here?
Probably the best source for anyone who is interested would be the monthly Adoremus bulletin website.
www.adoremus.org
T
TradyDaddy
Guest
Until they correct the misquote of Jesus own words at the consecration of the Wine (pro multis), the US Bishops are lost.
D
demerzel85
Guest
Well it is the US Confused Bishops Conference 
D
DisgruntledGoat
Guest
The latest news that I am aware of is that the Australia and New Zealand bishops voted, “in principal”, to accept the new translation.
catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=7041
The article implies that the US, UK and Australia/New Zealand will have different, but similar, translations. As for a timeframe, the article suggests that it could be two or three years before the revised translation is published.
catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=7041
The article implies that the US, UK and Australia/New Zealand will have different, but similar, translations. As for a timeframe, the article suggests that it could be two or three years before the revised translation is published.
T
TradyDaddy
Guest
One of the reasons they don’t want to correctly translate “pro multis” is that they are worried that it will make the traditionalists look as though they were right all along… gee … maybe thats because they are right… talk about egos.
D
demerzel85
Guest
Well the simple solution is to celebrate the 2002 Missale Romanum in full Latin. Won’t go wrong
M
mdgspencer
Guest
From what I heard in the Catholic press, after the U.S. bishops approved it, it went to the Vatican for their approval, in accord with the proper procedures. However, since the Vatican was responsible for this new version, I don’t think there is much chance that they will reject their own version. From what I heard, though, we will have to wait several years until seeing it. Of course, for one thing, the new sacramentary will have to be published .The Vatican will also have to consider carefully the few amendments the U.S. bishops proposed. So there is no cause for concern about not seeing it immediately.
R
Rand_Al_Thor
Guest
Pax vobiscum!
Listen to the second hour of the show from September 1. Helen Hull Hitchcock talks about the new translation.
In Christ,
Rand
Listen to the second hour of the show from September 1. Helen Hull Hitchcock talks about the new translation.
In Christ,
Rand
A
Asperges_Me
Guest
What show are you talking about exactly?
E
Elzee
Guest
What do you think the correction translation is? I’m in the dark on what you’re talking about…what is in ‘question’ here?
T
TradyDaddy
Guest
Elzee, it’s not what I think the correct translation is. Just read the Gospel of St. Matthew, Chapter 26, Verse 28 from several versions of the Bible. Even the King James version. And then read what the Priest says at the consecration of the wine at your Mass. It is a very small word that was changed; “many”. And it may seem insignificant until you begin to see the theological differences in the meaning of the sentences with the two different words, “all” and “many” substituted. Beyond that, who actually thinks they can improve on what Jesus himself said?
R
Rykell
Guest
What do you think the essence of the consecration is?
The preceding words? … Take this all of you and eat it?
Or the concluding words? …which will be given up for you? Or
both?
The actual transubstantiation is in the wording, “THIS IS MY BODY.” The Church adds the extraneous words to further explain this holy mystery and bring it to mind of the listeners, just as Jesus did at the Last Supper with His apostles. I would imagine there was a lot more instruction that took place after the Supper than this brief sentence, and more so in private with them before His ascension.
If one were to use the “pro multis” theory, can you see how radicals could diminish the essence if they latched onto, “This is My Body which will be given up for YOU.” Now “you” could mean just the twelve who were present, could it not? Or maybe “you” could mean those who partake of the sacrifice being offered? Or “you” could mean in the plural sense every human being created by God. Who is to say what the scripture meant with unerring truth? The Church.
Why is it that the changed wording for the consecration of the wine, whose essence is 'THIS IS MY BLOOD," is causing such turnoil? One would think that there would also be much controversy over the word “you” in the consecration of the bread if the Church changed it to, “which will be given up for ALL.”
The Church is guided by the Spirit to provide clearer teaching over the course of time to make the essence of Her mysteries more deeply understood by the faithful. The lesser connotation of the word “many,” (which is semi-inclusive), is not truly as encompassing as the word “all.” For it is doctrinal Truth to say and proclaim infallibly that Jesus shed His blood for ALL, even though all do not avail themselves of the fruits of His sacrifice.
As the Church grows in understanding of these sacred mysteries of our faith, She alone has the Divine commission to make changes for the good of the faithful. The essence, however, does not change one iota, only the accidentals of language.
The preceding words? … Take this all of you and eat it?
Or the concluding words? …which will be given up for you? Or
both?
The actual transubstantiation is in the wording, “THIS IS MY BODY.” The Church adds the extraneous words to further explain this holy mystery and bring it to mind of the listeners, just as Jesus did at the Last Supper with His apostles. I would imagine there was a lot more instruction that took place after the Supper than this brief sentence, and more so in private with them before His ascension.
If one were to use the “pro multis” theory, can you see how radicals could diminish the essence if they latched onto, “This is My Body which will be given up for YOU.” Now “you” could mean just the twelve who were present, could it not? Or maybe “you” could mean those who partake of the sacrifice being offered? Or “you” could mean in the plural sense every human being created by God. Who is to say what the scripture meant with unerring truth? The Church.
Why is it that the changed wording for the consecration of the wine, whose essence is 'THIS IS MY BLOOD," is causing such turnoil? One would think that there would also be much controversy over the word “you” in the consecration of the bread if the Church changed it to, “which will be given up for ALL.”
The Church is guided by the Spirit to provide clearer teaching over the course of time to make the essence of Her mysteries more deeply understood by the faithful. The lesser connotation of the word “many,” (which is semi-inclusive), is not truly as encompassing as the word “all.” For it is doctrinal Truth to say and proclaim infallibly that Jesus shed His blood for ALL, even though all do not avail themselves of the fruits of His sacrifice.
As the Church grows in understanding of these sacred mysteries of our faith, She alone has the Divine commission to make changes for the good of the faithful. The essence, however, does not change one iota, only the accidentals of language.
D
dljl
Guest
Any news on using a new bible translation like the RSV-CE in the mass?
M
mdgspencer
Guest
I believe it actually was “many” in the original Latin version. The English version is supposed to be a translation of the Latin version. However, if I recall correctly, it will be “many” in the new edition, and if so it is becoming a moot point. (Correct me if I am wrong though.)
R
Rykell
Guest
Either way, yes I agree that it is a moot point, because it has no effect on the validity of the consecration. So if the Church changes it back to the former wording, no problem. I just think it is sad, though, because the new word is all-inclusive to embrace the whole of humanity.
If one really wants to nit-pick, we can see the wording in the old, old liturgy as such:
The words that were changed were ‘ye all of this, chalice, testament, and remission of sins.’
Nobody got upset about these changes, except for that one word which is a sticking point for some. Can’t figure out why it should be.
T
TradyDaddy
Guest
Because we don’t believe in universal salvation. Those who choose to separate themselves from the true faith separate themselves from salvation. I think I trust Jesus Christ to have chosen the correct word that truly reflected the actual reality of His redemptive act. He came to save those who would believe-many. It’s not that difficult if you think about it.
And as far as the “short” form of the consecration, if you do some research you will find a vast number of Saints and theologians through the centuries who wrote against this and warned against ANY changes to the consecration.
It’s funny how those who created the controversy in the first place by making the changes try to twist and turn the blame on traditionalists. I know you’re all so much better than us and the thousands of Saints and martyrs who fought to protect the Mass. Apparently, God allowed His church to be in darkness for the first 1960 years until the enlightened modernists came along.
R
Rykell
Guest
WOW!!! And who is “WE” may I ask? All of the Traditionalists? or maybe just the SSPX-ers?
This is Truth and doctrine, that Jesus Christ died for ALL, not just for some, although this separation is a free choice of every person to accept it or not. The gift of redemption is meant for all men. I can’t believe you said this and think it is true.
And who might be in the position of Authority, knowing what word is valid? Of course, you know the answer to that, but you do not accept it. You believe instead the rhetoric that is circulating to attack at the very roots of the Church, rather than the Divine Authority of the Magisterium to define that which is true.
From the Catechism:
1019 Jesus, the Son of God, freely suffered death for us in complete and free submission to the will of God, his Father. By his death he has conquered death, and so opened the possibility of salvation to all men.
- Status