A
archangel04
Guest
I guess us younger people are acting more mature then they are
- Status
A
archangel04
Guest
Lol whoa what’s your issue? So are you now former Catholic because of the new translation? You do realize that all other languages have literal translations right? English was the only one that needed to catch up
A
archangel04
Guest
Well maybe a couple minutes of studying the faith might bring more meaning to those words. Catholic Church isn’t just going to mass on Sundays, there is much much more!
A
archangel04
Guest
Todays English as you put it is subject to change, so at one point the previous translation we left behind would have been obsolete and make it “archaic” which is something you are so against.
J
JReducation
Guest
But the old translation didn’t make sense, because it said something different from what the translators hoped it would say. When the Church sat back and watched for several decades, she was able to see for herself that English speaking Catholics were not saying what the rest of the Church was saying. They had bits and pieces of the whole.
What eventually upset Pope John Paul, who is the man who started this whole re-translation, not Pope Benedict, was his visits to the USA. The USA has the largest number of English speaking Catholics. He was dismayed that the Catholics in the USA did not realize that they were not praying with the Church. The rest of the English speaking world was looking to the Americans, because we had the experts and the money to do this right.
Pope John Paul realized that our experts had tried something that did not work. They tried to use language that made sense to Americans, but the wording left out complete ideas, misquoted scripture and replaced words with similar meanings, not the same meaning.
When they looked at the USA they realized that what made it worse is that the number of Spanish speaking Catholics in the USA is quickly catching up to and may overtake the number of English speaking Catholics. Those Catholics who are bilingual realized and complained about the fact that they went to mass in Spanish and it said one thing and mass in English said another. Here they were in the same country, the same Church, saying different things.
Now, we have over one million Creole speaking Catholics, who use the French missal, they too are realizing that the English missal does not say the same thing as the French missal. Those who are poly lingual, can flip flop from one mass to another and find that the French and the Spanish missal are saying one thing and the English missal is missing parts and pieces.
It’s really the English speaking Catholic who has to join the rest of the Latin Church by praying with the same words and the same meanings. Even though things made sense to us, the sense that they made to us was not the sense that the Church wanted.
For example.
“The Lord be with you.”
“And also with you” vs “And with your spirit”
In the second, the meaning is very different. You’re not telling the priest that you wish him peace. That’s not what the Church ever wanted us to say. “and with your spirit” is far deeper than that. The Church means to say as the Paul said, “to be conformed to Christ”. In Latin, “your spirit” refers to the way you are.
When you say, “and also with you”, does not mean that you should be transformed, which is the way that the Church Fathers used this salutation and the way that everyone else uses it today.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
B
benedictus2
Guest
Since today’s English is full of expletives and meanings of words have changed, should we follow this debased way of speaking?
The language is in fact indicative of the state of society. That kind of language we certainly do not want in the way worship.
B
benedictus2
Guest
You mean “we can’t speak proper English”.
It’s bad enough that language is getting coarser, new lingo being coined as we speak. It is good to use elevated language particularly at worship to show especially the younger generation that there is a better way of speaking.
J
JReducation
Guest
Why are we arguing? 
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
B
benedictus2
Guest
You say you are a Former Catholic so obviously no longer practicing. I don’t see what you are quibbling about since obviously this no longer applies to you.With your Spirit. Honestly I want to give peace to the person, makes it sound gnostic like the person is trash but not the spirit
Becuause if you are a practicing Catholic then you will realize that there is a lot of material out there that explains why the change needed to happen. There is actually a very good explanation for it.
Try this one for a start.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Discussing rather passionately is the way I would put it.Why are we arguing?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
I guess you wouldn’t like living in my community then.Discussing rather passionately is the way I would put it.
When we have a discussion the constitution says that you get 90 seconds to make your point, you may not raise your voice above a loud whisper, you must never confront your brother, you can only talk about the point on the table and you may never question the other person’s motives. Everyone gets to speak twice and the discussion is over, unless the Guardian believes it is fruitful to take it around one more time.
Oh yeah, the Guardian decides the conclusion.
In my world, the whole back and forth thing is arguing.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
A
archangel04
Guest
Not to mention the new “texting” language that is constantly being used. Many kids are actually using it on their school work! LOL, omg, ttyl, ikr, and more are becoming the norm amongst the young to the point that they are actually speaking it! So one must ask those who are upset with the new translation, should the Church follow the trends? Of course not!
C
Church_Militant
Guest
The change is going very well here where I am. Our priests have it pretty well together, though Fr. Paul did comment that he was sure it would be Blessed John Paul the Great’s 2nd miracle if he could remember it all and not mess up. He actually did very well, so there ya go…
As for those who griped about the old OF and now gripe about this new translation, they remind me very much of what our Lord said in [bibledrb]Luke 7:32[/bibledrb]
As for those who griped about the old OF and now gripe about this new translation, they remind me very much of what our Lord said in [bibledrb]Luke 7:32[/bibledrb]
B
benedictus2
Guest
Well then it is arguing. I don’t see what is wrong witht he “back and forth”.I guess you wouldn’t like living in my community then.
When we have a discussion the constitution says that you get 90 seconds to make your point, you may not raise your voice above a loud whisper, you must never confront your brother, you can only talk about the point on the table and you may never question the other person’s motives. Everyone gets to speak twice and the discussion is over, unless the Guardian believes it is fruitful to take it around one more time.
Oh yeah, the Guardian decides the conclusion.
In my world, the whole back and forth thing is arguing.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
Around here we are having a blast with the transition. Every time we make a mistake, we just roll our eyes and it gives us something to laugh about at breakfast after mass. Try doing this with the Roman missal in one hand and the Franciscan missal in the other. You have to say these prayers (Franciscan Missal) using those words (Roman Missal).
Each day we’re getting better at this. I’m waiting for Midnight Mass. Oh Boy!
Um . . .
It never ends.
It lacks discipline.
No one wins.
After a while, it becomes repetitive.
Just a few thoughts . . .
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
patrick457
Guest
Not to sound prideful in any way (and not to sound like I’m attacking), but I find that there are many young people out there who are more mature than the physically-adult.I guess us younger people are acting more mature then they are
BTW, count me in to the young supporters of the new translation.
P
patrick457
Guest
This whole translation issue reminds me of the approach the translators of the original Douai-Rheims did when translating the (Latin) Bible into English. They were of the opinion that a faithful translation should be as literal as possible to the source text: even if the source text is ambiguous or obscure the translation should not attempt to better the original and render it into clear, understandable language (which is their main point of contention with Protestant translations). All this because they believed that by approaching the text in a loose way, one runs into the danger “of missing, or restraining the sense of the holy Ghost to our phantasie.”
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Emphasis mine. This is a very poignant quote of yours, and I am comparing its sentiment with Catholic liturgy today as a whole in my mind right now.
E
Eugenius
Guest
In many languages words have gender, which does not always coincide with the gender of the object. Just because we use masculine words and concepts to talk about God does not mean that God is a man or a woman.
For a modern example, in French you would say “Tom Cruise est une grande vedette (Tom Cruise is a big movie star).” The word “vedette (movie star)” is feminine, even though Tom is a man. You could then go on to say this about Tom: “La vedette vive à Hollywood où elle travaille à Paramount Pictures (The movie star lives in Hollywood where she works at Paramount Pictures).” Even though Tom is still a man, the sentence uses “she” because it refers back to the word “la vedette,” which is feminine.
A similar example would be the word “le bébé (the baby),” which is masculine even when talking about a little girl.
P
patrick457
Guest
Reminds me of another thing. Buddhists in China, Korea and Japan even today recite holy texts as they were, translated/transliterated from Pali or Sanskrit into Classical Chinese, about a thousand years ago. For China of course this is understandable, but in Korea and Japan they aren’t using any further translations in the native language: they recite the Chinese texts as they are, each in their respective methods of reading the Chinese characters. Sure they read the characters slightly differently (something much more evident now that all three languages had further evolved since the transmission of Buddhism in those lands and the phonological differences are more marked), but since they read from the same texts, this brings about a sort of uncanny sense of continuity between the Buddhists of these three countries. To give a concrete example, the so-called Heart Sutra: here it is in (Mandarin) Chinese, then in Korean, then in Japanese. Note that all three are using pretty much the same text, albeit with different pronunciations and different methods of chanting.
One of these translators, the famous travelling monk Xuanzang, followed a rule of not translating five categories of words and phrases (五種不翻, loosely rendered, the “Five Non-Translatables”
), opting instead to retain them in their original Sanskrit through transliteration into Chinese characters.- Ritual speech, such as mantras and dharanis
- Polysemic words (i.e. words that have multiple and different meanings, depending on context)
- Words not originally found in China
- Words that were traditionally transcribed and not translated
- Words perceived to be lofty and subtle, which a translation might devalue and obscure
- Status