US priests dislike Mass translation, survey finds [CNAU]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I wouldn’t consider that survey, conducted by some St. John’s Collegeville people.
 
NCReporter made a survey of its own readers, and most priests who read that rag would incline away from anything smacking of tradition.
 
This is laughable, coming from a school whose publishing arm prints some of the worst hymnals and ugliest altar missals available.
 
mafh said:
This business about translation is something I don’t understand. There are many different English translations of the Bible, and that is thought to be ok, right? So, why is it a big deal that everyone should agree on the translation for the mass service? Why couldn’t those churches who prefer the old translation use that one, and those that prefer the new use that one? I guess I don’t understand why this is such a big deal. Maybe someone could explain?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
From 2001 FIFTH INSTRUCTION “FOR THE RIGHT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONSTITUTION ON THE SACRED LITURGY OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL”: 1. The Second Vatican Council strongly desired to preserve with care the authentic Liturgy. …
  1. The practice of seeking the recognitio from the Apostolic See for all translations of liturgical books[56] accords the necessary assurance of the authenticity of the translation and its correspondence with the original texts.
    vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20010507_liturgiam-authenticam_en.html
 
WingsOfEagles said:
I like most of the new translation just fine. However, if I didn’t know the old translation of “one in being with the father” for the creed, I wouldn’t have any clue what “consubstantial with the father” meant. I’d have to look it up.
Click to expand...
FWIW, the 1857 Latin-English handmissal had the “consubstantial TO the Father” wording.

It’s “to” because Patri is actually in the dative case. The “con” already means “with.”

The concept is difficult to grasp, even in the Latin. The English IMO doesn’t make it easier. What’s “one in being with the father” or “one in substance” mean, for example?
 
The changes were needed as the liturgical meanings did not flow through as intended.
 
ProVobis said:
FWIW, the 1857 Latin-English handmissal had the “consubstantial TO the Father” wording.

It’s “to” because Patri is actually in the dative case. The “con” already means “with.”

The concept is difficult to grasp, even in the Latin. The English IMO doesn’t make it easier. What’s “one in being with the father” or “one in substance” mean, for example?
Click to expand...
The former “one in being” and current “consubstantial” is a modern translation of the Latin “consubstantialem,” itself a translation of Greek “homoousion.”
 
I admit I was not keen on the revision… at first. After looking through my father’s old missal, I see that the changes were actually IMPROVEMENTS on the translations, and I think the updated liturgy is for the better.

I think that the priests who dislike the update either don’t want the inconvenience of learning new liturgy, or are of a more ‘liberal’ persuasion. Or both.

Doesn’t matter much, however. I don’t think there will be a change back to the pre-2011 liturgy. They’re just going to have to accept it. 🤷
 
Vico said:
The former “one in being” and current “consubstantial” is a modern translation of the Latin “consubstantialem,” itself a translation of Greek “homoousion.”
Click to expand...
Homoousion
Click to expand...
(Gr. homoousion - from homos, same, and ousia, essence; Latin consubstantialem, of one essence or substance), the word used by the Council of Nicaea (325) to express the Divinity of Christ. Arius had taught that the Son, being, in the language of Philo, the Intermediator between God and the world, was not eternal, and therefore not of the Divine substance, but a creature brought forth by the free will of God. (See ARIANISM) Homoousion was indeed used by philosophical writers to signify “of the same or similar substance”; but as the unity of the Divine nature wasn’t questioned, the word carried the fuller meaning: “of one and the same substance”. However, not only is homos ambiguous; the word ousia itself was often taken as equivalent to hypostasis (person), as apparently is the case in the anathema attached to the Nicene Symbol. And therefore the affirmation of the identity of nature might be taken in the heretical sense of the Sabellians, who denied the distinction of person. It was only after many years of controversy that the two words acquired their distinct meanings, and the orthodox were able to describe the Trinity as one in ousia and three in hypostasis or persona. Previously to the Council of Nicaea, Tertullian had already used the Latin equivalent of Homoousion, conceding to Praxeas the Sabellian that the Father and the Son were unius substantiae, of one substance, but adding duarum personarum, of two persons (Adv. Prax., xiii). And Dionysius of Alexandria used the actual word in a letter to Dionysius of Rome (Athan., “De dec. Syn. Nic.”, xxv, 26) and again in his letter to Paul of Samosata. On the other hand, Origen, who is, however, inconsistent in his vocabulary, expressed the anti-Sabellian sense of Dionysius of Alexandria by calling the Son “Heteroousion”. The question was brought into discussion by the Council of Antioch (264-272); and the Fathers seem to have rejected Homoousion, even going so far as to propose the phrase heteras ousias, that is, Heteroousion, “of other or different ousia”. Athanasius and Basil give as the reason for this rejection of Homoousion the fact that the Sabellian Paul of Samosata took it to mean “of the same of similar substance”. But Hilary says that Paul himself admitted it in the Sabellian sense “of the same substance or person”, and thus compelled the council to allow him the prescriptive right to the expression. Now, if we may take Hilary’s explanation, it is obvious that when, half a century afterwards, Arius denied the Son to be of the Divine ousia or substance, the situation was exactly reversed. Homoousion directly contradicted the heretic. In the conflicts which ensued, the extreme Arians persisted in the Heteroousion Symbol. But the Semi-Arians were more moderate, and consequently more plausible, in their Homoiousion (of like substance). When one considers how the four creeds formulated at Antioch (341) by the Semi-Arians approached the Nicene Creed as nearly as possible without the actual word Homoousion, there may be a temptation to think that the question was one of words only; and the Councils of Rimini and Seleucia (359) may seem to have been well advised in their conciliatory formula “that the Son was like the Father in all things, according to the Holy Writ”. But this very formula was forced from the Fathers by the Emperor Constantius; and the force and fraud which the Semi-Arians used throughout the greater part of the fourth century, are proof sufficient that the dispute was not merely verbal. The dogma of the Trinity was at stake, and Homoousion proved itself to be in the words of Epiphanius “the bond of faith”, or, according to the expression of Marius Victorinus, “the rampart and wall of orthodoxy.” (See ARIANISM; TRINITY.)
Click to expand...
newadvent.org/cathen/07449a.htm
 
FAB said:
Looks like someone trying to stir the pot to cause trouble. The survey is useless. Preist don’t like lots of things, make no difference, they are under a vow of obediance, this is not a democracy and the bishops are not guided by polls.
Click to expand...
Like all of us most people dislike change, even Priest. In a couple of years it will be settled.
 
I note that even almost 1-1/2 years later, priests here in the land of ‘but the people WANT it my way’ tend to tweak the New Translation. One will say in the consecration, “blood which was SHED” (old) instead of “blood which is POURED” (new), but say all the other changes correctly. Another will NEVER say the “Lord I am not worthy” according to the new, but he doesn’t say the OLD either. He makes it up ‘new’ each week, but ALWAYS says something about 'welcome to this meal".

Another will never say the appropriate greeting A, B, or C, but will have a chat about “welcome to our parish, thank you for coming, how about the Sox this year, Jesus would have loved them”. . .

Another will ‘add’ in ‘the people’ in Eucharistic prayer B where he prays for the Pope, the bishop, and fellow clergy, "and for all the members of this parish and all peoples of the world’.

So. . . they won’t SAY this dislike the translation. They’ll simply, as they have done lo these many years, take what they want from it, embellish it as they desire, and continue on their merry way, secure in the knowledge that when the bishop comes all they have to do is ‘say the black’ when he’s there, and then go back to 'but the people WANT it MY way" once he has gone. . .

The people? Some really DO ‘like it’ his way. Some don’t care because they aren’t paying attention and never were. Some aren’t aware that there is an appropriate way because Father doesn’t supply anything like a missal, or puts out a mimeo copy of ‘Mass prayers/ responses’ so the people think they’re saying what should be said. Some are so apathetic after decades of experiementalism that they ‘tune out’ and then go home to watch EWTN. And some come with gritted teeth, offering up every minute of misery, but thankful to God to even have a priest and freedom of worship, knowing that prayer will, one day, ‘work’. But it has been so long here, it is really no wonder that so few people attend Mass regularly. They don’t know what they will ‘get’, and often, what they get will not just be in a style they might not care for, it will be so different from the rubrics that they will wonder if they really went to Mass and not to a service down at the local evangelical church.
 
WingsOfEagles said:
I like most of the new translation just fine. However, if I didn’t know the old translation of “one in being with the father” for the creed, I wouldn’t have any clue what “consubstantial with the father” meant. I’d have to look it up.
Click to expand...
And that is how we learn new words, especially theological words. Nothing wrong with that.
 
The prior translation was regretful. The new is much better though the wisdom of including “consubstantial” is questionable. Much of the prior translation is used also by the Episcopal and Luther churches so it’s unfortunate that we had to change it but hopefully they follow our lead.

For a priest, a new translation means more work so naturally they might not like it.
 
johnmann said:
The prior translation was regretful. The new is much better though the wisdom of including “consubstantial” is questionable. Much of the prior translation is used also by the Episcopal and Luther churches so it’s unfortunate that we had to change it but hopefully they follow our lead.

For a priest, a new translation means more work so naturally they might not like it.
Click to expand...
Compare to the 1965 Mass translation here: coreyzelinski.8m.com/1965_Mass/

Then “of one substance with the Father” was used, and also “And with your spirit.”
 
Well, that’s probably because the new translation is full of half-digested Latin and about as poetic as a fist to the face. I don’t know that the point of accommodating to trads who want nothing less than the complete annihilation of all vernacular Masses is. At least, saying the Son is consubstantial with the Father rather than one in being with the Father isn’t giving the people in the pews a better sense of what is being said, since I doubt many of them have read Aquinas or Aristotle and understand what a substance is, so it certainly wasn’t for clarity’s sake.
 
Vico said:
Compare to the 1965 Mass translation here: coreyzelinski.8m.com/1965_Mass/

Then “of one substance with the Father” was used, and also “And with your spirit.”
Click to expand...
I believe the “for all men” wording was inserted in 1967, along with other changes, when English became more extensively used. Other languages followed with this change as well. Pope Benedict recently insisted all languages replace the “for all” in their consecration.
 
One of the problems encountered in the post Sacrosanctum Concillium Liturgy is the ever changing meaning and emphasis of vernacular language. If one takes the time to read, side by side, the pre-Vatican II Missal, the 1965 Missal, the 1969 modifications, the first Missal promulgated by H.H. Pope Paul VI, and the 2nd edition, and the current 3rd edition, you can see where trying to translate the original Latin to English has been a work in progress. Added to that the personal attitude of some of the translators and one can easily understand the issues we have witnessed. One vote in favor of Latin is that Latin does not change. It is a non evolving language. One vote in favor of vernacular is that you do not need a translation to understand the Mass. Personal opinions aside, the vernacular is probably better for the pew sitter, but weaker for the Sacredness of the Liturgy. Vernacular lends itself to modification and interpretation. And Priests that ad lib does not help. Bottom line is the vernacular is not going away. That H.H. Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wanted to return a more direct translation of the Missal is a good thing and a teaching moment for the Faithful. I travel often for work and attend Mass in many Parishes. It is very rare that the Missal is followed to the letter in any Parish. I do not sweat this as long as the Propers and the Consecrations are valid. We cannot allow ourselves to become Pharisees when it comes to our Mass. But we do deserve the Mass delivered as prescribed by the Holy See. And we are to accept the teachings of the Holy Father and the Magesterium. And so are our Priests.
 
And the document that called for more accurate translations was Liturgiam Authenticam in 2001, two pontificates ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top