What is the reaction of Conservative Traditional Catholics to the changes in the English Liturgy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter chrisb
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

chrisb

Guest
Grace and Peace,

I was curious as to the reaction of Conservative Traditional Roman Catholics with the changes to the English Liturgical Language?

Thank you.
 
I presume you mean the new Missal translations coming this Advent? Although it will be a bit of a learning curve I will take heart that we are getting the translations we should have gotten in 1973. I also think it is a great tool to aid in starting some Catholic adult education.
 
TheDoctor said:
I presume you mean the new Missal translations coming this Advent? Although it will be a bit of a learning curve I will take heart that we are getting the translations we should have gotten in 1973. I also think it is a great tool to aid in starting some Catholic adult education.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is what I was after. Pardon me for not being more specific. Mea Culpa. :o

Do you or does anyone here have or know of a site which compares the ‘whole’ translation with the current Roman Missal?
 
I think I qualify for the title of ‘conservative traditional catholic’, despite being a catechumen. 😉 My politics are easily in line with those of Bossuet and de Maistre, and I detest all philosophical inquiry after Aquinas. I think women really ought to stay at home and bear children, and my taste in concert music hardly extends to years after 1910. You might call me a caricature of traditionalism, but there it is.

Now, nothing can be further from my affection than the 1973 translation of the Mass you’ve all had to suffer through for 35 years. It’s the most ungrammatical and bizarre communication between Latin and English I’ve ever seen. How do you start with “et cum spiritu tuo” et - and; cum - with; spiritu - spirit/soul; tuo - yours… and end up with “and also with you”, unless your purpose is to downplay the importance of the extra-physical and super-natural?

Quite apart from the 1973 translation being unfaithful to the Latin, it actually butchers the language which these translators were supposed to be experts of! “And Also With” is not proper way to begin a sentence in English. It seems that this international committee of translators didn’t have one native English-speaking person on it, given the weird philology they employed. Since that is a patently silly claim to make on my part, I must conclude that those fluent etymologists and philologists were obscuring the translation for a theological reason.

I am very happy with the new translation, because it translates the Latin into what it actually is in English. How can anyone reject this? The Bible also gives Jesus’ words as “for many”, not “for all”, and so the Mass ought to say “for many”, not “for all”. It seems so simple and logical. I don’t know how anyone could be opposed to it. Well… I’m opposed in the sense that I wish the Mass was entirely in Latin :p, but that’s another subject.
 
chrisb said:
Grace and Peace,

I was curious as to the reaction of Conservative Traditional Roman Catholics with the changes to the English Liturgical Language?

Thank you.
Click to expand...
You mean the new translation of the Latin OF Mass? And what’s a Conservative Traditional Roman Catholic? I’m not sure I am one of those. 🙂

You do realize this isn’t the first English re-translation we’ve had of the Mass, don’t you? We’ve even had one change already in the very consecration formula when the “men” was removed from the “for you and for all men.” This will be other changes but, if nothing else, the whole thing will be a good disciplinary move. However, I doubt if the understanding will be increased, especially since not too many know what “transubstantial” means, for example, so I fail to see all the hype behind the move. The Latin basis for the Mass stays the same, which is of primary importance.
 
I consider myself a traditionalist to some degree, but I still like attending both forms of the Mass at the parish I attend. I’m not sure exactly why the 1973 English translation of the OF was corrupted so badly. I have always thought that the people who were translating it may have been in a big hurry to get it done, and that may have had a lot to do with it.

Here are a couple of good examples of this corruption, with English translations of the original Latin text in parentheses provided by yours truely. . In the Gloria, how on earth do you start out with “et in terra pax hominibus bone voluntatis,” (and on earth, peace to men of good will), and end up with “and peace to his people on earth?” “Bone voluntatis” (of good will) was completely omitted from the English translation, while still retained in the Latin. And in the Credo, how do you start out with “et ex Patre natus ante omnia secula” (and from the Father, born before all ages), and end up with “eternally begotten of the Father?” A software translator could probably do better than that…

I’m really looking forward to the implementation of the new translation. What I’ve read of it so far seems to be much more true to the original Latin source.
 
drforjc said:
If only they would have applied this rigor in the 70’s when the first ICEL translations were done.
The points made in this document seem almost quibbling in many instances. Ergo, what we eventually get should be a big improvement.
Click to expand...
The reasons for the “errors” in translation in the 1970’s is because we did not have Pope Benedict XVI in charge, who is now doing his job as pontiff in protecting the Mass. In his 1977 memoir, Milestones, Joseph Ratzinger wrote: “I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy.” It is quite obvious that he has made it a priority in his papacy to correct the problems with the Mass, and that seems to be returning it to its Latin roots.

It seems that the errors in the Liturgy came from those who were trying to be politically correct and not offensive to those who didn’t believe. As a result, far too many people now have no idea what is going on in the Mass. They may understand all the words, but they have no concept of the presence of Christ in the liturgy.

God Bless Pope Benedict XVI.
 
Brooklyn said:
The reasons for the “errors” in translation in the 1970’s is because we did not have Pope Benedict XVI in charge, who is now doing his job as pontiff in protecting the Mass.
Click to expand...
I’m thinking also we really didn’t have any Popes (or anyone in his immediate staff) who have been that fluent in English and know all its nuances. Perhaps Cardinal Arinze’s influence have led to the changes. Still though, the blueprints of the Mass are in Latin and we better stick to the Latin blueprints even if we read them incorrectly. Only 6% of the U.S. is Catholic and English (as a first or second language) isn’t spoken by more than 10% in the entire world. I don’t think anyone realized the full implications of allowing the vernacular when it was first allowed. And perhaps they still don’t as each language has its own purpose, be it to define national borders or preserve certain unchanging disciplines or doctrine, such as mathematics or music or religion.
 
ProVobis said:
I’m thinking also we really didn’t have any Popes (or in his immediate staff) who have been that fluent in English and know all its nuances. Perhaps Cardinal Arinze’s influence have led to the changes. Still though, the blueprints of the Mass are in Latin and we better stick to the blueprints even if we read them incorrectly. I don’t think anyone realized the full implications of allowing the vernacular when it was first allowed. And perhaps they still don’t.
Click to expand...
All they would have had to do to get the correct translation was look in any St. Joseph missal from the 1950’s and 60’s, and they would have gotten the correct translation. I think that what they did was all too deliberate.

You could very well be right about not realizing the full effect of what they did. As John XXIII said, he wanted to “open the windows of the Church to let in some fresh air.” But as John XXIII’s successor, Pope Paul VI said, “The smoke of Satan has found its way into the Church through the fissures.” Joseph Ratzinger saw this very clearly in the 1970’s, and as I posted, spoke of it in his 1977 memoirs. But it has taken a long, long time to even begun to be corrected.
 
Brooklyn said:
All they would have had to do to get the correct translation was look in any St. Joseph missal from the 1950’s and 60’s, and they would have gotten the correct translation. I think that what they did was all too deliberate.

You could very well be right about not realizing the full effect of what they did. As John XXIII said, he wanted to “open the windows of the Church to let in some fresh air.” But as John XXIII’s successor, Pope Paul VI said, “The smoke of Satan has found its way into the Church through the fissures.” Joseph Ratzinger saw this very clearly in the 1970’s, and as I posted, spoke of it in his 1977 memoirs. But it has taken a long, long time to even begun to be corrected.
Click to expand...
Actually, Paul VI was saying that the “smoke of Satan” came in to suffocate the Council’s reforms and the return of the Church to self-consciousness: “We believe - observes the Holy Father - in some preternatural way he [Satan] has come into the world itself to disturb, to suffocate the fruits of the Ecumenical Council, and to impede the Church from bursting into a hymn of joy for having gotten back in fullness its self-consciousness.”
 
MarkThompson said:
Actually, Paul VI was saying that the “smoke of Satan” came in to suffocate the Council’s reforms and the return of the Church to self-consciousness: “We believe - observes the Holy Father - in some preternatural way he [Satan] has come into the world itself to disturb, to suffocate the fruits of the Ecumenical Council, and to impede the Church from bursting into a hymn of joy for having gotten back in fullness its self-consciousness.”
Click to expand...
Yes, and expanding on that is an interview with Cardinal Virgilio Noe, the chief Vatican liturgist during the pontificate of Paul VI, which supports my contention.

“You from Petrus, have gotten a real scoop here, because I am in a position to reveal, for the first time, what Paul VI desired to denounce with that statement. Here it is. Papa Montini, for Satan, meant to include all those priests or bishops and cardinals who didn’t render worship to the Lord by celebrating badly (mal celebrando) Holy Mass because of an errant interpretation of the implementation of the Second Vatican Council. He spoke of the smoke of Satan because he maintained that those priests who turned Holy Mass into dry straw in the name of creativity, in reality were possessed of the vainglory and the pride of the Evil One. so, the smoke of Satan was nothing other than the mentality which wanted to distort the traditional and liturgical canons of the Eucharistic ceremony.”

Cardinal Noe also said this:

“It [True Liturgy] renders glory to God. Liturgy must be carried out always and no matter what with decorum: even a sign of the Cross poorly made is synonymous with scorn and sloppiness. Alas, I repeat, after Vatican II it was believed that everything, or nearly, was permitted. Now it is necessary to recover, and in a hurry, the sense of the sacred in the ars celebrandi, before the smoke of Satan completely pervades the whole Church. Thanks be to God, we have Pope Benedict XVI: his Mass and his liturgical style are an example of correctness and dignity.”

wdtprs.com/blog/2008/05/petrus-amazing-interview-with-card-noe-paul-vis-smoke-of-satan-remark-concerned-liturgy/
 
If only they would have applied this rigor in the 70’s when the first ICEL translations were done.
The points made in this document seem almost quibbling in many instances. Ergo, what we eventually get should be a big improvement.
Click to expand...
All they would have had to do to get the correct translation was look in any St. Joseph missal from the 1950’s and 60’s, and they would have gotten the correct translation. I think that what they did was all too deliberate.
Click to expand...
New doesn’t necessarily mean better or an improvement. The ICEL was obviously very influential in the 70’s. They had been set up as a result of a “loophole” in the Vatican II documents allowing for some vernacular in the liturgy. Languages other than English didn’t seem to have the problems with translations as many of the non-English languages are ROMANce languages and things such as word order, noun endings, implications, etc. are straightforward from the Latin. They also didn’t require the political correctness as the English and therefore didn’t need huge committees to translate them into their vernaculars.

Although English was first used in the Latin Rite texts in the 60’s, the Latin Mass had been translated into English (Poor St. Thomas More) many centuries ago, this being used in handmissals and the Church of England prior to its actual use in the Catholic Mass. It may have been imprimatured by some bishop, but it was never allowed in the Mass by the priest. Nothing was really official and no one really questioned the Cranmer/Henry VIII translations (“Vouchsafe,” “host”, “The Lord be with you,” “Lift up your hearts,” etc. Why an implied subjunctive and where does the lifting come from, etc.) The ICEL accepted many of those translations but was also instructed to apply a “dynamic equivalence” into English. So there was some strictness but as you say, the rigor is much different today. The English understandings of the Latin Mass were getting off track, to put it mildly, and thus changes were necessary, given the insistence that the Roman Mass still has an English translation.
 
GloriousOrder said:
I think I qualify for the title of ‘conservative traditional catholic’, despite being a catechumen. 😉 My politics are easily in line with those of Bossuet and de Maistre, and I detest all philosophical inquiry after Aquinas. I think women really ought to stay at home and bear children, and my taste in concert music hardly extends to years after 1910. You might call me a caricature of traditionalism, but there it is.
Click to expand...
:hug1:

Oh Brother, where art thou?

But I make exceptions to the 1910 rule for Ralph Vaughan Williams and Resphigi.
 
ProVobis;7522484.) The ICEL accepted many of those translations but was also instructed to apply a “dynamic equivalence” into English. . [/QUOTE said:
Is this something like a “turbulent equanimity?” Or maybe “a shifting consistency?” Perhaps, “a moveable stasis?”

As much as I love tradition, I must confess, as with long haired girls in peasant dresses and Beatles songs, I will miss that V2 “existentialist-speak” when it’s gone!

They all remind me of Jean Claude Belmondo movies and Citroens.
Click to expand...
 
TBolt1000T said:
And in the Credo, how do you start out with “et ex Patre natus ante omnia secula” (and from the Father, born before all ages), and end up with “eternally begotten of the Father?” A software translator could probably do better than that…
Click to expand...
Or how about the strong “per omnia saecula saeculorum” that’s translated into some very weak, going-forward-only “world without end”? I never saw this as a trivial matter.
 
Warrenton said:
As much as I love tradition, I must confess, as with long haired girls in peasant dresses and Beatles songs, I will miss that V2 “existentialist-speak” when it’s gone!
Click to expand...
And I have to confess I will miss the various versions of the “Gloria” music. But the lesson is that we should never get too enamored over any translation. It’s the truth that matters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top