This is in from the wire. My emphases and comments.
SAfrica protest over new Catholic Mass translation
By MICHELLE FAUL, Associated Press Writer Michelle Faul, Associated Press Writer – Mon Mar 16, 5:03 pm ET
JOHANNESBURG – A new translation of the Roman Catholic Mass that is to be introduced [NB: It hasn’t been yet.] worldwide in a few years is getting an accidental trial run in South Africa, where some parishioners are complaining it’s too hard to understand. [Accidental… yah… right.]
The controversy comes as Pope Benedict XVI travels Tuesday to Cameroon on his first papal pilgrimage to the continent that has the fastest growing congregation of Catholics.
Critics say the new, more literal word-for-word translation [that is NOT what the new translation is] is part of an attempt to roll back the progress made decades ago when the church halted its insistence on Latin. [It is a constant drumbeat: "turn back the clock" blah blah blah]
Before Communion, for example, the prayer "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you" becomes "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof." "One in being with the Father" becomes "consubstantial with the Father" in the Nicene creed.And the congregation’s response to the greeting that opens Mass with the priest saying "The Lord be with you," changes from "And also with you" to "And with your spirit."
In a misunderstanding, [misunderstanding… yah… right…] some South African church leaders started using the new version prematurely in some parishes, even though the English-language prayers won’t be approved for global use for at least a couple of years. But instead of pulling back in the face of their mistake, they are continuing to use the liturgy. [I think they did it so that they could create controversy. Overly suspicious?]
Distribution of the prayers has fueled debate over whether the new translation — meant to more closely follow the original Latin text [the writer reveals confusion: is the new translation "closer" to the Latin or "word-for-word"?] — will help deepen parishioners’ prayer life or alienate them from the church. [oh the drama!]
"I think the church has been very lucky that the South Africans jumped the gun because it’s showing the Vatican that there is going to be a worldwide problem when these new translations are put into effect," said Thomas Reese, a Jesuit priest and senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University. [To which I respond what I have written before: COWARD! Why do they keep calling this guy? Because he gives them the answer they want to hear, not because he has anything sound to contribute.]
"Once again the Vatican isn’t listening to the critics, and we’re going to have another major embarrassment to the pope when these translations are put into effect and are forced on the people in the pews," he said. [This all gives Reese another chance to attack the Holy See, a little payback.]
Vatican II, the 1962-1965 meetings that inspired liberalizing reforms of the Roman Catholic Church, led to changes such as Mass being celebrated in local languages. Reese said prior to that, Mass was said in Latin and parishioners followed along in a missile [!?! ZOOM!] that had an English translation.
The new Mass translation now is being used in some parishes of the Southern African Church, which also includes Botswana and Swaziland and serves some 3.2 million Catholics. The premature use, which began in late November, is being blamed on a misplaced letter advising [?] that the texts weren’t to be used immediately. [What is this, "Spanky and the Gang" have a Conference?]
Bishop Edward Risi, in charge of the local bishops’ liturgical department, said the new translation is "a more faithful rendering … an echo of the scriptures. What the original Latin has done uses the scriptures and English must also reflect that."
The debate over translating the latest edition of the Roman Missal, the ritual text for celebrating Mass, began years ago.
In 2000, Pope John Paul II issued a third edition of the "Missale Romanum," followed by a Vatican document a year later that insisted translations should stay close to the Latin and adhere to church doctrine. An international panel representing English-speaking bishops began tackling the job of translating the new liturgy.
But Clement Armstrong of Bryanston, South Africa, said some of the changes in wording are "simply nonsense." [Let’s send him a dictionary.] While his home parish has not yet adopted the changes, a church where he attended Mass over the holidays has.
"I am resistant to change and I think the older community in my parish will feel the same," he said. "I can accept change when there is a good reason but I cannot see one."
His daughter-in-law, Anne Armstrong agrees: "We are all familiar with the liturgy we have used since we were children. Why is there the need to say Mass differently?" [Because, maybe, we should say it correctly?]
The Rev. Efrem Tresoldi warned in The Southern Cross, a regional Catholic weekly: "I’ve heard it said that younger people are leaving the Church because, among other things, the language used in our liturgy sounds foreign to them. I think this new version of the order of the Mass is even more alienating." [I don’t buy that for a moment.]
Lay leader Paddy Kearney also points to the theological implications in the "mea culpa." [Yes… there are theological implications to what words we use. He got that right!] The new translation reverts to repeated pronunciations of guilt emphasized by beatings on the breast reflected in the Latin Mass: "Through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault."
Under Vatican II, the breast-beating was abandoned and people pronounced only once on grievous sinning.
"I think this is because some feel we need to have more emphasis on our guiltiness and sinfulness, because the feeling is that we have lost our sense of guilt," Kearney said.
There’s a feeling, Kearney said, "that Vatican II was a mistake, [Nooo…. is the TRANSLATION that is being CORRECTED. The TRANSLATION was WRONG.] that a lot has gone wrong as a result of its decrees and that we need to get back in line, get knocked into shape, that we need to inch back to where we were before."
In an article in The Southern Cross, Bishop Kevin Dowling agreed.
"I am concerned that this latest decision from the Vatican may be interpreted as another example of what is perceived to be a systematic and well-managed dismantling of the vision, theology and ecclesiology of Vatican II." [Then, Your Excellency, teach them what it really is. You have the biggest pulpit in the diocese. For the love of God, teach them what it really is!]
The Rev. Russell Pollitt also questioned whether nonnative English speakers in South Africa, where there are 11 official languages, would understand the more abstract concepts. [Then TEACH THEM for goodness’ sake!]
"The new text seems almost to imply that there is something inherently holy about Latin and inherently unholy about proper English," English Professor Colin Gardner said. [sigh]
Loading ...
**His daughter-in-law, Anne Armstrong agrees: “We are all familiar with the liturgy we have used since we were children. Why is there the need to say Mass differently?”**
I had a chuckle at this. Should we not recognize the cry of the children of the more distant past (the democracy of the dead, and some living!) to have the liturgy they grew up with?
Father,
I agree with you 100% the Bishop and indeed all Bishops need to teach what the Vatican is saying to us today. One example is the washing of the feet on Holy Thursday. The Bishops need to teach what the Roman Rite really says to do not what the politically correct want done.
“I am resistant to change and I think the older community in my parish will feel the same,” he said. “I can accept change when there is a good reason but I cannot see one.”
Did this guy resist the changes in 1969? In comparison, changing a few words to better reflect the original text is much less of a change than ad populus, vernacular, etc.
Obviously a mistake, I thought the use of “missile” in place of “missal” was interesting! It goes to show the complete lack of comprehension among MSM in understanding the Church ad-intra
Do they view themselves are part of the Roman Catholic Church or rather do they see themselves as the “Southern African Church”? I hope the former but suspect, in reality, its the latter.
Ditto Glen!!!
“Oh, so you think native peoples can’t understand abstract concepts?” she inquired concretely.
“Or do you think English is a primitive language incapable of expressing abstract concepts, whereas Latin and the native languages of Africa are better able to handle such difficult matters — and therefore English should be cut out of African Masses altogether?” she asked, attempting to receive clarification on this point.
His daughter-in-law, Anne Armstrong agrees: “We are all familiar with the liturgy we have used since we were children. Why is there the need to say Mass differently?”
Well, I was familiar with the liturgy used since I was a child (the EF) and I could ask “Why was there a need to say Mass differently?” So?
It’s really not worth me adding to the commentary here–we all know the tired objections, etc. But one thing I will never understand:
“One in being with the Father” becomes “consubstantial with the Father” in the Nicene creed.
In what possible way is “one in being” any more sensical, in every day English, than “consubstantial.” Yes, there is no doubt that “and also with you” adheres more closely to common talk than “and with your spirit.” I’m not defending the loose (mis)translation, but at least I can comprehend the objection. But I simply do not buy that people will be any more confused by “consubstantial” than they are with the present goofy rendering. No, the people are simply comfortable in their lack of understanding the present Creed that they recite and, in theory, claim to believe.
Suuure. Like a relatively minor change in translation is anything comparable to, for example, the wholesale mutilation of the Novus Ordo which occurred in the 1970s.
Profane, yes. One of the things which has been lost and desperately needs to be recovered is the whole notion of the distinction between the sacred and the profane.
“Of course, it’s possible that you’re admitting that for forty years, your native language-speaking parishioners have been hearing Mass in a language they don’t understand — English — without even a missal or Church language classes to help them along. Is this what you’re saying?” she deciphered.
“I think they did it so that they could create controversy. Overly suspicious?”
…thinking you’re right…the ruckus would be too obvious if it started in the U.S….
I am in favor of a translation that will raise our awareness to higher levels, but could someone please explain to me what’s wrong with, “Lord, I am not worthy to recieve you”? I understand the new translation is more accurate when looking at scripture, but I always understood where that phrase came from, even if the words were a bit different. If something leads us to a deeper appreciation of mystery and awe, I can understand changing it, if not, why change it? I don’t think this particular phrase does anything to add or take away from the Mass. It’s not a big deal, I’m just asking.
I guess Mass shouldn’t be a foretaste of Heaven but remind one of a visit to Walmart. Tom
I don’t even know that it’s so much holy vs profane. It’s more like set-apart vs normal.
Funny how the Ethiopian Orthodox communities don’t have a problem with their liturgies, even though they are spoken in Ge ez. More protestant complaining.
Ditto Glen, ditto southbend (supra).
Change was good then but bad now. They harp on about not freezing the liturgy in 1962 but quietly try to freeze it as it is now. What these people really fear is not the “traditionalists”, but the vast majority of regular Catholics who don’t pay attention to these issues and will simply learn the new missal, and then bid farewell to the current translation.
And why does the word “progress” always go with Vatican II?
Fr Z —
“said Thomas Reese, a Jesuit priest and senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University. [To which I respond what I have written before: COWARD! Why do they keep calling this guy? Because he gives them the answer they want to hear, not because he has anything sound to contribute.]”
Reese works the media. Conservative/traditional priests do not.
Until conservative/traditional priests learn how to pick up the phone and/or e-mail reporters, Reese will continue to be quoted in nearly every article on the planet.
Just a few comments:
In 2000, Pope John Paul II issued a third edition of the “Missale Romanum,” followed by a Vatican document a year later that insisted translations should stay close to the Latin and adhere to church doctrine.
What a shock! Translations of the Church’s liturgy should adhere to church doctrine! That couldn’t possibly be what Pope John XXIII wanted when he called Vatican II, could it? Oh, wait, Pope John XXIII said: “One thing is the deposit of faith and the truths contained in our venerable doctrine, another thing is the way they are announced, with the same meaning and the same content.”
“I am resistant to change and I think the older community in my parish will feel the same,” he said. “I can accept change when there is a good reason but I cannot see one.”
First, he’s not resistant to change. When they add liturgical dancers and female homilists and Communion sitting down (or standing on your head), he won’t bat an eye… because, he’s told (and he believes), there’s “a good reason”.
Second, the new texts were supposed to be preceded by plenty of liturgical catechesis. Jumping the gun leads to this sort of a mess.
You’re getting pretty feisty in your old age, Father! Go for it! By the way, in my opinion, Vatican II WAS a mistake. It was a mistake to call it, as Pius XII knew; it was a mistake not to shut it down, as John XXIII knew; it was a mistake to promulgate its reforms, as Paul VI knew.
The article raises an interesting point. In the coming years, we’re going to have very eloquent readings based off the Latin texts of Mass. However, presumably we’re still going to be using the ho-hum NAB Lectionary. Is the Lectionary going to be revised to fit into the Mass (i.e. more like the Douay)?
I know my opinion doesn’t count for much, especially here, but
1. it could have been an honest mistake. Not everything is an enemy action. I’ve turned in the wrong drafts thinking they were the final copies by mistake.
2. I think the new translation, or at least what I have seen on the various blogs and websites, is goofy. I think that a few things are going to happen. First what will happen is that when Catholics of various parishes get together, cause you know not everyone is going to change, you will have different words being said by different people. This happens at my university’s Masses when He and Him are changed with God and God’s in the various prayers. Half the Church says God, the other half say He. Then you are going to have people who have left the Church for various reasons who eventually drift back. Things will have changed. At best they will adapt. At worst they will just leave again. I stopped going to Mass for 10 or so years. When I came back some things had changed and I had no idea why or when. The most striking example is the bowing during the Creed. There was no bowing before I left.
You talk about proper catechis and teaching but if the teaching is lacking on basic doctrine, how do you suppose the teaching of the new translation is going to go.
Now I have no problems with a more accurate translation. I have no problem with wanting to use more formal language in the Mass setting. But I wonder how rigid of a translation we should be using. Unlike Latin, English is a living, changing language.
I really don’t like the change from “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you” to “Lord I am not worthy to receive you under my roof” I understand that it is more accurate, but I am wondering if we loose the meaning. I read this and go, yeah, Lord, my house is a little messy so I can’t meet you there, what about at the bar down the street? Whereas with the shortened phrase, I feel like it is more inclusive that I myself as a sinner is not worthy to receive the Lord in any situation.
But that is my opinion, which is not worth very much.
t was a mistake to call it, as Pius XII knew; it was a mistake not to shut it down, as John XXIII knew; it was a mistake to promulgate its reforms, as Paul VI knew.
Really? I’d like to see some documentation on this. It was my understanding that when John XXIII was dying he didn’t want to see the Council end.
More comments:
Under Vatican II, the breast-beating was abandoned and people pronounced only once on grievous sinning.
Oh really? The Latin text never changed. The translations misrepresented the Latin text. And I think my 1985 English Missal (of the 1975 Latin Missal) mentions the beating of the breast once during the Confiteor, but I don’t have it handy right now.
The problems are lack of communication and lack of education… but no lack whatsoever of soapboxes.
[Then, Your Excellency, teach them what it really is. You have the biggest pulpit in the diocese. For the love of God, teach them what it really is!] … [Then TEACH THEM for goodness’ sake!]
Father Z, you act like “teaching” is one of the offices of a bishop! The three offices are “to pander, to placate, and to mollify”.
“The new text seems almost to imply that there is something inherently holy about Latin and inherently unholy about proper English,” English Professor Colin Gardner said.
Perhaps the professor doesn’t know what “holy” means — and he’s probably never read Veterum Sapientia — but he also seems to take offense to the grammatical constructions found in the new translation. Or else he thinks “proper” English is “vulgar” or “common” English. Given the choice between “and also with you” and “and with your spirit”, I would guess that “and with your spirit” is the holy (set-apart) one. For those who don’t understand or know this, teaching is in order.
Perhaps I should send Bishop Serratelli a letter asking if I can assist in the catechesis in any way…
Father, thanks for your comments as ever; some did make me laugh out loud quite hard, which is just what I needed! :D
ZOOM – it’s great!
I’d like to amend my listing of the three offices of a bishop: “dialoguing”, “empowering”, and “affirming”. Those are analogs to the actual offices.
Under Vatican II, the breast-beating was abandoned and people pronounced only once on grievous sinning.
Oh, really? That’s not what I remember from my native Poland – to this day we say it thrice, and nobody forces faithful to abandon breast strikes, still “under Vatican II”. On the other hand, said Vatican II interpolated “brothers and sisters’ into this text…
“I think this new version of the order of the Mass is even more alienating.”
I guess it follows that the ICEL version currently in force is a tad less alienating than the new one. Yet it’s still alienating as compared to… Latin of the old rite?
It seems that these people just don’t think about what they say.
Something that I notice is, perhaps conveniently, left out is that other languages are translated properly in accord with the Latin.
The dissenters want to make it seem as though the entire Church is experiencing some kind of “new” translation which is totally false – it’s only the Roman Missal in English. Spanish, French, Italian, etc. are more loyally translated to the the Latin and will stay exactly the same as they are now.
Why it was only the English that was not translated properly? Could it have been because of an agenda by the English translators? It seems so.
“Under Vatican II, the breast-beating was abandoned and people pronounced only once on grievous sinning.”
Would someone please send these people a copy of the documents of Vatican II, along with a Missale Romanum for good measure?
Fr. Z-as always, you are ‘spot on’ ! Thanks for your ‘missiles’!
Fr. Reese should get a life and a clue!
Ken-I agree with you totally! I know just the traditional/conservative priest who could be a spokesman if he wanted to do it. He does both the EF and OF of the Mass, and never pulled punches in his sermons!
He’d tell Fr. Reese a thing or two!
[sorry for the disjointed thoughts-I’m listening to the CD of ‘The Priests’ on my laptop at the library, and I have to use my earbud headphones! It’s St. Patrick’s feastday, after all!]
Strange row, I come from a German speaking country and our current translation of two of the examples mentioned in the article (“spirit” and “roof”) is exactely that what is now proposed for the English one. Even progressive Catholics don’t have any problem with that. All of us understand what is meant (honestly you don’t have to be extremely smart to get it).
There is no one more condescending and patronizing as a liberal, and Father Reese and his ilk embody that. This whole argument is specious. The original ICEL translations are banal, pedestrian, boring, and inaccurate. Just more complaining from the doubleknit dinosaurs soon to be put out to pasture. Tom
I meant to state:
“Spanish, French, Italian, etc. *were* more loyally translated *from* the the Latin and will stay exactly the same as they are now.”
In addition, how would these people respond to someone showing them that translating the Roman Missal from let’s say Polish to English would give us the same texts as the “new English translation.” Also, Non-English speaking Catholics have been using the “and with your spirit”, etc. for decades now and they seem to get it.
I just want to scream! But I’m at work and I might just freak a few people out. :-)
It is rather interesting to see these consistent tactical patterns of the dissenters (or dare I say the agents of evil?) who gnaw at the garments and tarnish the treasures of the Church in an attempt to weaken and secularize, if not destroy the Church.
As I read this, I kept wondering how they managed to have such a biased, frankly ignorant article and get so many quotes from all of the people you would expect to oppose the Vatican on this. Then I looked back up top and realized that it is from the Associated Press. Well, enough said.
“A new translation of the Roman Catholic Mass that is to be introduced *worldwide*..”
No, no, no. Good try at trying to deceive people. It’s only the Roman Missal in English meaning it is *only* for English-speaking parishes in *certain* parts of the world.
I am very much looking forward to the new translations and have already begun letting the new wording run through my head as I say the current wording. I will be delighted to change.
I think I finally got my hubby to stop sending me stuff from the MSM about Church actions. They never get it right. Now to get him to ask me about the issues and let me send HIM good articles.
As for the changes happening when they ought–I won’t hold my breath, the majority of people will simply keep on saying the wrong words and likely not notice that the words are different.
I fear that those who favor the hermeneutic of discontinuity have begun to perceive a vulnerability of the Holy Father to manufactured outrage on the part of one or another group raising their voices in opposition to his program to heal the rupture with tradition. They know and appreciate the power of perceptions – even false perceptions – in molding opinions. With the assistance of elements in the media, they will attempt to create the perception that every element in his program is widely unpopular – or, at least, unpopular with those ‘who count’. Their hope is that the perception will create the reality, and the Williamson affair has provided their tactical model. Perhaps more than ever it is important for those who support Pope Benedict to be vocal, yet thoughtful, in that support when these challenges are raised.
Tina,
Actually, although not substantiated, the word is that Pope John XXIII on his deathbed pleaded to please “Stop the Council”. This is accredited to various sources, check the web by simply tying the phrase, I doubt you will find the contrary.
I pray the Pope keeps going forward with the translation corrections and implementation. After a year or two the bitter, liberal, progressives will be on to something else with the newly translated missals tucked under their arms. It will be nothing of like what happened in 1970.
We hear repeatedly about people not understanding some of the “abstract” concepts. The problem goes much deeper than that. How many of your average churchgoers understand any of the concepts in, for example, the creed. try asking about: “Begotten, not made”.
…agreeing with mbd at 1:12 pm…
Most of the media is anti-Catholic, so liberal Catholics are merely their “useful idiots.” I stopped buying newspapers, etc. years ago. I don’t
believe in suppporting my enemies and the enemies of my Church. Tom
Very interesting! You know, this whole article sounds like it could almost be how Catholics responded when the Old Mass was being changed:
“I am resistant to change and I think the older community in my parish will feel the same,” he said. “I can accept change when there is a good reason but I cannot see one.”
His daughter-in-law, Anne Armstrong agrees: “We are all familiar with the liturgy we have used since we were children. Why is there the need to say Mass differently?”
Yes indeed, why is there a need to say the Mass differently? So how about we agree with the majority and use the Old Mass solely and not have any change? Works for me!
And the mea culpa? Guilt? Do they forget that we’re all guilty before God and we are all miserable sinners relying on the mercy of God in Christ? I don’t recall that changing in Vatican II. This idea seems to me to be a symptom of a world that wants to pretend people have no sins, are generally good people and the God of love sends us all to heaven. That is definitely not the Catholic Faith.
Very interesting article! It’s good to see that the new liturgical translations will change how people believe the Faith! This article proves it that these small changes will make a big difference!
Thank you Fr. Z for posting the article!
Pax Christi tecum
How come Fr. Reese doesn’t lament the fact that not-as-accurate translations were also forced upon people? Is it only forced on people when they are supposed to like whichever translation?
Isn’t the “Lord I am not worthy to receive you under my roof” a recollection of the Gospel account of the centurion asking Christ to heal his servant? “But only say the word and my servant will be healed.”
Genna, you’re correct. But then it sounds like you’re an educated Catholic so liberals won’t want to discuss this with you. Tom
And I think my 1985 English Missal (of the 1975 Latin Missal) mentions the beating of the breast once during the Confiteor, but I don’t have it handy right now.
I have a Missal right here. It says:
(in red):Priest and People:
(in black): I confess to almighty God,
(in black): and to you, my brothers and sisters,
(in black): that I have sinned through my own fault
(in red): They strike their breast:
(in black): in my thoughts and in my words,
&c., &c.
That’s from the New St. Joseph Sunday Missal.
Yeah, Vatican II did away with our striking our breasts during the Confiteor.
Also, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell to an interested party.
“parishioners followed along in a missile”
I now have these images of Major Kong at the conclusion of Doctor Strangelove, and I can’t get them out of my head :-)
FWIW, Parishoners still follow along in their missiles even with the current translation.
But Father! But Father! can you suggest a pastoral strategy for the successful replacement of the present ICEL texts that won’t produce the same overwhelming (90% of priests as well as plenty of laity) hostile reaction? And can you do that without being patronising or uncharitable, unlike most of the comments here? [First, I don’t think those are accurate numbers. Second, when people purposely try to undermine the efforts of the Holy See with machinations and lies, their efforts must be exposed for what they are.]
“Actually, although not substantiated, the word is that Pope John XXIII on his deathbed pleaded to please “Stop the Council”. This is accredited to various sources, check the web by simply tying the phrase, I doubt you will find the contrary.”– Mitchell NY
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is an argumentum ad silentio and it can work both ways. I could say for example: “On his deathbed, Lefebvre said ‘I was wrong. Return to the Church.’ I doubt you will find the contrary.”
You see what you can do with an “undocumented claim” where you claim one won’t find proof to the contrary?
Of course googling your claim, I see the sites who claim Bl. John XXIII said this all lead to non-credible sources… indeed largely sede vacantist sources.
Excuse me if I state openly I reject the accuracy of the claim.
I grew up with the Traditional Latin Mass, which the Holy Father calls, and rightly so the “Gregorian Rite Mass”, and it was ripped from me and so many other generations, parent, grandparents and great grandparents. We were told that it was not to be prayed anymore, how very sad we were.Then I started to read, and one book I found very interesting was Klaus Gamber’s ,Reform of the Roman Rite, and surprised to find the Preface was where Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, called the N.O.M. a ‘fabricated liturgy, interesting.
Coming from South Africa, I am a ‘little’ perplexed as to why there are not any non-white/black bishops quoted in this article? Not being suggestive here.My former parish in S.A.as far as I am aware would have no problems in adapting to what THE CHURCH decides. This is whether there is an explanation or not. Maybe they are too obedient to the church teachings (of course, all sinners you know).
The black bishops in SA by and large don’t care, or don’t understand what all the fuss is about. English is not their home language and the Church has many more pressing issues to deal with in Africa. It’s those whose home language is English (priests, bishops and laity) and who recognise the inferior quality of the English who are up in arms. They simply can’t believe that the Church is capable of producing something of such poor quality.
This whole process will hopefully lead to a deeper appreciation of the Latin Mass. Maybe all of the fuss will force the 60’s and later born Catholics to actually do some research into their faith.
The priests who are up in arms don’t want to do delve too deeply into this. The common scenerio would go like this:
Catholic: So Father, why the change to “And with your Spirit” It doesn’t make sense
Father: Because it is a more accurate translation of the Latin text
Catholic: Latin? I thought the Church didn’t use that any more
Father: We don’t except for Rome and some older Catholics.
Catholic: Ohh I see, so what does the new translation mean?
Father: Well, it means that you join your prayers to mine as I try to offer a sacrifice pleaseing to God.
Catholic: Sacrifice? Like killing animals?
Father: Why don’t we schedule a meeting and we can discuss it.
Catholic: Uhh, Ok Father. Well have a nice day.
I have actually HEARD similar conversations. As I learned MORE about my faith I wanted to attend the latin Mass MORE and exclusively. When you learn what is REALLY happening during Mass and learn about how the Church developed over the centuries, you reach some irreconciliable problems with the way almost ALL of the Novus Order masses are celebrated.
I almost left the Church at one point. The breaking point for me was watching Children being ushered out of Church by Monsignor to the School to fun and games while mom and dad went to Church. Then seeing the celebrant of Mass and Monsignor have 12 (Twelve) EMHC distribute communion while NO priests did. I left church, went home and cried. I felt I was losing my faith. I started driving 120 one way on some sundays to go to an ICTK parish in another state. I truely felt home there.
I hope my comments don’t get removed because of my post, but I think many people feel the same way. Changing some of the vulgar (i.e. local language) words in the Novus Order will not mean anything to most catholics without, as Father Z. says, instructing the fathful in their faith.
Remember the old adage to out children: Do what I say not what I do? This is true of adults as well. People emulate what they see. If they see reverence and holiness in the Mass they will respond to that. Any reform of the reform needs to have MUCH more emphasis on the scaredness of what Mass is and who it is for than on a few words of the text.
“The black bishops in SA by and large don’t care, or don’t understand what all the fuss is about. ”
All due respect to DMJ, that’s the same mumbo-jumbo we got under apartheid. We are like children so we need to be treated like such. Our opinions don’t matter ‘cos we not capable of such. I don’t think you have any idea what humility is nor what obedience is.Why, please tell is catholicism flourishing in BLACK AFRICA when so many do not speak English? Maybe they speak Aramaic….Why is it then that the catholic church in your English-speaking world is crumbling?
Simple….lack of humility and absolutely lack of obedience. This issue is NOT ABOUT ‘inferior quality’ English. It is more about being TOLD what to do which get’s up the snout of so many who in S.A. who (with English as a first language, albeit with a possible Afrikaans tinge to it) want things to remain as they were.
Great to know you’ve conducted a survey(in their languages, of course) or utilized psychic powers to know what these MEN are thinking.
“Pope Benedict XVI is a charismatic leader, a holy man who is coming to make my faith deeper,” said Augustine Meh Zang, 55, a Yaounde businessman, told NBC News. “He will help Cameroon as a whole look for God. We as a people have erred and sinned too much.”
How many of us (as a people) can and do admit to especially the last sentence? Yaounde is in Cameroon incidentally.
Got that DMJ!! (IN CHARITY OF COURSE).
Thanks for this article, Father. Why is it so difficult to accept that the current English translation needs correction? I have worked as a professional translator from a number of languages (not, admittedly Latin…:-)) into English for the past twenty years, but I would have been out the door on my backside on day one if I had produced anything as inaccurate as the current English liturgical translations.
The ICEL produces approximations, not translations. As for the “mea culpa” comments, most modern-language translations of the Mass retain the threefold expression of guilt (including, as I discovered at a St Patrick’s day Mass, Irish). The English translation is simply wrong. So, interestingly, is the French. It is curious, but many of the translation errors that bedevil the English-language liturgy are also found in the French. Is that a coincidence?
People like Fr. Reese are satisfied with their
bourgeois idea of Church and liturgy
and are very threatened by a liturgy that is the
nexus of heaven and earth. It would highlight their
pathetic, domesticated theology.
Living in South Africa I think DJM is spot on. The bishops don’t really care about the fuss because they can’t see the difficulty. Unlike Mark, who makes this a racial thing, I think DJM’s comments apply to the bishops as a whole. Most are simple pastors with little theological training.
I think that folks who are trying to derail the new translation are trying to use the “this is turning back the clock on Vatican II” deception. To counter that, we should convince our brothers that this new translation is in continuity (and closer conformity) to Vatican II than the previous translations. As Pope Benedict recently mentioned in announcing the Year of Priests, we must teach our seminarians and priests (and all laity too) the true interpretation of Vatican II.
I don’t know much about South Africa, but my experience with Africans when I was studying in the US are that they are people of great faith. Maybe the African Bishops are not too concerned about it because they trust that God’s will is done through all these and the decisions of the Roman See?
The good news is, even the anti-catholic press really can’t deny that the translation is better, so NOTICE that they are trying to pretend that the new translation is, somehow, in Latin.
“It is more about being TOLD what to do which get’s up the snout of so many who in S.A. who (with English as a first language, albeit with a possible Afrikaans tinge to it) want things to remain as they were.”
That’s an interesting ecclesiology you have down there, mark. Seriously, if you reject the ecclesiology of the Church, as it seems you do, why persist in calling yourselves Catholic?
But Gedsmk! But Gedsmk! Can you make your point without being so judgmental? Whom are you to determine which comments are uncharitable. If you look
at the article it is extremely biased. You know exactly what the writer’s agenda is, and the writer could care less about the Church or the
truth. It’s that article which has raised the ire of so many faithful Catholics who post here.
I was around for the liturgical wars in the 1960s and the then liberals, now reactionaries, could have cared less what the laity felt or thought
about the “reforms.” Now that their little world is crumbling they are upset, hence the viciousness towards His Holiness and those who stand for
the truth.
Tom
That’s an interesting ecclesiology you have down there, mark.
That’s not mark’s ecclesiology. It’s his description of the ecclesiology of those who are seeking to undermine the implementation of the more accurate English translation if the Missal. He is saying that people such as the ones exemplified in the article lack humility and thus resent being told what to do by those who have authority over them.
He is saying that is why the English speaking Church is crumbling. Because the vice of pride is eating away at our roots. And I can’t say that he’s wrong.
I’m all for a lot of the changes. Bringing back the additional mea culpas, for example. But “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof” just doesn’t mean anything in English. “Lord I am not worthy to receive you” is less confusing and, in English, just plain more correct.
brendon – thanks, I mistook his description for his own view. My apologies, Mark.
I am so sick and tired of Reese and McBrien ever being allowed to speak as representatives of the Church. Uggh.
“hence the viciousness towards His Holiness and those who stand for
the truth.”
There you go throwing out bombs again. That’s nothing compared to the viciousness on this website. Obviously Lent is now over for some people.
gedsmk, why not do an exercise in introspection, particularly because it’s Lent. I think you are engaging in what is called “projection” in
pyschology. Tom
This always cracks me up. All I can think about is that hippie rock concert in the 60’s, and I realize how coincidentally appropriate it is. :)
“Most are simple pastors with little theological training”.
Bernard: For a moment I thought that you were speaking about this John Vianney guy.Incidentally, my brother spent a few years with the OMI IN S.A.
The point I am trying to make is that Humility and Obedience is distinctly lacking within so many who profess to be Catholic.
For generations, ten-year-old school girls used to follow their Latin-English “missiles” with no problem, yet today’s adults apparently find just the English “too hard to understand.”