tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post9121628403326502778..comments2023-08-21T03:51:17.425-06:00Comments on Enlightened Catholicism: Will The USCCB Give It's Stamp Of Approval To The ICEL (Vatican) English Translation of The Mass?colkochhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03432916690101599393noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-53588252700721616632010-02-19T17:06:25.735-07:002010-02-19T17:06:25.735-07:00The Roman Missal in it's Latin form (as well a...The Roman Missal in it's Latin form (as well as the other missals; say, in Greek, Syriac, Arabic, etc.) are considered infallible and inspired documents on the level of Sacred Scripture. The reason why they are considered rock as such is due to the nature of the composition of the Church as it moves as a whole throughout the course of Salvation History. The bishop as quoted here is egregiously wrong.<br /><br />Even a cursory glance at the Catechism informs us of the very nature of the missals and councils. The extant Roman Missal is over 1500 years old.<br /><br />There is also a secondary issue at play. The chief concern was that at the time of translation. There was not a single Latin scholar on the ICEL in 1973. The contemporary ICEL is addressing the issue of having erred in some regards; not that the 1973 translation was incorrect, but in that it was often ambiguious and lent itself to errant interpretation. Inasmuch as a missal is liturgical it is both fully legal and prayerful in its very nature.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-82162830228994638982009-11-05T12:14:02.602-07:002009-11-05T12:14:02.602-07:00Jim, I read Joseph's take a couple days ago an...Jim, I read Joseph's take a couple days ago and laughed and laughed. He is scathingly good in that snarky Irish way of his--and it doesn't take away from any of his points.colkochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03432916690101599393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-76416602173374139942009-11-04T17:01:47.160-07:002009-11-04T17:01:47.160-07:00For a truly scathing commentary on same, see Josep...For a truly scathing commentary on same, see Joseph O'Leary at his best -----<br /><br />http://josephsoleary.typepad.com/my_weblog/<br /><br />November 2, 2009<br /><br />Oddities of the New Translations of the Missal<br /><br />Jim McCreaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-87453707275784412702009-11-02T09:48:25.871-07:002009-11-02T09:48:25.871-07:00Matt, in my own mind you have raised an important ...Matt, in my own mind you have raised an important point about the word consubstantial.<br /><br />Explained in the way you have quoted, it does open up the meaning by extending substantial humanity to the Father through Jesus. I have to admit, my own reflexive surface understanding of the Trinity tends to go in one direction. Father to Son to Holy Spirit. This explanation allows for a two way street.<br /><br />Two points for you! :)colkochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03432916690101599393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-87805561000659082872009-11-01T22:38:05.956-07:002009-11-01T22:38:05.956-07:00This is really a mixed bag, so I'd encourage r...This is really a mixed bag, so I'd encourage readers to have an open mind about it. The Mass is, in many ways, a dialog between God and us. So communcation--the ablity of people to understand and reply within the Mass--is indeed important. The words of the Mass, as many of you have indicated, should flow. Cumbersome wording is, therefore, bad. And there is doubtless some cumbersome wording here.<br />The flip side of this whole debate is that the words of the Mass should definitively state Catholic beliefs--especially since so many Catholics can't explain those beliefs to themselves these days, let alone to other people. I'm going to cut a paste a comment from Archbishop Lipscomb from an exchange at a USCCB meeting a few years back. He's discussing the words "one in being with the Father" from the Creed--this is the line that would be replaced with "consubstantial with the Father." The reason this change is being made is to make a definitive statment of a core Catholic belief (even though consubstantial is clearly a cumbersome $20 word). That Catholic belief is that Jesus and the Father are "of the same substance." Being is a much more nebulous word. It's not concrete. Substance is, well, substantive. This is important because belief in the incarnation goes to the very core of Catholicism--and we believe that God became a person, flesh and blood: substance, not just being. God became one of us and shared our "physical" infirmities.<br />So, try to keep an open mind about the new translation. There are definitely both pros and cons to these changes. Anyway, here's Lipscomb speaking:<br />Archbishop Lipscomb (Mobile, member Vox Clara): First my thanks to the committee. I don’t know of any liturgical committee of conferences that have worked so intensely for so happy a result. But I too rise to support Archbishop Hughes’s concerns about the word “consubstantial”. “Being” is subject to an easy understanding, but it seems to me it is also a possibility for there being some misunderstanding.<br /><br />We talked this morning — at least it was mentioned this morning — all these changes should require a certain amount of catechesis, of explanation, and of giving an opportunity for the people who are going to listen to them, to use them, to grow in faith, not simply to remain where they are.<br /><br />There is a terrible kind of bias against philosophy, against precision and against exactitude in speaking the truth in today’s world.<br /><br />“Substance” is itself a word that cannot find an acceptable definition in annals of philosophy and sometimes in our own conversation. It was a very precise word used by the Church for a long time to define what exactly happens in the Divine Essence with respect to three Persons. It is used in a way that many people object to with regard to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. For us to miss the chance to challenge to a greater growth and a deeper sense of understanding simply because our people cannot take this, it seems to me, is to sell those individuals short who might have a distinct understanding of this given the chance. I too feel that “consubstantial” ought to remain in the document.Mattnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-82321209987576689902009-10-29T09:41:23.763-06:002009-10-29T09:41:23.763-06:00Lorna, perhaps you don't know the history of t...Lorna, perhaps you don't know the history of the song Kumbaya. From your comment it seems you don't. You should look it up. You might find it edifying.<br /><br />Rat-biter, you make a good point about the differences between a secular and sacral language. I have to think about this one. Sometimes verbal shorthand can be counterproductive. Sometimes taking the time to actually explain something rather than give it a name is far better communication.<br /><br />A specialised shorthand is great amongst professionals, not so great when used with lay persons. I suspect that's why Jesus taught through stories and parables rather than Temple shorthand. He didn't want a specialized language to be a barrier to what He was trying to convey. I guess some people would call that provincialism.colkochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03432916690101599393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-1756232790009563602009-10-29T09:07:38.105-06:002009-10-29T09:07:38.105-06:00The standard of American education is conspicuousl...The standard of American education is conspicuously low and contributes significantly to the provincialism of mind which is a notable transatlantic characteristic. The only foreign word known to you, Colleen, Butterfly and the majority of your readers is probably Kumbaya. If the new translations improve American-English they will have achieved a great deal and might even lead to increased sales of English dictionaries. <br /><br />As for Fran (Butterfly) O'Connor Shultz's comment, there is nothing inspired in the present ICEL translations and no springboard for Catholic spirituality beyond the inherent sacredness of the Mass, in which I doubt you believe. Kumbaya, Colleen and Butterfly, Kumbaya.Lorna O'Boylenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-66294796921062136922009-10-28T21:49:13.424-06:002009-10-28T21:49:13.424-06:00""The vast majority of God's people ...""The vast majority of God's people in the assembly are not familiar with words of the new missal like 'ineffable,' 'consubstantial,' 'incarnate,' 'inviolate,' 'oblation,' 'ignominy,' 'precursor,' 'suffused' and 'unvanquished.' The vocabulary is not readily understandable by the average Catholic," Trautman said."<br /><br />## I have to say that this is puzzling - surely people know what "incarnate" means ? I can't see why any any of them should cause problems, with the possible exception of the first two: which are technical terms coined to express in a word what cannot be as briefly expressed in any other way. They were adopted for Christian use because they had the great virtue of being precise; the second, was adopted at Nicea in 325, because it said exactly what the Council Fathers intended, without being open to an Arian interpretation. <br /><br />Why should Christian worship do without words that say what needs to be said ? Other groups have their technical terms - there are plenty of terms in computing to be learnt if one wants to use a PC ! - so is it too much for Christians to worship God in fitting language; inadequate as that must always be ? <br /><br />Part of the difficulty seems to be cultural - the kind of English criticised belongs (some of it) to the "high style" of English once thought proper for certain uses. The language of worship is an example of such a use, poetic diction is another. The high style is set apart from colloquial usage as an expression of a sacral, rather than a secular, culture: Protestant Evangelical Fundamentalism is a "secular" form of Christianity, whereas Orthodoxy & Catholicism have historically been "sacral" Christianities.Rat-biternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-19134335617379628982009-10-27T11:37:48.545-06:002009-10-27T11:37:48.545-06:00Nice to hear from you again Elastico.
You are tec...Nice to hear from you again Elastico.<br /><br />You are technically correct about Sacrosanctum Concilium. I experienced the hybrid combination Mass in the late sixties and early seventies. It was not transcendant. Could be our priest was Polish and garbled both English and Latin.<br /><br />My issue is not so much the language, because eventually it too will get boring and repetitive, it's something you actually allude to in your comment. You say: Regarding the words: religion is hard and requires effort and language that elevates meaning"<br /><br />Religion may require words, but true Christian spirituality requires effort that leads to acts--Christ like acts of nitty gritty compassion, healing, and love. <br /><br />The Mass should reflect this reality, just like the Crucifixion, which was not exalted or transcendant. It was far from it, but it was an act of compassionate love. <br /><br />The theology behind this translation sucks in the lack of understanding of what Jesus was about. Save that hi fallutin' stuff for Eucharistic Adoration. The Mass was meant to be tangible and real, not transcendant and illusive.colkochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03432916690101599393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-37736703965644635212009-10-27T10:42:30.560-06:002009-10-27T10:42:30.560-06:00Sacrosanctum Concilium required Latin and permitte...Sacrosanctum Concilium required Latin and permitted vernacular. Regarding the words: religion is hard and requires effort and language that elevates meaning--think Trinity, consubstantial, incarnate, Eucharist. The new words should not be difficult for those "thinking Catholics" always referenced (I think the bishop should probably change his name to Trautperson to be consistent)Elasticonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-75647477035396226542009-10-27T07:31:44.958-06:002009-10-27T07:31:44.958-06:00Great picture, Colleen--a good illustration for an...Great picture, Colleen--a good illustration for an incisive argument.William D. Lindseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07246026074693891965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-22562613718034718322009-10-27T00:20:33.132-06:002009-10-27T00:20:33.132-06:00If this is not disastrous enough an article in NCR...If this is not disastrous enough an article in NCR reports that Bishop Burke will have a lot of say in the appointment of the world wide Episcopacy. The RCC seems to be on an ever increasing pace of self disintegration for thinking Catholics. The only real question is what will eventually emerge. My God, My God, why hath thou forsaken us? <br />dennisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-43369771605516743122009-10-26T21:19:59.229-06:002009-10-26T21:19:59.229-06:00"The vast majority of God's people in the..."The vast majority of God's people in the assembly are not familiar with words of the new missal like 'ineffable,' 'consubstantial,' 'incarnate,' 'inviolate,' 'oblation,' 'ignominy,' 'precursor,' 'suffused' and 'unvanquished.' The vocabulary is not readily understandable by the average Catholic," Trautman said.<br /><br />I think the Vatican is very confused. If English people cannot understand these words and their meaning, it seems that a lot of time will be spent wasted on figuring out what these words might mean. It seems practically designed to create ignorance. And since the new translations are literal and not inspired words that can only lead to a stifling or strangling of spirituality. It's like the tower of Babel is being rebuilt. People will speak and no one will understand one another. Perhaps another book by Benedict is planned to try to explain it all, and then he'll define everything from his ivory tower and narcissistic narrow minded princely right wing viewpoint. It is chaos and confusion in the Vatican and it seems that is all they have to give to the world. Jesus ain't there in the Vatican. <br /><br />It's tragic.butterflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09684946870144030594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-74862030563187538122009-10-26T19:32:16.886-06:002009-10-26T19:32:16.886-06:00I doubt there is a single editor in the English sp...I doubt there is a single editor in the English speaking world of print journalism who would pass on this translation. The English useage is mindboggling, but that's not what gets me. This is not just a retranslation of the English lectionary, this is a trojan horse for the retranslation of Vatican II Christology and communal theology.<br /><br />It is another example of the deceitful strong arm tactics this current group in the Vatican will use to eradicate Vatican II theology. I give Trautman a lot of credit. I hope he makes some headway. It was close in the spring, maybe this time he can succeed.colkochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03432916690101599393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-42375353360028794372009-10-26T18:47:50.710-06:002009-10-26T18:47:50.710-06:00Thank you for a wonderful article. If the bishops ...Thank you for a wonderful article. If the bishops pass this incomprehensible text, then they will be promoting incomprehesnion. Maybe that is what those folks in the Vatican and the religous right want. They will get their smaller "orthodox" church. God is still on the side of those who believe, Jesus died for all.wild hairhttp://wildhair95.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-39338052875244088622009-10-26T18:35:04.978-06:002009-10-26T18:35:04.978-06:00Lipstick on a pig just about captures the substanc...Lipstick on a pig just about captures the substance of the new translations. Apparently it didn't go over too well in South Africa. I don't think it will play well here either.khughes1963https://www.blogger.com/profile/16118365554189078448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-44552823696778104772009-10-26T12:28:09.054-06:002009-10-26T12:28:09.054-06:00Colleen,
Excellent article. I'm glad that at l...Colleen,<br />Excellent article. I'm glad that at least one bishop has spoken out about this impending liturgical disaster.<br /><br />I have been involved in foreign languages and linguistics for most of my life. One principle used by those who translate is that an attempt to translate any language into English "literally" as in this case leads to a stilted text which will cause great incomprehension. Most translators want the audience of a text to easily and accurately comprehend the meaning of the text. In this "new" English translation, I believe that form (Latinesque jargon) has triumphed over substance (the basic meaning of the Mass).<br /><br />I really believe that this new translation could spell disaster for the Church. If the people of God find the Liturgy incomprehensible, they will abandon it. Is this what B16 really wants? I hope this translation can be stopped before much damage is done.<br /><br />God bless you,<br />Daviddtedachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515969793060325169noreply@blogger.com