Bishop Criticizes 'slavishly Literal' English Translation Of M

[StColette]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='02 November 2009 - 03:53 PM' timestamp='1257195236' post='1995370']
Correct, but then why go another step and make it even more difficult?
[/quote]

I don't see it as it becoming more difficult but rather more clear, but that's just me. I would venture to say that a great majority of Catholics aren't going to put up a fuss about the changes or aren't going to care one way or the other if there are or aren't changes. Some won't even notice that there are any changes for quite some time because no matter how much you instruct them some folks just never pay attention, especially to announcements lol.

[quote]I see stumbling blocks when it comes. In fact, in my parish, the first few Masses will be train-wrecks, as people will automatically respond with "and also with you," instead of "and with your spirit." And "I Believe in God, " instead of "We Believe in God."

Heck, as it is, this week the pastor read a statement from our Bishop, that he is suspending reception of the Precious Blood, until the flu season is over. Also, we're not to shake hands or touch during the offering of peace, instead, just bow. We'll people tripped over that and of course our parish holds hands during the Lord's Prayer, so, half the parishioners knew enough not to hold hands, others did as they always do, including the pastor and lectors, they held hands. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif[/img] [/quote]

I don't see those things as stumbling blocks; I see them as opportunities to teach. Yeah the "with your spirit" one might cause a little confusion, but I don't think it's going to cause that huge of a problem. As for using "I" instead of "we", how many of us go around saying "We pledge allegiance" instead of "I pledge allegiance"? To me it makes more sense that when one is to profess their faith that they do so using "I" rather than "We".

[quote]
But lets be honest, which Mass do you comprehend easier and more fully, one in your language or the one's in foreign languages?

I've attended Mass in France. I don't speak French, but I knew where we were in the Mass. However, when I attended Mass in English at Lourdes, I was more fully involved. In fact, I was flying.

Jim[/quote]

Actually, I don't have difficulty comprehending any of them. I mean, really that's the great part about Mass, no matter what language or Form you know what is taking place by the visual aspects of the Liturgy.

[Apotheoun]

I will be overjoyed when the "slavishly literal" English translations of the Roman Missal become the norm. Ah, what a great day that will be.

[jeffpugh]

I like this thread. Thing is though, there seems to be a misconception about what the mass is. NB, this was even asserted in my secular music history class, namely that the mass is primarily worship. Nothing else. The problems within the church today are being overly simplified by certain parties here. It is not because of the language or the relationship with the priest and the people. It has a lot to do with the changing attitude of the west and many cultural and technological changes. Mix in thought paradigms and sin and we have an interesting concoction of destruction. It used to be that even the simple and the old and the poor knew Latin hymns (yes, even within our century) which were a part of Catholic culture. The people came to know these popish Latin things because they are humans and therefore have a thirst for knowledge. I find that this bishop while trying to not be elitist is becoming elitist by singling out the new, more proper translation as something that people can't understand. God forbid the people learn something in their lives. Also, I hate to say this, but it also seems to come from a North American perspective where people don't care about language. In my opinion it seems a lot of Americans are plain-speakers (and for some, the only way to express themselves deeply is by swearing, though that's neither here nor there). But the problem with that mindset is that they don't wanna come to know their language more and more and don't want to be educated. I don't find this true. Again, humans are created to thirst to expand. It's part of our nature. To suppress this is unnatural. To not want to express in worship beyond words is mediocre. And remember, we're talking about [i]worship [/i]here. It's not about the people. It's about God who reaches down from heaven to give us grace, to sanctify us. This immeasurable gift should be expressed in the greatest way possible (hence chanting the liturgy).

[OraProMe]

Jim,

I don't actually go to Mass regularly so the new translation doesn't effect me so take this as an unbiased comment. I can't quite swallow your assertion that keeping this dumbed down, pseudo-catholicism is going to aid the laity in understanding the Mass better. The Church has had fourty years of a liturgy in what you term understandable language and the result has been a 60% drop in Mass attendance and closing of hundreds of seminaries, convents and monasteries. I grew up alternating between a chapel that used the Tridentine Mass and a a typial parish. Both congregations were full of "average catholics", few of whom had undertaken extensive theological studies. But I can assure you that the 10 year old kids from the chapel could bowl the adults from the diocesan parish over when it came to the fundamentals of the Catholic religion. Personally I feel embarrassed for the middle aged woman who chats loudly in Church and doesn't believe in transubstantiation when a there are little kids genuflecting, kneeling and remaining silent. It really has nothing to do with intelligence. It really isn't a matter of the "average catholic" not being able to understand what's going on at Mass but rather the failure of the priest and teachers to sufficiently educate those entrusted to their spiritual care.

I think it stands to reason that using sacred language will promote a sense of the sacred while using common language will only promote apathy.

Edited November 3, 2009 by OraProMe

[OraProMe]

So many mistakes in the above but I'm far too lazy to edit it anymore.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='02 November 2009 - 08:25 PM' timestamp='1257193539' post='1995352']
As the Bishop in the article states, its not proper English. There isn't any English country that uses the tearms expressed in the new translation.
[/quote]
Some of the changes in the new translation are actually already in use in England. Sure I tripped up the first time I said the Creed in England because I wasn't expecting it to say "incarnate of the Virgin Mary", but then got used to it quite quickly. I think everyone here would agree that, when the new translation comes into effect, there needs to be education of the laity regarding the changes, what they mean and why they were changed, but it is proper English, not to mention more precise.

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='02 November 2009 - 08:53 PM' timestamp='1257195236' post='1995370']
Correct, but then why go another step and make it even more difficult?



I see stumbling blocks when it comes. In fact, in my parish, the first few Masses will be train-wrecks, as people will automatically respond with "and also with you," instead of "and with your spirit." And "I Believe in God, " instead of "We Believe in God."

Heck, as it is, this week the pastor read a statement from our Bishop, that he is suspending reception of the Precious Blood, until the flu season is over. Also, we're not to shake hands or touch during the offering of peace, instead, just bow. We'll people tripped over that and of course our parish holds hands during the Lord's Prayer, so, half the parishioners knew enough not to hold hands, others did as they always do, including the pastor and lectors, they held hands. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif[/img]
[/quote]
I agree with StColette in that I don't see it as being more difficult, but more precise. Will there be people tripping up at first? Perhaps, though perhaps not. Since the swine flu measures have been in effect here I've only seen one person try to shake hands during the Sign of Peace, despite the fact that that was the norm beforehand.

[quote name='StColette' date='02 November 2009 - 09:23 PM' timestamp='1257196997' post='1995388']
I don't see it as it becoming more difficult but rather more clear, but that's just me. I would venture to say that a great majority of Catholics aren't going to put up a fuss about the changes or aren't going to care one way or the other if there are or aren't changes. Some won't even notice that there are any changes for quite some time because no matter how much you instruct them some folks just never pay attention, especially to announcements lol.



I don't see those things as stumbling blocks; I see them as opportunities to teach. Yeah the "with your spirit" one might cause a little confusion, but I don't think it's going to cause that huge of a problem. As for using "I" instead of "we", how many of us go around saying "We pledge allegiance" instead of "I pledge allegiance"? To me it makes more sense that when one is to profess their faith that they do so using "I" rather than "We".



Actually, I don't have difficulty comprehending any of them. I mean, really that's the great part about Mass, no matter what language or Form you know what is taking place by the visual aspects of the Liturgy.
[/quote]
Agreed on all counts.

[quote name='OraProMe' date='03 November 2009 - 04:37 AM' timestamp='1257223031' post='1995567']
Jim,

I don't actually go to Mass regularly so the new translation doesn't effect me so take this as an unbiased comment. I can't quite swallow your assertion that keeping this dumbed down, pseudo-catholicism is going to aid the laity in understanding the Mass better. The Church has had fourty years of a liturgy in what you term understandable language and the result has been a 60% drop in Mass attendance and closing of hundreds of seminaries, convents and monasteries. I grew up alternating between a chapel that used the Tridentine Mass and a a typial parish. Both congregations were full of "average catholics", few of whom had undertaken extensive theological studies. But I can assure you that the 10 year old kids from the chapel could bowl the adults from the diocesan parish over when it came to the fundamentals of the Catholic religion. Personally I feel embarrassed for the middle aged woman who chats loudly in Church and doesn't believe in transubstantiation when a there are little kids genuflecting, kneeling and remaining silent. It really has nothing to do with intelligence. It really isn't a matter of the "average catholic" not being able to understand what's going on at Mass but rather the failure of the priest and teachers to sufficiently educate those entrusted to their spiritual care.

I think it stands to reason that using sacred language will promote a sense of the sacred while using common language will only promote apathy.
[/quote]
Well said, Ora.

[JimR-OCDS]

Well I've pretty much said all I have to say on the subject, and what the Bishop stated in his article is right.

I'll leave with one quote from the Vatican II Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy, on what the translation of the Mass should entail.


[quote]34. The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people's powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation[/quote]

Some have use the term, dumbing down. However, text are retranslated over the centuries in order to keep the language with current norms, so people of the current age, can understand what was written. St. John of the Cross's "Ascent of Mt Carmel," has been translated into English four different times since the 17th century, and it will be translate again. No one speaks in 16th century Spanish as St. John wrote, so, as language changes, new translations will be required in the future.

So too is the Liturgy of the Mass. It makes no sense to translate back to the 16th century forms of English and understanding.

Some call the current Novus Ordo format, a dumbed down translation. I call the new reversed translation, just plain stupid.

The Bishop was gentle enough to call it "slavishly translated."

Now those who have been hasrsh on the Bishop, go look up the word "slavishly."

Jim

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='30 October 2009 - 04:00 PM' timestamp='1256936439' post='1994062']
Friday, October 23, 2009By Megan SweasBy Mark Pattison, Catholic News Service WASHINGTON (CNS) -- Bishop Donald W. Trautman of Erie, Pa., former chairman of the U.S. bishops' liturgy committee, sharply criticized what he called the "slavishly literal" translation into English of the new Roman Missal from the original Latin. He said the "sacred language" used by translators "tends to be elitist and remote from everyday speech and frequently not understandable" and could lead to a "pastoral disaster."

"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," Bishop Trautman said.

[url="http://www.uscatholic.org/news/2009/10/bishop-criticizes-slavishly-literal-english-translation-missal"]http://www.uscatholic.org/news/2009/10/bishop-criticizes-slavishly-literal-english-translation-missal[/url]



Read the entire article before commenting.

I agree with Bishop Trautman.

God Bless
Jim
[/quote]
"Words mean things," as Rush Limbaugh likes to say. The point is, these aren't just fancy words for their own sake. They actually convey meaning, Truth, if you will. While words can be used to obfuscate - excuse the fancy word - in this case the intent seems to be precision and clarity, i.e. "consubstantial" in one word replaces the phrase "three persons in one." This would seem to be an excellent opportunity for catechesis, IMHO.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='03 November 2009 - 09:06 AM' timestamp='1257260780' post='1995665']
Well I've pretty much said all I have to say on the subject, and what the Bishop stated in his article is right.
[/quote]
+J.M.J.+
uhm, in your opinion, he's right.

[Slappo]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='03 November 2009 - 07:06 AM' timestamp='1257260780' post='1995665']
Well I've pretty much said all I have to say on the subject, and what the Bishop stated in his article is right.

I'll leave with one quote from the Vatican II Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy, on what the translation of the Mass should entail.




Some have use the term, dumbing down. However, text are retranslated over the centuries in order to keep the language with current norms, so people of the current age, can understand what was written. St. John of the Cross's "Ascent of Mt Carmel," has been translated into English four different times since the 17th century, and it will be translate again. No one speaks in 16th century Spanish as St. John wrote, so, as language changes, new translations will be required in the future.

So too is the Liturgy of the Mass. It makes no sense to translate back to the 16th century forms of English and understanding.

Some call the current Novus Ordo format, a dumbed down translation. I call the new reversed translation, just plain stupid.

The Bishop was gentle enough to call it "slavishly translated."

Now those who have been hasrsh on the Bishop, go look up the word "slavishly."

Jim
[/quote]

In reference to your Vatican II quote, even Vatican II makes an account for explanation being needed sometimes. It does say that the mass should not NORMALLY require explanation. Well... an entirely new translation of the text is not "normal" and therefore can validly require explanation.


Also, we are not translating back to a 16th century wording, but we are translating back to a [b]noble[/b] wording which Vatican II calls for. I would in fact say that the current translations we have are [b]not noble [/b]and therefore it is right that we bring forth new translations.

[StColette]

[quote name='Slappo' date='03 November 2009 - 11:58 AM' timestamp='1257267523' post='1995697']
In reference to your Vatican II quote, even Vatican II makes an account for explanation being needed sometimes. It does say that the mass should not NORMALLY require explanation. Well... an entirely new translation of the text is not "normal" and therefore can validly require explanation.


Also, we are not translating back to a 16th century wording, but we are translating back to a [b]noble[/b] wording which Vatican II calls for. I would in fact say that the current translations we have are [b]not noble [/b]and therefore it is right that we bring forth new translations.
[/quote]

[JimR-OCDS]

Slappo'



[quote]Also, we are not translating back to a 16th century wording, but we are translating back to a [b]noble[/b] wording which Vatican II calls for. I would in fact say that the current translations we have are [b]not noble [/b]and therefore it is right that we bring forth new translations.[/quote]

Actually, certain parts of the new translation, are taken litterally from the Latin Format, which is 1500 years old. In other words, when the Latin Mass was put together, they took into account the langauge and understanding of the common person, back then, especially because most people could not read.

Jim

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='03 November 2009 - 12:02 PM' timestamp='1257271347' post='1995723']
Slappo'





Actually, certain parts of the new translation, are taken litterally from the Latin Format, which is 1500 years old. In other words, when the Latin Mass was put together, they took into account the langauge and understanding of the common person, back then, especially because most people could not read.

Jim
[/quote]
How does that make what he said incorrect?

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='03 November 2009 - 02:16 PM' timestamp='1257272185' post='1995737']
How does that make what he said incorrect?
[/quote]

This statement;

[quote]Also, we are not translating back to a 16th century wording[/quote]

Would be incorrect, because parts of the new translation are literal translations from the Latin, which is 1500 years old.


Jim

Edited November 3, 2009 by JimR-OCDS

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='03 November 2009 - 01:36 PM' timestamp='1257276974' post='1995777']
This statement;



Would be incorrect, because parts of the new translation are literal translations from the Latin, which is 1500 years old.


Jim
[/quote]
I believe he meant that we're not going back to an older usage for the sake of an older usage. We're going back to it because it's a better usage, hence: [b]noble[/b] wording.
His comment said, basically "we want to use it because it's good, not because it's old."

(Which is correct.)

Edited November 3, 2009 by Nihil Obstat