Bishop Criticizes 'slavishly Literal' English Translation Of M

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Raphael' date='31 October 2009 - 04:39 PM' timestamp='1257025141' post='1994551']
Show me where the new translation is inclusive.

There's nothing theologically inaccurate about saying that it is right to give God thanks and praise. The theological error is more a catechetical error; the statement of the faith of the Church contained in the Latin is that it is right and just to give God praise. The current translation lacks mention of the justice due to God and is therefore catechetically improper and theologically incomplete.
[/quote]

Actually I would have thought the bishops would have dropped "It will become for us the bread of life" and "it will become our spiritual drink". I actually have no idea if those words are in the Latin Pauline Missal or that of John XXIII but I expected "body of Christ" and "blood of Christ" as spiritual drink and bread of life seem to downplay transubstantiation.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='01 November 2009 - 07:54 PM' timestamp='1257130447' post='1995046']
Actually I would have thought the bishops would have dropped "It will become for us the bread of life" and "it will become our spiritual drink". I actually have no idea if those words are in the Latin Pauline Missal or that of John XXIII but I expected "body of Christ" and "blood of Christ" as spiritual drink and bread of life seem to downplay transubstantiation.
[/quote]
Those prayers are found in the Pauline Missal, but they are not present in the older pre-conciliar Roman Missal.

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='nunsense' date='01 November 2009 - 08:11 PM' timestamp='1257117077' post='1994920']
This seems a pretty harsh generalization of the reasons why some people attend a Latin Mass! What impressed me was attending a weekday Latin Mass and seeing an elderly man in front of me who didn't use a missal, but seemed to be there drinking in the beauty of it all. There weren't many of us in attendance during the week, so if he were only going for the "memories", so that he could "do less" in the Mass (according to your reasoning), then why was he there at all? He could have done a lot less by not attending at all! Some people do attend a Latin Mass to pray to God, and to participate in the sacrifice offered by the priest to God.

And you presume also that I have never read anything about the Council or why the reforms were put in place. This, too seems a little harsh. I may not be a theologian, so you might be surprised to learn that I have actually read the Council documents already! I am not saying that the NO is wrong - I love a really well done NO (and hate one that lacks reverence or understanding), but I also love the beauty of the Latin Mass as well.

All I can say is "ouch". [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif[/img]
[/quote]

Please, don't over react to something I didn't say.

I said "some" probably attend to bring back old memories, for I would be one of those "some."

Also, I didn't say you didn't read the Vatican II documents nor did I suggest some thing as offensive as you're turning it into.

Don't turn this into a personal issue, which it was never intended to be.

I find beauty in the Latin forms of the NO and the TLM. However, I'm not the average parishioner attending Sunday Mass. My guess is most of us who participate in forums like this one, are not your average parishioner.

The reality is, Sunday Mass is attended by a wide range of Catholics. There are some who are well educated, some who are less. You also have those who don't have the mental capacity to learn more than what they're dealing with now. Mass should be simple enough for the majority to understand without taking advance courses in liturgical study.

We're there to worship as a community, and I know that for some. the word "community" is offensive. But that's where the term, "Communion" derives from.

The more we can be brought together in worship as a community of brothers and sisters, rather than gathering of strangers, the better.

Changing the wording of the liturgy into vague nuances, doesn't help.

Thats my opion, but I respect those who differ.


Jim

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='02 November 2009 - 10:00 AM' timestamp='1257170423' post='1995185']
Please, don't over react to something I didn't say.

I said "some" probably attend to bring back old memories, for I would be one of those "some."

Also, I didn't say you didn't read the Vatican II documents nor did I suggest some thing as offensive as you're turning it into.

Don't turn this into a personal issue, which it was never intended to be.

I find beauty in the Latin forms of the NO and the TLM. However, I'm not the average parishioner attending Sunday Mass. My guess is most of us who participate in forums like this one, are not your average parishioner.

The reality is, Sunday Mass is attended by a wide range of Catholics. There are some who are well educated, some who are less. You also have those who don't have the mental capacity to learn more than what they're dealing with now. Mass should be simple enough for the majority to understand without taking advance courses in liturgical study.

We're there to worship as a community, and I know that for some. the word "community" is offensive. But that's where the term, "Communion" derives from.

The more we can be brought together in worship as a community of brothers and sisters, rather than gathering of strangers, the better.

Changing the wording of the liturgy into vague nuances, doesn't help.

Thats my opion, but I respect those who differ.


Jim
[/quote]
Mass has been attended by people not understanding all the theology behind all the words, and it has worked out rather well for 2000 years. The idea is to elevate, not dumb it down to the lowest common denominator. If you don't understand something you simply ask.
You are also confusing what communion is, it is the unity in the Body of Christ, it is not a level theological playing field for all participants, its not supposed to be. The Mass IS MYSTERY, a participation in Calvary at the foot of the Cross, a transportation of reality: anamnesis. You really need words of more than one syllable to explain it.
Now if I can understand the concept, anyone can.

[Nihil Obstat]

What is the average parishioner then?

I certainly am in the sense that I have no theological training and no special vocation. Am I not the kind of person this bishop is talking about? Am I not the kind of person that might be confused by heavier theological content in the Mass?

Unless of course by 'average parishioner', the bishop means stupid people. We can't treat them as the same thing.

[JimR-OCDS]

cmotherofpirl

[quote]Mass has been attended by people not understanding all the theology behind all the words, and it has worked out rather well for 2000 years. [/quote]

Actually, the Mass evolved over 2000 years. The Mass celebrated by first Century Christians, was not the same format as the Mass after Council of Trent. Also, for centuries, Mass as celebrated in the vernacular, and Latin became the norm because Latin was known by most Europeans. Had English been the main Language, the Church would've made English the norm.

The fact is, Vatican II brought us closer to the Christians of the early Church, by making the Mass as simple as they understood it, in their vernacular.


[quote]The idea is to elevate, not dumb it down to the lowest common denominator. [/quote]

You don't dumb down something by making it more understandable. You make it dumb by making it less understandable.

[quote]You are also confusing what communion is, it is the unity in the Body of Christ, it is not a level theological playing field for all participants, its not supposed to be. [/quote]

We are united in faith, which makes us a community. Those who are not united in faith, can not receive Holy Communion, because it would express something that doesn't exist, that is, union in faith.


[quote]The Mass IS MYSTERY, a participation in Calvary at the foot of the Cross, a transportation of reality: anamnesis. You really need words of more than one syllable to explain it.[/quote]

The mystery is brought closer through words that are understood by the average Catholic. Making it more difficult with
superfluous words, serves no one.

[quote]Now if I can understand the concept, anyone can.[/quote]


There is a mildly retarded man that I know, who attends Mass everyday. Currently, he understands the Mass in
the language that is used, and he attends Mass on a daily basis. Its people like him, that some Catholics who
demand a return to old language and Latin, seem to have no concern about.

I know many people who will have a hard time with the words in the new liturgy.

I just don't get why we would want to exclude them?

Jim

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='02 November 2009 - 12:03 PM' timestamp='1257174181' post='1995204']
What is the average parishioner then?

I certainly am in the sense that I have no theological training and no special vocation. Am I not the kind of person this bishop is talking about? Am I not the kind of person that might be confused by heavier theological content in the Mass?

Unless of course by 'average parishioner', the bishop means stupid people. We can't treat them as the same thing.
[/quote]


You must not know your fellow parishioners well, or you have a very unique parish.

Most Catholics, don't educate themselves beyond what they learned in Catholic School or CCD.

Heck, the average parishioner, doesn't participate in Catholic Forms on the internet.

If you think I'm wrong, then explain the numbers of Catholics who don't believe or know of "the real presence" in the Eucharist?

Explain the numbers of Catholics who don't follow Church teachings on birth control or why the confessional lines are empty.

If the Church has been failing on basic education of Church doctrine, how will making the language of the Mass more complex help?

Jim

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='02 November 2009 - 11:03 AM' timestamp='1257174208' post='1995205']
cmotherofpirl



Actually, the Mass evolved over 2000 years. The Mass celebrated by first Century Christians, was not the same format as the Mass after Council of Trent. Also, for centuries, Mass as celebrated in the vernacular, and Latin became the norm because Latin was known by most Europeans. Had English been the main Language, the Church would've made English the norm.

The fact is, Vatican II brought us closer to the Christians of the early Church, by making the Mass as simple as they understood it, in their vernacular.




You don't dumb down something by making it more understandable. You make it dumb by making it less understandable.



We are united in faith, which makes us a community. Those who are not united in faith, can not receive Holy Communion, because it would express something that doesn't exist, that is, union in faith.




The mystery is brought closer through words that are understood by the average Catholic. Making it more difficult with
superfluous words, serves no one.




There is a mildly retarded man that I know, who attends Mass everyday. Currently, he understands the Mass in
the language that is used, and he attends Mass on a daily basis. Its people like him, that some Catholics who
demand a return to old language and Latin, seem to have no concern about.

I know many people who will have a hard time with the words in the new liturgy.

I just don't get why we would want to exclude them?

Jim
[/quote]

I just don't get you, I really don't. What is SO blasted difficult about teaching people the definition of a few words. I mean seriously?? Don't you learn new words everyday? Who says the words are superfluous?

[dominicansoul]

I don't quite understand...what is the big deal about using more meaningful words in the Liturgy? Sadly, most Catholics these days don't even know what is going on half the time, and a large pecentage don't even know that Jesus is present in the Eucharist. I bet Catholics today are more naive and apathetic than at any time in the history of our Church! If we use the logic that dumbing down the Mass makes a more effective Catholic, we just have to see what 40 years of error-riddled translations and abuse of the Liturgy has done. Perhaps, when these correct translations are applied, it will give many food for thought, and make the Mass more meaningful to them.

I consider myself a simpleton. I have no Theology degrees, but I was schooled at home with a very devout, humble, holy and simple mother, who didn't have to "dumb" down the Faith to make us kids understand it. If you ask me, most of the cathechetical resources my diocese uses in our Catechism classes are too dumbed down, and makes most kids totally BORED during their lessons.

What I find fascinating, is that when we are willing to share the SPLENDOR and BEAUTY of our Faith, it makes people come alive! I teach 9th and 10th grade Confirmandi. If I were to "dumb" down the Catechism into a level these highschool students can understand, I highly doubt their spirits would be so zealous...

My first attempt at teaching them about "Transubstantiation" was a success! They didn't have to spell the word, just understand that Jesus is truly present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Holy Eucharist. You should have seen the look in their eyes! Here they are in highschool, and no one ever taught them that! I guess previous teachers "dumbed down" their catechesis in past lessons...

I think the Holy Spirit knows what He's doing in bringing back the true translations to the Mass...I'll trust Him and watch the Church transform under His Power...no need to worry about souls not understanding...God doesn't need a dictionary when communicating with us...and neither do we...

[Slappo]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='02 November 2009 - 07:08 AM' timestamp='1257174495' post='1995207']
You must not know your fellow parishioners well, or you have a very unique parish.

Most Catholics, don't educate themselves beyond what they learned in Catholic School or CCD.

Heck, the average parishioner, doesn't participate in Catholic Forms on the internet.

If you think I'm wrong, then explain the numbers of Catholics who don't believe or know of "the real presence" in the Eucharist?

Explain the numbers of Catholics who don't follow Church teachings on birth control or why the confessional lines are empty.

If the Church has been failing on basic education of Church doctrine, how will making the language of the Mass more complex help?

Jim
[/quote]

The church has been failing on basic education of doctrine because those teachers who are teaching the doctrine... aren't teaching the doctrine.

The chaff need to be separated from the wheat, and if that means all the lukewarm Catholic's leave the faith the day the new translations come out then so be it. It is for their own good. Clear out the chaff and the wheat can grow more abundantly, and in doing so, bring others back home into the fold.


You have to understand two more things about the translations as well Jim, this is a universal English translation, not an American English translation. This means that it cannot be in the common tongue English of Americans because that English is NOT the same common tongue as the English of England, Australia, et al.

It is not only the American bishops voting, and if you look at the votes, it is only the American bishops that are slowing things down. As was made note of in the last USCCB meeting for the translations (at least the last one I know of), the USCCB not passing the translations given to them at that time would cut the USCCB from having any influence over the future progress of the translations by order of the Vatican. This was because the USCCB was given a date to comment on and approve the translations and send it back, and they were pushing being able to meet the deadline. Every other country had approved them.


Also: It is not necessary for the congregation to understand every word of the prayers. Many prayers are still prayed silently, and many still have the option of being intoned very quietly. You could technically do a Novus Ordo with a silent canon facing the altar which would mean the entire Eucharistic Prayer would not be heard by the people. If that is 1. what has been done in tradition even when Latin was the common tongue and the people would have understood the words, and 2. still available today, then obviously understanding of each individual word is not necessary for participation or understanding of the liturgy as a whole.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='02 November 2009 - 08:03 AM' timestamp='1257174208' post='1995205']
The fact is, Vatican II brought us closer to the Christians of the early Church, by making the Mass as simple as they understood it, in their vernacular.
[/quote]
That is an interesting hypothesis, but quite unprovable.

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='02 November 2009 - 01:04 PM' timestamp='1257177856' post='1995221']
I just don't get you, I really don't. What is SO blasted difficult about teaching people the definition of a few words. I mean seriously?? Don't you learn new words everyday? Who says the words are superfluous?
[/quote]


Relax. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif[/img]

Jim

[JimR-OCDS]

Slappo


[quote]The church has been failing on basic education of doctrine because those teachers who are teaching the doctrine... aren't teaching the doctrine.[/quote]

So we'll improve things by using language that has little understanding for today's English speaking person?


[quote]The chaff need to be separated from the wheat, and if that means all the lukewarm Catholic's leave the faith the day the new translations come out then so be it. It is for their own good. Clear out the chaff and the wheat can grow more abundantly, and in doing so, bring others back home into the fold.[/quote]

How Catholic of you. If they can cut it, throw them out.


[quote]You have to understand two more things about the translations as well Jim, this is a universal English translation, not an American English translation. This means that it cannot be in the common tongue English of Americans because that English is NOT the same common tongue as the English of England, Australia, et al.[/quote]

The new translation is the literal from Latin, so its not common among any of the English speaking nations.

[quote]It is not only the American bishops voting, and if you look at the votes, it is only the American bishops that are slowing things down. [/quote]

Maybe they have more compassion for the poor than you do, instead of telling them to either learn it, or get out. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/dry.gif[/img]


[quote]As was made note of in the last USCCB meeting for the translations (at least the last one I know of), the USCCB not passing the translations given to them at that time would cut the USCCB from having any influence over the future progress of the translations by order of the Vatican. This was because the USCCB was given a date to comment on and approve the translations and send it back, and they were pushing being able to meet the deadline. Every other country had approved them.[/quote]

With recent appointments to higher level positions in the Vatican from Bishops of the USCCB, I doubt your statement here is factual.

[quote]Also: It is not necessary for the congregation to understand every word of the prayers. Many prayers are still prayed silently, and many still have the option of being intoned very quietly. You could technically do a Novus Ordo with a silent canon facing the altar which would mean the entire Eucharistic Prayer would not be heard by the people.[/quote]

The purpose of Vatican II reforming the Liturgy, was to bring the people to more active participation in the Mass, rather than just having them pray quietly in the
pews, as they did in the pre-Vatican II days.


[quote]If that is 1. what has been done in tradition even when Latin was the common tongue and the people would have understood the words, and 2. still available today, then obviously understanding of each individual word is not necessary for participation or understanding of the liturgy as a whole.[/quote]

Participation is still possible without understanding all the words. However, the goal of Vatican II was for fuller participation, not greater isolation.

Jim

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='02 November 2009 - 01:57 PM' timestamp='1257184647' post='1995290']
Relax. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif[/img]

Jim
[/quote]
So in other words, you cannot answer my question

The idea that you decrease participation and understanding in the Mass by using a few more big words is ludicrous and insulting to catholics, as you seem to feel people are too stupid to learn something new. I do believe they still sell dictionaries these days....

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='02 November 2009 - 09:08 AM' timestamp='1257174495' post='1995207']
You must not know your fellow parishioners well, or you have a very unique parish.

Most Catholics, don't educate themselves beyond what they learned in Catholic School or CCD.

Heck, the average parishioner, doesn't participate in Catholic Forms on the internet.

If you think I'm wrong, then explain the numbers of Catholics who don't believe or know of "the real presence" in the Eucharist?

Explain the numbers of Catholics who don't follow Church teachings on birth control or why the confessional lines are empty.

If the Church has been failing on basic education of Church doctrine, how will making the language of the Mass more complex help?

Jim
[/quote]
In my opinion the people who do not educate themselves beyond the bare minimum are willfully ignorant. Do you want to change Mass to cater to the willfully ignorant?
I certainly do not.

These willfully ignorant are tenuous Catholics at best. The goal is to elevate them, not stoop to that level.