400 Irish priests claim new Mass translation is ‘elitist and sexist’
#21
I didn't know there were even 400 priests left in Ireland...
Reply
#22
Ridiculous.

Yet these folks hold positions of power in the Church, and are all in good standing with Rome.

::)

I'm no SSPXer, but every day, I get a little bit closer, because no one else makes any sense.
Reply
#23
(02-04-2011, 07:07 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote:
(02-04-2011, 06:59 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: It never ends, does it?

Nope. Bizarre beyond belief. The local priest (of Irish descent) that I spoke with offers a Latin Novus Ordo once a month so I figured he'd be for the new translation since it's more faithful to the Latin, but he's rather against it.

He feels it's full of Latinizations, like "consubstantial" instead of "one in being" in the Nicene Creed which he feels folks won't understand.

Also, the French translation is not changing. In French they've always said "and with your spirit" and "for you and for many", but the French NO also says "he took the cup" whereas the old English NO said "cup" but the new will say "chalice". He's upset about that because he figures Jesus used a cup not a chalice and it's not fair to impose a new translation on the English but not the French.

He also feels the change from "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you" to "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof" will be incomprehensible to many parishioners who don't realize its Gospel origin.

He thinks the new translation could result in a similar decrease in church attendance as was seen in the switch from the Latin TLM to the original English NO.

"He also feels the change from "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you" to "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof" will be incomprehensible to many parishioners who don't realize its Gospel origin." 

what a lame excuse!  it's the priests' job to teach their parishioners why the changes are being made.  it's on him and all other priests to explain the Gospel origin.  it's legal for him to read scripture during a homily or during an announcement about the changes in the missal.

"He thinks the new translation could result in a similar decrease in church attendance as was seen in the switch from the Latin TLM to the original English NO."

i would be very surprised if that happened.  it's just not that big a deal.  people may, no, people will gripe because people always gripe about changes, especially changes that seem pointless.


re: 'cup' being changed to 'chalice,'  the Douay-Rheims has Jesus using a chalice, so it's more correct and priests need to know this and point it out to stop some of the griping.  other Catholic Bibles may say 'cup,' but priests can still state that the original English translation of the Vulgate done by Catholics says 'chalice.'


i don't buy into the argument that people won't understand what 'consubstantial' means, but i'm not sure why it was thought necessary to change 'one in being' to 'consubstantial.'  'one in being' is clear and rather poetic. 

maybe somebody can explain to me why it's important for us to say 'consubstantial'? i get the feeling it was put in there by some imp to give people something to complain about rather than for any serious theological reason.


i've long been concerned about 'pro multis' being translated as 'for all' and 'anima' being translated as 'I' -- it should be 'only say the word, Lord, and my soul will be healed' not 'I will be healed,' which seems to imply physical, mental, and/or spiritual healing.  those were things that really needed fixing.  so i'm very glad about those changes. i think the faithful will accept them without much griping if the priests just do their job and explain why the old translation was incorrect.  i think the most gripes will be about 'consubstantial.'  most americans don't like using a five dollar word when a fifty cent one will do, and 'think of the children, the children will be confused by this.'  of course, children like five dollar words, like stegosaurus, tyrannosaurus, etc.  maybe the kids will need to sell the adults on 'consubstantial.'




Reply
#24
(02-04-2011, 11:31 PM)Bearded Man Wrote: I didn't know there were even 400 priests left in Ireland...

No kidding.
Reply
#25
I have to say that the Spanish translation of the Novus Ordo seems quite good

we use Para Muchos, for many, not for all

no soy digno de que entres en mi casa pero una palabra tuya bastará para sanarme ( I am not worthy that you should enter into my home, but a word of yours will be enough to heal me)

And we say, el señor esté con ustedes - y con tu espiritu
(the lord be with you - and with your spirit)
Reply
#26
(02-05-2011, 09:18 PM)justlurking Wrote: no soy digno de que entres en mi casa pero una palabra tuya bastará para sanarme

A better translation from the original Latin would be:

"Señor, yo no soy digno de que entres en mi techo (o morada), mas dí una sola palabra y mi alma será salva."
Reply
#27
The controversy over MR3 and its translation has been terribly fascinating but also greatly troubling to me. It worries me that if the new translation is received poorly the "liberals" will use it to trumpet that it is a rejection of looking to the past for the liturgy. While we are largely isolated from the controversy because of the TLM, it seems that anything that will strengthen the position of the spirit of Vatican II crowd would generally be bad for our hopes of expanding the TLM.

It particularly amuses me that some of the objections stem from the translation's lack of faithfulness to the original Latin text. Gee, where were these people before? Say, 40 years ago?
Reply
#28
(02-05-2011, 09:42 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(02-05-2011, 09:18 PM)justlurking Wrote: no soy digno de que entres en mi casa pero una palabra tuya bastará para sanarme

A better translation from the original Latin would be:

"Señor, yo no soy digno de que entres en mi techo (o morada), mas dí una sola palabra y mi alma será salva."

I think that "bajo" (under) mi techo, would be a better translation, than "en" (in, or on, maybe), no?

Reply
#29
(02-04-2011, 07:34 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: "He is in our midst" for "et cum spiritu tuo" is not a mere mistranslation but a deliberate attempt at perverting the liturgical text. In this case, it's most likely to downgrade the difference between the consecrated priesthood and the priesthood of believers. The whole affair smacks of Protestant influences. After the priest prays that the Lord be with the assembly, they don't pray it back to him. No, they affirm that Christ is already present in the midst of them! Therhttp://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?action=post;quote=33405057;topic=3436161.10;num_replies=27;sesc=725dc4cc0138511d55ee5217534e1c73e's no longer that clear division between the laity and the priest. Acording to these heretics, this "mistranslation" thus comes into better accord with the scriptural passage "For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matt.18:20)

Yes, I think there were certainly some deliberate mistranslations, as well.  The variety of translations from language to language is evidence of that, isn't it?  I think also the use of "one in being with" instead of "consubstantial" is another horrible dilution of Catholic dogma.  The two ideas are not the same, which is precisely why they are contained in quite different phrases.  Breaks from the Church have happened over single words ("filioque" in the Creed).
Reply
#30
Bakuryokuso Wrote:He's upset about that because he figures Jesus used a cup not a chalice and it's not fair to impose a new translation on the English but not the French.

Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich gives a detailed account of the chalice used in the Last Supper in her book, The Dolorous Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ. In it she describes the chalice as being of several interconnected parts (if I recall correctly) with two gilded handles, various precious materials and is supposed to have originally belonged to Noah.

More than likely it was not the cliche dusty earthenware goblet we are so used to seeing. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)