400 Irish priests claim new Mass translation is ‘elitist and sexist’
#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


Messages In This Thread
Re: 400 Irish priests claim new Mass translation is ‘elitist and sexist’ - by Revixit - 02-05-2011, 07:34 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)