| Philo-Republican Bishops Betray American Catholicism »
Michael J. Cassidy points out that the new translation of the Roman Missal is not only a linguistic mess, but an ecclesiological one:
While a discussion of the merits of the English of this new "translation" could be useful, a few other points seem to me more important:
1. We are being lied to regarding the reason(s) this translation was undertaken and about its supposed efficacy. By simply repeating whatever was contained in a USCCB news release, Catholic News Service makes itself a party to these untruths. Furthermore, our pastors are going to be asked to stand up before their congregations and lie to them (i.e., us). Lying is not the work of the Holy Spirit.
2. It is difficult to understand why ANYONE who was around at the time of Vatican II and experienced the complete turnaround in ecumenical relations which resulted, could ever even consider using a liturgical translation which is not merely accidentally anti-ecumenical, but rather was INTENDED as an affront to our ecumenical partners, fellow members of the Body of Christ. Those who were not around for Vatican II might like to ask some of us greybeards what things were like before the Council. This translation is a violation of Vatican II's document on Ecumenism.
3. Similarly, how can anyone in the English-speaking Catholic Churches support this translation when our bishops were so ill-treated in the process, and the whole notion of collegiality was trampled upon? These incidents have been well documented by retired Bishop Maurice Taylor of Canada, and by John Wilkins, former editor of The Tablet of London. (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_21_132/ai_n27862483/). What happened to the vaunted principle of subsidiarity? This translation violates the Council's Constitution on the Church.
4. Apart from the merits or lack thereof of the text, the PRINCIPLES of translation espoused by the mis-titled "Liturgiam Authenticam" are absolutely backward, both in terms of ecclesiastical translations and secular ones. In short, they are simply wrong. To state, as the Voice article does, that, "The missal...has undergone a lengthy and rigourous translation process...." is also simply wrong. The process was indeed lengthy, but the translation is far from rigorous, except in the sense that it is stiff (e.g., rigor mortis). And what are the implications of this? Among other things, these erroneous "princlples" could well infect the accuracy and objectivity of biblical scholarship, bringing further disrepute upon the Catholic Church. ("Further" because -- in case you missed it -- the pedophilia scandal and its fallout have already done considerable damage.)
5. On the pastoral front, it is good to be concerned with those already members of the Catholic Church, but what about those who are not? In our diocese, about 63% of the people living here belong to no formal religion at all.* So we have some scope for mission, for evangelization. Will these 'unclaimed' souls be attracted to a Church whose leaders do not have the courage to tell the truth? We need to be concerned about the effects of this translation upon evangelization -- in other words, look outward, not just inward. Will the language of this new missal help or hinder evangelization?
6. The German Bishops were recently 'given' a new translation of the funeral rites similar in methodology and spirit to this new Roman Missal. They refused to implement it, for pastoral reasons. (See http://www.whatifwejustsaidwait.org/newsjuly15.htm)
Posted at 11:58 PM in Crisis in the Liturgy 2: Translations | Permalink
"We are being lied to regarding the reason(s) this translation was undertaken and about its supposed efficacy."
Is it odd to accuse the Church of lying but not provide the truth? What are the real reasons the translation was undertaken?
September 11, 2010 at 04:42 AM
It is not at all clear to me what supposedly great strides have been made on the ecumenical front. Nearly all protestant denominations have, since Vatican II, pulled further away from the Catholic Church in such important areas as tolerance for abortion, and "ordination" of women. I certainly don't give any weight to the author's claim of the true "intended reason" for the improved translation - that of purposely sticking it to other denominations - but it certainly is, for me, a significant fringe benefit.
John Drake |
September 11, 2010 at 05:42 AM
A fringe benefit? Good God!
I am touched when I hear parts of the Anglican liturgy that have been humbly borrowed from us in the RCC. I wish we showed equal humility in learning from them. The best sermon I heard this year was from a black Jamaican woman in the Methodist church in Clontarf, Dublin. Her excellence in preaching certainly "sticks it to" us Roman Catholics, with our abysmal preaching and sheer lethargy. We need to get back to reading the Bible and recovering the elements of Christian vitality, instead of plotting to "stick it" to our brothers and sisters.
Spirit of Vatican II |
September 13, 2010 at 03:18 AM
I have read enough of this delusional diatribe against the new Holy Missal that is coming out. YOU write this negative article with a rude tone that implies the Church leaders are lying, and its intentions to return the missal to its strict, original Latin translation goes against "Vatican II's ecumenism". BULLCRAP.
That may work with modern Catholics who are willing to compromise the principles and traditions of the Roman Catholic Church, but it will not sit with those, such as myself, in their 20's who is experiencing a deeper love for the Eucharist and the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church in its original, authentic and liturgical form. Furthermore, your sarcastic jokes (Rigor mortis?) don't build up your credibility. Yours is just an opinion shared by others who refuse to accept that the Church can sustain on its own through its rituals and rubrics that have lasted for more than 1,500 years.
I don't care if our Lord Jesus spoke in Aramaic or Vernacular or whatever you want to call it. The Holy See has spoken and Rome has decided, and so the matter is closed.
If YOU or any DISOBEDIENT Catholic want to challenge it, you are more than welcome to go to your Bishop and complain----but lest you be reminded that Bishops and ALL Roman priests are subjected to the VOW of Obedience. Something that liberal Catholics and disobedient liturgists don't want to accept as they cling to the last moments of the dying Vatican II.
I would love to expand my vocabulary and learn new words like DEWFALL and CONSUBSTANTIAL. And I'm man enough to admit that I want women to wear veils and incense and bells and more genuflection in the Church. I'm in my twentys and I want to see the old Church renewed back home. No, I'm not a Sedevacantist either. Viva il papa Benedetto.
Lloyd G.B |
September 13, 2010 at 04:36 AM
Poor Mr. Lloyd,
You're twenty something and want to go back to something that hasn't existed for two generations.
I was in my twenty something when Vatican II's liturgical reform came in the vernacular, you know, English.
Before that it was Latin with a lot of kneeling, genuflecting, incense and rosary beads. The Liturgy was something to see, a distant vision, but not something to participate in outside of a few Amens.
The Liturgy is the act of the people and priest together, ( look up the origin of the word).
The vernacular, English, Liturgy was, is, an act of all the people. It isn't perfect but it is far more according to the purpose of the Liturgy than the commonly perceived and performed Latin Liturgy.
September 13, 2010 at 08:39 AM
Who are YOU or any self-loathing-compromising-Catholic to question the authority of the Holy Mass that has divinely existed for a thousand years? (give or take slight variations), you are but a simple mortal capable a human opinion that does-away from the holy teaching that was formed in the council of Trent through the inspired power of the Holy Ghost. When Vatican II offered the Novus Ordo, the rest of the Bishops slowly faded away from the traditions and its strict liturgical practices. Just last week, my local parish priest had the BALLS and GALL to state that Mary was of "sinful origin" during homily! What sacrilege is that to say to the Mother of God!
I hope you realize that the Devil himself entered Vatican II when those nine Protestant pastors infiltrated council itself in the 1960's and began their thoughts of modernism under the deceitful name of "Ecumenism". Lies, Lies, Lies, and MORE Protestant Lies. Let us drive out the Protestant beliefs inside our Roman Catholic Church and restore our true faith. PEOPLE! Live out your GENUINE Catholic religion!
Bringing the Mass into the local language has set a great pathetic excuse for many liturgical abuses AND hippieness that took not one, BUT TWO generations to fix. How hungry have souls been for a true and reverent Mass that is fit for a Catholic man who must practice penance, penitence and solemnity in ALL Sacramental acts of the Church! Thank God for the Holy Spirit, because of Him the Church is now being renewed and purified of compromising Catholics who are wishy-washy in their faith. This WILL restore and differentiate Roman Catholics who live out for their religion and those who don't. You or anyone else who wish to question the Holy See is more than welcome to join the Episcopalians if you wish to insist on the current Missal translation----however inaccurate, sinfully incomplete and theologically misleading they are.
(+++Lord, please Pardon my tone of arrogance, I only mean to defend the validity of the new missal translation.)
Lloyd G.B |
September 13, 2010 at 06:02 PM
"Who are YOU or any self-loathing-compromising-Catholic to question the authority of the Holy Mass that has divinely existed for a thousand years?"
Evagrius and I question not the Mass but the new translations which will greatly damage our celebrate thereof.
"I hope you realize that the Devil himself entered Vatican II when those nine Protestant pastors infiltrated council itself in the 1960's and began their thoughts of modernism under the deceitful name of "Ecumenism". Lies, Lies, Lies, and MORE Protestant Lies."
This kind of talk is what has paralyzed Catholicism. Many protestant churches are forging ahead very dynamically while we Catholics pick the scabs of ancient purulent sores, sourly growling about heresy, dissent, change, innovation, progress and other devilish things.
" Let us drive out the Protestant beliefs inside our Roman Catholic Church and restore our true faith. PEOPLE! Live out your GENUINE Catholic religion!"
It is so easy to stir the mob with this fetid fanatical sloganeering. We have forgotten the Bible, the Council, and anything like theological breadth, in order to whip ourselves with the cords of our threatened "Catholic identity". It is shocking that this bitterly ant-ecumenical and therefore unchristian language has been so effectively transmitted to someone in his twenties. The virus is endemic in the catholic system, and is causing our church to shrink.
"Bringing the Mass into the local language has set a great pathetic excuse for many liturgical abuses AND hippieness that took not one, BUT TWO generations to fix. How hungry have souls been for a true and reverent Mass that is fit for a Catholic man who must practice penance, penitence and solemnity in ALL Sacramental acts of the Church! Thank God for the Holy Spirit, because of Him the Church is now being renewed and purified of compromising Catholics who are wishy-washy in their faith. This WILL restore and differentiate Roman Catholics who live out for their religion and those who don't. You or anyone else who wish to question the Holy See is more than welcome to join the Episcopalians if you wish to insist on the current Missal translation----however inaccurate, sinfully incomplete and theologically misleading they are."
That is how reactionaries paralyze a church, setting themselves up as infallible and branding all those they look down their noses at as trash to be expurged from the pure community -- except they do not represent any community, but their isolated, cranky, destructive, wilfully ignorant, individualistic selves... You are young enough to change, Lloyd, but I hope you will change in the direction of a more gospel-centered Christianity rather than steeper sectarian negativity of the sort that has taken so many people out of the church.
"I only mean to defend the validity of the new missal translation."
Have you even read the translation or followed the discussion on its problems?
Spirit of Vatican II |
September 13, 2010 at 08:06 PM
1. "Many protestant churches are forging ahead very dynamically while we Catholics pick the scabs of ancient purulent sores.... The road to Heaven is as small as the hole of a needle. The Roman Catholic Church, through the leadership of the Holy Father and the Roman Curia must NOT sacrifice traditions and magisteriums for the sake of membership in the pews. Let the Protestants do and grow as they wish. They do not have the Seat of Peter and the Gold and Silver keys of Heaven and Hell and they will never prevail against the Church as Christ himself promised, or have you no trust?
2. "It is so easy to stir the mob with this fetid fanatical sloganeering." I don't care for slogans, I am not a politician. I speak what I mean and I mean what I speak. LIVE OUT YOUR CATHOLIC RELIGION AND STOP FAKING IT IN NAME!
I may be in my twenties but I am confident enough to be fearful of being wishy-washy of my faith. I fear God with my heart and I truly feel the spiritual need to be loyal to Rome. Disobedience, rebellion and consorting with the demonic Protestants forces will not solve the problem. Restore the liturgy and restore genuine Catholic practice. No more wishy-washies. May God have mercy on your soul and keep you away from heresies.
Lloyd G.B |
September 14, 2010 at 12:53 AM
The well known observation, quidquid recipitur ad modum recipientis recipitur, is appropriate here. Lloyd G.B. will presently not be convinced of anything that doesn't have the imprimatur of religious authoritarianism.
The failure of institutions such as the Church to task us with envisioning a positive and humane world has created a peculiar problem illustrated by Lloyd G.B.'s remarks: the human intellect set adrift.
If our intellectual life is at the service of our labor, socially and individually, and our labor is itself at the service of our flourishing (spiritually and materially), then it follows that a failure to challenge hardships presented by present reality will result in an intellectual scene where minds spiral off into ahistorical eclecticism divorced from reality.
Lloyd G.B.'s strange remarks and obsolete constructions - "consorting with the demonic Protestant forces" - are not the result of a rediscovery of pre-modern patterns of thinking but are instead very much a post-modern phenomenon. It is the result of institutional failure and since these institutions were once the means by which we related with each other in society, Joseph is quite right to assume the isolation from which these forces of reaction arise.
Brian Gallagher |
September 14, 2010 at 07:50 AM
The Archdiocese of Chicago is asking what can be done for a more efective evangelization.
1. Stop this terrible translation of the mass. Use the one that was developed in the 90's.
2. Stop speaking about sex publicly for 10 years. Everyone knows the chuch's position.
3. Have every bishop go out and visit 10 families, couples, or individuals who are baptized Catholics but no longer attend church with any regularity. just listen to them.
October 04, 2010 at 07:03 AM
Yes, this is the sort of thing that could be done, with tremendous effect. Everytime a high churchman sounds off about sex it steals oceans of publicity from the gospel messages about justice, peace and love.
Spirit of Vatican II |
October 04, 2010 at 03:39 PM
If allow the opponents of of the New Translation to prevail, we would be well on the road to having mere advisory texts for the celebration of the Mass, to guide the "presider" into some sort of ad hoc,pseudo-meaningful sentimental drivel.
I support the new translation of the Mass. Hands off from it!
October 19, 2010 at 12:40 AM
Theo, "hands off it!" -- please tell that to the Vatican who have made 10,000 alterations to the 2008 translation approved by the world's bishops, alterations that make the new translation even worse than it was. And how many more are to come? In South Africa the faithful are still dealing with provisional leaflets. I predict that on the first day on which the new translation is used there will be a provisional text printed on leaflets, since an authoritative text is far from being established, let alone given the now necessary approval from the bishops. On the 2010 version of the new translation see this devastating report: http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2010/10/17/a-funny-thing-happened-on-the-way-to-the-2010-received-text/
Spirit of Vatican II |
October 19, 2010 at 12:04 PM
Au lieux de critiquer sans cesse les nouvelles traductions, ne serait-ce pas plus dans l'esprit du Concile d'en dégager ce qui est bon ?
December 18, 2010 at 04:52 PM
I don't see how extracting what is good in the new translations can save them. There is a general defect of style and rhythm that cannot be amended by picking out local pieces that are good. Furthermore, where do you see these particularly good spots? And what has the spirit of the Council to do with finding good spots in mediocre texts?
The spirit of the Council, if it is not long dead, is manifesting itself in the effort of good pastors to stop these horrible texts from being inflicted on their flocks, and in the voices of concerned, educated laity.
When the texts are imposed, the spirit of the Council, if it still lives, will be seen in calls for their rejection and replacement (with the 1998 texts, approved by the bishops of every English speaking country). In Germany the bad translations of funeral texts were rejected in this way, and the Vatican bowed to this expression of the spirit of the Council.
Spirit of Vatican II |
December 18, 2010 at 07:43 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.