There is a workshop going in Milwaukee, WI sponsored by the USCCB-FLDC about the implementation of the new English translation of the Roman Missal.
There [is an] article about this workshop in Journal Sentinel. There is not much in this article of great interest, but a few things popped out at me. Thus, I edit and add my emphases and comments:Clergy to convene, discuss Catholic missal changes
Priests concerned about alterations in midst of other church issues
By Annysa Johnson of the Journal Sentinel
Posted: Aug. 5, 2010
[]
The new translation introduces more formal, rarefied language into the liturgy. But Cooper and others who have studied drafts say it ignores English grammar and syntax and introduces terms – "consubstantial," "oblation," "ignominy," to mention a few – unfamiliar to many American Catholics. And some worry it will sow division in the pews. [Right! I can see it now. Fights will break out in the pews when the Creed is recited. People will hang their heads in shame and weep. Some will rend their garments. "Consubstantial!" But I suppose we will have the opportunity to relive the experience of the early Church, when there were riots over changes to the words of Scripture or liturgy. There were great Fathers of the Church who experienced exile over "consubstantial". I am unaware that anyone went to the mat for something like "one in being with the Father"... whatever that means.]
[...]
"Much of the music that has come up over the last 30 years will no longer be useable," [Picture me in my grief. Is there a better reason than this single point for the implementation of the new translation?] said Father Alan Jurkus of St. Alphonsus Parish in Greendale, who sent out a letter this month notifying members of the coming changes.
[...]
"The bottom line for me is why. Why, with everything else that’s going on in the church, do we have to rub salt in the wounds?" [Could it be that weak liturgy created the environment in which our "problems" have run rampant?]
Thursday, August 05, 2010
For the levity of it ...
Fr. Z writes, in a post entitled "Division in the pews!" (WDTPRS, August 5, 2010):
Get out of my head! :)
ReplyDeleteThe Milwaukee newspaper has always had an anti-Catholic animus.
ReplyDeleteMore stuff here on that article: http://dad29.blogspot.com/2010/08/fuddyduddy-ante-deluvian-priests.html
AND about Abp. Listecki's management of the LaCrosse Diocese here:
http://dad29.blogspot.com/2010/08/js-religion-reporting-or-propaganda.html
"Much of the music that has come up over the last 30 years will no longer be useable"
ReplyDeleteThis is my first time visiting in a while. Thanks for the hopeful news. While some of the words will need explaining, that is an added bonus. Perhaps a priest could explain how consubstantial relates to transubstantiation.
But none of its defenders can give positive, illustrated reasons for liking the proposed new translation. Fr Z has been particularly remiss on this front.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous Said: "explain how consubstantial relates to transubstantiation."
ReplyDeleteI am not a priest... but the explanation is simple... it does not relate to transubstantiation. The word relates to the Father and the Son as different persons, but one God... as in: "the only-begotten Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father"
Do a google search on the word, or dig into a catechism to learn further.
Anonymous: "But none of its defenders can give positive, illustrated reasons for liking the proposed new translation."
ReplyDeleteOn a simple level... what some would simply brush off as semantics, actually will help to clarify what it is we actually believe, and emphasis items that will strengthen our faith. The word Authenticity comes to mind. This should be obvious to most. If a person should choose not to agree with this... convincing them will take much more space than a blog chat.
... none of its defenders can give positive, illustrated reasons for liking the proposed new translation.
ReplyDeleteI would check out Adoremus Bulletin online. They go substantially into the reasoning behind the coming changes.
"explain how consubstantial relates to transubstantiation."
ReplyDelete'Anon' gave a good explanation. "Transubstantiation" refers to a change in substance, e.g., from bread and wine to Body and Blood (hence "Trans-").
"Consubstantial" relates to being of one substance with something else, e.g., the Son being of one substance with the Father (hence "Con-").
Another variation is the Lutheran "Consubstantiation" which differs from Catholic "Transubstantiation" in interesting ways, such that Luther didn't believe that bread and wine were specifically changed into Christ's Body and Blood, but that in view of God's ubiquity (omnipresence), Christ is surely also present "in, with, and under" the elements of bread and wine. Hence, the "con-" here refers to Christ's being "with" (or, "in, with, and under") the bread and wine. But there are problems with that view (consult Catholic sources for more).
How about liking the changes because they make Latin in the liturgy look better and better.
ReplyDeleteIf I may put in my 2 cents ...
ReplyDelete"But none of its defenders can give positive, illustrated reasons for liking the proposed new translation."
assumes that any reasons we can give are negative.
Here are some simple, positive reasons:
1) When I converted, I wanted the full throated version, and this translation comes much closer to giving the English speaking world exactly that.
2) Clarity leads to intelligent questions and the chance for catechesis. "I don't understand" can be followed by "let me explain".
3)Since the action of the Mass is an unfathomable mystery - we can describe it but only insufficiently - the language of the Mass shouldn't give the impression that we're watching something silly, dreary or commonplace. The new translation, precisely by being foreign to us at the linguistic level, allows us to ACTIVELY participate. We're no longer mute spectators.
4) The Church has always been the greatest sponsor and promotor of the arts. She should continue this tradition, even in the promotion of the language.
5) Lastly ... as a tremendously positive reason to use the new translation. ...
"Much of the music that has come up over the last 30 years will no longer be useable"
Chris
"But none of its defenders can give positive, illustrated reasons for liking the proposed new translation."
ReplyDeleteReally? None of them have that ability? None at all?
I can give you one right off the bat:
Instead of the deliberate mistranslation, "And also with you," we'll be saying what the Church actually says: "And with your spirit."
Here's another one:
Instead of the deliberate mistranslation, "We believe . . .," we'll be saying what the Church actually says: "I believe . . . ."
And another:
Instead of the deliberate mistranslation, "It is right to give him thanks and praise," we'll be saying what the Church actually says: "It is right and just."
And another:
Instead of the deliberate mistranslation, "Glory to God in the highest, and peace to his people on earth. Lord God, heavenly King, almighty God and Father, we worship you, we give you thanks, we praise you for your glory. Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of the Father, Lord God, Lamb of God, you take away the sin of the world: have mercy on us; you are seated at the right hand of the Father: receive our prayer. For you alone are the Holy One, you alone are the Lord, you alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father," we'll be saying what the Church actually says: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to people of good will. We praise you, we bless you, we adore you, we glorify you, we give you thanks for your great glory, Lord God, heavenly King, O God, almighty Father. Lord Jesus Christ, Only Begotten Son, Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us; you take away the sins of the world, receive our prayer; you are seated at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us. For you alone are the Holy One, you alone are the Lord, you alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father."
And yet another one:
Instead of the deliberate mistranslation, "Holy. Holy. Holy Lord. God of power and might," we'll be saying what the Church actually says: "Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of hosts."
There are in fact too many positive reasons for liking the new translation than can conveniently be enumerated. Yes, the translation has a few lapses -- many of them concessions to the current non-translation that afflicts us so terrible -- but the improvements far, far outnumber the lapses.
You see, the current deliberately warped mistranslation is so unspeakably awful that any serious translation, even a literarily mediocre one, is millions of times better. The lame-duck version departs so often and so drastically from the actual text of the Mass -- and does so using unworthy language -- that it simply should never have been approved in the first place.