UPDATE 12-16-09: There is a new petition online offering an opportunity (unlike the one noted below) to express a desire for the new translations to be released without delay. It is here.
This is in response to an article in America Magazine entitled “What if we said, ‘wait.’” suggesting that there be a grass-roots revolt against the new Mass translations that many feel have been too long in coming as it is. There is a site where one can sign a petition (and read the article) asking for a delay. But there is nothing there for people who say, “Full Speed Ahead.” So, you may do so via this poll and in the comment area below. (If you want to read the article, I suggest doing so here to get a much more “balanced” perspective.)
Posted in: A Ramblin' We Will Go...
Jeffrey Pinyan
December 4, 2009
I am certainly in favor of the new translation (as well as the Latin). I’m doing my part to help catechize English-speaking Catholics, writing two books on the new translation, one about the people’s prayers and one about the priest’s prayers.
Praying the Mass: The Prayers of the People is out now (with a second edition coming in early 2010), and Praying the Mass: The Prayers of the Priest will hopefully be out by June.
J Basil Damukaitis
December 4, 2009
To put an option for dropping it altogether for Latin is absurdly stupid. That’s not the point. The point is, THERE WILL BE AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION! Deal with it. So do you prefer the new or old translation or another. Your diluting the poll results by the third option.
And I’m a guy none of this will affect because I attend the Old Mass exclusively.
Sam
December 4, 2009
We will spend many more years discecting and arguing over these translations and whether or not it is being true to the Latin texts. Why not end the needless arguements and just return to the Latin? Is it not still the universal language of the Church?
Dan Hunter
December 4, 2009
Drop the translations in favor of the original Traditional Latin Mass, finally.
chironomo
December 4, 2009
The respondents to this poll already outnumber the respondents to the “What If We Said Wait” petition by 3-1. And it looks as though a large number of the petition repondents are from Seattle. Hmmm…
William
December 4, 2009
Give us the new and improved translation “subito” than later.
Marcy K.
December 4, 2009
I have been waiting for years! I was born in the mid-60′s and only know the new mass. I have always felt disappointed and dissatisfied by it, always wanting more reverence. I’ve also never understood why they turned the priest around if we are offering a sacrifice to God. One day I happened to be at a Melkite Rite mass and was just floored. I wanted to cry. “Why, oh why can’t we have this!” I thought. “Here are beautiful prayers and reverence. Why do we have to suffer through this new Mass!”
Ever since I heard that the Mass would be revised I have been excited and can’t wait. Anything that would make the Mass more reverent and beautiful I’m for. I understand the priest is a big part of the reverence, but surely this will help. It can’t come soon enough.
I know there are many who want the Mass to go back to the Latin and here is where I differ a bit. I appreciate that it is in the vernacular. I have been to a Latin mass and even with a missal have been lost. I get a lot out of listening to the prayers and understanding them. I wish they could have just translated the old Latin Mass properly and left everything else the same.
So many of the problems we have today in the Church come from changing the Mass and letting people with a certain agenda take advantage of the “Spirit of Vatican II.” Those people have done untold damage to the Church and our people. You don’t have to look far to find all the damage.
Môlsem
December 4, 2009
It would be nice to have a translation which communicated fully the meaning of the original text, in a fully common English vocabulary and grammar. No words should be used for the sake of their aping the letters used in the original Latin, if the resulting English word is not familiar to all. “One in being” vs. “consubstantial” is a case in point. I am a student of languages, among other things, and I am shocked that anyone thinks the latter is in meaning as clear to our parishioners as the former now is. By the way, I don’t think Jesus spoke Latin any more than I do.
WhollyRoamin'Catholic
December 4, 2009
Clever!
Môlsem
December 4, 2009
As an additional note, let’s look over the poll:
1. Finally! Full speed ahead!
2. I agree with the article and want a delay for some ineffable reason.
3. Drop the translations in favor of the original Latin.
My preference, namely to scrap the modifications and leave well enough alone was not made available. Maybe I would opt for 2, but the question is loaded with “ineffable.”
Breck
December 4, 2009
As an old Anglican convert, I have nostalgia for Cranmerian English, but of course without the heresies. This new translation will do just fine, I think.
Fr. Steve
December 4, 2009
As a young newly ordained priest, I say FULL SPEED AHEAD! Long live Pope Benedict!
Fr. A.
December 4, 2009
Molsem, saying that the current translation is “well enough,” when it butchers not just the meaning but also the theology of the Latin original as translated directly everywhere else in the world, is simply diametrically contrary to the truth. Lex orandi, lex credendi. It is not, never was, and can never be, okay to have a translation which mangles our theology when we’re engaging in the source and summit of the Christian life.
tom frenette
December 4, 2009
being faithful to Rome is most important.
being faithful to one’s bishop is next.
but, being faithful to the Holy Spirit is the best!
KC
December 4, 2009
You are now a Jedi Master!
Fr. Edward
December 4, 2009
Finally the new translations will come. Having been ordained about a decade, I have longed for better translations. At times I am embarrassed by the banality or even bad theology of many of the translations. Haven’t the special interest groups caused enough delay?
Thank God it is finally over.
RJS
December 4, 2009
KC: LOL
ToniK
December 5, 2009
ooohhh
CPryor
December 5, 2009
I voted to drop the translations in favor of the original Latin because I love the Extraordinary Form, but will be perfectly happy with the new translations. And I’m so very tired of comments like Molsem’s, assuming that “John and Mary Catholic” can’t handle running across a word they didn’t learn in 2nd grade. If we don’t know what a word means, we can LOOK IT UP. That may even get Catholics to THINK ABOUT OUR FAITH WHEN WE’RE NOT IN CHURCH! What a concept! And we may actually pay attention at Mass, instead of droning the prayers on auto-pilot.
mpm
December 5, 2009
Môlsem
OK, I’ll bite. What do the people think the words “one in being with the Father” mean in the Creed they recite?
If they do not understand “consubstantial with the Father”, then what?
You and I are “one in being” commenters on this thread: is THAT how Christ is “one in being with the Father”?
JTA
December 5, 2009
MPM,
Outside of this group of people, namely the ones who either a)take an interest in theology in general, or b) take an interest in Catholic theology in particular, who is going to care about our internecine squabbling (on such things as consubstantial/one-in-being)? The farmers parish in the middle of Iowa, for instance…are they worrying themselves over this issue?
Besides, I like the term homoousios better. Greek is such a delightful theological language, even if Latin is far more precise in its legalism.
B Knotts
December 5, 2009
Let’s not bicker about the translation. Just replace the 1970 Missal with the 1962 Missal, and be done with it!
I am entirely serious about this. Lex orandi, lex credendi. End the experiment.
An American Mother
December 5, 2009
Molsem, you can’t be serious.
The current translation is full of “dynamic equivalents” – that is to say, “what I [the translator] think sounds ‘nice’ or conveys what I want to convey rather than the meaning of the original.” And that is always bad, because it ceases to be a translation and becomes a blank slate. And in far too many places in the current translation, the translators wrote what they WANTED on that blank slate, rather than what the Latin said. And what they wanted was often bad theology (or just omitting the theology altogether), not to mention banal, pedestrian, trendy (and now dated) English.
“One in being” does not mean the same as “consubstantial”. Now, as an ex-Anglican, I’m rather fond of Cranmer’s prayerbook and Coverdale’s psalter, and I think Cranmer hit the mark with “one in substance with the Father”.
Cranmer followed the practice of using a homegrown English word instead of a Latinate word, when a correct one was available. It does have a disadvantage if the translator is trying for precision.
But you can’t have everything.
Môlsem
December 5, 2009
The current translation is full of “dynamic equivalents” – that is to say, “what I [the translator] think sounds ‘nice’ or conveys what I want to convey rather than the meaning of the original.”
Gee, and here I thought what they were doing is saying to themselves, “Now this is what the Latin literal translation is, now how do we say that in English familiar to the parishioners.”
“One in being” does not mean the same as “consubstantial”.
“One in being with” does mean the same thing as “consubstantial.” Jesus’ beingness and God’s beingness are one beingness. I am also an ex-Anglican, with a Master of Pastoral Studies degree, a pastoral worker on an Indian reservation, and always very alert to making sure that two languages communicate, let alone three.
An American Mother
December 5, 2009
“Being” and “substance” are not the same. That’s your “dynamic equivalence” for you.
And I profoundly disagree with “English familiar to the parishioners.” The users of this phrase generally make several erroneous assumptions. First, that the pew-sitters are too stupid to have more than a 6th-grade command of English and have never heard of a dictionary. Second, that the priest is also too stupid to explain any “difficult” words to the aforesaid stupid pew-sitters in his homily. Third, that everyone is somehow edified or elevated by having the language of worship sound the same as that heard on the television or the playground.
Frankly, this attitude is insulting. If my uneducated Tennessee dirt farmer forebears could comprehend the only book in their houses – the King James Bible – modern Catholics can get their heads around a few fifty-cent words.
An American Mother
December 5, 2009
And of course Cranmer’s phrase is “being of one substance with the Father” — that’s what comes of being ten years or more out from the ’28 Book.
Môlsem
December 5, 2009
An American Mother spoke: “Being” and “substance” are not the same. That’s your “dynamic equivalence” for you.
And, seems to me, what is the “substance” of Spirit? Substance, when speaking of a ‘thing’ in common English speaking, is tangible. Or you mean “substance” as in law, the alternative to procedure? “Being’ speaks to the essence of a thing.
An American Mother sez: And I profoundly disagree with “English familiar to the parishioners.” The users of this phrase generally make several erroneous assumptions. First, that the pew-sitters are too stupid to have more than a 6th-grade command of English and have never heard of a dictionary. Second, that the priest is also too stupid to explain any “difficult” words to the aforesaid stupid pew-sitters in his homily. Third, that everyone is somehow edified or elevated by having the language of worship sound the same as that heard on the television or the playground.
Seems to me: It’s a little elitist, is it not, to demand that people listen to and appreciate language they do not understand? A high percentage of the American public is functionally illiterate. The college at which I study Indian language necessary to my work reports that a high percentage of its incoming students require remedial English and mathematics studies. It is not “insulting” to the people to meet them where they are. I cannot imagine Christ deliberately using specialized words in communicating with the people, and when they are puzzled telling them to ask a priest what he meant. He did challenge them to think by using parables, but in so doing he went to the everyday experiences of the people to find the parallels they would be able to work with, to understand.
Warren Anderson
December 5, 2009
There’s a little (or perhaps not-so-little) thing called a dictionary. People should use one more often.
We either have a low view of the human capacity for knowledge and improvement, or we maintain a high view and trust that, with guidance (e.g., effective homilies and catechetical programs) people and priests will rise to the improvements found in the new translation. Furthermore, since Latin was never expunged from the Mass, a side-by-side presentation of any Latin (Sanctus, Agnus Dei) or Greek (Kyrie Eleison) next to the vernacular in a personal missal will aid in the reclamation of our Catholic identity, an identity which is predicated on a high view human intelligence.
There will always be lazy people who choose not to exercise their grey matter nor their capacity to conform to the will of God. In time, people will come to appreciate that word power (vocabulary and education) is the path to improving not only their temporal condition but a way to dispose themselves to God and thus improve their eternal condition.
An American Mother
December 5, 2009
I guess it’s just a fundamental difference in a vision of people.
If you truly believe that the majority of American Catholics are ‘functionally illiterate’ and that ‘meeting them where they are’ means patting them on the head and indulging them so that they never progress beyond ‘where they are’, now THAT is an elitist view.
People naturally grow and learn. That is what the human mind was made for. The Church should not assume stupidity and illiteracy in her members.
An American Mother
December 5, 2009
Warren, GMTA. But I think you said it better, with good examples.
Hidden One
December 5, 2009
Since (at least) the advent of the Roman canon, never until the 20th century has the liturgy of the Roman rite been celebrated in the vernacular of the uneducated, including back when the uneducated only spoke Latin.
Môlsem, when I was ten I had the English language competence to understand the forthcoming translation without looking up much more than the word ‘consubstantial’, which I would have probably guessed meant either “with” or “the same as”. I could at least likely correctly guess the meanings of ‘ineffable’ and ‘gibbet’, etc. Sometime before that age, I learned how to use a dictionary, at which point I was perfectly capable of understanding the text of the forthcoming translation so long as I had post-Mass access to a dictionary. Obviously, some of the deeper theological content might have escaped me for awhile unless someone taught me about it.
On that note, I’d like to explain that most of my in-university cradle Catholic Mass-attending peers (I am a convert) do not understand (or believe in) most of the theology in the rubrics of the Mass. They would understand a great deal more about the Mass if the church’s windows were stained glass depictions of the life of Christ, if the Mass was ad orientem, if proper vestments were used, if the GIRM was followed consistently, if the homilies were briefer, orthodox, and discussed things of real importance, and if Father more obviously cared about what he was doing. Such a Mass could be celebrated in Kiswahili (or Latin) and my peers would end up with a better grasp of it if they cared to than they do now, when they don’t see the need to. Right now, most of it sounds fairly meaningless (and reasonless) anyway.
Thanks be to God that the next generation will be raised on a Mass with at least semi-beautiful texts with accurate and even sometimes deep theology contained within.
Jeffrey Pinyan
December 5, 2009
The words “being” and “substance” and “essence” can be understood as meaning the same thing.
Consider that “consubstantial” (Eng.) translates “consubstantialem” (Lat.) which translates “homoousios” (Gk.). The “substance” is that which “stands” (stantia) “under” (sub); the “substance” of a thing is what that thing truly IS. The Greek “ousios” can also be rendered in English as “essence”, which comes from the Latin “esse” which is “to be”. The “essence” of a thing is what that thing truly IS (again).
The word “is” is simply a tense of “to be”, and “being” is the noun form of that.
All that being said: “one in being” is still ambiguous because it can be interpreted in more than one way (“one in being-with-the-Father” vs. “one-in-being with the Father”, or the idea that “one IN being with the Father” means “one being with the Father”, as if the Father and the Son were the same Person, which They are not). We don’t have such ambiguities with “consubstantial”.
Michael
December 5, 2009
being faithful to Rome is most important.
being faithful to one’s bishop is next.
but, being faithful to the Holy Spirit is the best!
Too bad the first two negate the third.
RJS
December 5, 2009
How do you figure, Michael?
Dan Hunter
December 5, 2009
I am “one in being” with a soap dish in that I and a soap dish both have existence.
However,
I am not of the same substance as the soap dish.
The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is God Almighty, as is the First Person of the Blessed Trinity, therefore they are of the same substance or “consubstantial”.
The Holy Trinity, being of a divine nature is identical to itself.
“Consubstantial” when applied to the relationship of the Son to the Father is accurate.
“One in being” is innacurate.
ssoldie
December 6, 2009
Eliminate the ‘fabricated’ liturgy of Annabell Bugnini and and his progressive committee that created it ‘N.O.M.’ and restore the ‘Immorial Mass’ that had been surpressed, as the Ordinary Rite.
theofraxis
December 8, 2009
Marcy asked:
One day I happened to be at a Melkite Rite mass and was just floored. I wanted to cry. “Why, oh why can’t we have this!”
You can! In fact, you already do! Do what I did 20 yrs ago: Start attending a Melkite Liturgy (we don’t call it mass). You don’t need permission. It’s a catholic church. I’ve never looked back.
Robert Speare
December 15, 2009
This servey is biassed. I want to vote to say “wait” but not because of some ineffable reason; I am well able to express why I want to wait. So for all of us who are in a similar position, we are unable to vote!
MP Flinn
December 16, 2009
I came to vote your poll,hoping for alternative choices. Unfortunately I have no choices that allow me to choose “wait” – until good English translations can be completed by English-speaking translators. Using the word “ineffable” prevents me from choosing statement two. My reasons are clear, not “ineffable”; they are stated in the article, in Bishop Trautman’s statements and in the presentations of former ICEL members such as Archbishop Denis Hurley of Durban, South Africa.
beth
December 19, 2009
Couldn’t take the survey because it didn’t offer anything that I could sign — yes, I agree with the article — And, I suppose if I can’t tolerate the english translations I could just start going to the spanish mass all of the time.
Fr. A.
December 21, 2009
MFlinn – the reasons articulated by Bp. Trautman include dissension from the theology expressed by the original Latin and the new translation, i.e. dissension from the faith of the Church. It would be unfortunate to ally oneself with that.
Michael, for someone who believes in the internal logic of Catholicism, the “first two” are almost always the only way to carry out the third.
Thomas Lewinski,O.P.
January 10, 2010
I totally agree with Fr. Ryan – we shoud wait!!!!!
RJS
January 10, 2010
We’ve waited 40 years, Fr. Lewinski. Peace and thanks for visiting.
Gene Audette, PhD
February 9, 2010
Just as I suspected. Yet another reactionary Latinist website.
RJS
February 9, 2010
Dr. Audette,
Thank you for your comment. I’m not sure how to take your label of “reactionary Latinist.” Was it meant to be an insult? The general tone of your comment would indicate this. Then again, there are those who would consider it a badge of honor.
I just took a quick look around and most everything is in English, there are some traditional as well as more modern Catholic prayers and links and I express the need to observe Catholic teaching as taught by the Magisterium without “adjusting it” for one’s personal tastes and convenience.
Does that make me a “reactionary Latinist” and is that a good or a bad thing? If a bad thing, what SHOULD I be instead?
jjoy
February 9, 2010
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/enoughwaiting/
If you have not already done so, please go to the link above to sign a petition to show your support of the new translation passed by our bishops.
I can hardly wait!
Pax vobis!
theofraxis
February 11, 2010
Yeah, that’s the trouble with the internet…every time I log on, looking for something mildly amusing, or inane, or scurrilous, or insipid, or incendiary, or just plain stupid, I find myself unable to escape those reactionary Latinist websites. The place is lousy with ‘em.