Throwback translation promoters confess without knowing it

And this will do two things. First, it will result in all those who follow this advice into mortal sin and second, it will deprive them of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in Holy Communion.

All, not some, all parishes will begin using the new translation at the beginning of Advent this year. This is not an option.

To respond to Father regarding literal vs. figurative speech. He gives an example from a Gospel reading. Okay. But the Gospel readings aren't changing, the text of the liturgy is changing.

And here's a case in which it is more figurative, not less figurative. Currently, we say:

"All: Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word
and I shall be healed."

In the new translation we will say:

"Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof,
but only say the word and my soul shall be healed."

I ask two questions: 1) which is more faithful to the text of the Gospel? 2) which is more figurative?

Clearly, the current translation is a dynamic interpretation of the original Latin text, it provides the meaning, yes, but it is less figurative, more literal with respect to the meaning.

The new translation is more figurative, more poetic, and not more obscure...No one will be confused by this text.

"One in being" with the Father is definitely easier to pronounce than "consubstantial with the Father. "One in being" is also more in keeping with the language of prayer whereas, consubstantial makes you feel like you are taking a course in chemistry or biology. For most of us who are not academic theologians/philosophers neither concept "one in being" or "consubstantial" is all that easy to apprehend but "one in being" certainly does a better job leading you in the right direction of understanding. I'm sure for all those of you who do have a handle and speak this language my explantation using my everyday vocabulary might seem rather off the mark. I'm just trying to speak for the average ordinary Catholic in the pew.

traditional Catholic theology teaches us that the Mysteries of God are infinitely beyond human comprehension

It would appear, then, that the translators have succeeded. The new Order of the Mass seems, also, to be mysterious and beyond human comprehension!

Mustard trees, dough, seeds, yeast, pearls of great price, lamps and their oil, etc., are all concrete images which express the mysteries of the kingdom of God. Maybe you've never been to a farm, baked your own bread, or seen an oil lamp, but none of those are abstract things.

Strictly speaking, there's no difference between consubstantial and one in being. However, "one in being" can suggest identity, (e.g., Bill is identical to that man over there); whereas consubstantial suggests something with no earthly parallel (BIll and Mary are different persons, but they are the same one substance). The point in that change is to be marginally less likely to suggest a heresy (that the Son and Father are the same person), more likely to suggest the truth (that the Son and the Father are the same substance), and to bring the English creed in line with the Spanish, French, German, Tagalog, Latin, etc. creeds.

One of my favorite hymns that sprung to mind when I read your favourite hymn is "Oh God our help in ages past, our hope for years to come, our shelter from the stormy past and our eternal home." etc. Perhaps that explains the difference of how we see the Eucharist celebrated. If we can't as much as extend a sign of peace to one another, how can we possibly call ourselves followers of Jesus whether we are Roman Catholics, Lutherans or Episcopaleans ? Orthodoxy needs to come to fruition in orthopraxis.

Our parish priest no longer says Mass facing the people

An apt metaphor...

Sacrifice of the Spotless Victim? I thought we were celebrating the Risen Christ who conquered sin and death, not a bloody re-crucifying of Him at every mass. Don't know who your parish priest is, but please keep him away from our parish. The last thing any parish needs is another throwback to the 17th century. If you're married, I hope your spouse doesn't see your "back in the pews with their heads covered where they belong" comment. Of all the ailments which plague this Church, the insistence on treating women as 4th class citizens is still the most egregious. I'm sure BXVI appreciates your toeing the party line . . . .

If DivineOrthopraxy likes going to Mass with the priest who says it in Latin with his back to the congregation, I say go ahead if it works for them. Please do not denigrate and treat as heretical those who prefer the vernacular with the priest facing the people because it works for us.

Sometimes I like to hear the Divine Liturgy in another rite than Roman. There I get a slightly different insight into the greatest of all mysteries, God.

Translation of ancient text is not easy. Literal I take to mean word for word instead of meaning for meaning. That in general the major differences between modern bibles. Since living languages are always changing, scholars will have continuous employment. We know when we have a word for word translation when the homily has to explain in great detail what the really reading means.

The real issue here is the refusal of the Vatican to truly consult with the English speaking community. Again we are seeing a repeat of the behavior that occurred with the destruction of the Gallican and Celtic rites as well as the extreme limits placed on the Mozarabic, Bragan and Ambrosian rites. Interestingly Rome has introduced the Anglican rite into the Church while attempting to denigrate the worship of the present day English speaking community.

This refusal is seen in other areas that are of greater concern. Taoiseach Enda Kenny sums up the attitude describing the Vatican, "the dysfunction, disconnection, elitism and the narcissism that dominate the culture of the Vatican to this day."

That some of us are willing to say to the Vatican, NO! Good event, bad event, who knows??

And how comfortable would Jesus be with your rules and regulations? Go preach to all nations? In the Latin tongue? Latin is the third language used, so why is it so sacred? The erros in translations in the Latin bible are numerous. I refer you to the Peshitta Bible for comparison. The gospel should be preached in the laguague of the common people. How far would the gospel have spread if the apostles had insisted that Armaic be THE language of the gospel? Read Matt 23.

The communal meal means that all are included at the table. Apparently, you do not agree. The sacrifice of the Mass reduces Jesus' life to his death. So why bother having all those stories about his teachings that essentially said, "all are included at the table." Jesus spoke in Aramaic and Hebrew. Latin wasn't part of his vocabulary. (Well, perhaps it was, but he wasn't using it.)

I feel incredibly sorry for you.

I love the Latin mass and I have no objection to hearing it again many times for it is a part of our heritage. But that you completely missed the point of the changes speaks to a great flaw in yourself. You have been a blind little Sadducee throughout all this time. How sad.

This kind of religion is an abomination. You, nor anyone else, priest bishop of pope has the right to offer Jesus crucified in a ritual manner on an altar. The Bible, which may be interpreted with wisdom, not literal fundamentalism, states clearly in Hebrews that Jesus dies once, for all. Period.
The Mass is a celebration of the entire life, death and resurrection of Our Lord. Period. He is risen. He is in our midst. I lives within and among us. The Last Supper is what is happening during the celebration of the eucharist, and Jesus is there, whole and entire, yes, but as Son of God savior, living, risen and everlasting King.
You don't see this, as many like you do not, including the clergy, because the evils of the Levitical priesthood have infected the church, making it the travesty of the Gospel it is, for many. The sacrifice has been made, it is we who give thanks. Period.
There are two, if not more Catholic churches living side-by-side, within the same institution. One is made up of the redeemed, and the other of the hypocrites who will be rebuked at the Judgement when they hear those awful words, "I never knew you".
I am not passing judgement on you. I cannot say you are among those rejected by our savior. I will say this: the church as you present it is a congregation of the damned. I would not count myself among them if I valued the love of God.
Let us say that my feeling of revulsion for this perversion of Christianity knows no bounds, and let it go at that.

Hilarious....your parish priest "doesn't allow..."? How quaint! And women back in the pews with their heads covered where they belong. oh my...what century were you born in? We "liberals" (oooohhhh such a nasty word--I'm so hurt) may be "twee" but your version of what is right with the Catholic world will make for a dwindling congregation of fossilized cranks and little old ladies with doilies on their heads.

I am a Christain because I have been washed clean by the blood of the lamb, assured redemption by Baptism and enjoy the Eucharist as a result of my Confirmation through the RCIA process. At no time in my reading of the Holy scripture have I seen that only the Ordained is to be the only "active participant" in the meal. If I recall the Bible in all forms says "This is my Body...This is My Blood....do this in memory of me". I am a woman who does no need to be put into her place, be deemed unworthy to show my head like the infidel nor be denied the RIGHT to share in the meal. If I understand what you are saying in your response, you really do not want ME in the Church nor my Children nor my Money. This comment causes me to think that I am not welcome in the Catholic Church and that it was a lie to say that catholic means universal.

Would this have been an argument against Vatican II originally? Would the expense of new vernacular missals, the NAB, and new OCP and St. Louis hymnals have been an argument against the reforms of Vatican II? If not, this is an intellectually dishonest argument. What about moving the altar or building a new altar to allow mass versus populum? Tearing down the altar rails? Buying rainbow stoles and new chasubles?

If the people pushing reform really cared about wasting parishes' money, maybe they should've done a decent, faithful (to the text and to the Church) translation the first time?

Mr. Scanlon: I'm glad that you have found a loving community w/ whom to worship and share your gifts, but you should know that your whole "come to the barrio" shtick grows a bit tiresome. First, Christ became incarnate to save all people. Certainly, the Gospel will comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; but, it's misguided to draw a line around a certain group within the Church (especially around one ethnic group or people of a certain socioeconomic status) and act like they are somehow more authentically the Church than those who are outside that circle. God plants Christian individuals and communities in a variety of locales, b/c the whole world needs to hear the Gospel. The farmer in Salina, Kansas, who patiently tills the land for 40 years faithfully embodies the Gospel in an important way, even though the Mass he attends may be in English. In short, a life of faithfulness does not take only one form.

Second, when you set yourself in contrast to simoniacs and pharisees, you run the risk of adopting the very stance you're attempting to eschew. All of a sudden you find yourself praying, "Thank you, Lord, that you did not make me like this suburbanite who drives an SUV and shops at Walmart." Please don't misunderstand me: I'm not saying there's not a place for fraternal correction in the body of Christ; but we need to carefully guard against an us vs. them mentality when relating to our brothers and sisters in Christ. The aim of the Gospel is to foster unity, not division ("neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free..."). We contribute towards this end by worrying about the planks in our own eye, rather than obsessing about the specks in others'.

Finally, if your life among this community is how you embody charity, you may want to take heed of our Lord's direction not to let your right hand know what your left is doing. I'm not saying you should hide where you live and minister; still, there always exists the danger that this sort of thing can become a source of pride in one's life. I think I've come across 10+ posts on NCR's website w/ you going on about "come to the Spanish Mass, in the barrio, etc.," Thank you for sharing that call; the rest of us will consider it. But, please don't count us out of the Kingdom if we end up living somewhere else. As Michael Sean Winters mentions in another blog post today, the task of sifting the wheat from the tares belongs in God's hands, and will take place on the last day. Until then, let us pray for one another, whatever our background, and seek to live in peace.

Jamie R on Jul. 23, 2011.
But the language of the new translation is MORE metaphorical than the old one. It preserves more of the imagery of scripture and of the mass, where the new translation drops it. For instance, "Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof" is more metaphorical than "I am not worthy to receive you," and it better preserves the imagery of Christ healing the centurion's daughter. Likewise, "and with your spirit," is more metaphorical than the alternative. "For you and for [the] many" conjures up an image of the great crowds of the saved. Of all the absurd claims you can make about the corrected translation, less metaphorical is probably the most nonsensical.

Metaphor only works by providing concrete images. Seeds, a mustard tree, coins, sheep, dough, fox dens, bird nests, roofs, the wind, birth, etc. are all conrete images.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1) "Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof".
What 'roof'? The roof of my mouth? Our bodies are not the 'houses
for our souls.' If they were---Jesus wouldn't have spent so much time
healing the sick. Our bodies are essential components of what a human
being is a 2/1 unit. The way that we say it now, "I am not worthy to
receive you"---indicates that as a complete human (body & soul) I need
to be healed.
BTW---the centurian had a son or servant, Jarius had the little girl
who died and Jesus came to raise her back to life.

2) "With your spirit"----also belies the fact that the priest is a human
being with a body and a soul, as well. It was a tenant
of 'clericalism' because the pries was perceived as always being in an
advanced state of spirituality----certainly far above the laity (who
were 'worldly'), that the priests' spirits were in constant contact
with God. I am sure that there are several priests who are holy, and
there are also many of the laity who are also holy. In the way we have
been greeting the priests "The Lord be with you. And also with you."
We have acknowledged that the Lord is with ALL OF US---and that all of
us are (and should be striving) to be worthy disciples of Christ.

3) "For you and the many". Jesus didn't die for all? Only for the many?
Christ died for ALL----we have the choice of rejecting the loving
action of Christ. God never forces love on any of us---but "God so
loved the world, that He gave His only Son." The one who is loved by
God, is the one who continually reaches out to God. That is a simple
concept that ALL can understand.

No one noticed you'd left, and no one is paying attention to your invitation to follow you. That's what happens when you let someone run you out.

I commend your integrity, Mr. Jaglowicz, in actually taking the step to leave the Church and admit it. So many folks who may be on your side of the aisle as it were have already left the Church, but lack the integrity to admit that fact.

I remain in the Roman Catholic Church for a variety of reasons. Though I know it may not be perfect (what institution run by human beings can ever be perfect?), she is still the Church founded by Christ Himself on the Rock of Peter.

I offer some of my reasons for staying, and some of the acknowledged areas in which the Church desperately needs to reform, for consideration.

Reform:

1. The Church, particularly in the US, has too little understanding of economic realities, despite the best efforts of individuals like Michael Novak and Father Robert Sirico, to correct these misunderstandings. Too often the Church advocates for economic and governmental initiatives that, on the surface appear to aid the poor and vulnerable, but in reality only lead to economic instability and a permanent dependent class.

2. The US Bishops have taken on a proclivity to throw their clergy to the wolves over the sexual abuse scandal. They refuse to stand up for their priests and go so far as to attempt to strip them of their canonical and civil rights to due process, the presumption of innocence until guilt is PROVEN, etc.

3. Bishops are far too fearful of telling the truth. They fear media backlash, reprisals and letters from the laity, etc. Their reluctance to tell the truth on matters of faith and morals in an unambiguous way leads to their predilection to punish or chastise priests who do tell the truth.

4. The reform of the Sacred Liturgy, returning it to a majestic, reverent and triumphant celebration of Christ's victory over sin and death is proceeding far too slowly for my taste. While the revised translation will be an incalculable improvement over the dreary banality of the translation we currently labor under, there is still far too much room for improvisation in the Mass, far too many banal and inane "hymns", far too little reverence, in my opinion.

5. There remain far too many disobedience and heterodox bishops and priests in ministry. There remain far too many disobedient and heterodox religious women in high profile ministries and positions. The Holy See desperately needs to take action and clean house.

Reasons for Staying (in no particular order):

1. Christ founded One Church. That Church would have four marks, she would be One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. The Roman Catholic Church has these four marks, and thus is the one Church founded by Christ.

2. The Seven Sacraments impart innumerable and incalculable graces upon the Church. Through the Sacrament of Penance, we receive pardon for our sins and are restored to a state of grace. Through the Sacrament of Holy Communion, we receive the very Presence of Our Lord, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. This, in and of itself, is enough reason to remain Roman Catholic.

3. Veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Saints.

4. Devotions like Stations of the Cross, the Rosary, Divine Mercy Chaplet, etc., bring home on a daily basis the mystery in which we live.

5. The Papacy, the symbol and guarantee of unity in the Church. In particular this present Pope, whom I love dearly, and the previous Pope, Blessed John Paul II, whom I had the good fortune to be with on several occasions and who was so like a father to me and so many countless others.

6. Tradition and history. The Roman Catholic Church in a very real sense built Western Civilization. The Roman Catholic Church is humanist in the very best sense of the word: to be fully human is to be fully alive in Christ.

7. Sure and certain teaching, dogma, doctrine, upon which one can rely with complete trust.

...I could go on and on, but I think this will suffice. I offer these, as I said, for consideration. I recognize, also as I said, that no institution governed by humans, even with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, will ever be perfect in this life, but the Church comes closer than anything else ever will. I pray for your return to the Church, Mr. Jaglowicz. Come home.

Only in Luke's Gospel does St. Jerome translate that phrase as "supersubstantial." In the other Synoptic Gospels, he translates it as "daily." In other words, the singular translation should not necessarily be taken as normative. Further, in the other early translations of the Bible (Armenian, Coptic, Syriac) it is also given as "daily."

Thank you for sharing your knowledge. Fascinating stuff.

Or, as some Benedictine Monastics use for the "Glory Be", the simple "as always before, so now and evermore."

Phil asks parenthetically: "(I wonder what Gabriel"s orginal Aramaic might have been?)"

Or, rather, Luke's, who, along with so much, alone records this interchange.

But was not Luke writing in Greek, for Theophilus?

Personally I think we should go back to praying the revolutionary Magnificat and call it a day, as monks and nuns have done for centuries, forever and ever. Amen.

Salve Regina too . . .

"Reign" comes from the word for king ("rex"). A reign, strictly speaking, is the reign of a king, and is metaphorically extended to other things.

So, why do you hate women?

Gosh Eamon, I thought Jesus spoke in Aramaic - although I had a first year seminarian classmate who thought it was Yiddish. I remember that the prof admonished him that he would have to strive for mediocrity.
And by the way, myth is not a language. It is a gere of literature, and I would be loath to proscribe Jesus from using any genre - whether it be myth, or legend, which uses allegory, metaphor, analogy - and yes - parable. Which one of these does the "camel and needle" story fall under?

Brandon on Jul. 24, 2011.

You stated:

"A writer loses all credibility when saying: "Following their program of disowning Vatican II documents the way the Nazis did the Versailles Treaty..."
Really? A Nazi reference an an article about the new translation of the Roman Missal? This is offensive against the people who actually survived Nazi torture. That very statement is inaccurate anyway. As an example, the Vatican II documents clearly say that Latin is to be retained and that chant is to be preserved. These have long been disregarded.
Anyway, the point of this article is rather backwards anyway. The old, outgoing "translation" left out many of the metaphors in favor of using "plain language." For example, the new translation will say in the Second Eucharistic Prayer: "...by sending down your Spirit upon them like the dewfall..." This dewfall reference was omitted in the outgoing translation. Another one: "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof..." has layers of meaning with reference to the Centurion, but the outgoing translation only has "receive you" and deletes that deeper meaning."
------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon, many, many writers have expressed the similarity between the manner of governance within the Nazi/Communist socialist states and the governing style of JP II and Benedict within the Church.

In fact, if you go into the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC (on the 3rd Floor) there is a statement of Nazi "beliefs". The M.O. of JP II and Benedict's papacies are practically identical. My students, who were in the Museum in early April, analyzing the role of the Church during the rise of the Third Reich----were struck by the comparison.

Secondly, I don't what or how you are reading "Sacrosanctium Concilium" the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, but the document had four action-direction goals that the Council underscored for the Liturgy:
1) to give vigor to the Christian life of the faithful
2) to adapt what is changeable to the needs of today,
3) to promote union among all who believe in Christ and
4) to strengthen the Church' mission to all humankind.

The Constitution declared that the 'Liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the church is directed, and at the same time it is the fountain from which all its power flows" (Sacrosanctium Concilium 10).

The church enacts itself in its eucharistic celebrations with everyone playing a role: greeters, lectors, ushers, singers, presiders, extraordinary eucharistic ministers, active participants all (Sacrosanctium Concilium 48).

And in order to "actively participate" the people:
1) must be well disposed
2) must know and understand what they are doing.
Hence, the vernacular was established as the preferred means of celebrating the Liturgy.

Christ is present in the celebration of the Eucharist through the power of the Holy Spirit. At the first Pentecost, after the Holy Spirit descended upon all WITHIN the Upper Room, the people outside of the Upper Room were assembled around it when they heard the sound of the Wind. When the Apostles came out to proclaim the Gospel to the assembled people, each one of them HEARD the proclamation in their OWN language.

As a note, on March 7, 1965, Pope Paul VI demonstrated his support for the reform of the Liturgy, by celebrating Mass in Italian (the vernacular of the people of his diocese) on the very first day it was permitted.

Your comment about "metaphors" being left out before in favor of using "plain lanugage" is nothing but an attempt to restore the same old, bad, tired concepts of reward and punishment that was the heart of the Latin liturgy of pre-Vatican II. It was a vision of scarcity, of fear, of trying to placate a distant and angry God. There was no attempt to try to understand that Jesus offered us the mystical banquet---and each liturgy was an invitation to celebrate the feast of divine union.

We are instead reverting back to seeing the Eucharist as a means to define membership and 'worthy' membership based upon formulas of "merting" heaven, worrying about liturgical errors that make Masses invalid or illicit, or the means of winning some moral achievement contest.

All of these are nothing but juridical concepts of what the liturgy is, the duties of obligation instead of a delight which is the mystical banquet that Jesus really offered to us. And Jesus participated in the Passover, the Last Supper, in the Aramaic language----the simple everyday language of the very ordinary people who sat at the table with him.

It reminds me of a story. An angel walking down the street carrying a torch in one hand and a pail of water in the other. A woman asked the angel, "What are you going to do with the torch and with the pail?" The angel said, "With the torch, I'm going to burn down the mansions of heaven, and with the pail of water, I'm going to put out the fires of hell. Then we shall see who really loves God."

And to those who tell others that their "metaphor" of God is the only and correct one, then "it's not him" ....and to live with paradox and ambiguity is quite difficult for people who need to have absolute certainty.

The only practical suggestion is to be a faithful Catholic.

at the risk of repeating myself,
just come to the Spanish Mass
in the poorest neighborhood
and come to celebrate the most holy sacrament of the Mass.