Roman Catholics launch missal attack; liturgical shrapnel reported
The news of what exactly would be in the new Roman Catholic missal preceded the initiation of its use. That news arrived in something that should sound quite familiar to anyone listening to political news in the U.S. lately: through a wiki, in this case Wikispooks, a web site hosting files said to be from the new missal.
Last Sunday was the first Sunday for using the now-leaked missal in some parts of the globe. The honor fell to New Zealand, as it quite often does, for events involving the international date line. Liturgy-aware blogger Bosco Peters collected some responses from the faithful:
.... As a matter of conscience will not attend this weekend..... I’m not a fan, for the record. The very base reason for the whole change, to me, is just, well I could use a lot of words, but not worthy of the whole mess – let’s say that. “To get back to a more accurate translation of the original Latin” – whaaat?
.... The collegiality of Vatican II has gone out the window, the ‘literal’ translations from the latin are in no way our vernacular, some of the words used are difficult to understand, much less pray. In our congregation, there was a burst of laughter at the word ‘consubstantial’ in the Creed. With any luck, commonsense will prevail and the changes will be ignored. The new translation is an object lesson in how to retreat into an esoteric ghetto and lose any young people. I cannot believe that the Holy Spirit is involved.
Folks intrigued by this story might also like to browse the information from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
http://www.nccbuscc.org/romanmissal/
There is as well this interesting explanatory note on process from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.
http://www.cccb.ca/site/eng/media-room/statements-a-letters/2840-update-on-the-new-english-language-translation-of-the-roman-missal-for-use-in-canada
Posted by Rod Gillis![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 5, 2010 7:09 PM
In our congregation, there was a burst of laughter at the word ‘consubstantial’ in the Creed.
Translation FAIL. (And, translation? FAIL!)
Prayers for our (even longer) suffering RC friends...
JC Fisher
Posted by tgflux![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 5, 2010 7:11 PM
The Liturgy Gnomes in the subterranean caverns underneath the Vatican have evidently lost their minds. "Consubstantial"? Well, yes, the Latin text is "consubstanialem Patri," which translates the original Greek "homoousion tô patri." (*) But Cranmer settled that one 450+ years ago, and the International Consultation of English Texts agreed on an ecumenical revision about 35 years ago. I suppose next we will hear that the Vatican has reinvented the wheel.
(*) Yes, I know that translating "homoousion" as "consubstantialem" is a bit iffy. Oh well.
Posted by Bill Moorhead![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 5, 2010 8:18 PM
" Now of one substance was consubstantialem.
Now its of one substance not consubstantialem."
--with apologies to the Four Lads.
Posted by Rod Gillis![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 5, 2010 10:01 PM
The Pray Tell blog has had much discussion on the missal translation ... http://www.praytellblog.com/
Posted by crystal watson![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 5, 2010 10:07 PM
Ok, I'm uber liberal of course, but I'm going to be the lone dissenter I guess. I work for Catholics, I get to hear that dreck that is the 60's translation every Sunday, and after reading the new translation I am so relieved. And as far as the occasional "consubstantial", well if you really care about the creed, you're going to say "What the hell does that mean?", go look it up, and discover that it means a whole lot of things all at once that one simple English phrase isn't going to encapsulate. You don't get to just say it and go on, and I don't think that's a bad thing at all, nor do I think it is a bad thing to be intellectually challenged by the liturgy.
If they had just done this right the first time--and I honestly and humbly do not think they did after spending years with it now--we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Posted by Clint Davis![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 6, 2010 1:02 PM