Sometimes I’ve dreamed of being a reporter at this paper but I would have to stick with some other beat and stay away from religion. I could never write anything like this, which makes claims such as: the current translation “did not always adhere tightly to the Latin.” Umm, no kidding.
And then the story digs up every conceivable critic of the new translation, including my friend Fr. Anthony Ruff, who is quoted (one never knows what relationship there is between what is quoted and what was actually said) in defense of “consubstantial.”
After all, he is a brilliant man, who, unlike so many others who have criticized this term, is aware that early Christians actually made up the term because nothing else would suffice. It has a long history.
However, Fr. Ruff does complain about awkward syntax and other issues, and wishes that the new version would be better. No doubt he is right here. People close to the translation have said as much. But, truly, we’ve waited 40 years for this. We can’t let any more time go by. The current translation I regard as destructive to the faith. It cannot be permitted to last any longer.
I, for one, am glad to see "tightly" in this story, since it's also in the new translation: the Preface for Eucharistic Prayer I for Reconciliation talks about God being bound to the human race by a bond of love, no longer "so secure" as in 2008, but "so tight" that it can't be undone. Don't like "tight". "Deal with" it! (that's in one of the Prefaces for Lent).
Hmm. I see what you mean about the powers of under and over statement in the New York Times piece. I do agree that the huge transition was from Latin to English. This need not be so arduous or so painful, although some difficulty is inevitable. Delaying won't ease the necessity or the process.
As many have said, "if you don't like the translation, use Latin" (the parishioners can then pick whatever translation they want, good or bad, inclusive language or not)
…love the last sentence…
Msgr. Chris Maloney, a pastor in Yonkers who had backed one of the resolutions, said, “When you think about it, the change from the Latin to English was a much more difficult transition, and the church survived.”
…yea, on life support and is now mostly braindead.
1) Pray that Pope Benedict upgrades Summorum Pontificum to an apostolic constitution (bull). Holy Father, please enshrine the Tridentine Rites as a magisterial liturgy on a par with Missale Romanum 1969.
2) Once that's done, let the progressives do whatever they want to the Mass within the confines of their communities. The progressives are going to mutilate the 2010 translation, just as they mutilated the 1973 translation. Nothing's going to change.
3) It's time for a Roman liturgical "no fault divorce". Let the low and high church go their separate ways. Fair thee well. I suspect, however, that some progressives won't be happy unless they finally receive the "Act of 'Vatican II Spirit' Uniformity" they've desired for almost 50 years.
While the new translation is imperfect and structures that brought it about might be imperfect, it is so much better than the current one that I can't wait until the current one is banished to the bins of obscurity and forgotten like a bad dream. Once we have the new, we might just be on the path to perfection, not so much with the English, but with the theology and doctrine of the Church that was obscured in the old translation. Fr. Allan J. McDonald
There won't be widespread rejection of this piece of garbage, as much as I'd like to see public burnings of it, or observe celebrants and people simply refusing to use it. The vast majority of the philistines in the pews will never notice the changes unless you tell them, "we have a new missal".
Reap what we sow. We Latins could've avoided this "translation war" simply by not translating most of the Mass. The ordinary, offertory, Canon, and priestly silent prayers should all have remained in Latin. That would've prevented much of this trauma.
The fifty year obsession with the vernacular has reached its logical end — in utter chaos.
Over at PT, I pointed out (a bit sarcastically) that the organization of these "petitions" against the new translation by a group of priests in New York made big, splashing headlines, but after actually looking at the texts, the same priests withdrew the petitions – a story which up until now had gone mysteriously "unreported". I would not be surprised at all if most of the stories of support are indeed going unreported…. when you have to go as far as citing the Association of Catholic Priests and a "much smaller group in Australia"…and then turn to Fr. Ryan's failed "What if We Just Said Wait" petition as sources… that's classic NYT reporting there!
Anon at 11:14 –
If what you claim is true… that the people "in the pews" won't notice the new translation unless it is pointed out, then why would it be desirable to have them reject it? And if they simply refuse to use it (actually, the pastor of a parish would have to be the one to refuse to use it), how would they know whether they object to it or not? When the new translation is implemented this coming Novemebr and there are almost no complaints from the pews, will this be enough to finally quell this ridiculous line of reasoning?