Two views

This is fascinating. Two presentations on the new translation. Two very different reports of the reactions of those in attendance. And each is, in a real way, true.

“Faithful assured New Roman Missal will only add ‘Sacred Spice’” in the Detroit Examiner says this about a recent presentation:

Questions flew at Fr. Fragomeni one by one as it became clear that the faithful are suspicious and against change for change’s sake. “Are we undoing the church and liturgical reform…?…closing the window on Vatican II…?… the new language hints at Roman lawyering… why?… is it more exclusive rather than inclusive…?…how will the changes bring people back to the church…?… is there any spiritual advantage…?… is this only being imposed in the U.S….?… do we have to do this…?…what is the cost…?…and in the vernacular, “If it ain’t broke, why fix it?”

“Priest who helped revise missal to give workshops” in the Catholic Transcript of Hartfort CT archdiocese quotes Msgr. Jim Moroney:

I have never finished a day with priests in which there were more than one or two people at the most who … had anything but enthusiasm for the implementation. … I suspect that a couple of weeks after this goes into effect, most people will have forgotten the old translation.

*          *           *          *          *

I will permit myself to correct one small misstatement of Msgr. Moroney. He claims that “involved in the translation at every stage have been musicians, scholars of the English language, and pastors and Latinists and theologians and Biblicists.” No musician from ICEL was involved in the final stage when Vox Clara and the Congregation for Divine Worship made thousands and thousands of changes to the text submitted by the bishops’ conferences. And judging by some of the unfortunate changes with their impossible accent patterns, e.g., in the Preface cadences, I am confident in saying no musician was consulted who understands how the preface tone works. Oh well.

Posted

in

by

Editor

Tags:

Comments

55 responses to “Two views”

  1. Janet Darcy Avatar
    Janet Darcy

    Take it from Janet, Msgr Maroney had better leave PLENTY of time for questions when he comes to Providence. See you May 2nd.

    Reply
  2. G. Michael McGuire Avatar
    G. Michael McGuire

    I would love to have a discussion with the “scholars of the English language” who came up with these two gems:

    Prayer Over the Offerings
    Saturday, Fourth Week of Lent:

    Be pleased, O Lord, we pray,
    with these oblations you receive from our hands,
    and even when our wills are defiant
    constrain them mercifully to turn to you.

    Preface VIII of Sundays in Ordinary Time:

    For, when your children were scattered afar by sin,
    through the Blood of your Son and the power of the Spirit,
    you gathered them again to yourself,
    that a people, formed as one by the unity of the Trinity,
    made the body of Christ and the temple of the Holy Spirit,
    might, to the praise of your manifold wisdom,
    be manifest as the Church.

    But, wow, the books LOOK nice!

    Reply
  3. Graham Wilson Avatar
    Graham Wilson

    Mgr Moroney: I suspect that a couple of weeks after this goes into effect, most people will have forgotten the old translation

    I very much doubt it, but what else would we expect him to say?

    Reply
    1. Chris Grady Avatar
      Chris Grady

      Funny you should ask, Graham.

      I believe he’s famous for starting off sentences with “Just between you and I” and, unsurprisingly, the topic often turns to food, and lots of it.

      Reply
  4. John Kelleher Avatar
    John Kelleher

    Given the absence of musicians, who made the decision to have two different intonations for The Lord Be With You? During the Preface Dialogue we find the familiar “do do re mi re re” but in the other three places the new “re re do re re”. Not that either is difficult, but standardization would be nice.

    Reply
    1. Samuel J. Howard Avatar
      Samuel J. Howard

      Why would standardization be nice? Traditionally, there was variation in these tones. Indeed, there are in the 1962 both Festal and Ferial tones for the preface dialogue.

      Reply
      1. Chris Grady Avatar
        Chris Grady

        In the same Mass?

      2. John Kelleher Avatar
        John Kelleher

        I don’t believe it’s an either/or situation as written. Just in 3 places the priest intones it one way and in the fourth he intones it differently. Strikes me as arbitrary. I’d not be surprised if most of our priests just use the familiar throughout, so I wonder why they went through the effort of getting “new” tones at all.

      3. Samuel J. Howard Avatar
        Samuel J. Howard

        You obviously don’t use the ferial and the festal tone for the preface both in the same Mass, however, the words “Dominus Vobiscum” are properly always sung to more than one tone in the same Mass according to the ’62 Missal.

        A Mass on Ash Wednesday around here might have “Dominus Vobiscum sung in accordance with the rubrics 4 different ways:

        Greetings during the Blessing of Ashes: Simple Tone: Do, Do, Do, Do, Do, La.

        Greeting before the collect: Solemn Tone (which is ad libitum festal or ferial): Sol, La, La, Sol, La, La, Sol, Sol

        Greeting before the offertory (Solemn Tone as above)

        Greeting before the Gospel: “Another Tone Ad Libitum”: Do, Do, Do, La, Do, Do

        Greeting before the Preface: Ferial Tone: Sol, La, Ti, Sol, La, Ti, La

        Greeting before the postcommunio: Solemn Tone as Above.

        Even the simplest set up, which has the greetings before the collects, and the Gospel sung on Do will have a different tone for “Dominus Vobiscum” at the preface (either festal or ferial).

  5. Alan Griffiths Avatar
    Alan Griffiths

    Re comment above:

    Preface VIII of Sundays in Ordinary Time:

    For, when your children were scattered afar by sin,
    through the Blood of your Son and the power of the Spirit,
    you gathered them again to yourself,
    that a people, formed as one by the unity of the Trinity,
    made the body of Christ and the temple of the Holy Spirit,
    might, to the praise of your manifold wisdom,
    be manifest as the Church.

    This seems to me to illustrate one of the problems with the 2010 edit. It places the phrase “through the blood of your Son …” before the phrase “you chose to gather..” presumably trying to follow the order of the Latin. What makes spoken sense in Latin makes less spoken sense in English, of course.

    Placing the first phrase in the third line would be better English speech, surely, and would allow the Trinity reference in the next line (I think) some context.

    I hope that contributors will be able to identify other instances where the 2010 edit has actually made the text more difficult to proclaim.

    I have noted before that in the end a substantial revision of this translation will be necessary. As we get used to using it and engaging with its literary structures, so it will be possible to build up an intelligent record of what needs to be done.

    So, while I’m glad that the books “look nice” (your correspondent’s term, I think), I hope that they will contain plenty of space for pencilled annotations and corrections.

    Alan Griffiths.

    Reply
    1. Chris Grady Avatar
      Chris Grady

      “pencilled annotations and corrections”

      Canon Griffiths!

      Leaving aside the obvious, which is that any document coming out of the Vatican curia could never possibly need corrections, perfection residing as it surely does in everything they say and do, surely you’re not suggesting people resort to what Father Williams (Australia’s answer to Monsignor Moroney) has called “liturgical anarchy?”

      Reply
    2. G. Michael McGuire Avatar
      G. Michael McGuire

      Look at the 1998 and 2008 versions, both of which, by the way, faithfully translate the Latin’s VOLUISTI, a not unimportant word when it comes to God. So much for the utter nonsense of “Vox Clara reviewing the ICEL translation and making recommendations in light of LA and RT.” And Moroney’s UTTER NONSENSE about “English scholars” – how is someone with his title/office allowed to bloviate such obvious untruths unchecked? I’m with Xavier Rindfleisch on this: it’s time the Church knew WHO made these disastrously absurd changes and WHY. But please, Monsignor, spare us the “thousands of consultants” and “English scholars.” That is simply what you find in a field where a significant number of bovines have been grazing!

      See the 1998 version:
      When sin had scattered your children afar,
      you chose to gather them back to yourself
      through the blood of your Son and the power of the Spirit.
      Thus a people made one by the oneness of the Trinity
      shines forth as your Church,
      the body of Christ and the temple of the Spirit,
      to the praise of your manifold wisdom.

      and 2008
      For, when sin had scattered your children afar,
      you chose to gather them again to yourself
      through the Blood of your Son and the power of the Spirit,
      so that a people made one from the unity of the Trinity
      might be revealed as your Church,
      the Body of Christ and the Temple of the Spirit,
      to the praise of your manifold wisdom.

      The original Latin:
      Quia filios, quos longe peccati crimen abstulerat,
      per sanguinem Filii tui Spiritusque virtute,
      in unum ad te denuo congregare voluisti:
      ut plebs, de unitate Trinitatis adunata,
      in tuae laudem sapientiae multiformis
      Christi corpus templumque Spiritus nosceretur Ecclesia.

      Reply
  6. Philip Endean SJ Avatar
    Philip Endean SJ

    Even I would get nervous about putting pencil marks into the beautiful VC 2010 volumes.
    But can we find ways of circumventing the system so that 1998 and 2008 are widely available for tacit substitution?

    Reply
    1. Chris Grady Avatar
      Chris Grady

      The question, Philip, is not “can we find ways” (ways, as every good Jesuit knows, can ALWAYS be found) – it’s more like “who’s to stop us?” remembering that Rome’s presumed worldwide local liturgical police (the bishops) might not be all that keen policing a text which is so vastly different from the one they agreed to, voted on, apporved and submitted in 2008 (and, indeed, 1998).

      Reply
      1. Brigid Rauch Avatar
        Brigid Rauch

        Who owns the copyright on the ICEL version?

  7. Gerard Flynn Avatar
    Gerard Flynn

    “The books will be paid for by the Catholic Cemetery Association.”

    Is this an omen?

    Reply
    1. Jeremy Stevens Avatar
      Jeremy Stevens

      Yes, this Vox Clara Missal is DOA

      Reply
      1. Chris Grady Avatar
        Chris Grady

        Surely in VoxClaraesque that would be AOD?

        (Getting the letters in the correct order when referring to Vox Clara is a bit like using the words “Moroney” and “principle” in the same sentence – just doesn’t work.)

  8. Janet Darcy Avatar
    Janet Darcy

    Take if from Janet, its looking uglier than week old road kill on Rt. 146 headed to Worcester!

    Reply
  9. Chris Grady Avatar
    Chris Grady

    Brigid Rauch :
    Who owns the copyright on the ICEL version?

    Brigid I think the answer’s in the question! ICEL.

    Reply
  10. G. Michael McGuire Avatar
    G. Michael McGuire

    As we prepare for the Fifth Sunday of Lent, take a look at the Latin Collect, then at the beautiful way the 2008 ICEL team translated it, and then the wreck that occurred when the “scholars of the English language” of Monsignor Moroney’s team “had at it” (with hatchet and pick-axe):

    Collect, Fifth Sunday of Lent:
    Quaesumus, Dómine Deus noster,
    ut in illa caritáte,
    qua Fílius tuus díligens mundum morti se trádidit,
    inveniámur ipsi, te opitulánte, alácriter ambulántes.

    ICEL, 2008:
    We pray, Lord our God,
    that by your help we may be found
    eagerly walking in that same charity
    with which your Son handed himself over to death
    out of love for the world.

    VOX CLARA, 2010:
    By your help, we beseech you, Lord our God,
    may we walk eagerly in that same charity
    with which, out of love for the world,
    your Son handed himself over to death.

    The first line of the Vox Clara is incomprehensible, even if you add a comma . . . what VC wants to say is what ICEL did say in 2008 with no problem.

    Along the way, Vox Clara lost “inveniamur” – so much for accuracy, LA, RT, and Monsignor Moroney’s nonsense. “Scholars of the English language” indeed!

    The bishops of the English-speaking world really should confront the English-speaking people at CDW and demand to know how this embarrassing Vox Clara Missal EVER received the “confirmatio”.

    Reply
    1. Samuel J. Howard Avatar
      Samuel J. Howard

      The first line of the Vox Clara is incomprehensible,

      This is simply not true. This kind of exaggerated claim poisons the well of discussions of the advantages and disadvantages of the new translations.

      The first line is part of a sentence and as such isn’t comprehensible, but the same is true of the 2008. But this kind of rearranging of clauses doesn’t ipso facto make it incomprehensible.

      E.g. this verse from “Holy God We Praise Thy Name”:

      Spare Thy people, Lord, we pray,
      By a thousand snares surrounded:
      Keep us without sin today,
      Never let us be confounded.
      Lo, I put my trust in Thee;
      Never, Lord, abandon me.

      Reply
      1. G. Michael McGuire Avatar
        G. Michael McGuire

        You’re wrong.

        The first line of “Holy God” is a direct petition, and it is very clear that “by a thousand snares” refers to the object of that petition, “Thy people,” since “Lord, we pray” is the vocative of the sentence.

        “By your help” is simply misplaced . . . one wants to hear “By your leave” or some such polite introductory element before “We beseech you,” since “By your help” has nothing to do with the “beseeching” and ought not to have been attached to it. Perhaps: “By your help may we walk eagerly in the way of charity, we beseech you, Lord God.” But it simply does NOT belong in its present position.

        But let’s cut to the real chase, Mr. Howard: HOW IS 2010 AN IMPROVEMENT OVER 2008, since it a) changes the word order of the Latin unnecessarily, and as it turns out, unhelpfully, since it has led to incomprehensibility and b) contrary to LA and RT has completely eliminated the principal verb of the petition, “inveniamur,” and, c) contrary to those same documents, turned the subordinate participle “ambulantes” into the main verb of the petition?

        Again I ask: Why are conservative people, like yourself, defending a translation that a) mistranslates the Latin; 2) violates the governing documents of the Holy See; 3) butchers literate English?

        Put down the Kool-Aid and the pom-poms and join other conservatives in asking CDW how they dare look the Holy Father straight in the eye and say, “All that you have asked of us, we have done.”

        And just wait till the full, detailed analysis of the Vox Clara Missal comes out, about six months to a year into its use . . . how embarrassing for all those who, knowing how bad it was, kept the cheerleading going . . . and for what?

        Here’s an “exaggerated claim” that “poisons the well”: “involved in the translation at every stage have been musicians, scholars of the English language, and pastors and Latinists and theologians and Biblicists.”

        At every stage? Not at the last…

      2. Samuel J. Howard Avatar
        Samuel J. Howard

        But let’s cut to the real chase, Mr. Howard: HOW IS 2010 AN IMPROVEMENT OVER 2008,

        It doesn’t seem to be, but I never said it was. Your shouting is incredibly rude.

        But 2010 is an improvement over the current translation. Since the options we have now are the current translation and the 2010, I think, for now, we should go ahead with the 2010.

      3. Jeffrey Herbert Avatar
        Jeffrey Herbert

        Samuel;

        I am with you on this one. To me, “incomprehensible” means that a person is unable to cull any meaning. “Is what such man likes pond could gear with large lilacs seen heard what?” is an “incomprehensible” sentence (if it’s a sentence at all). Saying, “We beseech Thee, Oh God, as your people who, by acts of your grace are led to a deeper understanding of your word, to grant us your mercy and forgiveness so that we may, by that same grace, be granted eternal life.” is not “incomprehensible”. Awkward, yes. Perhaps unwise as a proclaimed text: Yes. But not “incomprehensible”. You are right that such characterizations only weaken an argument.

        It’s much like calling the current translation “void of any meaning” or “completely stripped of theological content”. It is neither… although there are some places where it is void of some meaning, and there are places where theological depth has been made shallow. But completely? No…

      4. G. Michael McGuire Avatar
        G. Michael McGuire

        Jeffrey, of course you’re with Samuel on this one. As you are on other blogs as well. We get it. Both of you think 2010 is “at least better than what we have.”

        With its multiple mistranslations, its multiple violations of the Holy Father’s clear wishes (Liturgiam authenticam and the Ratio translationis), its repeated butchering of proper and precise English (“awkward” indeed!), and as an unnecessary mutilation of a perfectly accurate and literate translation approved by the world’s English-speaking bishops in 2008, it is unworthy of the Church’s liturgy which it communicates and the Church’s faithful whom it serves.

        THAT’S WHAT I’M SAYING. And what you can’t bring yourself to admit in public.

        And you and Samuel are EXACTLY the type of sheeple that ecclesiastical wheelers and dealers like Monsignor Moroney are counting on. So good for you.

        As I said, once the Missal is up and running, and the priests have had some time tripping over the “awkward” orations, and the detailed critiques (and possibly the story of the inside machinations that foisted them upon us) have been published, it will be fascinating to hear the tune you’re both singing then.

      5. Samuel J. Howard Avatar
        Samuel J. Howard

        THAT’S WHAT I’M SAYING. And what you can’t bring yourself to admit in public.

        No, I’ll admit some of that. The problems with the new translation make it “unworthy of the Church’s liturgy which it communicates and the Church’s faithful whom it serves.” But it’s also still better than the current translation.

        I’d also like to think we can disagree without throwing personal insults at each other. There’s no need for you to call as “sheeple” or “kool-aid drinkers”.

  11. Jeffrey Herbert Avatar
    Jeffrey Herbert

    My experience (having just recently completed 4 different workshops with both parish musicians from across our Diocese, and with priests and Deacons from the same) is that the reaction received and the attitude towards the new translation all depends on who you are speaking to. It would be interesting to know who the “faithful” were in the first article cited. Were they a group of parishioners? Were they a group of Liturgists at a specialized meeting of some kind? It says that they were “Pontiac Vicariate ” members, but that could mean anything from a group of DRE’s to Priests and musicians or just about anything. The questions asked (if they are in fact being reported accurately) have a “talking points” feel to them… legitimate questions, but oddly pointed in their viewpoint.

    Just last weekend I gave a presentation at a conference at Ave Maria University… those in attendance were unanimously in favor of the new translation, at least those in my session, and in speaking with conference attendees throughout the day, that seems to be the concensus… OF THIS GROUP. As long as reports keep coming from meetings of “this group” or “that group”, there will be this polarized image of the reception of the new translation. This same thing can be experienced by reading this blog, and then reading other particular blogs that represent other points of view. The differences of opinion are very real, and the numbers that support the new translation are considerable, as is the number who oppose it. Both of the above reports are TRUE, but they don’t give any real insight into the overall reception of the new translation but rather they highlight the distinct points of view of various groups of individuals withing the church.

    Overall, I have to agree with Msgr. Moroney… although I think it will be a little longer than a few weeks! I am suspecting that in some places, Pastors are not going through the “catechesis” process with parishioners because they…

    Reply
  12. Jeffrey Herbert Avatar
    Jeffrey Herbert

    ….have concluded that if they say nothing, the majority of parishioners will probably not even notice. Sadly, such a view is probably right on the mark.

    Msgr. Moroney recently spoke to the Priests and deacons of our Diocese at the annual convocation. That may well have been the meeting he was citing in his article because that was pretty much the reaction. Perhaps we are just an exceptional Diocese in which all of the Priests who happen to support the new translation just coincidenatlly reside. Perhaps (as has been suggested in some circles) every other Priest in every other Diocese secretly is fiercely opposed to the new translation. But I doubt it.

    Reply
    1. G. Michael McGuire Avatar
      G. Michael McGuire

      And there’s a reason that in his meetings with priests, Monsignor Moroney’s principal schtick is “obedience.”

      Would that he and the rest of the Vox Clara Gang had thought of “obedience” when they were violating the norms set forth by the Holy See in Liturgiam authenticam and the Ratio translationis.

      I’m sure that NONE of the presentations parallel the Latin / 2008 / 2010 as I have done in ALL of my presentations on the new translation.

      Jeffrey, when shown the 2008 and 2010 side-by-side, guess which one the participants at MY gatherings have favored? Can you hazard a guess as to which of these texts the priests preferred?

      2008
      For when sin had scattered your children afar,
      you chose to gather them again to yourself
      through the Blood of your Son and the power of the Spirit,
      so that a people made one from the unity of the Trinity
      might be revealed as your Church,
      the Body of Christ and the Temple of the Spirit,
      to the praise of your manifold wisdom.

      2010
      For when your children were scattered afar by sin,
      through the Blood of your Son and the power of the Spirit,
      you gathered them again to yourself,
      that a people, formed as one by the unity of the Trinity,
      made the body of Christ and the temple of the Holy Spirit,
      might, to the praise of your manifold wisdom,
      be manifest as the Church.

      and which of these two?

      2010
      Almighty ever-living God,
      who are wonderful in the ordering of all your works,
      may those you have redeemed understand
      that there exists nothing more marvelous
      than the world’s creation in the beginning
      except that, at the end of the ages,
      Christ our Passover has been sacrificed.
      Who lives and reigns for ever and ever.

      2008
      Almighty everlasting God,
      who are marvelous in ordering all your works,
      let those you have redeemed
      understand that still more wonderful
      than the world‘s creation in the beginning
      is that, at the end of the ages,
      Christ our Passover has been sacrificed.
      Who lives and reigns…

      Reply
      1. Samuel J. Howard Avatar
        Samuel J. Howard

        Jeffrey, when shown the 2008 and 2010 side-by-side, guess which one the participants at MY gatherings have favored? Can you hazard a guess as to which of these texts the priests preferred?

        And do you parallel them with the current ones and the Latin?

  13. Alan Hommerding Avatar
    Alan Hommerding

    “The books will be paid for by the Catholic Cemetery Association.”

    This IS true in the archdiocese of Chicago; perhaps Fr. Fragomeni presumed this meant the same would be occurring around the country.

    Reply
  14. Tom Poelker Avatar
    Tom Poelker

    Samuel J. Howard :

    But let’s cut to the real chase, Mr. Howard: HOW IS 2010 AN IMPROVEMENT OVER 2008,
    It doesn’t seem to be, but I never said it was. Your shouting is incredibly rude.
    But 2010 is an improvement over the current translation. Since the options we have now are the current translation and the 2010, I think, for now, we should go ahead with the 2010.

    I believe you have taken the question out of the context of the ongoing discussion. Everything else in the thread is about this particular contrast of 2008/2010, so the question is about how is THIS 2008 selection better than THIS 2010 selection.

    Above is also an example of using capitalization for brief emphasis and not shouting. Your mistaken umbrage at being SHOUTED at fails to recognize that some are not familiar or comfortable in using the HTML conventions instead of just typing on their keyboards.

    So, please put aside your misplaced ad hominem attack and answer the actual question. How is this 2010 translated prayer better than the 2008 translation of the same prayer?

    Reply
    1. Samuel J. Howard Avatar
      Samuel J. Howard

      How is this 2010 translated prayer better than the 2008 translation of the same prayer?

      Tom, I don’t think it’s better, as I’ve repeatedly said. I just think it’s not “incoherent”.

      The conversation is about whatever I and others choose to talk about. You don’t dictate the terms and neither do I.

      Reply
      1. Tom Poelker Avatar
        Tom Poelker

        I get it, you get to make up any direction you want to go and pretend you are answering the questions of others.

        I recognize this. It is the technique of politicians answering reporters.

        So sorry for having mistaken you for someone who holds a serious position and thinks he can support it through logical argument and stay on the discussion topic rather than just attack people and introduce distractions when you don’t have a serious answer.

        You claimed the cited 2010 text was better than the cited 2010 text. Please explain your basis for that.

      2. Jeffrey Pinyan Avatar
        Jeffrey Pinyan

        Tom, here’s the context:

        McGuire: “The first line of the Vox Clara is incomprehensible[.]”

        Howard: “This is simply not true. This kind of exaggerated claim poisons the well of discussions of the advantages and disadvantages of the new translations.”

        McGuire: “But let’s cut to the real chase, Mr. Howard: HOW IS 2010 AN IMPROVEMENT OVER 2008 […] ?”

        Howard answered: “It doesn’t seem to be, but I never said it was. […] But 2010 is an improvement over the current translation.”

        Then you asked: “Everything else in the thread is about this particular contrast of 2008/2010, so the question is about how is THIS 2008 selection better than THIS 2010 selection. […] How is this 2010 translated prayer better than the 2008 translation of the same prayer?”

        I assume by “the thread” you mean the set of comments following McGuire’s posting of the Collect for the Fifth Sunday of Lent, because this particular post on Pray Tell is not about contrasting 2008/2010. McGuire’s comment about the Collect was about contrasting 2008/2010, and it contained a claim that 2010 began with an incomprehensible phrase. Howard protested that claim. You seem to be saying he was out of order for doing so.

        And Howard replied: “Tom, I don’t think it’s better, as I’ve repeatedly said. I just think it’s not ‘incoherent’.”

        He had already answered McGuire, and now he has answered you. In your last post, you attacked him for apparently attacking others (asking someone not to shout — even mistakenly — is not an attack, let alone an ad hominem), and then said:

        ‘You claimed the cited 2010 text was better than the cited 2010 text. Please explain your basis for that.”

        I’m sure one of those numbers is meant to be something other than 2010. But I do not see where Howard said the cited 2010 text was better than the cited 2008 text. He said the 2010 text was better than the “current” text.

  15. Mitch Powers Avatar
    Mitch Powers

    2010, if for only the reason that the Pope wants this and ROme has approved it. When reading both, the arrangements may appeal to some and not others, always and forever. That is the problem with translations. But for us simple folk, we’ll go with what Rome wants because the differences do not distort any meanings. So the relevance of the 08 one being “better” in one’s opinion is a waste of time.

    Reply
    1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      Oh, yes it does distort the meanings! Starting with the First Sunday of Advent, November 26/27, 2011. Check out the Prayer after Communion for I Advent and its misplaced pronoun “them.” The coming faulty translation makes it refer to the passing things of this world, rather than the holy mysteries we celebrate. Uh, there is a difference!
      awr

      Reply
      1. Mitch Powers Avatar
        Mitch Powers

        Then where there is any distortion, Latin should be used. I have not read all the translations for 2008, for I am not clergy nor a scholar but I would think it were to have been the approved version, then once under the microscope there would also be issues with transference of original meaning and possible distortions. Are you saying there were no distotions based on your reading of the complete text in the 2008 version? If I had a question it would be why do you think the Vatican would change a translation that could lead to distortions? Certainly not on purpose or without some good reasoning. Are there mistakes, probably, again the problem with translations, but I would think that 2008 is full of them as well. Either way they will most likely be scrutinized after implementation and will be revised at some point in the future. Until then my statement above is that I would simply like to support the Pope and Vatican in their endeavor to provide us with a good vernacular translation, although I prefer Mass in Latin.

    2. Jeremy Stevens Avatar
      Jeremy Stevens

      And I still say wait till someone publishes a complete analysis of how the 2008 translation followed the LA and RT directives exactly and how Vox Clara DID NOT. Wait till the Pope sees that and realizes that Vox Clara betrayed his trust and made the new translation look ridiculous and CDW that approved it look incompetent. Could get very interesting. By the way, Mitch, being simple doesn’t mean being stupid, and some of the English mistakes in 2010 are obvious to anyone who ever learned from the Sisters how to diagram a sentence!

      Reply
      1. Mitch Powers Avatar
        Mitch Powers

        Maybe you could explain in detail why Vox Clara would betray the Pope and the Faithful with purposeful bad translations. What would be the motive? I see the Kennedy Conspiracy written all over the explanation. And if your statement were ever to be proven would you support “preserving Latin in the Latin Rite of the Church, from SC, or perhaps reviving ICEL in all its’ glory? Why not support this translation effort with an adjunct for improvement of it in forthcoming Editions? Inferring stupidity to anyone involved or myself is an unneeded attack.

  16. Tom Poelker Avatar
    Tom Poelker

    “implying” not “inferring”

    “for us simple folk, we’ll go with what Rome wants ”

    “I would simply like to support the Pope and Vatican ”

    For most US Catholics, “simple folk” would be taken as an insult. There are many who are well educated and accustomed to intelligently reading and evaluating material.

    The days of educated clergy and simple laity are long gone.

    Simple folk are expected to simply support their overlords and assume that those administering the law are simply carrying out the will of their masters.
    Given church history, recently and over centuries [see “The Borgias” on Showtime], it is simply naive to identify the curia with the Church, with the pope in office, or with the best traditions of Christianity.

    Early you state that there must be faults in the 08 translations. Then you use your assumption to derive your conclusion that it distorts meanings. That is circular argument, logically useless.

    Powers on April 9, 2011 – 2:07 pm

    “Maybe you could explain in detail why Vox Clara would betray the Pope and the Faithful with purposeful bad translations. What would be the motive? ”

    You will not like this, but the motive is power, power for the patrons in the Curia and their carefully nurtured clients. They are playing the game by rules going back to BCE. Their means of retaining power include a celibate male clerical class.

    The translation errors are of no interest to them so long as they promote male references to God and eliminate horizontal equality for the genders.

    Secondary emphasis is on perpetuating monarchical images of God, heaven, and church to the exclusion, in so far as possible, of other images. They are near the throne where they can manipulate things. They issue rules without anyone knowing rules were being prepared. Keeping this power is the curial [royal court] motive.

    See the continuing thread here on Abuse of Power.

    Reply
  17. G. Michael McGuire Avatar
    G. Michael McGuire

    Here’s the Vox Clara / Moroney / Pell Missal laugh of the day.

    In the latest batch of Errata, publishers have been instructed to remove the “up” in line 2 of Prayer Over the People 26. It currently reads (and this is in the galley proofs of the large altar Missal of a major publisher which I have sitting right here before me):

    2010 Vox Clara/ Moroney / Pell Missal:
    May your faithful people rejoice, we pray, O Lord,
    to be upheld up by your right hand,
    and, progressing in the Christian life,
    may they delight in good things
    both now and in the time to come.
    Through Christ our Lord.

    Good idea to take out that redundant old “up” – heh?

    But what was so bad, you might ask, about the 2008 version of this that the geniuses at Vox Clara had to “fix” it in the first place?

    Oh, the ICEL 2008 version, approved by all the English-speaking bishops, was just awful, don’t you know! Here it is:

    2008 ICEL Translation:
    Raised up by your right hand,
    let your faithful people rejoice,
    O Lord, we pray,
    and, progressing in the Christian life,
    may they delight in good things
    both now and in the time to come.
    Through Christ our Lord.

    What’s that you say? Sounds good to you? Look at that: LET in the first petition / MAY in the second petition (to avoid the MAY . . . MAY which Vox Clara went with); kept “O Lord, we pray” in the word order of the Latin and made the participle in Latin (see below) a participle in English, kinda like Liturgiam authenticam and the Ratio translationis said they should. Not bad. Accurate. Faithful to the instructions. Literate.

    Here’s the Latin:
    Laetetur, Domine, quaesumus,
    populus fidelis dextera tua sublevatus
    et christiana conversatione proficiens,
    et praesentibus gaudeat bonis et futuris.
    Per Christum.

    What would we have done without Vox Clara’s EXTRAORDINARY IMPROVEMENT of that 2008 version?

    OK Vox Clara cheerleaders: take a swig of Kool-Aid, grab the pom-poms, and let’s hear what you have to say!

    Reply
    1. Chris Grady Avatar
      Chris Grady

      Who are the “Vox Clara cheerleaders” – just in case they don’t know!

      Reply
      1. G. Michael McGuire Avatar
        G. Michael McGuire

        Why, we have the erstwhile Jeffrey Herbert, the intrepid Samuel J. Howard, and the latest addition to the team, Mitch Powers!

        By the way, the cheerleaders can relax about almost everything else: “Constrain them mercifully, O Lord” is still in there. As is “the immensity of your majesty.” Bonds of love “so tight” they can’t be busted. And “disordered affections” that everyone can just “deal with.”

        Gonna be a fun Advent!

    2. Samuel J. Howard Avatar
      Samuel J. Howard

      In the latest batch of Errata, publishers have been instructed to remove the “up” in line 2 of Prayer Over the People 26. It currently reads (and this is in the galley proofs of the large altar Missal of a major publisher which I have sitting right here before me):

      So if you have the galleys and the errata, you’re involved in the publishing process? If the Missal is as bad as you say, surely your material cooperation in its publication is morally problematic? How do you justify it?

      Reply
      1. Chris Grady Avatar
        Chris Grady

        I have the galleys and the errata too, and plenty more besides, and I’m not “involved in the publishing process” so your premise in attacking this commentor is basically flawed.

        If the missal is as bad as people say (and it is, believe me), it’s NOT the fault of the proof-readers!

      2. Samuel J. Howard Avatar
        Samuel J. Howard

        Chris, it’s not an attack, they are actual and not rhetorical questions.

        You have the galley proofs? From which publisher? There are plenty of other folks who would like to see them.

      3. G. Michael McGuire Avatar
        G. Michael McGuire

        “It is obedience and obedience alone that shows us God’s will with certainty. Of course our superiors may err, but it cannot happen that we, holding fast to our obedience, should be led into error by this.”

        Office of Readings, 14 August, Second Reading, From a Letter of Saint Maximilian Kolbe, priest and martyr.

        The text has been granted the “Confirmatio” by the dicastery which governs the texts used in the sacred liturgy. I’ve joined with others, to no avail, in pointing out the errors. Roma locuta est . . . well, unless they send MORE Errata . . . .

        Anyhow, why don’t you deal with the real moral problem: what Vox Clara did to a perfectly acceptable translation and why?

      4. Samuel J. Howard Avatar
        Samuel J. Howard

        There’s no reason there can’t be more than one “real moral problem”.

        I’ve joined with others, to no avail, in pointing out the errors. Roma locuta est . . . well, unless they send MORE Errata . . . .

        Perhaps they’d be more willing to listen if people took a respectful tone? “Laugh of the day” etc.

      5. G. Michael McGuire Avatar
        G. Michael McGuire

        Oh yes, they really responded well, didn’t they, back in the summer or fall was it, when ICEL sent them (privately, long before it was leaked) the urgent “Areas of Difficulty (DIFFICULTY? HA!) with the Received Text” or when Cardinal George wrote to ask them (again, privately) about the mistakes in the Revised Grail Psalter. Or when Canon Griffiths wrote his very respectful letter to the Tablet after they had ignored everything else . . oh yes, the respectful tone AT THIS LATE DATE would have done the trick.

        In fact, one could argue that ridicule works: look what happened at the universal guffaws that greeted their change of “He bows slightly” to “He bends slightly.” After that was hammered and held up to scorn all over the Catholic blogosphere the final, final text came back with “he bows slightly” restored. One could ask, if private correspondence and respectful, scholarly presentations don’t move them, just how much public ridicule is necessary to trigger the corrections mechanism?

      6. Joe O'Leary Avatar
        Joe O’Leary

        On the question of what will make the bishops and the Vatican listen, I think it is too late to worry about that.

        The new texts will go into effect on November 27 and then we will either see sleepy conformism all round or we will see all hell break loose. If the latter scenario comes about, the bishops will wish they had paid more attention to their gentlemanly critics earlier on.

        Of course in the Catholic Church all hell does not break loose does it? Well, not until recently — but the abuse scandal gives a taste of what might happen. Frankly, I hope that all hell does break out, because it would be a sign of vitality among the people of God and because it might bring about reform and renewal of the sclerotic hierarchical organization.

  18. Chris Grady Avatar
    Chris Grady

    Samuel J. Howard :
    Chris, it’s not an attack, they are actual and not rhetorical questions.
    You have the galley proofs? From which publisher? There are plenty of other folks who would like to see them.

    Sorry, I didn’t get them (and white books and green books and gray books among other things along the way) by dropping sources’ names in public – and I want to stay in the good books of my sources so I can get the various drafts of the missal which will have to be worked in the next 2-5 years or so, after the Vox Clara – Moroney – Pell missal crashes on takeoff this Advent.

    Reply
  19. Paul Inwood Avatar
    Paul Inwood

    “It is obedience and obedience alone that shows us God’s will with certainty. Of course our superiors may err, but it cannot happen that we, holding fast to our obedience, should be led into error by this.” (quoted by GMG from the Office of Readings for the feast of St Maximilian Kolbe).

    This is uncannily and disturbingly similar to a slogan that was uttered all over Nazi Germany in the years between 1933 and 1945. Substitute the Führer for God and you’re almost there. Can it be accidental that it occurs on the feastday of a victim of that régime?

    Reply
  20. John P Andrews, lay member of a UK Parish. Avatar
    John P Andrews, lay member of a UK Parish.

    Well Joe – all hell may break loose. I’ve been sat here sobbing this afternoon to see good men (why only men?) mis-trusting and abusing each other in print over words… but mostly, becasue my church, whom I love deeply – is self harming is such a grievious way.

    Sadly I feel the ones causing the most harm will be the least hurt because they dont live in the English speaking world.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: