7 thoughts on “Majority says new English Missal needs to be revised

  1. Well, since the results of THIS poll reveal what we want to hear and echo our own feelings, there can’t be any doubt as to ITS scientific method and accuracy, can there!

    A couple of things strike me, though: I think that the preference expressed by some for the seventy-three is not necessarily a plus or a minus indication of the merits or non-merits of the new one. It merely signifies that these people really do like vapid Dick and Jane language… and think that that’s all any of us deserve.

    While agreeing that ‘many’ is not the most proper word, and that consubstantial, while being a great improvement, would have been better, rhythmically smoother as ‘ being of one substance’ (as in the BCP), I do not think that either is as objectively poor as they seem to some. ‘Consubstantial’ is actually a nice and a pungent, rich word. I have had more than one person say to me of those who object to it and pretend that it’s incomprehensible, ‘they must think we are stupid’.

    When I read that people object not to specific lapses of syntactical and poetic judgment, but to general style, substance, and tone (register) I am more than glad that we do not have the translation that they would be happy with. Considering that, it is a miracle worthy of a Te Deum that we have what we have, imperfect as it is.

  2. No; Mr Osborn, those of us with the good taste to see that the new translation is excrementitious are not the morons you caricature who “really do like the vapid Dick and Jane language”. What we like is beautiful, elegant, dignified, and grammatically correct language such as that of the French translation that the Vatican is also keen to hatchet, and that of the 1998 translations that the Vatican petulantly dumped.

  3. ” it is a miracle worthy of a Te Deum that we have what we have, imperfect as it is.”

    I think it is a miracle that the bishops of the entire English speaking world could pass such miserable texts, oblivious of their inaccuracies and their theological and grammatical errors, e.g. John the Baptist sang of his coming; to be in your presence (for “stand”), “we acclaim: Holy, holy”. It is the miracle of selfdelusion of Andersenian proportions; and a further miracle is the large and vocal band of groupies who continue to drool over what they see as the elevated lingo of these corrupt texts.

    1. @Joe O’Leary – comment #5:
      Well, Mr O’Leary, it is a pleasure to be disagreed with with such rhythmic, passionate and colourful prose as you have displayed. Perhaps the two of us (or just you yourself) could have composed a more fitting translation than the one we now have. But, I will continue to count my blessings that we no longer have the one we had. And, that we don’t have the ninety-eight, which would have left ‘the people’ still singing those grotesque versions of gloria and sanctus and everything else. Why do you all keep touting this half-baked translation? Are priests the only ones who deserve to have the elegant English which you profess to love?

      (Oh yes: don’t you think that excrementitious, while a choice locution, is a little extreme?)

  4. @ comment 6

    Lovely caricature of the Second Ed. of the Missal – the one that has fostered and nourished peoples faith well for near 40 years. Shame it didn’t meet your standards.

    It would only be fair if I were allowed to share my personal feelings on the Old Mass, wouldn’t it? Thankfully, I’ve had plenty of compunction poured into me today, so I won’t subject you to all the colorful metaphors I have for the old Mass.

    Just don’t forget – the 98 translation had far more enthusiastic support than this current disaster foisted upon us (Whoops!)

Leave a Reply

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