Msgr. James Moroney is a wonderful teacher and taught us all day on Friday. We have him again on Monday and Tuesday. Yesterday's presentation were basically on the process of retranslating the Mass.
Some of the questions from the priests seem to indicate that they, especially, but by extension, their parishioners don't like the new English translation.
My own experience with it is that I love it compared to the older one we discarded. There are some prayers and words that are a bit clunky, but nothing that couldn't be rather easily revised in the next round of revisions in the next 50 years.
Maybe I am in la la land, but having had this new translation for close to two years, my parishioners have settled in very well with it once they got their parts down and that happened quite quickly. I don't think anyone complained to me about the style of the translation and in fact the ones who bothered to comment have postive things to say and could really see how poor the previous translation was compared to the new.
I received only one complaint and that was about the change in the words of consecrated the Precious Blood from "all" to "many." But once I explained it, she seem to be good with it..
So, am I in la la land or have the rank and file laity accepted this new translation and have moved on to worrying and complaining about more important things like feeding their children, clothing their family and providing a roof over their head as they prepare them to be good Catholics at home, work and play?
It seems to me that the only ones still whining about this new translation are the professional whiners in the priesthood and on blogs. Am I wrong or do they tend to be fixated on complaining?
4 comments:
I think the three orations can be tough at times, but other than that, no, the new translation seems to have become simply THE translation for almost everyone. We will soon forget that there ever was another.
However, there will always be a few people who just don't like change. Those who were young in the 60's and 70's think the way they experienced life way back then should be universal and eternal.
Similarly, some EFers resist the 1958 Instruction on liturgical participation. They're still resisting a change that occurred almost 60 years ago!
JBAS, "almost 60 years ago" in terms of a Rite which is 1500 years old is very recent indeed. And attempts to introduce "participation" as it was then understood (or misunderstood) into the Tridentine Low Mass in 1958 and even earlier were so unsatisfactory in practice that within a few years the same reformers had succeeded in getting rid of the Tridentine Mass altogether.
FrAJM, I wonder how those priests came to be there? Is it by choice or is it guided in some way? The specific event that led me to leave my old parish for the local FSSP is the reaction to the new translation. I was not offended by the emotions as the profound ignorance that energized the objections.
Tonight's local orchestra had a performance of Mendelssohn's Second. It was one a few attempts he made to 'reconcile' the Protestant and Catholic Liturgies. While hie efforts were far less offensive than than Messrs. Haugen and Haas, they were equally ill fated for basically the same reasons.
RCG, I agree with you about Pope Benedict and his care in public speech and agree that the learning curve for Pope Francis is to follow the previous Holy Father's example in this regard and also in terms of decorum.
I know some think I am ultramontane, but there is a respect that Catholics must have for the person and office of the pope. When I was ordained I made a promise to such to my bishop and his successors: "Do you promise respect and obedience to me and my successors?" And I say "I do" and I did not have any codicils added to that I do nor did I have my fingers crossed.
One of the reasons for the high divorce rate in our country is that we won't put up with people that displease us and throw them under the bus. This isn't Catholic.
Post a Comment