Wednesday, October 25, 2017

SHOULD NOT WE ALL JUST CALM DOWN, NOW THAT THE DUST IS SETTLED?

We’ve only been doing this six years, and while there a few awkward moments in there, there are some things that are a little bit obtuse perhaps, but by and large, it’s a vast improvement of what we’d been using for forty years. To pull the rug out from under that after only six years would be more disruptive, creating the impression that everything can be the whims of the day, that every five years the winds could blow in a different direction and we could shift it again. These are texts that we need to live with for a long time.

-- Monsignor Richard Hilgartner



Recently, John Nolan indicated that the German translation of the Ordinary Form of the Mass (which was done at the same time as the 1970's English Missal was completed) was a much better translation of the original Latin than the English was. The Spanish Missal was better too. The Portuguese, not so much.

I think even the most conservative Catholic must know that the new and glorious English translation we currently have needs some adjustment.

My clairvoyance tells me that the people's parts won't be changed back to the 1970's version. I pray that "consubstantial" and "ineffable" remain. Catholics are not idiots and should know by now these two new words for the English vocabulary.

But we do need to be aware that English speakers in England and those of us in the USA have some differences in the way we say things and phrase English. We also have some spelling differences.

So I would think that Conferences of Bishops should know what is best for their country compared to those in Italy.

The same is true of Spanish. Depending on the country, Spanish can be quite different from nation to nation.

What the new and glorious English translation of the Mass needs is a refinement of the English language in the collects, prefaces and other changing priestly prayers. I don't think there is going to be a wholesale rejection of the devotional and spiritual qualities of these prayers that the 1970's version eliminated.

But we do need good English syntax not a Latin syntax imposed upon English. We don't need run on sentences. 99.9% of the congregation, though, would not even know if these prayers were revised.

There are some real clunkers in some of the changing priestly prayers.

So, I would agree with His Holiness, that the various countries who use the various languages of the Mass are better at determining what good English is, good Spanish, etc, than some bureaucrats in Rome or in the Curia.

I would like the vernacular Mass to reflect faithfully the meaning of the Latin text, but also the devotional aspects of the Latin Rite. There was no need to dumb down the Catholic devotional and spiritual aspects of the Latin when translating into English as the 1970's Missal did.

We’ve only been doing this six years, and while there a few awkward moments in there, there are some things that are a little bit obtuse perhaps, but by and large, it’s a vast improvement of what we’d been using for forty years. To pull the rug out from under that after only six years would be more disruptive, creating the impression that everything can be the whims of the day, that every five years the winds could blow in a different direction and we could shift it again. These are texts that we need to live with for a long time.

--Monsignor Richard Hilgartner

23 comments:

TJM said...

I could care less what the bishops do with the vulgar tongue since I only attend Latin language Masses, OF and EF.

Anonymous said...

"TJM said...
I could care less what the bishops do with the vulgar tongue since I only attend Latin language Masses, OF and EF."

But, it's not all about you and what you care or don't care about.

That you think it is is your tragedy.

(And, I suspect, you do not "only attend." Misplaced modifiers anyone?)

TJM said...

Anonymous (Kavanaugh),

Well I am just playing liberal today where the whole world is about me, me, me. Now show some humility and turn toward the Lord when celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass

Anonymous said...

It's less than a week since the pope's letter to Sarah and Praytell already has an article suggesting that the Roman Canon could be tainted by its origin. You can almost hear their knives sharpening. They're not interested in just translating texts they want to edit them to fit their ideology. This has never been about translation itself.

Catholic Mission said...

Ecclesiology is related to every Mass and every future Mass.


OCTOBER 25, 2017

Louie Verrecchio, Ann Barnhardt and David Domet have probably not understood me since they do not agree or disagree with me : four 'red pills'
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/louie-verrecchio-ann-barnhardt-and.html

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

Msgr. Richard Hilgartner: "To pull the rug out from under that after only six years would be more disruptive, creating the impression that everything can be the whims of the day, that every five years the winds could blow in a different direction and we could shift it again."

No! Ya' think?

No worries. The way things are going with Mass attendance, there won't be anyone in the pews to hear the prayers anyway. This whole uproar seems to me to be like actors arguing with the director about the wording of lines in a play on closing night.

God bless.
Bee



rcg said...

I do not think the geographical location is an advantage except that Rome collects the best minds and hopefully spirits to address an issue. Grammar aside, the advantage is to the best trained and familiar with the subject. Mastery of a language is not restricted to a geography, either. I also think there is a disadvantage for the native country when they try to introduce dialect into the vernacular since it changes so swiftly. If the local street preacher wants to ad hoc a translation to help with his mission then he is well advised to proceed with caution and help from Rome and his bishops. A verbal translation in a homily or address to a local group is OK if he, again, is cautious and scrupulous to the Latin. Otherwise, he is working against his charter and the reason he is there.

ByzRC said...

I agree with Monsignor Richard Hilgartner. The Roman Church could easily be heading down the path of Paul VI's tinker toy being endlessly wordsmithed based on whim and agenda.

Hey, TJM - Here's my Me, Me, Me moment.... As I mostly attend Divine Liturgy, I'm increasingly unconcerned about what the Conference may or may not do. Every liturgy is properly oriented toward the Lord. Last weekend, I met a new priest who with his family, recently migrated from Ukraine near the Slovak border. The liturgy was pure magic watching a young priest from the region where Cyril and Methodius first brought Christianity be so Orthodox (both senses of the word) as he celebrated. I'm excited about the future as more of these priests arrive on our shores.

Anonymous said...

"Well I am just playing liberal today where the whole world is about me, me, me."

No, that's your typical perspective.

"Now show some humility and turn toward the Lord when celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass."

Are you denying the dogma of God's omnipresence? Because no matter what way one turns, he/she is turned toward the Lord.

John Nolan said...

When I was a child, I memorized the following prayers:

O God, whose only begotten Son, by His life, death and resurrection, has purchased for us the rewards of eternal life; grant, we beseech Thee, that meditating on the mysteries of the most holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary, we may both imitate what they contain and obtain what they promise.

Pour forth, we beseech Thee O Lord, Thy grace into our hearts; that we, to whom the incarnation of Christ Thy Son was made known by the message of an angel, may be brought by His passion and cross to the glory of His resurrection.

O God, the creator and redeemer of all the faithful, grant to the souls of Thy servants departed the remission of all their sins; that through our pious supplications they may obtain that pardon which they have always desired.

Note that these prayers are in Collect form - each consists of a single sentence. When Cranmer wrote the BCP he maintained the Collect form in English, and elementary school children in Victorian times (and after) would customarily learn the Collect for the following Sunday by heart, which benefited both their religious knowledge and their understanding of how to construct an English sentence.

We are now teaching primary school children how to construct complex sentences using main and subordinate clauses, conjunctions and relative pronouns.

They are not 'run-on sentences' to be scrupulously avoided.

Differences between American and British English are largely confined to colloquial usage. The written language is virtually identical.



Anonymous said...

Anonymous says, “Are you denying the dogma of God's omnipresence? Because no matter what way one turns, he/she is turned toward the Lord.”

Why not turn 90 degrees then and face the side of the church, facing neither the people nor the altar?

TJM said...

Anomymous (Kavanaugh)

You are the gift that keeps on giving. No one is more egocentric than a liberal.

I'm suggesting you follow the inveterate practice instead of the group hug novelty introduced just a short 50 years ago. It would be a step towards ecumenism with the only real Christian Church outside of Catholicism - the Orthodox Church.

Anonymous said...

Why not, indeed?

Anonymous said...

There are many real Christian churches outside Catholicism, including the Orthodox.

That's the teaching of the Church, if you are not aware.

Bernard Fischer said...

What you're seeing is obviously a lack of trust. Historically the Vatican was a corrective against an aggressively liberal local Bishop's conference. Now, the Vatican is in the hands of liberal reformers and the few conservative Bishops in the local conferences are called to be the corrective. But people are reflexively suspicious of the USCCB and now they are suspicious of the Vatican.

So who's to say if the translations are faithful or not? If the laity don't speak Latin and the Pope doesn't speak English and the USCCB has an agenda, then how do we know who to trust?

TJM said...

Anonymous (Kavanaugh) at 5:29: DEAD WRONG. Anglicanism has void orders as does Lutheranism (could be some rare exceptions to this). The others don't even have orders. Ergo, not a Church.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Anonymous said...
It's less than a week since the pope's letter to Sarah and Praytell already has an article suggesting that the Roman Canon could be tainted by its origin. You can almost hear their knives sharpening. They're not interested in just translating texts they want to edit them to fit their ideology. This has never been about translation itself.


Anonymous:

Can you point me toward the article at PrayTell that speaks of the Roman Canon being "tainted"? I just went looking for it, and did not find it. Thanks!

TJM said...

The folks at Pray Sniff know that Eucharistic Prayers I, II, and III, have sketchy origins, so they have to attack the Venerable Roman Canon.

Anonymous said...

Father Martin,

Here is the article about the Roman Canon:

http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2017/10/25/an-issue-for-future-liturgical-translation-2-grappling-with-changed-cultural-conditions/#comment-7459504

Fr Martin Fox said...

Anonymous:

Thank you. I agree, the PrayTellers are sharpening their knives.

rcg said...

Read that Pray Tell post. It is a sqib round. They immediatley went into the well worn riff about slavery from the perspective of American slavery to discuss a situation that was a thousand plus years older and totally different socially and ethnologically. Within the context of their argument they made themselves irrelevant immediately.

George said...

Re. the Pray Tell post:

Why is it that there are some, who, for whatever reason, parse and dissect holy and inspired words to the effect that what they seem to intend to achieve, if one were to accept what they have wrought, is opposed to the best spirit of interpretation and unworthy of anyone with a properly informed spiritual perspective.
These,whatever their intentions may be, project onto a word or two the worse possible connotation in order to substantiate their own prejudices and bolster their own unwarranted and seemingly unholy objectives.
Cannot "to serve" be seen as a most worthy thing, such as we observe in those who minister to,care for, and attend to the needs of others in some capacity?
And cannot this especially be so when, by doing good works, we in a special way are in the service of our All Good and Holy God?

Anonymous said...

Before we start listing potential candidates for the next successor to Saint Peter, remember the old line, "he who goes in (to the conclave) a pope comes out a cardinal!"