Posted on 11/27/2011 6:41:43 AM PST by NYer
Do not be suprised if towards Christmas, that photocopies of the new English wording will be inserted as a quick “cheat-sheet” for the “C and E” folks.
PS: Inserted in the bulletins.
Yes, I still think it is a mess. You can read Chaucer in the original form with dipthongs and pronunciations we do not understand. Do we want to go back to olde english, greek, latin or other misunderstandings?
This is not the Middle English of Chaucer. Certainly not Old English (which is what you're thinking of if you're thinking of thorns and yoghs and so forth. Chaucer is later.)
It's not even the Early Modern English of Cranmer or the King James Bible.
This is ordinary modern English. It is not spelled or pronounced differently. It consists of words which ordinary English-speaking people understand.
The vocabulary is obviously more extensive than the very flat and mundane 1973 version, which was written on about an 8th grade level. In particular cases a word may be unfamiliar because (a) it has a specific theological meaning and (b) it hasn't been used since 1973. But those instances are rare ("consubstantial" is about it, I think. And as one of our confirmation class students said, "You're not supposed to understand the Trinity. It's a mystery.")
I hope you're not telling me that you think the average Catholic is so ignorant and stupid that he can't comprehend language that is slightly elevated from ordinary modern English speech.
Unlettered American backwoodsmen had no difficulty comprehending the King James Bible . . . which is far more complex and contains far more unfamiliar words than the new translation of the Mass.
I think you're selling John and Mary Catholic short. Dumbing down is not the answer in any event, any more than it is in school or employment.
Our rector always pokes a little fun at the huge crowds that show up at "C&E". I imagine he'll draw attention to the new words "for those of you who haven't been here since last year" or something of the sort.
Of course, then they'll be too embarrassed to be seen checking the sheet . . . !
....And I NEVER KNEW for a very long time I was being “dumbed down” at the mass. Learned something NEW today.
You have often expressed your thoughts in this regard.
Thank you,
sitetest
But if you look at the original Latin, and then at the 1973 'dynamic translation', just about every divergence from a literal translation is in the direction of a very simplified and lower-level vocabulary. And sometimes (as in the St. Peter Claver text above) it just goes off into a completely unrelated statement that isn't even pretending to be a translation.
Combined with the statements from the opponents of the new translation that the new version is just too hard for Catholics to understand (I'm thinking of Bishop Trautman of Erie, and the priest that started the "What if we just said wait?" petition), my conclusion was that the original translators - and the folks opposed to the new translation - thought (and think) that all of us out here are reading on a middle school level. And don't own a dictionary. And can't ask a priest what something means.
I find that somewhat insulting. And it certainly isn't going to help anybody grow and learn.
Well, we agree and disagree. I threw Chaucer out there as an example as to how lanuage changes but I could have used Beowulf or even Shakespeare; the average 8th grader, or today’s college graduate, cannot comprehend what was originaly written. I do prefer the dumbing down that was done a few decades ago; I think it allows everyone to be involved. Terms like “under my roof,” “constabiation” - or however it is spelled or pronounced, are confusing to my simple mind. Maybe it comes down to if you prefer the “Holy Ghost” vs. the “Holy Spirit.”
Good, would hate to have not. That thread was an interesting wayback machine. An extraordinary amount has happened since then!
But even if you were simple-minded, why should a standard Latin text that is translated correctly for every other language on the globe, be mistranslated and put in inaccurate simplified language just for us? Are Americans really that much stupider than everyone else in Christendom?
The first time Pope John Paul II (who spoke many languages and was familiar with the Mass in all of them) came to America and heard the Mass he was shocked and horrified - he had had no idea the translation was so bad. That was what set the wheels in motion for the revision.
I'll just pick up one example you cited that shows the poverty of the 1973 translation:
"Lord I am not worthy that you should come under my roof", which is an exact translation of the Latin "Domine, non sum dignus, ut intres sub tectum meum." These were the words of the Centurion in Matthew 8:8 when he asked Christ to heal his servant. The 1973 translation "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you" removes that reference to the Gospel and with it all the associations that would otherwise come to mind. And it also removes all the associations with hospitality and the family home. Not to mention a really good topic for a homily when Matthew 8:8 rolls around in the Lectionary.
This is not kindness to the simple-minded by any means -- this is a political agenda that was pushed by certain American bishops at the time of the translation. It may have been to some degree based in the bishops' contempt for the intelligence and education of their flock, but I think at least part of it was a reaction to anti-Catholicism, an attempt to Protestantize the Mass and make it less threatening to anti-Catholics, more ecumenical. A strong indicator in that direction is that the Episcopalians revised their prayer book about the same time, and the translations bear more than a slight family resemblance. In fact they are almost identical.
But the Episcopalians had a strong 300 year tradition of an accurate and very poetic translation, and they are also extremely proud of their scholarship (and their music, but that's another story), so they did not accept the new prayer book as meekly as most Catholics. Not just individuals but whole congregations left the church. That -- and the ordination of women -- was the start of the collapse of that denomination. Things have only gotten worse, of course, but the prayer book revision was a big factor.
Even Scotch-Irish frontiersmen reading their KJVs by the light of pine knots in dog-trot cabins could figure this stuff out. Are we really that stupid? And why would we want to admit it?
**constabiation” **
consubstantiation
con=with in Latin
substantiation = substance
There — with the substance of the Father.
Now just say it one word and be happy.
**constabiation” **
actually the word in the Nicene Creed is
consubstantial.
Sorry about my earlier mistake.
By bringing the classroom instruction down to the level of the dullest students, we have deprived the brightest and even the average students of an education. And even the very dullest student should be encouraged to stretch and learn. Low expectations hurt those with the least capacity the most, since they are the least able to learn on their own despite poor instruction.
Why would what is generally acknowledged to be a bad idea in education, suddenly become a good idea in church? And isn't "to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in heaven" at least as important as a good education?
or cue cards.
Or, if you prefer Cranmer, "being of one substance with the Father."
In that case, Cranmer still used the word with the Latin root - from "substantia" = "substance", because there is no other exact equivalent in English with an Anglo-Saxon origin. "Being" in the 1973 translation/paraphrase is not the same word, it is simply a form of the plain old verb "to be" and does not get anywhere near the important concept of "substance".
I was nearly in tears as I received Holy Communion. It was a beautiful Mass.
Now if we only had your choir’s music instead of our pre-recorded music — if you want to call it that.
Or even better yet, a brief explaination once again to any “new faces” that will come from the “C, E, A and P” crowd come Christmas Eve/Christmas Day by the parish priest, music minister head, etc, before the masses at that time as well. As I say, it will be very interesting. :)
De Musica Sacra (1958):60 c) Finally, only instruments which are personally played by a performer are to be used in the sacred liturgy, not those which are played mechanically or automatically.
71. The use of automatic instruments and machines, such as the automatic organ, phonograph, radio, tape or wire recorders, and other similar machines, is absolutely forbidden in liturgical functions and private devotions, whether they are held inside or outside the church, even if these machines be used only to transmit sermons or sacred music, or to substitute for the singing of the choir or faithful, or even just to support it.
However, such machines may be used, even inside the church, but not during services of any kind, whether liturgical or private, in order to give the people a chance to listen to the voice of the Supreme Pontiff or the local Ordinary, or the sermons of others. These mechanical devices may be also be used to instruct the faithful in Christian doctrine or in the sacred chant or hymn singing; finally they may be used in processions which take place outside the church, as a means of directing, and supporting the singing of the people.
If your parish wants help with getting live music under way, contact Jeffrey Tucker at the Church Music Association of America. He has given talks at our church and he is more than ready to help your parish with resources (many of them free!), seminars, etc.
There is plenty of easy music out there that a pickup choir could negotiate, and that a congregation could sing. I don't know who started the rumor that chant is hard -- the more elaborate chants for scholas are difficult but there are easy, easy chants for congregations (Missa de Angelis and so forth).
If you put out the call for singers, you may be surprised how many pop up. Is there an organ in your loft? If not, an electronic keyboard (set to something authentic sounding and gentle) will do in a pinch. All you need is somebody to set the pitch, and if they can actually play a keyboard they can gently support the singing.
Problem is that, that ruling must have been “thrown out” during the VCII time and believe me, have seen recorded music done during times of liturgy in my time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.