Comments on: Anyone You Know Here?

By: Charles Ladnere

Charles Ladnere — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 20:13:16 +0000

I would suspect that many of those who have signed this petition have a substantial personal investment- perhaps a lifetime investment- in the transformation of the liturgy that occurred in the post Vatican II period. I would think it very difficult for such people to accept the judgement that some of their efforts were so deeply flawed, so perhaps the best attitude towards the petitioners is one of sympathy and understanding.

By: Karl Liam Saur

Karl Liam Saur — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 23:37:14 +0000

It also doesn’t help that his writing is virtually unreadable for long stretches. His complaint about pleonasms is prescriptive rather than descriptive (that is, he treats pleonasms as relatively foreign to English usage, but they are more common in English usage than he appears to realize). (In the USA, for example, Yankee (that is, New England), New Yawk and Southern vernaculars are forested with ‘em.)

By: Ian Williams

Ian Williams — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 23:24:14 +0000

Thank you for the link to Fr. O’Leary’s insights, Rita. They reminded me that the sacrifice of Calvary is a stumbling block to the Jews and a scandal to the Gentiles. In this context, “recognise” is both forceful and appropriate.

By: Rita Ferrone

Rita Ferrone — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:30:04 +0000

Kathy, although Fr. O’Leary isn’t always helpful, he makes some excellent points, and his analysis is detailed which is why I cited him here.

By: Kathy Pluth

Kathy Pluth — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:52:26 +0000

Rita,

Critiques can be scathing yet unhelpful, as are most of Fr. O’Leary’s insights on the new translations.

One of Fr. O’Leary’s endlessly combatative arguments rests on the choice of the word “recognize,” to translate agnosce.” That is surely the word one would choose to translate St. Leo the Great’s Christmas admonition, “Agnosce, o Christiane, dignitatem tuam.” Perception is not enough–perception can mean a brief appearance. What is needed here is acknowledgement, remembrance, recognition of the covenant; prayer for God’s remembrance of the covenant fills the Old Testament.

By: Rita Ferrone

Rita Ferrone — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:42:57 +0000

Fr. Costigan, I don’t know that critics of the new translation have no awareness of the shortcomings of the translations currently in use. I certainly have. But if this translation is implemented, we are stuck with yet another bad translation. There are also detailed critiques, which get beyond summary statements. Fr. Joseph O’Leary, professor of literature, offers a scathing one in several posts which can be found here: http://josephsoleary.typepad.com/my_weblog/crisis-in-the-liturgy-2-translations/

By: Fr. Christopher Costigan

Fr. Christopher Costigan — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 02:16:50 +0000

The point of view I find from many on this issue is as follows. First, those in favor of the new translation will admit that is it not perfect (and of course no translation can be) but it is superior to the one currently in use. I don’t find many saying they are the best thing ever. Those opposed will generally point out some flaws in the proposed translation but will never admit any flaws in the current Missal. Or they will point out translations to a prior edition of the Missal that were not used.

By: Jeffrey Herbert

Jeffrey Herbert — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 21:17:29 +0000

He is a good soldier, but also is not afraid to say “the emperor has no clothes” when it’s clear this is the case.

Now really!! Once again, is it really that clearly the case? What you are saying here is that there is a HUGE group of people who are clearly wrong, and that you are clearly right. I think it’s going to have to be acknowledged at some point that the “goodness” or “poorness” of the new translation all depends on your opinion of it, much as the “goodness” or “poorness” of the current translation is also such an opinion.

By: Kathy Pluth

Kathy Pluth — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 23:13:26 +0000

I should clarify my remarks. The Holy Father has famously said that there is a problem when the Council documents are read according to a “hermeutic of rupture” instead of a “hermeneutic of reform, of continuity and discontinuity on different levels.”

I agree that the hermeneutic of rupture is a problem. But I feel that a more prevalant problem is what I would call a trajectorial reading of the Council. (I honestly haven’t ever heard anyone express precisely this opinion, and although I could be mistaken, I do tend to believe that something like it is prevalent.) According to my understanding of this point of view, the conciliar event is taken to be only the radical beginning of an ongoing process of liberalization in the Church.

The process is taken to be the meaning of the Council, and to reverse this process is taken to be a departure or denial of the Council itself.

By: Kathy Pluth

Kathy Pluth — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 21:17:45 +0000

Rita,

One definition of “conservative” might be one who takes the documents of Vatican II more seriously than the “spirit” of Vatican II, and/or does not tend to identify the progressiveness of the Vatican II era with the Council itself.

I’m holding out hope that these attitudes will someday be recognized as middle-of-the-road! But for now, I don’t see any of those on the list provided whose names I recognize and whom I know to be “conservative” in this sense.