I remember Fr. Robert Barron from back when I was a founding faculty member at the Liturgical Institute at Mundelein, and I’ve appreciated his many books, such as The Strangest Way and Heaven in Stone and Glass. He’s a good theologian and a brilliant speaker.
He makes several points in this video: that the 1974 translation was done quickly and reflects the spirit of informality of the 1960s, which led many scholars to call for its revision; that the new translation better reflects the language of court ceremonial found in the Latin; that English is the only language which failed to translate “and with your spirit” literally and accurately; and that the new translation is beautifully poetic. Give it a watch:
Hmmm. It’s true that scholars called for revision of 1974. You wouldn’t know it from this video, but that already happened, from 1981 till 1998. 1998 Sacramentary? Never happened, apparently. Scholars’ appeals led to this translation, apparently. As I’ve already tried to make clear, that’s not quite true. Most scholars favored 1998, few of them favor the new missal. Don’t you wonder whether Bob knows that?
As for the claim that only English missed “and with your spirit”: just go to Brazil, or Portugal, or Japan, or parts of India.
As for poetic beauty: Fr. Longenecker thinks the new missal sounds like “eighth grader trying to write Shakespeare.” Bishop Rowthorn thinks it lacks “intelligibility, euphony, and proclaimability.” Rev. Daw thinks that the “rather baroque idiom of courtly etiquette” is “precious wording” that “ultimately calls more attention to the petitioner’s effort to be correct than to the generosity or providence of God.”
What do you think?
awr
#1 by John Drake on November 11, 2011 - 11:54 am
Quote
I would see this as a very fine explanation to address the questions and concerns that the vast majority of Catholics may have in readying themselves for November 27. It is clearly not directed to “liturgy geeks” who scour wiki-spooks for every scrap of discarded texts that may have been proposed in 1998, 2008 or whenever.
#2 by Charles Culbreth on November 11, 2011 - 12:46 pm
Quote
+1, Mr. Drake.
Fr. Barron’s charism in our era seems, to me, to be ironically an apt off-spring of Bsp. Sheen’s charism during his. They both maintain(ed) a circumspective demeanor while simultaneously getting “to” the heart of a matter and laying it out for the listeners to then contemplate and discern what that means for themselves, which assists, rather than disables, each soul to decide their own conclusion.
While we still have the Fr. Rutler’s (and on the other extreme, the Fr.Corapi’s) around to hold our attentions spell-bound, I am thankful for the Frs. Barron, Pacwa and Groeschel whose rhetoric is of and for the people of God.
I also appreciate the magnanimous gesture of Fr. Ruff for posting this clip on this blog. I pray that the commentary to follow will maintain a similar dignity and humility as demonstrated and practiced by Fr. Barron.
His new book, btw, CATHOLICISM, is a great read.
#3 by Philip Endean SJ on November 11, 2011 - 2:42 pm
Quote
The Barron video is high-class catechetical spin: legitimate and praiseworthy when the underlying message is unexceptionable, but disingenuous and manipulative when the reality is one of authority perpetrating ritual violence. And surely Fr Barron is learned enough to know that the latter is closer to the truth.
Also: as a UK citizen currently enjoying Boston, I find it moderately amusing to see a US theologian extolling the virtues of court ritual.
#4 by Fr. Jim Blue on November 11, 2011 - 2:54 pm
Quote
All good points, Philip.
#5 by Mary Burke on November 11, 2011 - 6:07 pm
Quote
Well said, Philip. The fact that they want to shoot the messenger shows at least that they have got the message, though they may not like it.
So much for Mr Culbreth’s plugging of the land of the free and the home of the brave – brave that is as long as it agrees with me.
#6 by C. J. Clout on November 12, 2011 - 9:10 pm
Quote
I would agree with Father Endean that the abuse crisis and the Missal crisis are not all that far apart. Indeed, the process that produced the Missal is an icon of the imbalance of power that allowed the abuse crisis to happen (and continue to happen). “The person who is trustworthy in very small matters is also trustworthy in great ones; and the person who is dishonest in very small matters is also dishonest in great ones.” (Luke 16:10)
#7 by Joe O'Leary on November 14, 2011 - 3:03 am
Quote
Quite so. Fr Barron is a gifted acrobat.
#8 by Charles Culbreth on November 11, 2011 - 3:45 pm
Quote
Fr. Endean
Astonishing hyperbole fit only for that soapbox in Hyde Park, is more like it, Fr. Blue. Equating this saga to real perpetrators of ritual violence such as Westboro Baptist protesters, captial punishment for Christian ministers in Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East, Asia and Africa, or in abortuaries is a bathetic red herring. Lucky you’re in the U.S., father, where Sharia has yet to metaticize its cells into our constitution and justice system, or any other country whose regimes encourage fatwas. Things there likely would not be quite amusing to you; you might find yourself subject to some real perpetration.
#9 by Fr. Allan J. McDonald on November 11, 2011 - 4:05 pm
Quote
Certainly the progressive camp of the Church can’t expect to be taken seriously with this type of exaggerated hyperbole if I can be redundant.
#10 by Karl Liam Saur on November 11, 2011 - 4:07 pm
Quote
Don’t be facile and attribute it to the progressive camp, any more than I’d attribute the hyperbolic whines of Maurice Pinay to the traditionalist camp.
#11 by Fr. Jim Blue on November 11, 2011 - 4:16 pm
Quote
No, I think Philip is exactly spot-on, in fact I see little difference between the sexual abuse and the ritual abuse perpetrated by trusted leaders. Sexual abuse has become inconvenient and expensive; ritual abuse (although it certainly has it’s costs) is unlikely to land any churchly potentates in jail.
#12 by Karl Liam Saur on November 11, 2011 - 4:24 pm
Quote
Fr Jim
“I see little difference between the sexual abuse and the ritual abuse perpetrated by trusted leaders”
You need some better eyeglasses.
#13 by Fr. Jim Blue on November 11, 2011 - 6:34 pm
Quote
John, ritual abuse is very real and very destructive. I would also agree that a comparison by equivilancy of the sexual abuse of minors in the church and the ritual abuse of the Faithful by the imposition of the Vox Clara 2010 should be nuanced. I will work on that theory and bring it back later. I would admit to being guilty of a little hyperbole perhaps because I feel the anger, abandonment and feelings of being ripped off are increasing as 5 PM on the 26th draws nearer.
#14 by John Drake on November 12, 2011 - 8:09 am
Quote
Perhaps this excerpt from The Imitation of Christ is helpful to us all:
“Go where you may, you will find no rest except in humble obedience to the rule of authority.
Dreams of happiness expected from change and different places have deceived many.
Everyone, it is true, wishes to do as he pleases and is attracted to those who agree with him. But if God be among us, we must at times give up our opinions for the blessings of peace.”
#15 by Fritz Bauerschmidt on November 12, 2011 - 10:17 am
Quote
I would admit to being guilty of a little hyperbole
With all due respect, Father, I think it is more than a little hyperbolic to compare hearing your pastor pray a badly worded collect to being fondled by him in the sacristy.
My advice: At this moment in our history, Catholics should be very circumspect in calling anything other than child rape “abuse.”
#16 by Mary Burke on November 14, 2011 - 9:15 am
Quote
Fundamentally, rape, whether of a child or of an adult is an abuse of power. Some abuses of power have to do with human sexuality. Some, but not all. The destruction and undermining of collegiality in the church in favour of an even more centralised power structure is an abuse of power.
The church’s teaching on sexuality can be seriously abused, simply because there is no one for whom sexuality is irrelevant. So potentially, teaching on sexuality is a means to gain a point of entry into the life of every human being.
With all due respect, Deacon, it is a mistake to presume that people here are asking for advice, yours or anyone else’s, unless they state it.
#17 by Joe O'Leary on November 14, 2011 - 3:04 am
Quote
I think he means SPIRITUAL violence. Many Catholics will feel it physically as well, in the pit of their stomach.
#18 by Lee Bacchi on November 11, 2011 - 3:46 pm
Quote
I am a big, big fan of Fr. Barron’s, and I love what I have seen of Catholicism. But Fr. Ruff is right — what about 1998??? And how about the grammar gaffes — such as Prayer after Communion for the First Sunday of Advent?
See Gal 6:18, where Paul says “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers. Amen.” What about that biblical richness??
#19 by crystal watson on November 11, 2011 - 3:47 pm
Quote
I’ve only watched a few of his dfferent videos but he strikes me as someone who uses charisma to sell conservatives views to those who want ro be, well, comforted. I don’t mean to sound mean – he seems like a nice person.
#20 by Fr. Jim Blue on November 11, 2011 - 4:19 pm
Quote
Yes, the packaging is slick, I’ll grant that.
When a personality becomes such a large part of the message (e.g., Corapi, Pavone, Stone, and others of that ilk) the yellow flag comes out.
Yes, his words seem to be more comforting than challenging.
#21 by Charles Culbreth on November 11, 2011 - 5:12 pm
Quote
Words like these, Fr. Blue?
from CATHOLICISM: A Journey to the Heart of the Faith by Fr. Robert Barron.
No challenge there for you, Fr. Blue, just all snug and comfy in the cult of Barron?
Is there no humility left in our clergy according to our own clergy? Quite shameful, all this vilification seems.
#22 by Mary Burke on November 11, 2011 - 5:58 pm
Quote
Mr Culbreth, it’s a pity you didn’t abide by your pious aspiration at the beginning of this thread. As long as the thread is going your way it seems.
Your argumenta ad hominem against those with whom you do not agree do nothing to persuade them of the attractiveness of your position.
#23 by John Drake on November 11, 2011 - 5:34 pm
Quote
Not only nice, Crystal, but SMART and EFFECTIVE. The Catholicism series is getting airings on many PBS (yes! PBS!) stations around the country, as well as EWTN, and many individual parishes are using it.
Fr. Blue, it’s not Fr. Barron’s “personality” becoming part of the message. In fact it isn’t doing so. It is his deep appreciation of the beauty of the Church, and the use of his excellent communication skills that have made such a wonderful project come to life.
#24 by Christoph Berchtold on November 11, 2011 - 4:43 pm
Quote
Comments on the upcoming translation seem to be more and more “tribal”.
One side will not any longer hear or listen to any argument from the other. When Fr. Barron talks about scriptural and theological density – in quotations that seemed convincing to me – the thing that is taken up in the comments is courtliness and stateliness of language, nothing but this. My wish as someone who watches this from a country that is not speaking the English language: give it a try. The endeavor is honorable (as might have been the previous translation which was not accepted, for whatever “reasons”). The overall direction might still be right and just… And never forget, that for the people in the pew these intricacies are in most cases not that important. There are a lot of other things to be considered when we talk and reflect on worship, the individual and the community…. thanks be to God.
#25 by Margaret Bick on November 11, 2011 - 5:29 pm
Quote
Can you say more about Portugal, Brazil India and Japan?
#26 by Julie Heath Elliott on November 11, 2011 - 9:57 pm
Quote
In Keith Pecklers’ book on preparing for the new translation and analyzing the process that brought it about (“The Genius of the Roman Rite: On the Reception and Implementation of the New Missal”), he cites the original, pre-LithAuth Portuguese translation of the people’s response to “the Lord be with you, ” as “He is in our midst”, rather than “And with your spirit.”
I found that very fascinating when I first read it — taking the text to proclaim the living presence of the Lord (in both priest and assembly) whenever we gather to do the essential and grace-giving work of liturgy together. It seemed to say so much more than merely “And also with you”, and also seems to make the point clearer than, “And with your spirit.”
I have heard that the only Japanese word close to “spirit” would be equivalent to our “ghost” or “spook” — I am not sure what their translators did in their original vernacular translation. The deep problem for them is what to do now that “spiritus” is meant to have such a literal translation.
#27 by John Drake on November 11, 2011 - 5:36 pm
Quote
Well, Doc, I guess you didn’t know that his series is also being shown on PBS, which network’s general liberal orientation I assume you drool over!
#28 by Dr. Dale Rodriguez on November 12, 2011 - 12:45 pm
Quote
“… I assume you drool over!”
You know what they say about “ass u me” John.
#29 by Mary Burke on November 11, 2011 - 6:09 pm
Quote
The question is: Will Fr Barron be “elected” a bishop before he says too much?
#30 by Dr. Dale Rodriguez on November 11, 2011 - 6:14 pm
Quote
Mary, he’s replacing Bishop Lori in Connecticut next month when Lori is promoted to archbishop of Baltimore
#31 by Dr. Dale Rodriguez on November 12, 2011 - 1:36 pm
Quote
And I’m happy I’m in neither diocese.
#32 by George Winkley on November 11, 2011 - 6:31 pm
Quote
Courtly language. But Jesus taught us to call God our father. Do you address your father in courtly language? Surely when talking to your father, you would use intimate language. It seems to me that the new translation gives every impression that its authors do not have English as their first language.
#33 by John Chuchman on November 11, 2011 - 7:42 pm
Quote
Pure Vatican Spin. Two objectives: Prove God is male and Separate laity from ordained even more!
#34 by Jonathan Day on November 11, 2011 - 8:07 pm
Quote
I found Fr Barron’s presentation more than a bit disingenuous. I don’t believe for a second that the translators sat around thinking how to make the text courtly or poetic or theologically rich or more scriptural.
Their task was much simpler: giving us a rather bone-headed rendering of the Latin, exactly as it was written. This, after all, is what Liturgiam Authenticam required them to do. Had the Latin said vulpes velox brunnea super canem ignavum salit (the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog) then this is what they would have written – or, more likely, “fox quick brown over dog lazy jumps”.
The result of this literal translation may be more like the language of a royal court (though you sure wouldn’t talk that way to the Queen here) or more poetic (though it isn’t; gibberish can’t be poetic) or possessed of “a much richer theological density”. But the translators deserve little credit for that.
I also wonder on what basis he claims that the earlier translators sought to make the text “casual and direct and sorta blunt” or that they thought that “too much theology would make the liturgy hard to understand”. How does he know that? Perhaps they were just trying to make the language understandable when heard.
#35 by J. Thomas on November 11, 2011 - 9:41 pm
Quote
Thank you! I needed some true, albeit sad ecclesiasial humor:” ulpes velox brunnea super canem ignavum salit (the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog) then this is what they would have written – or, more likely, “fox quick brown over dog lazy jumps”. God save this church from red slippers and its ecclesiastics who accept such idiotic translations. May we return to a Christianity that prays simply and honestly at all times: Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, Υἱὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐλέησόν με τὸν ἁμαρτωλόν. I am a sinner, but I prefer to pray as one without pretense….
#36 by Mary Burke on November 12, 2011 - 2:38 pm
Quote
How about:
The fox the quick one the brown one bounceth over the dog the lazy one.
#37 by Jeffrey Pinyan on November 12, 2011 - 8:45 pm
Quote
I’m sure the new translation has enough of its own actual gaffes that we could use them rather than setting up and mocking imaginary mistranslations!
#38 by Charles Culbreth on November 11, 2011 - 8:11 pm
Quote
To Ms. Burke at 5:58
Might it have occured to you that I did not respond to the either the hyperbole of Fr. Endean or of Fr. Blue with direct assaults on their persons or integrity as Christians or priests? No, I responded to their unjust and self-condemnatory statements that had no bearing whatsoever on the content of Fr. Barron’s video. Insinuation that Fr. Barron traffics only in comforting a particular faction of the Church Faithful by a peer whose opinion is not supported by any evidence is an affront if not scandal. I merely hoped to redress that with a fairly explicit quote of Barron’s that demonstrates that ignorance. That is not ad hominem. And I’m not particularly pious, if that is of comfort to you.
#39 by Mary Burke on November 12, 2011 - 2:42 pm
Quote
How will you make sense of the new translation, with its gap between verbs and their subjects if you have difficulty grasping that the adjective pious qualifies the abstract noun aspiration, and not you?
#40 by Charles Culbreth on November 12, 2011 - 6:31 pm
Quote
Nice, Mary, real nice. And hell of ironic, what with the pot calling the kettle, uh….metal.
I love it here.
You visit in peace, offer up some fairly benign observations, thank the host, and inevitably when someone’s hubris gets the better of their common sense, reason and manners, that person’s enablers lose theirs as well and forms a rhetorical fortress and buttress propping the person up while simultaneously insulting the intelligence, integrity and sensibilities of questioning onlookers, their questions be damned, ignored and dismissed.
Yes, indeed, how ever will I make sense of anything at all, Ms. Burke, save for capitulation to your cult rather than Christ’s?
AWR, out of curiosity, what kind of joint are you running here?
#41 by Jeffrey Pinyan on November 12, 2011 - 8:50 pm
Quote
Charles, mon frère, you’re being a literalist when it comes to the site’s comments policy.
3. Be charitable and respectful. Personal attacks, libelous statements, and anything disrespectful or lacking in ecumenical sensitivity will be removed.
I still think our best bet is to request some manner of “ecumenical sensitivity” within the Catholic readership.
#42 by Philip Endean SJ on November 11, 2011 - 9:04 pm
Quote
Though I have elsewhere written on the parallels between the official church’s mishandlings of sexual abuse and of these new imposed translations (and stand by the nuanced points I made on the subject), the phrase I used in my comment earlier was ‘ritual abuse’: abuse of the ritual and abuse of God’s people.
#43 by Joe O'Leary on November 14, 2011 - 3:08 am
Quote
It is abuse, and will be felt as abuse by many, many Catholics in the weeks ahead. Might spark our muchneeded arab spring.
#44 by William Schmidt on November 11, 2011 - 9:17 pm
Quote
Vox clara is clearly not vox clara!
#45 by Bill deHaas on November 11, 2011 - 9:18 pm
Quote
Suggest a slighty different take…..start by asking a question – what hat is Fr. Barron wearing?
Fr. Barron has produced a “slick” marketing piece and in corporate speak he has tailored this to his market. So be it!
But, as a theologian in the church this piece fails – it ignores or rewrites history (which is a disservice and in professional journals would be seen as dishonest); it makes a dismissive judgment about the 1974 ordo and the process leading up to it (he fails again because he dismisses almost a hundred years of expert liturgical, biblical, and sacramental theology advancements and he incorrectly labels the ICEL and its dedicated folks); by not referencing 1998 and the 15+ year process he again rewrites history and fails his audience. Theologians are trained to research, lay a foundation, argue a thesis, and prove it – no marketing piece can do that.
Unfortunately, in the corporate world we market everyday. In behavioral health, you market a slick piece that focuses on the success and product to be sold – you don’t have time nor do you want to talk about the years of clinical studies; the failures in treatment modalities; etc. You lift the high points and sell. You expect that in business.
So, to repeat – what hat is he wearing? And does he do the church any favors by only focusing on this translation in the slickest marketing manner? He sells adult catholics short; he damages any “organic” development or process that was started by Vatican II. What is the highest value – is to sell a new translation or to help the people of God understand development in a positive way; by being transparent, modeling a direct and honest approach; by avoiding at all costs any type of language or device borrowed from the “relativity” of secular business.
It appears that this type of marketing only sets up polarizations and makes the next “organic” development all that more difficult.
#46 by Brendan Kelleher SVD on November 11, 2011 - 10:08 pm
Quote
Just before listening to Fr Robert Barron’s “spin” on the new translation I had been talking with a colleague for whom English is his ‘second’ language – let’s just say he speaks one of the Asian variants of English. He will be celebrating the Eucharist tomorrow for some of the English community here in Nagoya since I have other commitments.
As part of our preparation for the First Sunday of Advent we have been using the new translation of the Confiteor and Gloria among other parts of the Mass. As we read over together, for comparison, the first of the prefaces for Sunday in Ordinary Time his eyes glazed over. For all his familiarity with English his discomfort with the long and complex central part of the preface was evident.
Many of my congregation have even less facility in English compared to my colleague, so the possiblility that the courtly, poetic, metaphoric language of the new translation will speak to their hearts is open to question.
As a teacher of English as a second language my comment is that metaphor is culturally and historically conditioned, poetry similarly is best appreciated by exposure over an extended period of time to a language and culture that gave birth to it, and a more substantial justification for the use of courtly language than offered is surely necessary for nearly all, except those who have already made an “ideological” option against all previous translations, including that of 1998, and for the Vatican/Vox Clara version we are now forced to work with.
Nice try Fr Barron, but as a ‘spin doctor’ you need to be a little more aware of where your wider audience is coming from.
#47 by Joe O'Leary on November 14, 2011 - 3:09 am
Quote
Oh I see there is some preparation of the new trans happening here in Japan. Maybe the Vatican thinks that those who are not native speaker won’t see the difference between good English and dreck.
#48 by Jeff Rexhausen on November 11, 2011 - 11:56 pm
Quote
One of the shortcomings in this discussion is the absence, for the most part, of any distinction of the various roles and stages in the development of the new translation. Jonathan Day (@ 8:07) and Bill deHaas (@ 9:18) touch on this.
Liturgiam Authenticam played a key role at an early stage. It set out some criteria, which may be viewed in different ways but are, in the end, guiding authority. It also made some assertions about the quality of the current translation and some claims about its effects, but many of these are matters of (asserted) fact or professional judgment and so may be open to question or challenge or disproving.
Other roles were played by the CDW, ICEL staff, ICEL bishops, bishops’ conferences, individual influential bishops/cardinals, and Vox Clara. Some of these should be recognized as having performed well within the constraints of their roles, while others seem to be responsible for elements of the new translation that most, if not all, of us can acknowledge to be serious flaws or shortcomings.
With all of the knowledgeable and well-intentioned participants in this blog, surely the discussion would be more productive for us and the wider church if we tried to avoid overly-broad statements and wrote more nuanced assessments of the new translation (or about the comments of Fr. Barron and others).
#49 by Andrew Coyne on November 12, 2011 - 12:05 am
Quote
I share the concerns the have been raised regarding “cults of personality.” After the Father Maciel and Legionaries revelation, I for one am very cautious about jumping on the bandwagon for some charismatic persona. But PLEASE, let’s not automatically throw someone into that category just because we disagree with them over a translation!! Perhaps someone could contact him and ask how he thinks the 1998 translation compares to the one we’re getting. Perhaps he hasn’t read it. Common folk, lets give the man the benefit of the doubt!
#50 by Dr. Dale Rodriguez on November 12, 2011 - 12:48 pm
Quote
“Perhaps he hasn’t read it”
Andrew, you’re to be commended for giving him the benefit of the doubt but really. That’s like discussing Lincoln’s great achievements and leaving out the Emancipation Proclamation!
#51 by Ellen Joyce on November 12, 2011 - 12:54 am
Quote
I watched the first three minutes of this video and the words “disingenuous,” “”smarmy” and “inauthentic” swarmed into my mind. “Dishonest” would be too harsh for someone whose homiletic insights I have admired.
But, for God’s sake, I remember the process, I know Latin as only a PhD in Medieval Studies can, and I love the English Language. I hate to see a good priest sell his soul.
#52 by Ellen Joyce on November 12, 2011 - 4:56 am
Quote
Okay, I listened to another few minutes. Am in the middle of a teaching unit on royalty and nobility in the twelfth century, and it is *deeply* clear to me that the Latin language of the royalty of Christ is *completely* opposed to the spirit of Christ’s language in the Gospels. Of course I know what the Latin says; what Jesus meant is a whole different matter. Flame away, folks.
#53 by Fr. Allan J. McDonald on November 12, 2011 - 6:43 am
Quote
One of the things I have found praying the new corrected English translation since the first Sunday of September is that I must use not just my mind to make sure I pray the prayers with the correct English emphasis, which means I have to study it before hand and pray it out loud beforehand too, but I also have to breath correctly as I pray the corrected English prayers. I have to take my time and as with all good prayer, shouldn’t the one praying have a good cadence in praying and use their lungs to enter more fully into the prayer? These corrected prayers create a tangible sensation within me in terms of how I pray them that hearkens back to how monastics pray the office in community–taking their time, breathing properly and allowing the “Spirit” to enter their lungs and be released in words. That sensation is/was totally lacking in the soon-to-be obsolete English translation.
We Catholics both laity and clergy have a traditional tendency to rush through prayers to get them over with. It’s been engrained in us with the flat English translation of the Mass, which in only two short weeks, thank God, will be obsolete and how we pray our devotionals like the Holy Rosary–we rush, or least many do. I think the way many secular priests prayed the Latin Mass did the same thing, they rattled the words off, rather than savoring them and the laity were quite happy to have them do it that way to get on with their lives. I have my Protestant friends and I have several staff members who are Protestant, say to me, slow down your “Lord’s Prayer,” prayer isn’t a horse race trying to get to the finish line! It’s not something you get over with, it something you savor!
#54 by John Drake on November 12, 2011 - 8:18 am
Quote
Bravo, Fr. McDonald!
#55 by Joe O'Leary on November 14, 2011 - 3:11 am
Quote
“I also have to breath correctly” — Filipinos and Nigerians are asked to do this as well — a tall order.
#56 by Paul Robertson on November 14, 2011 - 3:55 am
Quote
Presumably, you mean “breathe correctly”, as “breath” is a noun and is, therefore, quite difficult to do.
#57 by Sean Parker on November 13, 2011 - 6:42 am
Quote
Yes, it will be gone in two short weeks. Along with quite a few people.
#58 by Fr. Allan J. McDonald on November 13, 2011 - 6:50 am
Quote
For those who see the Church as Walmart, maybe Target is the place they need to go? Their translation of retail is a bit softer for the consumer.
#59 by Paul Robertson on November 14, 2011 - 3:59 am
Quote
Fr Allan, I am glad that you find the grammatical jumble prayerful. I do not.
If faith was a high street, I surely would go elsewhere. It is not, and I stay where I have been called: in the body of Christ. It pains me that the language I find there has become very much “holier than thou”, but it is a pain I must bear. Maybe I’m young enough that I will see the next translation. Maybe it will mark a return to language that those of us with only a bachelor’s degree can understand.
#60 by Claire Mathieu on November 12, 2011 - 8:33 am
Quote
For me this video was instructive. No one had ever explained to me in a convincing way what was wrong with the translation we currently use. I agree with Fr. Barron that the quotes he picked are flat and that a more poetic style would be more uplifting. I understand his point about theological richness, and on the face of it it sounds good (although I wouldn’t trust him given the rest of the presentation). So, at least, I have learned some good reasons why a new translation could be needed. It also indicates the primary competence needed of the people in charge in revisions: there should have been poets and theologians.
The courtliness argument is off-putting. He said that for centuries, people were ruled by monarchies, and their way of apprehending God was by analogy to their king, and so their prayers were full of words that could just as easily be used to address their monarch. They understood God by analogy, by thinking about their king. So? Doesn’t that show, precisely, that there was a misplaced emphasis on God’s royalty? Aren’t we glad to now be open to a less constricted, richer image of God?
Unfortunately Father Barron lies by omission in many ways. His historical summary is a disgusting rewrite that eliminates the conflicts and erases the losers from memory; he also fails to mention literalism as the overriding principle guiding the translation of the new missal, even though that was the central concern of LA. That shows that he gives priority to convincing people over sticking to the truth. We all naturally lean towards doing that a little bit when we try to make a point, but it’s manipulative and one ought to try to resist that temptation. I hope that he is feeling slightly ashamed of himself.
#61 by Bill deHaas on November 12, 2011 - 1:59 pm
Quote
Will again try to re-direct this post: picking up on Claire and Jeff’s analyses, here is a link to an Australian priest, Peter Dresser, and a series of articles about “literalism” which is directly apropos to Barron’s “whitewash” justification of the new translation:
http://www.catholica.com.au/gc0/pd/015_pd_121111.php
It gets at both ecclesiology and sacramental/biblical theology. No biblical expert would defend scripture literally nor would any good sacramental theologian describe sacraments literally. So, why LA?
Key:
“There are other details of Church doctrine, dogma and liturgy which are taken and read literally by many, if not the vast majority, of church men and women. This is sad and unfortunate because they are really missing out on a wealth of beauty and truth by incorrectly interpreting the message being presented, and by their failure to understand religious language. They equate and identify the message with the words used. The medium becomes the message. Literalism and fundamentalism will sound the death knell of our beautiful religion unless our church authorities quickly address the problem.”
Would suggest that there is a significant difference between “sacral vernacular” and “religious language.”
#62 by Jeffrey Pinyan on November 12, 2011 - 8:34 pm
Quote
I guess I’m content not to be a biblical expert. I’ll believe angels and demons literally exist. Fr. Dresser’s question “If these angelic beings exist, where exactly do they reside?” could just as easily be asked about the soul. I’ll be ridiculed for believing that heavenly messengers really announced the Christ’s birth to shepherds, that they ministered to Jesus in the wilderness, and that one comforted Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane.
Fr. Dresser is so utterly certain that belief in literal angels does harm to modern intelligence and cannot enhance our religious development. He is just as ready to dogmatize their nonexistence as the Church is to dogmatize their existence.
I also believe in a literal resurrection — not the “resuscitation” to which Fr. Dresser tries to constrain such a belief — but that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is much more than the awareness of a community, but a reality that does not depend on anyone to believe it. When that tree falls in the forest (or rather, when it stands up more glorious and wondrous than before), it makes a sound, no matter if no one is present.
#63 by Samuel J. Howard on November 14, 2011 - 6:02 pm
Quote
Bill, no offesne, but in addition to being heretical, that article is just dumb:
“If these angelic beings exist, where exactly do they reside?”
Umm…
CCC: “328 The existence of the spiritual, non-corporeal beings that Sacred Scripture usually calls “angels” is a truth of faith. The witness of Scripture is as clear as the unanimity of Tradition.”
Non-corporeal beings don’t “reside” anywhere, they’re non-corporeal.
#64 by Mary Burke on November 14, 2011 - 6:17 pm
Quote
That’s the problem with the methodology of using the CCC. It doesn’t distinguish between levels of doctrinal authority of its various statements. The CCC confers no additional authority to a particular statement found therein. Every statement there is as authoritative or otherwise as it was before the CCC was published. In fact it is open to the charge that it obscures the different degrees of authority of teaching behind its statements.
There is a strand of biblical scholarship which understands “the angel of the LORD” simply as a periphrasis for “the LORD.” Take for example Psalm 34.7 for “The angel of the LORD is encamped around those who fear him to deliver them.” read “The LORD is encamped around those who fear him to rescue them.”
In other words such an expression allows the writer to avoid saying “The Lord is…” in much the same way as the author of the Gospel according to Matthew, in order to avoid the word “God” uses the expression “The kingdom of Heaven,” when editing Mark’s term, “The kingdom of God.” This is a well accepted phenomenon noticeable also in the differences between the different strands in the Documentary Hypothesis of the composition of the Torah.
#65 by Bill deHaas on November 14, 2011 - 6:29 pm
Quote
Didn’t say I agreed with it….it was to present a different approach that stresses “religious language” and the use of poetry, imagery, analogy. My guess is that you miss his point in taking his examples too literally. Think that Dresser would agree that “angels” are a truth of faith – but how you understand that and explain it – guessing you and he would be worlds apart.
My only reason to add was to underline how to approach scripture and liturgical language. Would also lean to the fact that liturgy is not a catechism – it works best when it is a ritual using poetry; parable, imagery, music, etc.
#66 by Bill deHaas on November 14, 2011 - 6:30 pm
Quote
Well said, Mary….suggest that you do an online course for these two – I would sign them up.
#67 by Samuel J. Howard on November 14, 2011 - 7:40 pm
Quote
That’s the problem with the methodology of using the CCC. It doesn’t distinguish between levels of doctrinal authority of its various statements.
The issue is not in the 1st place scriptural. I didn’t say all the scriptural references are literal.
My point is that the existence of angels in general is not “non-literal” as the author of Bill’s article would have it.
Are you saying you don’t believe in angels as creaturely non-corporeal beings?
Because if you’re merely saying that this is not the central message of revelation, or of Church teaching more generally, we can agree on that. (JP II called it “not the central content of the word of God” “though inseparable from the central revelation.”) But then your comment doesn’t contradict mine and there is no “problem.”
It’s helpful if you say precisely what you mean, because if you believe that–arguendo because this is not taught w/ highest authority–Catholics don’t have to believe it, you’re wrong.
The teaching that angels are real personal non-corporeal beings is not an optional or metaphorical part of the Catholic faith. The existence of spiritual beings is attested to in the Nicene Creed “I believe in one God … Maker of … all things visible and invisible.”
The nature of those spiritual beings and their identity with what our tradition calls “Angels”, the “unanimity of Tradition” as the CCC notes, is a topic taken up at the 1st Vatican Council, where the Fathers quote the 4th Lateran Council:
#68 by Andrew Coyne on November 12, 2011 - 2:37 pm
Quote
Regarding “courtly language.” I can see limits in that, since we don’t live in a society ruled by monarchy. But it is true that the scriptures are filled with references to Kings and Kingdoms. We can’t very well disgard all that, can we? I wonder, if this new “courtly” language helps to express “wonder and awe” in the Divine Presence, would it be justified?
#69 by Jeffrey Pinyan on November 12, 2011 - 8:41 pm
Quote
Perhaps it can be discarded, Andrew, if we accept that scripture is the particular local community’s expression of the revelation of God. So Jesus, even as He is recorded as addressing God as “abba”, was also conditioned to using this “kingdom” language. Our own community’s expression and reception of God’s revelation can take precedence over older, outmoded, imperfect language.
You can also translate the words differently. One such attempt was made to render the Greek word basileia as “kindom” [sic].
#70 by crystal watson on November 12, 2011 - 4:46 pm
Quote
Given all the worries about people taking things literally and the worry about missal language not being rococo-ized enough, I can’t help but wonder how the poor and uneducated people that followed Jesus around and listened to his preaching had even an ice cube’s chance in hell of benefiting from it.
#71 by Mitch Powers on November 12, 2011 - 8:26 pm
Quote
It is a good commentary and to the point on why this translation will do more than just change words. I just learned how this will encompass theological points as well. I also like that the language will be more in line with what other major religions do with their prayers and worship. Whether it be maintaining Hebrew, and Sanskrit or using an elevated vernacular I believe this will aligns us more with everyone else. If the attitude that is positively conveyed in this explanation is carried by all Priests and Bishops who will have to implement the new translations it will make it easier on us lay people who see the joy in their reactions and allow us to better get ourselves acquainted with the new Missal.
#72 by Andrew Coyne on November 13, 2011 - 6:57 pm
Quote
Jeffrey, I fully agree with what you say. God’s WORD is always much bigger than the individual words or cultural expressions which the inspired author used to communicate the message. In the case of the Roman Missal, we are dealing with latin texts that contain phrases, ideas, expressions, etc. that are a product of centuries past. Before we complain about the new English translation, shouldn’t we be asking why this “courtly language” was retained in the latin version by the Consilium after the 1960′s revisions? They had a mandate to revise the prayers, and they did, for the most part. But they also left a lot of these “archaic” phrases in there too. Theoretically, couldn’t they have revised the proper prayers even more than they did?
#73 by Jeffrey Pinyan on November 13, 2011 - 8:35 pm
Quote
Andrew, I’m of the mind that God’s Word/Revelation is bigger than the words we use to record it, except that the canonical Scriptures have a special privilege in that regard. The words the inspired authors used were not only adequate for their time and place, they also enjoy a unique place among all other encapsulations of God’s revelation, specifically because the Church believes them, and not other writings, to be canonical scripture, and she believes this under the inspiration of the same Spirit! I would do anything in my power to avoid losing such weighty and important phrases like “the lamb of God”, even in a culture without sheep, livestock, farming, etc.
Put another way, I do not think the Word of God is bigger than Jesus, despite Jesus being born into a particular time and place. Whatever limits first-century Palestine presented the Incarnate Word, they did not impinge upon His perfection; on the contrary, He was made incarnate at just the right time, in just the right place. So too the Inscribed Word of God is not negatively limited by the time and place of its inscription.
As for the revision of the Latin text of the Missal: it certainly could have gone further than it did — anything could have happened, I suppose — but it didn’t. Until such a time as the Latin text is further revised, I think we should translate the text as it stands (although I know there are permissions for the development of local texts).
Perhaps the “archaic” language was not edited out of the Latin prayers because it would be regarded as doing too much too quickly. Or perhaps it was retained because it is not archaic but ancient, or even timeless. Perhaps the limits of the archaic language are not negative limits.
#74 by Joe O'Leary on November 14, 2011 - 3:12 am
Quote
Fr Allan, you are sounding like a noted Queen of France who said something about cakes.
#75 by Paul Robertson on November 14, 2011 - 4:20 am
Quote
He makes a good point about the 30th Sunday of Ordinary Time. What he neglects to mention, as has been noted above, is that the 1998 fixes all of the problems he mentions…
“Lord,
may your mysteries accomplish within us
the salvation they embody,
that we may come to possess in truth
what we celebrate now under sacramental signs.”
#76 by Brian MacMichael on November 14, 2011 - 9:27 am
Quote
What???
#77 by Bill deHaas on November 14, 2011 - 9:38 am
Quote
Brian – sorry to confuse you. Read the whole post and understand the context. Sacramental theology is based upon sign/symbol and an understanding of analogy. Analogy is not “literal” in the sense of LA.
#78 by Brian MacMichael on November 14, 2011 - 1:06 pm
Quote
I read the article you linked, and although I consider myself fairly careful with the language of sacramental presence (e.g. “sacramental” vs. “local presence” in the Eucharist), I must say I found the arguments posed there to be completely outlandish and reductive.
#79 by Bill deHaas on November 14, 2011 - 6:31 pm
Quote
Brian – see my response above.