The Martyrdom of a Lovely Language

Ed. note: Gabe Huck continues his four-part series discussing the translation. The column below was published in the November issue of Celebration magazine (www.celebrationpublications.org), and we thank them for the permission to reprint it here. Part I is available here, and Part II is available here.

These reflections are in continuity with the considerations about translation in [my previous two articles]. Through various experiences and examples I have tried to open the complexities of worthy translation and of translation for use in ritual. Even with the best of intentions, which certainly the new “missal” lacks, we have seen that translation is not an easy nor a once-and-for-all matter. We’ve seen that the receiving language is never neutral, indifferent, or perfect. The receiving language – its vocabulary, its order, its strengths and its weaknesses – are to be treated with respect and with love if the translator’s craft is to produce excellent results. Not only that, but the translator must attend to special circumstances. Texts that are to be spoken aloud by individuals or by an assembly bring their own demands.

We can safely say that these matters of common sense were deliberately ignored in the new texts for the missal. Liturgiam Authenticam (LA) replaced any concern for the receiver language and with those who speak that language with a command to do something as easy as it is disastrous: Let the Latin original control everything. Imagine reading Dostoyevsky or Gabriel García Márquez in a translation done in accord with LA. The texts we will read in this coming missal are simply the word-for-word rendering that might be given to a writer who does not know Latin but who knows what makes for good English. These are no more than a tool to begin the task, and even at that we would question the quality of this tool.

But why would anyone publish the tool, the starting point? What might have been that word-for-word starter tool is now what parishes in the US are being told to use. (Important book to know: Translating Tradition: A Chant Historian Reads Liturgiam Authenticam. Peter Jeffery. Liturgical Press. His writing should have brought, from all involved with LA, a very simple: “We’re sorry. We take it all back and will do penance.”)

Here is a prayer you might be hearing as Advent begins at the end of this November:

Grant your faithful, we pray, almighty God,
the resolve to run forth to meet your Christ
with righteous deeds at his coming,
so that, gathered at his right hand,
they may be worthy to possess the heavenly kingdom.

This is a fair example, neither the best nor the worst text in the book. Look at it, read it aloud. Better: read it aloud one time to some children, some teens, some adults, some old folks. Then ask: What did I just pray for? To whom did I pray? What result am I hoping for? What phrase caught your imagination? What would you be saying Amen to?

Someone might argue: So what? Was the Latin original written to answer questions like that? I would respond: Perhaps it was not written with such intent. Perhaps it was composed simply to sound wonderful and to sing well. In fact, most of the time this Latin text has been prayed with assemblies that have no idea what it means. But that is not our problem. In Latin, it probably does one thing important for ritual: It can be chanted and the sound itself will do good work. Fine.

Now look at the title of Rita Ferrone’s article in the July 15 issue of Commonweal: “It Doesn’t Sing: The Trouble with the New Roman Missal.” Probably her use of “sing” is meant to describe the overall dullness of this English missal, the difficulty in proclaiming it and the near impossibility of being caught up in it. But let’s take that “singing” title literally: This trouble making the English understood would only be compounded by chanting it. It simply doesn’t sing unless you pretend you understand English as little as you understand Latin.

Read or chanted, who will remember who “they” may be when we hear “they” in the last line? One further observation: Why “they” at all? If the Latin felt adequate with “your faithful” in the first line, was it necessary to use the third person rather than the first person plural in the fifth line? At least “we” would be understood whether, by that point in the sentence, you remembered “your faithful” or not. But the Latin is what it is, and the translator is not free to think it through, so “they” is what we get. Did you think of that when you read it through? Probably not. It was just awkward in general. And besides, the logical reference of “they” in normal English is going to be “righteous deeds,” the noun closer by far to “they” than “your faithful.”

So the translator, here and throughout, could not be both faithful to LA and of service to us. The translator could not offer us anything worth an honest Amen.

Have we challenged the wisdom of LA? Have we seen this abuse of English (and any other receiver language) as the canonization of Latin text? On what grounds is this being done? After all, these Latin texts should never be treated as is they had any such authority even for Latin-speaking assembly, if any such assemblies exist. They are the striving after worthy voicing of ritual texts in a certain language, a language that was spoken by some Western Christians for a certain period of time, and then forgotten. They have no more authority than any other collection of prayers used in the rituals of the various churches. Let them be judged on their merits and, for the better ones, let them be translated by wordsmiths who know the ways that the English language does its work, and let those wordsmiths be well instructed in what exactly is the work of ritual speech.

This whole project went off the track and everyone is pretending the train is still moving. We’re asked to be Alice in Wonderland, and many go along.

We are being told something by this new missal and we had better understand: “Your language doesn’t matter. Nobody’s living language matters. Latin matters. The words you English speakers will speak and hear in your English language do not matter.” This is not just a view of language though, it is a misunderstanding of ritual. And what matters, according to those who have given us this book, is not our being at home in doing the rituals that should be sustaining our lives. We cannot have those rituals without the basic tools of a language that will be both beautiful and filled with meaning. The only task of the English language in this ill-conceived adventure could be called suicidal: to betray its very own genius in slavish service to the master language, Latin. Another way of making the metaphor for what is happening here would use gender images all too familiar to those in charge of this work. The “male” language must be in charge and the receiver (“female”) language just does the grateful reception and let’s keep it that way.

A few months ago I was spending a two hours every week studying English poetry with two of our Iraqi students in Damascus. For me this brought such joy in revisiting the poets I have loved and in sharing their work, and such regret in realizing how I never found much time to know later poets than those I loved 50 years ago. We looked at a few of the poems by W.B. Yeats, among them “Adam’s Curse.” This poem in its first verse has something to say about this business of the language worthy of our prayers in the assembly.

We sat together at one summer’s end,
That beautiful mild woman, your close friend,
And you and I, and talked of poetry.
I said, “A line will take us hours maybe;
Yet if it does not seem a moment’s thought,
Our stitching and unstitching has been naught.
Better go down upon your marrow-bones
And scrub a kitchen pavement, or break stones
Like an old pauper, in all kinds of weather;
For to articulate sweet sounds together
Is to work harder than all these, and yet
Be thought an idler by the noisy set
Of bankers, schoolmasters, and clergymen
The martyrs call the world.

We will be living and dying probably with the results of these non-translations. But think what could be if we who need texts in our rites made demands on our writers and translators like those Yeats describes: this stitching and unstitching and stitching again on and on until good writing has been done. This, Yeats says, is harder work by far than scrubbing a kitchen pavement on hands and knees or breaking stones in the depths of winter or the heat of summer. And in the end, the successful line must “seem a moment’s thought” precisely because it is not a moment’s thought but is as simple and real as that kitchen pavement or those broken stones. (I am trying not to dwell on the very interesting trinity that Yeats mocks in the second-last line.)

Is it a leap too far to think this should be said also of those who seek to translate the texts to be spoken in our rites? LA hardly deserves to be taken seriously on so many grounds, but maybe this is the most important because it is most destructive of our common prayer. The depth and the beauty of a text may well depend on the meeting of meaning and sound, but LA subordinates everything to replicating the Latin and poses no test whatsoever for the Latin! Why ask for poets and others who know the ways of words when all that LA is asking would be satisfied with translation software for the Vatican computer?

Remember Monsignor Ronald Knox? In a book called Englishing the Bible in the UK and Trials of a Translator (in the US), Knox wrote: “You can have a literal translation or you can have a literary translation: you cannot have both … Words are not inanimate things, like coins, that have an exact counterpart in a different currency. They are living things … And the translator must never be afraid of the accusation of having paraphrased. Paraphrase is the bogey-man of the half-educated….”

To some extent then, this whole effort gave up, meant to give up, the vision taking shape in ICEL’s earlier work: English texts that are not dependent on translating Latin texts but instead, taking what inspiration they can from the Latin, flow not only from the poetic genius of the modern language but from the world in which (gasp!) we are living, speaking and listening now. ICEL made a beginning of something that might have been achieved with the work of poets and theologians, pastoral ministers and musicians. But the head office closed it down. Nevertheless, we can’t forget that the work now is not simply to use or not use this awful book. The work is to take ourselves out of this sad and ridiculous situation.

Let’s believe that the good that can come of the “new missal” is our greater awareness that the words of ritual matter and that our English language is more than up to the task.

43 comments

  1. What a shame it all is. So poorly done.
    Here you have the Catholic Church – a big deal – in the Enlgish speaking world- also a big deal – with a second rate set of texts. Just not competent at all. As far as I can see, driven by ideas, not esteem for English. Don’t English speaking Catholics have the right to a set of texts prepared by those who love the English langauge?

    1. Well, _I_ certainly think we have that right, but none of the entities in Rome appear to have given the question, let alone my opinion on it, any thought whatsoever. Or, if they did, it rather seems to me the answer is a firm “NO!”

      Not wanting to have my ears grated off weekly, I suspect I’ll be exhibiting some avoidance behavior very soon.

  2. I repeat the comment I posted earlier this week in the discussion on Bishop Slattery’s comments.
    “The Irish people, in their wisdom, have elected a poet, Michael D Higgins as their next President.
    Why didn’t Vox Clara have the sense to include a poetic voice in their number?”
    Language matters. It is a vital way that we use to express our feelings and communicate with each other. We need to feel comfortable in what we say and be sensitive to the phrases and nuance of words uttered by others. If we ignore the importance of considered care in our choice of words, then we risk the loss of beauty and the cadence of the spoken word. Maybe we have lost an opportunity for a generation.

    Chris McDonnell UK

  3. In my experience, poets, especially those of considerable reputation, find it very hard to work with committees and drawn-out stages of review. It is not their accustomed metier. And given the very literalist approach demanded by Liturgiam authenticam, poets would only despair. Why give themselves to a process that in essence regards the English language as a second-rate and suspect substitute for Latin?

    Beauty needs room to breathe.

  4. I think it’s worth highlighting the point Gabe Huck makes about how V2 transformed the purpose of liturgical texts. Most of the Latin texts we are trying to translate were not written to do the jobs of communication and proclamation that they now have to fulfil. The Latin collects yield their richness when a cleric learned in Latin meditates on them afterwards, having previously mumbled them during the celebration. The Gloria–even after ICET tried to streamline it, let alone in the VC 2010 horror–is an amorphous mouthful that just does not work as public acclamation.

    1. I can manage, even enjoy, the Gloria we currently have. The new one is just plain wretched to sing, whatever one does with it musically. The text is just awful, as text, for singing.

      1. I’m sorry if this has been beaten to death already somewhere, but is there an analysis of why the new text of the Gloria is awful and unfit for music?

        Many of the phrases are the same as the current Gloria, a few are elaborated/extended, a few are rearranged, and a few are completely new. What is it that makes the new text completely defective?

  5. In the parish I serve the people know about 8 settings of the gloria. They love singing the gloria. We have introduced the Storington gloria and it is simply not anywhere near as singable as any of the previous ones. We will be looking at others as time goes by, but of the many we auditioned we thought the Storington would be the simplest to learn. The folks are making a valiant effort, but I am a singer and along with many of them am having difficulties. We are on week six. I don’t remember any previous setting taking this long to adapt to. As Franz Joseph said of the composer Salieri in Amadeus: “Too many words!”

      1. Jeffrey, I would beg to differ.

        Already in measure 5 we are brought up by the most almighty bump on the unimportant conjunction “and” — a mis-stress that a first year student would be told to go away and fix — which is found again on the words “with” [the Holy Spirit] and “in” [the glory of…] shortly before the end. “We glorify you” is similarly endowed with crammed-in syllables and a resultant false accent on “fy” instead of on “glo”, and the misaccentuations continue in “Lord God, heavenly King, O God, almighty Father”. And we are still only one-third of the way through the piece.

        The point I am making here is that you can get away with syncopations and false text accents at speed, but not at this maestoso “noble” tempo. The music itself is not too bad: it’s the text setting that is the problem. The natural speech-rhythms of the words go out of the window too often.

    1. JF –
      What Franz Joseph said was addressed to Mozart. And what he said was ‘too many notes’ – to which Amadeus replied (roughly remembered): ‘I have used neither too many nor too few, but precisely what was required’.

      The alterations in the new translation of Gloria are, in fact, very few, and strike me as rather inconsequential as concerns their musicality (and I am a professional choirmaster and organist). The greatest alteration is in the angelic greeting which opens this hymn – where we have restored the ‘good will’ expected of those who will have peace. Did anyone, after all, ever have peace who lacked or refused the good will which is a gift from God?: another example of the wanton disregard for accuracy and substance which typifies our current translation.

  6. Yes, John beauty does need room to breathe and the contribution of a poet may well have put a brake on language that stifles meaning. A poet might have despaired, but it would have been a voice raised before the consequence of the deliberations was felt.

  7. What’s going to happen to this blog 12 months from now once any and all brouhaha from the Missal transition has subsided?

    I can’t imagine what we’ll be arguing about. Maybe the translation of the Liturgy of the Hours? I can hear it now: (“But noooooobody can understand what ‘magnifies’ means…”)

  8. Gabe Huck: Perhaps it [Latin] was composed simply to sound wonderful and to sing well. In fact, most of the time this Latin text has been prayed with assemblies that have no idea what it means. But that is not our problem. In Latin, it probably does one thing important for ritual: It can be chanted and the sound itself will do good work. Fine. (my addition, bold, italics)

    The sung propers and sequences of the Mass in the original Latin are not divertimenti! The Latin composition in many of the sequences are the wondrous works of fine lyricists. The Golden Sequence’s meter, parallelism and word play, is, in my opinion, on a par with classical Latin lyricists. One could spend his or her entire life studying the syntax, semantics, and historical import of the Roman Canon. How dare anyone, assert that our ancient (and living) heritage was and is but mere entertainment!

    Every time I make gestures to reconcile with other Catholics, someone comes along and denigrates Romanitas as if it were mere trash. Better than for us traditionalists to hold tenuously to our ancient faith unless it be further abused by those who consider themselves greater than more than a millennium of culture and worship.

  9. The Latin does sound wonderful and sing well; the new English does neither. It has been foisted upon congregations, and many priests are struggling with it as well (when one hears some of the linguistic gabble in collects and other prayers, this is no surprise). Some may think that this distaste and unease will soon subside, but I very much doubt it. For my own part, as well as flinching at the many linguistic infelicities of the new version, that I find annoying, distasteful and just plain wrong, time and again I find myself asking “what on Earth was that about?” when a particularly periphrastic prayer flits past my ears. Hardly the kind of deepening of a prayerful attitude supposedly hoped for by those who have enforced this new version.
    Mr Zarembo: please define “Romanitas” in this context. You may also like to know that it is a matter of record that some monastics chanted in Latin during the Middle Ages without having the least idea what they were on about.

    1. So why aren’t millions, thousands or even hundreds flocking this this website and similar if this has been foisted upon them? I doubt there will be anything near the reactions and defections that occured when the Pauline Missal was indeed foisted upon the Church.

      1. Well, Mitch, I guess it depends on what you call a flock.
        Note:
        (1) 22,000+ people signed What If We Just Said Wait.
        (2) Pray Tell gets more than 8,000 unique visitors a day. As most people do not check in every day, our readers certainly number more than that in absolute terms. Add to that the coverage being offered at NCR and US Catholic and other sites (Catholica.au, Assoc. of Catholic Priests of Ireland, Misguided Missal, etc.), and it starts to add up. My article in Commonweal, “It Doesn’t Sing,” has been on the “most read on the site” list since it appeared at the beginning of July.
        (3) A CARA survey just showed that something like 77% of Catholics in the U.S. don’t yet know there IS a new translation coming. So asking why they are not concerned is pre-mature.

      2. (2) Pray Tell gets more than 8,000 unique visitors a day. As most people do not check in every day, our readers certainly number more than that in absolute terms.

        Pray Tell’s Alexa rank is 1,642,570.
        WDTPRS’s Alexa rank is 138,473

      3. Sam, I don’t know what the measures of that index are, but I take it a lower number means more visitors.

        Whatever it all means, we really are glad you logged on today and boosted our numbers! You realize, I hope, that Mitch will now count you as evidence that people believe the missal “has been foisted upon them.” Thanks for stopping by!

    2. it is a matter of record that some monastics chanted in Latin during the Middle Ages without having the least idea what they were on about.

      And lay people today say prayers and sing hymns without paying attention to their words. They don’t realize that they’re being asked to pray for others in the Confiteor, or just it means to say to God “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.”

    3. re: #19 by Nicholas Clapton on November 3, 2011 – 6:32 pm

      First, an apology: I wrote my earlier post in a fit of white-hot anger. Perhaps I love the Latin language and liturgy to the point of idolization. Traditional Catholics could find Gabe Huck’s statement offensive. Yes, I’ve done my fair share of barb-throwing here on PTB and elsewhere. Huck’s statement truly smarted.

      Romanitas is the synergy of belief and faith which unfolds dogma and doctrine through devotions and liturgy which have originated in the Latin of early Roman Christianity. While the western Roman Empire fell in 476 CE, Latin preserved the doctrine and dogma of imperial Roman Christianity during the gradual conversion of western European peoples. The Latin liturgy and Latin catechisms interlocked, as the homilies and sermons of priests often explained the meaning of the Mass through metaphor and paraphrase. The Mass is the ultimate affirmation of faith. Its celebration in Latin preserved the truths of the faith and ensured that the Church proclaimed these truths corporately. Some medieval monks might not have known any Latin. I suspect that many were well-educated in the truths of Christianity. They knew the meaning and intent of the chants. Latin liturgy affirmed universality despite individual literacy. Romanitas is a celebration of this unfolding “one voice” of truth through a common language and expression.

      In recent decades, postmodernism has caught up with Catholic worship. Now, the “one voice” of Latin liturgy must yield to an individual semantic and syntactic understanding of each Mass prayer. The corporate and doctrinal unity afforded by Latin liturgy must be sacrificed for didacticism. Every time I kneel and recite the judica me with the servers, Romanitas flows through me. I am not the terminus of Mass.

      1. But surely the great mystery of the presence of the Risen Lord among us is not confined to Romanitas??? ISTM that you are very close to making what is to you a sacramental sense of the sacred into an idol — into THE definitive access for everyone into the great mystery of the Spirit’s work among us. I suspect the Spirit does not care which language God’s grace flows through.
        I think you have put your finger on exactly what is at issue here: Is “Romanitas” a uniquely transcendent, sacral culture, beyond all (other) human cultures? Or is it, was it, the historical context of the growth of the Church which has legitimately spread beyond and into other cultures that are equally capable of receiving and proclaiming the revelation of God in Christ?

      2. Re: #28 by Ann Riggs on November 5, 2011 – 8:58 pm

        Ann, you are very correct that the presence of the Lord in the Eucharist is not confined to Romanitas, or any particular cultural expression. You are also very right to criticize me as veering too close to an idolization of my cultural-religious construct. I would say that I’m already past the boundary of idolization, and that I am fighting to maintain balance.

        The Holy Spirit has manifested itself in a great variety of Christian cultures. Arab, Greek, and Slavic Byzantine Christianity, Coptic and Ethiopian Christianity, and the “Oriental Orthodox” Churches all exhibit different cultures and languages but the same apostolicity. The Holy Spirit has never played favorites with the Rome diocese.

        “Romanitas” was, and is, never the only vehicle of trinitarian presence in the world. It was, and is, never the only expression of Christian culture and liturgy. It is, as you note, a unique way in which the Christianity has transmitted its belief, culture, and liturgy through the peoples evangelized by Western Christianity. Until the introduction of the 1970 Missal and its national translations, the Roman Rite for the most part propagated itself through the Latin language. Even the Reformation fathers could not escape the pull of Romanitas. Cranmer’s propers are often very literal translations of the Sarum.

        The “Missal crisis” is a reminder that inculturation and vernacularization, while value-neutral, have challenged some of the previous unity fostered by the Latin language and “Romanitas”. This severance cannot be denied by either “side” unless we lose our entire history.

  10. response to #20

    People are not flocking to this website because the Vox Clarabelles and their enablers have made it too hard to care.

  11. “Some monastics” to “and lay people today.” A qualification to a generalization.

    I regret to say that I find the second sentence of the response (particularly, “or just it means to say to God”) quite unclear. What I can make of it and the preceding sentence seem to me unwarrantably judgmental.

    Perhaps I have misunderstood.

    John

    1. Sorry, I meant “just what it means to say to God.” And I am stunned I didn’t put the word “some” in front of “lay people”. I did not mean to make such a gross generalization. My apologies.

      That said, I do know people (some younger, some not-so-young) who haven’t really considered the words they’re praying in English. The Confiteor issue (that at the end, we ask everyone to pray for us, which means everyone is asking us to pray for them) didn’t occur to me until a couple years ago, and I’ve made an effort to share that epiphany whenever I talk about or carry out liturgical catechesis.

      1. I do consider what I’m praying in English. Hence my intense dismay at what we’re about to have forced upon us.

  12. Jeffrey Pinyan :
    I’m sorry if this has been beaten to death already somewhere, but is there an analysis of why the new text of the Gloria is awful and unfit for music?
    Many of the phrases are the same as the current Gloria, a few are elaborated/extended, a few are rearranged, and a few are completely new. What is it that makes the new text completely defective?

    Jeffrey,

    It is precisely the elaborations/extensions and new phrases that make the new Gloria unsingable, or, in an effort to be charitable, very hard to sing well. The words just do NOT flow well when sung. For one thing, some combinations of phonemes are hard to articulate, and more so when sung. And there are places where it’s just clunky and breaks whatever rythym might have been.

    And then there’s all of what Paul said, much better than I could.

    1. Actually, I find the new Gloria text more singable. I would have chosen a different approach to the opening line, but the rest of it is an improvement over what we had. Ditto the Sanctus.

  13. Rita Ferrone :
    Well, Mitch, I guess it depends on what you call a flock.Note:(1) 22,000+ people signed What If We Just Said Wait.(2) Pray Tell gets more than 8,000 unique visitors a day. As most people do not check in every day, our readers certainly number more than that in absolute terms. Add to that the coverage being offered at NCR and US Catholic and other sites (Catholica.au, Assoc. of Catholic Priests of Ireland, Misguided Missal, etc.), and it starts to add up. My article in Commonweal, “It Doesn’t Sing,” has been on the “most read on the site” list since it appeared at the beginning of July.(3) A CARA survey just showed that something like 77% of Catholics in the U.S. don’t yet know there IS a new translation coming. So asking why they are not concerned is pre-mature.

    Only comments with a full name will be approved.

    This site, no doubt if as popular as you claim and a consensus for the People of God, would then share some responsibility in stirring disobedience and betrayal on the part of Priests and Faithful alike, who in turn have not taught their parishes about the upcoming translations, all to the detriment of souls. Like it or not it is to be implemented and people should have been informed.

    1. Mitch, no go to the consensus piece. I never said anything about “a consensus of the people of God.”

      You asked why people weren’t “flocking” to Pray Tell or other places where a critique of the missal has been presented. You asked why thousands or even hundreds don’t read this website. Well, they do.

      Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the sinister connection between people not knowing about the new translation, and people “flocking” to sites where the translation is critiqued. The readers of Pray Tell are withholding vital information from the People of God! That’s an interesting idea. 🙁

      1. I also asked why millions aren’t ? One Priest right here on another post stated openly he will use the 98 translation. No doubt egged on by this site. And probably not an isolated incident. I did not say that PT blog is withholding information so don’t misquote me. What I did say is that if this blog is as influential as you say then angering people who have a responsibility to teach others, which you state has not been done, may well indeed have contributed to the attitude of ignoring the new translation or confusing people who may be eager to learn about it. Would you like to address that directly and how it is not so or not possible? Since many of the 8000 people do not comment here than a percentage of them may be reading it as I do, to view the other side of the arguement and see if there is merit. Only a minute group of the 8000 appears to think it important enough to comment. Perhaps others just walk away. Maybe you could explain why.

  14. Rita Ferrone :
    Sam, I don’t know what the measures of that index are, but I take it a lower number means more visitors.
    Whatever it all means, we really are glad you logged on today and boosted our numbers! You realize, I hope, that Mitch will now count you as evidence that people believe the missal “has been foisted upon them.” Thanks for stopping by!

    Only comments with a full name will be approved.

    People who click this page are counted as having the attitude that the “Missal has been foisted upon us” and a visit is evidence of such? Where do you get that from my postings? Your intricate use of the vernacular allows you to draw almost any conclusion that is not there. It is not necessary to drag me into your pool of innuedo in your response to Mr Howard.

  15. In all truth, this blog tends to draw a certain type of commenter (and reader) just like all blogs do. I’m not sure it’s representative of the Catholic population, but I’d suspect not.

    I’d also say that people who proclaim they’re going to do this or that publicly sometimes do it and sometimes don’t but their actions are always their own, and they are responsible for them. The internet doesn’t change that.

    Certain ones have been very vocal. Well, they will do what they will do, and no doubt have already made up their mind about what that is or isn’t. And they will get the consequences when consequences are warranted.

    The only thing the internet has changed about all of this is that it’s harder to get away with public abuses of information and bs-ing in this day and age. People have search engines and they notice this stuff.

  16. In all truth, this blog tends to draw a certain type of commenter (and reader) just like all blogs do. I’m not sure it’s representative of the Catholic population, but I’d suspect not.

    Seems to me as well.

    For some of us the new missal translation is actually a homecoming of sorts. Growing up Lutheran before the merger of the various Lutheran bodies, many of us used the old Lutheran “Common Service” which used the historic responses known to pre-Vatican II Catholics. We responded “and with your Spirit”, we began the Nicene Creed with “I believe”, we referred to Christ as “consubstantial” with the Father (conservative Lutherans still do).

    I can understand why some post-Vatican II Catholics are having some angst about the “new” translation, but for this convert, it truly is a homecoming. I will be praying texts that my Catholic relatives prayed for generations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *