More translation boogey men
More on the translation front.
TORONTO, Canada (The Catholic Register) – The outgoing president of the North American Academy of Liturgy and a leading Catholic liturgist has told The Catholic Register the most recent translation of the Roman Missal is “a step backwards” for ecumenical relations.
“It’s going to feel like the ecumenical movement has taken a hit,” Father Paul Turner, pastor of St. Munchin Church in Cameron, Mo., and author of a half-dozen books on Catholic liturgy, said following an opening liturgy for the North American Academy of Liturgy annual meeting here Jan. 4.
New, more literal, translations from Latin of liturgical texts scheduled to hit parishes in two years are a departure from the Second Vatican Council’s movement toward common texts with Anglican, Lutheran and other churches, Father Turner said. Those common texts were a specific goal of council fathers in the 1960s, and non-Catholic scholars were consulted by Catholic liturgists and translators in the past.
“That same effort is not being made today,” he said.
While Father Turner regrets the ecumenical implications of the new translations, he supports the new texts generally.
“The words will be an improvement as a whole,” he said.
So not having identical translations is now a ecumenical threat? Plus considering that already Anglican and Lutheran churches already do not use the same wording in lectionaries this argument makes even less sense. Is the current translation anything like the much more beautiful language in the Anglicans Book of Common Prayer? Are there really Anglicans and Lutherans who would give up on ecumenism because of more accurate translations changes? If so then there wasn't much chance of moving forward with them anyway.
What I never understand about the translation gripers is how narrow there view is. If they really think more accurate translations are a problem then they should be griping about the official Latin texts instead. If there is such a problem with the Latin texts in their view then they should be lobbying for them to change since they would affect all the other language translations - not just English.
Father Turner also warned that most dioceses in North America aren’t ready for the confusion and emotional reactions which will accompany a change in liturgy two years from now.
These snobs have the same view of the laity as John Kerry does for the military. "Halp us Fawther Turnr - We r knot able to adapt 2 littergikal chainges."
Update: This is not exactly what Fr. Richsteig suggested, but I think it fits.
Known as 
I tried for 2 minutes to figure out how a church could be named st. munchKin caps added for effect.
The more I hear the usual suspects of the Liturginazi International whining and moaning about the new translations the better I feel about them. If they don't like them, they have to be good.
I am also happy that they are revealing their arrogance and elitism regarding 'Joe and Josephine Pew'.
Jeff, I have a visions on you photoshoping "Halp us Fawther Turnr - We r knot able to adapt 2 littergikal chainges" into the Minnesota NG picture. (Please, pretty please!)
If the sky didn't fall and the planet didn't implode after the radical changes in the late 60's (and it didn't!), then it won't when we start saying "I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof." I'm with Father Erik. The more I hear about the uppities whining about translations, the more I look forward to the new text's arrival in the missalette!
First, Father, you beat me to the idea. If in recent times there was a need for that kind of photoshopping, this is it.
Second, wouldn't you think everyone would be excited about the opportunity for catechesis these changes present? I mean the series of changes we're looking at are just rife with opportunity - ready-made material for the improved homiletics called for by the Second Vatican Council. Surely that's a good thing, right? Right? Hello?
I admit that I dread the coming liturgical changes. I happen to love the words of the current liturgy.And I'm NOT looking forward to defining 'transubstantial with' to 4th graders. Plus, some of the precision of suggested changes sound like a Protestant Creed, or a theological explanation rather than the lyrically expressed mysteries we have contemplated through the liturgy in recent decades. You may laugh, but words like 'one in being with the Father' play and replay in one's head, inviting contemplation.
Whatever the changes are, I'll accept them, and i'll adapt, no doubt. But that doesn't mean they won't give me a headache!
OOPS. Make that 'consubstantial'. See that, already I can't remember it. And officially, i'm not even a total idiot.
I'm all for the changes and I'm GLAD that the old retro 60s types hate them. And Peter's point about the changes in catechesis are right on point. Perhaps then there will be fewer "evangelizers" and "catechists" making a mad dash for examples from the Protestant Evangelical churches.
The more I hear the usual suspects of the Liturginazi International whining and moaning about the new translations the better I feel about them. If they don't like them, they have to be good.
Or as I call it, navigating by the butt-end of the moral compass. :)
Scott
Missouri Synod Lutherans use "consubstantial" in their lectionary.
Joanne,
You are dreading teaching 4th graders the menaing of "consubstantial"? What have you been doing all this time? "Consubstantial" is not even a translation - it's just thelatin. "One in being" is meaningless. Consubstantial is a technical, scholastic term. You can translate or transliterate or just use the latin - you still need to describe the correct meaning of a word. Having read my fair share of Aristotle and St. Thomas, I am comfortable with the latin term and also think that "one in being" is misleading.
I would rather teahc 4th graders (and I do) what "consubstantial" means than teach them what "one in being" means, Heck, I don't know what "one in being" means. I think I would need to drink bong-water before I could understand it.
Ok, guys, but my catechism class is having trouble with the basics like 'eucharist' and 'reconciliation.' I use those words in every class, but do they remember them? No. Sigh. These children are not unintelligent, but their vocabularies are not strong. And i've noticed with kids (including my own) that they do remember parts of the liturgy (along with misinterpreted bits of Scripture like "the mighty axe of God!")even when very young and repeat them in their play, so they're thinking about them...but they don't remember words that are three syllables or more. (though they have plenty of storage in their minds for video characters and strategies, which is weird.)
I'm not saying this is a reason why the current liturgy should not change, I'm just stating why I'll miss it when it does. Maybe we'll get lucky and can keep a children's liturgy with simpler words?
On third thought, Jesus spoke simple words to the simple. "I am the Bread of Life." "I am the Good Shepherd." "I know My sheep and My sheep know me." Hmmm...There's no way He would have explained Himself to "little ones" as "consubstantial with the Father". Therefore, no matter what changes may come, I think I'll take my teaching cues from Jesus.
Ask any 4 year old, "What dinosaur is that?" They will have no problem telling you that it is a stegosaurous or triceroptops. Young kids are perfectly capable of understanding big words. They just need to have some hooks in their heads to hang the knowledge on. Don't start with word consubstantial. Start with the concept.
Joanne,
I agree with Terentia - they can get big words. But as I mentioned before, you still need to address the concept, and the phrase "one in being" is misleading. Perhaps 4th grade catechetics need not address this particular doctrinal point at all. But if it does, I would not rely on the current transaltion of consubstantial to teach the meaning of the term. The modern understanding of "being" does not begin to approach the Aristotelian meaning of "substance".
As for "children's Masses", the Mass is not a catechetical tool.
Remember.
The Parents are the First TEACHERS of these children. When will the Church haves some ecclesial fortitude and state that PArent get off ouduffs and teach yoru children. I realize at times this is a loss cause because sometime the children are smarter than the parents whichis a scary thought.
We as Catholic have bought into this dumbing downof Litrugy and catechism. Do we not posses gifted minds form God and why can not we use these minds at Mass.
Currently at our Parish we have been using chanted gregorian chants for the Psalms. The people actually love them from the Haugen-Hass flavor of the day. We have had solemn vespers for Advent on Sunday night. The People of the Parish are craving for MORE of this stuff.
This almost sounds like a NAncyPelosi view of Catholic Church.
And since when was Mass the place for ecumenism? I'm sorry, but the Mass is OUR worship and it is one time when we shouldn't care about offending our Christian brothers and sisters (who broke away from US, by the way).
In defense of Fr. Turner, what is he actually quoted as saying?
"It's going to feel like the ecumenical movement has taken a hit." Is this not true?
"The words will be an improvement as a whole." Is this not true?
"Nobody's ready." Is this not true?
//"It's going to feel like the ecumenical movement has taken a hit." Is this not true?//
What ecumenical movement? Depends on how you define ecumenical.
"The words will be an improvement as a whole." Is this not true?
Yes.
"Nobody's ready." Is this not true?
I am, and I'm not a "nobody."
my nieces'/nephews' vocabulary is atrocious. i blame the shorthand text messaging & rampant use of slang on email.
Thank you Terentia and others for your suggestions. When the time comes, the Holy Spirit will help us find a way to teach what we need to teach. I often forget that we are rarely given our "daily bread" ahead of time.
The reality is, however, that in certain areas our children have been suffering from a "dumbed-down" education that makes teaching the catechism, etc more difficult, especially when you take into account that we have to rely on the children, too often, to evangelize their parents. (Don't laugh. It's working.) This situation isn't going to change next week, so the burden IS currently on the catechists whether we like it or not. We're grateful for the parents who BRING their children to Mass and to class as it stands. Still, it IS important not to water down the Church's teaching to conform to the norms of society. Thanks for the reminder, there.
Another advantage to having this discussion is that in recognizing my premature grief at losing the words to the liturgy I have cherished all these years, I am beginning to understand the reactions of those who grieved over the last revision, which was much more drastic.
When children are exposed to words (for example 'eucharist') in their homes they have absolutly no problem understanding them, even from young ages. The problem is that many of the parents don't even truly know what the words mean.
Most people's parents don't say "Eucharist". They say "Mass" and "Communion".
When I was a kid, I'm afraid I lumped "Eucharist" together with the rest of the buzzword-of-the-week stuff we had to learn. It was only as a middle-aged adult that I began to appreciate the beauty of the word "Eucharist". But then, we didn't get much catechesis about it, either. "We don't call it Confession now, we call it Penance. Whoops, now we call it Reconciliation. And Mass is now called the Eucharist, which means Thanksgiving" is all we heard about it. Literally. That's it. Everything else I had to learn myself.
I was a very good little girl, and therefore never drew the Pilgrims carving up the Turkey of God. :)
OTOH, if you tell the kids that "Eucharist" was what the early Christians called the Mass, and talk about exciting stuff like the early Christians sneaking around trying not to get killed by the Roman Empire, that's a good hook. :)
Maybe we need a program, like a "No Catholic Left Behind", which would encourage bishops and pastors to make sure that the laity knows the Faith well, and would hold each other accountable for failures.
I fear that "no child left behind" is the reason I find 4th graders who can barely read. I don't think this will be a problem in catechesis, per se, (the mentally disabled learn about Jesus more directly and beautifully than we do) but it may lead to future parents' inability to teach THEIR children what they have learned...Today, it's a problem for many catechists--not because the children have no sense of Jesus (they DO, and it's beautiful) but because it harder to instill the particulars of the Catholic faith, so the educators are on just as much of a learning curve as the kids are.
Umm... the education level of children shouldn't dictate Sacred Liturgy anyway. Sounds like the American in us: "We must appeal to the lowest common denominator." The next step is just to reduce it to "gaa, gaa, goo, goo" so that infants can understand. Substitute Liturgical Music with rap... same thing. :) (sorry about the swipe at rap)