The Provincial Emails blog has more about a recent Mil Journal Sentinel article on the new translation.
In the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article linked in this earlier post, our pastor mentions that he sent a letter to parishioners on the pending changes in the English translation of the Mass. Here is his letter.
Those changes and what lead up to them are also the subject of this Adoremus Bulletin article.
They differ on almost every point, even on history. Father Jurkus portrays a change in approach sprung in 1999 by "Pope John Paul II and, reportedly, a smaller group of Vatican experts...". The Adoremus article notes that "Pope John Paul had called for review and reform of the post-conciliar liturgy in his 1988 apostolic letter Vicesimus Quintus Annus."
Here is the text the letter of
Fr. Alan Jurkus(from the scanned copy above) with my commentary.
This Advent, all parishes in the USA will be asked to start an educational and formation program to prepare us for the implementation of the NEW[dare we say modern] translations, which will be used in our Masses starting Advent, 2011.
I thought a little history might be helpful.
The Vatican Council (1963-65) decreed that the spoken language of "the people" might[he admits that vernacular is optional] be used for celebrations of the Mass and the Sacraments. This was a return to the ancient custom of the Church moving away from 500 years of using Latin, which ceased being the spoken language of the people centuries before. [The Roman Canon has not changed except for minor details for 1500 years. I recommend Michael Davies - A Short History of the Roman Mass Perhaps Fr. Jurkus has heard the addage If it ain't broke, don't fix it? He also ignores Latin's place in other places like the scientific community. Perhaps biologists should translate all those silly names into something more modern, like Pig Latin.]
Pope Paul VI established a commission of international scholars for each language group in the world to translate the New Roman Missal from Latin into the SPOKEN language.[...since some of us WRITE in a different language than we SPEAK] These commissions used a translation principal, which called for the translations to reflect the "SENSE" of the Latin rather than a slavishly literal translation.[That settles it. Fr. Z is out of a job. Curious he doesn't mention by who's instruction(and authority) the commission made that decision.] This principle rooted in the Vatican Council [where?] and preferred among linguists provided us with several versions of the Mass prayers.[hmmm, apparently Mass prayers were too vague in the Latin to have so many different possible translations.] Each time they were revised, they were a bit better. [rooted in Vatican Council = Spirit of Vatican Council]
Additionally, each English-speaking country was permitted to adapt the translations to their own particular vocabulary so that the Mass prayers would be readily understandable. Just think how different English is in England than here. [It's so incomprehensible it might as well be Greek! ........ or Latin!]
The Bishops of the USA approved another revised version of the Mass prayers in 1999, and it was sent to the Vatican for "confirmation," so it could be implemented. [... because the Vatican had no authority to quote confirm end quote?]
It was then that Pope[no quotes around Pope] John Paul II and, reportedly, a much smaller group of mostly Vatican experts[LOL!! Only linguists can be scholars I guess. In the Vatican it is the eeeeevil Experts] decided that all translations now would no longer be permitted to use the translation principle of "conveying the sense of the original" but would have to follow an exact and literal translation from the Latin.[But they are Linguists! How could they error in judgment?!] This was a tremendous change and was met with deep concern by many linguists and bishops. Several attempts at dialogue[and a vote! What is this the Dark Ages?] to modify this requirement proved fruitless. Work then began on preparing another translation to replace the unpublished 1999 version, this time following the demand for a literal translation.
As the years passed, a decreasing number of bishops continued to seek accommodation by seeking the possibility to use the "sense of the translation" principle or, at least, to adapt the literal translation to the "spoken" language forms suitable for each English-speaking country. [What do the young bishops think on this matter that differs from the old bishops?]
Finally, this year, despite objections of a small remnant of bishops who fought valiantly for some compromise[...Do you think giant puppets were involved? Or maybe this was a more solemn occasion.], the final version was sent to the Vatican for "confirmation," which is expected this summer.
So, where does this leave us? As this Advent begins, we will share the new translations and spend significant time and money to help us make this transition. [You could always just use the existing Latin that is available to you]
Many fear that this translation will result in a "church" English or a translation not in harmony with our spoken language or sound stilted. [Children will no longer need ghost stories with this linguistic monster lurking in the shadows]
In spite of these concerns, this can be a good time for us to re-examine the deeper aspects of our Mass and how we celebrate it and why we celebrate it and why we do and say what we do. This can be a time of deepened appreciation and growth in understanding which, hopefully, will lead to a deeper spirituality. I hope that we will take advantage of this opportunity to do so.[Father does wrap this up nicely I must say]
As Advent comes closer, we will share more information.
-Fr. Alan
If going to English is this bad, why not just go strait to the Latin?
6 comments:
I have not read this book, but my hubby has...The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber. It is an account of what sorts of things were going on during Vatican II and sheds light onto why certain corruptions snuck into the implementation. Reading Sacrosanctum Concilium is eye-opening to anyone who thinks he or she knows what Vatican II said about the Liturgy. Vatican II is not the cause of the bad translations and poor liturgy. It is merely the occasion that was used to promote heterodox agendas.
Thanks for the tip Credo, I'd love to check out
that book.
It is merely the occasion that was used to promote heterodox agendas.
I agree.
Careful of using Davies.
He was excellent, and very persuasive; but sometimes his conclusions were.....ahhh.......taken.....to mean that the Church doesn't have the authority to make changes to its Liturgy.
That would come as a surprise to (inter alia) Pius V.
The book/pamphlet I referenced seemed to indicate that the the Church generally didn't change their liturgies(at least not drastically at one time) but not that they couldn't. Pius V's changes (and suppressions) are talked about in the booklet - and it seemed to be very level headed. I have read some who have that disposition.
That said, Pius V also didn't suggest a "New" Mass(nor did he change the Roman Canon). Davies does make the point that the idea of "New" liturgy was foreign to the historic Church but did stop short of saying it was not lawful.
LOL
Church Fathers and other authorities have the right to make changes to things, but not as a result of coercion and duress.
They also have no right to institute or create things in the name of the Vatican Council that the Council never called for.
Vatican II was an ecclesiastical shell game, and once you read "Rhine Flows into the Tiber", and perhaps study the involvement if Jewish American Committee and AIPAC in there, you'll see that the votes of the Fathers were sometimes secured through blackmail, among other things...
Post a Comment