Primary tabs

body: 

<p>
Thank you for taking the time to take this month&#39;s poll.
</p>
<p>
In this month&#39;s <a href="/translations">Sounding Board survey</a>, Bishop Donald W. Trautman argues that the new translation of the Missal is incomprehensible. Read about the changes and tell us how they sound to you.
</p>
<h5><a href="/translations">Please take our entire survey on the new translations of the Roman Missal by clicking here.</a> </h5>
<p>
The results will appear in the July 2010 issue of <em>U.S. Catholic</em>. <a href="https://www.cambeywest.com/usc/uscpaids.asp" target="_blank">Order your copy today! </a>
</p>
<p>
<a href="/poll">Take other polls here.</a>
</p>

Comments

Submitted by Martin (not verified) on

I think that Latin would be best then everyone can have their own language translation alongside. It grieves me as in my parish we have separate Polish, Indian Masses, and it's like they are segregated. Rather than aiding unity, the vernacular divides us, Babal style. Especially at the big events, e.g. World Youth Day where you have a hotchpotch of languages and no one person can follow the whole Mass unless they are a pro-linguist.

Submitted by The_Truth (not verified) on

"Why not just have the Priest say the Mass in Latin, and then the faithful can have the translation in whatever language they wish? It seems that this would solve ALL of the issues....those who favor the 1972 translation can follow along with that translation...those who prefer the new translation can follow along with that....those who speak Spanish can follow along in Spanish...etc...there are precious few times when the assembly all speak together, and in those cases the Latin texts can be easily memorized. Such a big mountain being made of a rather simple mole-hill."

And then I'll ask:

Why not just have the Priest say the Mass in ENGLISH, and then the faithful can have the translation in whatever language they wish? It seems that this would solve ALL of the issues....those who favor the LATIN translation can follow along with that translation...those who prefer the new translation can follow along with that....those who speak Spanish can follow along in Spanish...etc...there are precious few times when the assembly all speak together, and in those cases the assembly will already be speaking a common language that everyone understands instead of people being forced to memorize Latin texts which many people will not truly understand. Such a big mountain being made of a rather simple mole-hill.

;)

But the Mass IS in Latin...the English is a translation. The question is how to solve the problem of a single imposed translation. The solution would seem to be to not impose a single translation, but rather have the Mass in the base language (Latin) and allow translations that suit the individual (although they would have to receive an imprimatur naturally!)

I have a variety of Latin-English Missals...all of them with slightly different translations of the English, some very formal, some more plain English. While I see the humor of your post, I fail to see the usefullness.

Submitted by The_Truth (not verified) on

"But the Mass IS in Latin...the English is a translation."

But the Mass IS translated from other languages besides Latin to begin with since the Bible was not written entirely in Latin. Surely it wasn't transferred perfectly word for word back then.

"The question is how to solve the problem of a single imposed translation."

It would seem to me the answer to that problem is to do it in the native tongue that most people listening to the message would understand. I wonder if in the poor parts of Africa if they are having this discussion? Are they trying to teach these uneducated people Latin or are they just saying it in a language that the majority actually fully understand?

"While I see the humor of your post, I fail to see the usefullness."

I was attempting to provide more of a critical thinking aspect with a smaller touch of humor. ;)

In the end, if we are going back to the base, then we should remove electricity from the Churches and use only candles instead. No microphones for the priests nor readers either. Etc. Where does the line get drawn? Why does something old somehow make it better? At least without the electricity, more people would be able to fully comprehend what was being said.

If I had to guess, God probably could care less about this issue altogether.

In any event, you seem like a great guy and hopefully the Church can have it both ways to accommodate all of their faithful.

Peace!

Submitted by The_Truth (not verified) on

This entire thread is beyond amazing. This site has put out countless articles about molestation and those get a tiny handful of responses, but when it comes to "something important" like Latin vs English, then everyone cares enough to speak out. I'm sure Jesus would be so proud.

In the survey poll in December which asks if people are concerned that they could be denied the Eucharist, a total of 201 people voted. But here, currently there are 2,795 votes.

Hmmm... receiving the gift of Jesus or fighting over languages?... not a tough decision for most people here apparently.

It's comforting to know that children are getting raped and people stay relatively quiet, but when it comes to something absolutely trivial in comparison, people come out in droves to speak up.

It's great to see that people have their priorities in order.

If all of the people on this thread (and the millions of others like you that aren't on this site), put forth a fraction of the effort illustrated here toward stopping children being molested and raped, then maybe REAL change could be taking place. Instead of blaming the media and outsiders, perhaps a good look in the mirror is more apropos.

The little boy that is off being violated right now is more concerned with the Latin vs English debate I'm sure.

Peace to all.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on

The sexual abuse problem flared up with the destruction of the Liturgy.

The election of Benedict marks a new Springtime that will recover the Liturgy and suppress the abuse.

Submitted by Qualis Rex (not verified) on

Amen

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on

Considering the abuse crisis was already going on in the 1950s and 1940s I don't see how this is logical.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on

Abusers before the New Mass were truly pathological. And fewer in number.

Abusers after the New Mass were either pathological, or tempted by their newly gained rock-star status. And they did not have the strict morality to restrain them.

Either way, the big problem was the homosexual tendency that infiltrated the clergy.

Submitted by The_Truth (not verified) on

--"Abusers before the New Mass...Abusers after the New Mass..."

LOL... you really think the different Mass was the cause of peaks and valleys of child molestation? That is almost as good as the first graph on here concerning global temperatures & pirates:

Graph

How many decades are there separating the Old & New Mass? What do you think is the percentage of abuse victims still alive from each the Old & New Eras?

--"Either way, the big problem was the homosexual tendency that infiltrated the clergy."

This statement is so uneducated that it isn't even funny. First, people are either homosexual or they are not. Second, it has roots in genetics. Third, homosexuality has been deemed "normal" by the medical community for the past 35+ years while child predators have mental illness. Sexual orientation is not related to whether one is a child molester. They are two separate issues. If you'd like to learn about it:

Gay Genetics

It's only been 35+ years that educated doctors have realized that homosexuality is normal... how many more decades will it take before you and other non-accepting Catholics choose to accept reality?

Peace!

Pages