US Catholic Faith in Real Life

Primary tabs

Site Section: 
Topic (work in progress): 



If the poll results had shown that 62% wanted a simple plain-English translation, the resluts would be touted as definitive evidence of the "mind of the people" on this issue, with no mention of disgruntled progressives hijacking the poll.

Admittedly, you would likely define me as "conservastive", but why should I be disgruntled? With the resurgence of the Latin Mass...a growing movement towards more orthodox liturgical practices... a new translation that is more faithful to the theology and historic expressions of the Church...a renewed emphasis on understanding the Second Vatican Council in a proper historical context... I am far from disgruntled.

However, I look at Bishop Trautmann's article and see "disgruntled progressive" everywhere. I look at the "Why don't we just say WAIT" campaign and see "disgruntled progressive". I think your labels are misappropriated. The liturgical conservative has every reason to be happy these days.

Submitted by Dennis (not verified) on

Sorry but a voluntary response survey is not a poll. Data from this type of thing are anicdotal at best if they survey a "population" but results can be drowned in the bias of who responds to the survey and who doesn't as well as being easily subverted by intruders into the population.

A true poll, that generated REAL data controls the population and the response demographics, this does not.

Submitted by Qualis Rex (not verified) on

LOL! Yeah, all polls are "hijacked" if they don't conform to your personal world view and all people are "disgruntled" if they don't share your opinions.

Kind of myopic, don't you think?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on

The Vatican II documents say:

"Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites."

"The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services."

Are you for Vatican II, or against it?

Submitted by Rod (not verified) on

Why would anyone who supports a Latin Liturgy want to have the readings in Vernacular? Do you understand Latin or not. Shouldn't the sermons and the weekly Church bulletin not also be in Latin? If we are going to use Latin at least we could be consistent.

Submitted by Ceile De (not verified) on

What nonsense! A literal translation is perfectly comprehensible. If the Latin is literally translated as "If you commit a mortal sin, you will burn in hell for all eternity", I think that's pretty clear. If a "dynamic" translation is "if you do something really not so nice you really will, in a real way, experience separation, um, from, uh, you know, love, so let's all try to be nice, mmmkay?", the emphasis is different, less likely to leave the listener with a clear view of the rule and the consequences for breaking it and suggests to me that the translater wanted to change the message itself, not just make it comprehensible.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on

You would have to wonder about the intentions

Submitted by Del Sawyer (not verified) on

I'm baffled. The poll shows 62% want Latin and 31% want a literal translation. So only 7% are concerned about understanding whats going on. In my own private survey of friends and aquaintences, about 15% wanted literal or the good old translation. Couldn't find any one who wanted Latin.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on

I am sorry, but are you serious? The translation of the Latin concerns things like, "The Lord be with you"-"And with thy spirit" versus "..."-"And also with you". Both are easily understood! They should have it in a translation, not just the "gist". I think the mass should be performed the way it is in Latin, just in English (i.e., ad orientem, roman vestments, eucharist kneeling, etc.)