* The Vatican-SSPX doctrinal talks are set to begin Monday, 10/26/09, at the Vatican
* Pope Benedict has appointed Cardinal Turkson of Ghana to head the Vatican's justice and peace office; This high profile post is said to "cement his reputation as a possible future papal candidate" amidst speculation of a possible future black pope
* The Bishop of Erie has publicly stated that he prefers modern - inaccurate - Mass translations. He has "sharply criticized" the proposed new "slavishly literal" translation of the Roman Missal (Novus Ordo) into English. He complains that the accurate words in the proposed new translation are "not readily understandable" by "the average Catholic", even though less-educated Catholics in the past had somehow managed to understand these very same words.
He also wants to retain at least two errors that appear in modern translations (the Creed's improperly translated "we believe", and the "for all" at the consecration) because he disagrees with the correct wording (in the case of "for many" vs. "for all") or thinks it goes against "ecumenical agreements" if it is correctly translated ("I" vs. "we"). Note that this means he necessarily condemns the official, authoritative text of the Novus Ordo (for which he says, "the Latin text is not inspired. It is a human text, reflecting a certain mindset, theology and world view") which uses Latin for "we".
He also claims proposed new preface translations "violate English syntax in a most egregious way" and lists other complaints concerning the translation. In fact, he fears the translation could lead to a "pastoral disaster."
Some interesting reflections seem in order, particularly: (1) How is it that the Latin Novus Ordo text can be criticized by modern-leaning Catholics but not by traditional-minded Catholics?, and (2) how is it that a modern-leaning prelate fears making translations more accurate could lead to a "pastoral disaster" but many such moderns in the recent past had no qualms about suddenly replacing the beloved ancient Mass - developed under the guidance of the Holy Spirit over centuries - with an entirely new concoction drafted by men in the 1960's?
Finally, he seems to unwittingly admit what many traditionalists have argued - that the mistranslations were intentional - because he questions their correction, calling it a "reversal." Would it make sense to claim it is a "reversal" rather than a "long overdue correction" if the mistranslations were, in fact, unintentional?
[Related: Latin Mass Facts | Why the Latin Mass? | The Traditional Latin Mass vs. the Novus Ordo (New) Mass]
[10/24]
Posts
