Excuses, excuses

Those familiar with certain facts may be troubled by some "reasons" given for the new, more accurate (Novus Ordo) Mass translations that will be implemented next year. Case in point: One article appearing on a Catholic site entitled 'Missal changes intended to make up for hasty work after Vatican II' states that "the Committee charged with the English translation of the Roman Missal issued the post-Vatican II translations very quickly", implying that problems with post-VII translations are mere "accidents" attributable to "haste." Hopefully, excuses like this won't be given a "free pass" considering that: (1) The new translation is the THIRD edition (how hard is it to change "we" to "I" and "all" to "many", just to name a few simple corrections - yet even these obvious fixes haven't been made until now, decades later), (2) the VERY SAME obvious errors have appeared for decades in multiple translations, raising questions about whether such errors were actually intentional mistranslations rather than "translation errors", (3) it's been 40 years - that's FORTY years (certainly an excessive amount of time to "correct hasty translations"!), and (4) one simply cannot overlook the "radical agenda" of the ICEL.

Even if some translation errors could have been attributed to "hasty work" after Vatican II, the same cannot be said for the forty years which have followed. Rather, this time period has been marked by "liturgical experts" trying to manipulate the liturgy and "shape it" to suit their goals. Some seemed to have lost sight of fact that translation work should be aimed at providing accurate texts rather than providing a means to advance agendas (e.g. the push for "feminist-inspired inclusive language"). Simply blaming the matter on "hasty translations after Vatican II" won't fool Catholics who know a little about what's gone on for the last forty years.

Related: The Traditional Latin ('Tridentine') Mass vs. the New (Novus Ordo) Mass

[9/2]

Recent News Highlights

Recent news highlights...

* Reports indicate that more than 600,000 people have already made reservations to see the Shroud of Turin which will be displayed at the Cathedral of Turin this year from April 10 - May 23. Pope Benedict is scheduled to view the Shroud on May 2.

* According to new study by a sociology professor at Texas Tech University, persons who have multiple tattoos or body piercings were significantly more likely to "use illegal drugs, get arrested on criminal charges, fornicate with multiple partners, or cheat at college". The study's author notes that "escalating levels of body art acquisition and social deviance seem to be concurrent phenomena."

* A documentary film is being made about Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the traditionalist bishop who ran afoul of Church authorities by consecrating four bishops without an apostolic mandate

* Under-population crisis: According to a report from the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, elderly people worldwide will outnumber children in 2045, significantly impacting taxes, healthcare, and the labor pool

* Reports indicate that there has been a "mass exodus" of liberal Catholics in Austria. A dissenting group claims the departures began when the Pope lifted the excommunication of a controversial member of the SSPX. A diocesan spokesman, however, attributes the departures to "church tax" that is collected in that nation.

* A Jewish rabbi has suggested that since Pope Pius XII did not lay down his life, he is not a saint. He said, that "Jews perceive as insensitive the idea that anyone who did not put their life on the line at that time can be considered saintly or as warranting a move in that direction." They apparently are not swayed even by the mounting "piles of evidence" showing that that Pope Pius XII's efforts were instrumental in saving many thousands of Jews - not to mention that his efforts of behalf of Jews did put his life at risk.

* In a recent interview, the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship has stressed the liturgy as the center of the life of the faithful which has "first priority", saying that all else comes after. He says that the "great contribution" of Pope Benedict is his "leading us to the truth of the liturgy" and that it is an "urgent duty" to correct liturgical abuse. He also reminds that without tradition, the Church would be "converted into a changing human institution"

* A Georgetown University professor who is a consultant to Pope Benedict XVI's Council for the Laity has written an article blasting Obama's controversial, homosexual activist, "Safe Schools Czar". The article states that "The appointment of a 'czar' like Kevin Jennings is one way in which President Obama can ensure the influence of homosexual-rights-activists in important places – like our nation’s public schools – without the president’s having to pass a law, or even hold a Congressional hearing, both of which might generate public attention and opposition."

* Archbishop Niederauer of San Francisco has attempted to set the record straight regarding pro-abort 'Catholic' Pelosi's comments regarding "free-will" and abortion. He reminds that "the exercise of freedom does not imply a right to say or do everything" and that "it is entirely incompatible with Catholic teaching to conclude that our freedom of will justifies choices that are radically contrary to the Gospel - racism, infidelity, abortion, theft. Freedom of will is the capacity to act with moral responsibility; it is not the ability to determine arbitrarily what constitutes moral right." He reminds that "free will cannot be cited as justification for society to allow moral choices that strike at the most fundamental rights of others. Such a choice is abortion, which constitutes the taking of innocent human life, and cannot be justified by any Catholic notion of freedom."

* Cardinal Juan Luis Cipriani spoke on the "grave responsibility" that parents have to raise their children in the faith. He reminds that "Raising them in the truth is to know that sin is the true enemy. From a young age we must make them see what sin is, how it is manifested, why it is sin, and of what it consists. And at the same time, we must teach them that Jesus has come with his life to reveal to us the kindness of his love, his forgiveness and his help. They should learn to forgive and to ask for forgiveness"

* A liberal Jesuit magazine has published a piece defending the proposed new translation of the Roman Missal (Novus Ordo) in response to a priest who argued against it. The article defending the new translation discusses the matter from the writer's vantage point as a former participant in the ICEL translation effort (where, he says, "Ideology, it seemed, had taken precedence over accuracy"). He writes that "So much of what I have witnessed or had described to me by eyewitnesses has been nothing shy of a betrayal of the council’s great vision and, in my judgment, largely responsible for the rapid emptying of the pews." He also reveals that he assembled a team to replace the prevailing translation ("a paraphrase instead of a translation") with a new translation, which he says was received with "hostility" by the bishops' committee, but enjoyed "guarded interest" from Rome. Using the example that "If a man is told by his physician that he must lose 50 pounds or face serious problems, he must 'turn back the clock' to the time when he was lighter in order to save his life", he says "that is what the church at the highest levels is calling us to do." He even speaks of "very positive reactions" to the new translations over the past year which he says are "a vast improvement over the uninspiring, banal and all-too-often theologically problematic texts we have been using for nearly 40 years."

[1/14]

Disobedience brewing over new Mass translation

A liberal magazine has published an article which calls for disobedience with regard to the proposed new (Novus Ordo) Mass translation. The new translation - which is said to be more faithful to the authoritative Latin text - finally clears up some decades-old translation errors. Liberals hoped protests from a certain bishop (who "tried mightily to stop the new translation train") might convince the bishops to reject the more accurate translation, but their hopes were shattered when the bishops approved the proposed new translation at their meeting in November.

Now, faced with the prospect of a new, more accurate Mass text, certain liberal minded persons are considering what "strategies" might save them from (God forbid!) having to use the more accurate translation. One liberal writer has publicly issued a call to disobedience stating that...

"This leads me to pose a question to my brother priests: What if we were to awaken to the fact that these texts are neither pastoral nor ready for our parishes? What if we just said, 'Wait'?"

He admits that this might "smack of insubordination to talk this way" but says "it could also be a show of loyalty and plain good sense - loyalty not to any ideological agenda but to our people, whose prayer the new translations purport to improve, and good sense to anyone who stops to think about what is at stake here."

Yea, right, he has no "ideological agenda" whatsoever. He just wants to "save" the people from a more accurate Mass translation. Oh, what a hero he is! Saving Catholics everywhere from accuracy! What a lofty goal that is, eh?

But wait, there's more. Just after the above, he references the "Jesuit Refugee Service [which] affirms to accompany, serve and defend the rights of vulnerable and often forgotten people." As if saving Catholics from what he complains are "clumsy" translations (read: more accurate translations) is akin to "defend[ing] the rights of vulnerable and often forgotten people." And, the cherry on the cake: He claims that what is at stake "is nothing less than the Church’s credibility." Oh please!

In his article, the writer also writes (whines) about...

* "the systematic dismantling of the great vision of the council’s decree [on the liturgy]" (So a more accurate translation of the Mass from the original Latin "dismantles" the Council's decree? How exactly does that happen?)

* "recent instructions from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments that have raised rubricism to an art" (You wouldn't want to have to follow any rules, now would you?)

* "the endorsement, even encouragement, of the so-called Tridentine Mass" (Oh no, anything but that!)

* "the liturgy, the prayer of the people, is being used as a tool - some would even say as a weapon - to advance specific agendas" (But your using the liturgy as a weapon/tool to advance a liberal agenda for the last 40 years was to be praised, right? And, how exactly does making a translation more accurate make the liturgy a "tool" to advance an agenda?)

He also says...

* "Before long the priests of this country will be told to take the new translations to their people by means of a carefully orchestrated education program that will attempt to put a good face on something that clearly does not deserve it" (Hmm... an accurate translation of the Novus Ordo doesn't deserve a "good face"? Now if a tradition-minded Catholic had said that very same thing, wouldn't there be talk of schism?)

* "The veterans who enthusiastically devoted their best creative energies as young priests to selling the reforms of the council to parishioners back in the 1960s will be asked to do the same with regard to the new translations. Yet we will be hard put to do so." ("Selling" the reforms? I thought Catholics had embraced them with such joy)

* "We can see the present moment only as one more assault on the council and, sadly, one more blow to episcopal collegiality" (wah, wah, wah... we shouldn't have to make the Mass translation accurate... no, please not that! wah, wah, wah...)

* "Further, the council also wisely made provision for times of experimentation and evaluation ...something that has been noticeably missing in the present case" (Wisely? Polka masses, clown masses, Satan costumes... Oh PLEASE let this be "noticeably missing"!)

* a supposed need exists to "defend our people from this ill-conceived disruption of their prayer life" (If only you had felt this need 40 years ago!)

He tries to make his point against the new translation by referencing a recent dinner conversation with his friends, some of which were "quite angrily" aware of the "impending changes." He says the ones who were not aware of the changes reacted "somewhere between disbelief and indignation" upon learning of them. [Gee, what a surprise that your (presumably) like-minded friends would agree with you. Alert the press.]

He also claims some newly translated words made a group of Catholics laugh, which he said "should make us all tremble." So he thinks laughter by some people to the phrase "Joseph, spouse of the same virgin" (wow, that's funny) is a matter for trembling, while (presumably) applauding the experimental polka / clown / etc. Masses which have occurred over the last 4 decades. Hmm... interesting. Does he really think that these people in a conference room who supposedly "laughed" at these few words would actually laugh during Mass? Um...nevermind, it's not uncommon for liberals to actually encourage laughter at Mass (gulp!)

He also tries to find support for his position by claiming that some persons in the diocese of South Africa gave the new translation "a chilling reception", and that it "met almost uniformly with opposition bordering on outrage." Doesn't he see a bigger problem here if the - oh so humble - Catholics of that area were truly "outraged" by a more accurate Mass translation?

And, irony of ironies, he appeals for disobedience - the same stick the liberals used against tradition-minded Catholics is now apparently something to be praised if it means sparing Catholics from something that (he thinks) "in the end, [will] actually bring discredit to the Church and further disillusionment to the people." Irony of ironies, is it not? The main difference is, however, that many (but not all) tradition-minded Catholics never were disobedient to begin with. They were just accused of being disobedient.

But, the ironies don’t end there. He has made some "proposals" that he almost certainly would have rejected 4 decades ago if tradition-minded Catholics of that time would have suggested them (e.g. consulting with the people, "market testing"). He knows perfectly well that if these steps had been taken 40 years ago there would have been little chance of the Novus Ordo Mass ever taking hold of mainstream Catholicism. But now, liberals will willingly suggest such measures since things aren't going their way. They will try any desperate attempt possible to save their "sinking ship". In fact, an entire website has been set up so that fellow liberals, "empowered Catholics", and an assortment of misguided Catholics can "have their voice heard", with the hopes that poor Catholics can be spared the horrible disaster of a more accurate Mass translation.

The best irony of all would be if the site was inundated with millions comments such as the following: "I wholeheartedly agree with you - please stop the new Mass translations. Just bring back the traditional Mass."

But that would probably kill the liberals. Literally.

[12/4]