Saint Thomas Aquinas

Monday, March 28, 2011

You Are Too Stupid to Understand the New Mass Translation!

The Association of Catholic Priests seems to think that Catholics are just too stupid to understand the new translation of the Mass. Everyone knows my personal opinion on the matter, lets go back the Latin Mass and be done with this. But since this better translation is being introduced to improve the Novus Ordo, we should all be thankful for that. Yet many priests are rebelling. Who would have though this would happen? Below is their statement in regards to the new translation as it is being promulgated in Ireland. They should have just written, "All of you are too stupid to understand plain English." There are also many other foolish arguments presented. For instance they say that the change will damage the "fabric" of worship in their parishes? What fabric, the peace banner hanging from the rafters of their churches? Anyways, this kind of nonsense really gets under my skin. Enjoy!


Press statement from the Association of Catholic Priests responding to our meeting with a Commission of the Episcopal Conference and their response to our submission, on the subject of the proposed new Liturgical Texts
The Association of Catholic Priests (ACP) regrets the recent decision of the Irish Catholic Bishops, in response to a submission from the ACP, to press ahead with the implementation of the introduction of the new Mass texts as planned next November.
At a meeting in Maynooth on Monday, February 28th  a delegation from the ACP met the Episcopal Commission of Worship, Pastoral Renewal and Faith Development.  There were five members of the Bishop’s Conference and a number of others, including three women, present. The delegation from the ACP voiced the following concerns:
    1. That the proposed texts are unsuitable and unacceptable in a number of respects:
         (i) we believe that, as literal translations of the Latin, they are too complex and too cumbersome. The guidelines state that they should be ‘comprehensible even to the faithful who have received no special intellectual formation”. This is clearly not the case.
        (ii) we have reservations as to their theological veracity, for example at the very heart of the Eucharistic prayers, the new text states that Christ died ‘for many’ rather than ’for all.’
        (iii) we fear that their introduction will damage the present fabric of worship in our parishes, dissuade people from active participation and introduce annoyance, discontent, resentment and possibly anger into the unifying ritual of the Mass
       (iv)we fear that the continued use of sexist language with its use of ‘man’, men’ and ‘brothers’ as generic terms will alienate some women and men, and is a very unfortunate reversal in an area where some progress had been made.
    2.  We believe that the process by which the texts have been drawn up is seriously flawed.  There was no consultation with either priests or people and this is contrary to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council on the Church. An instructive lesson the Church has learned in recent times is that decisions made by small groups and then visited on the Church as a whole without adequate consultation tend not to serve the good of the Church.
 While the Association of Catholic Priests recognises the need for a new and improved translation of the liturgical texts, we believe that the proposed new texts are unsuitable and inadequate. Many priests will struggle with them and many people will regard them as unnecessary and unusable.  Consequently we believe it is unwise to proceed with them.
While the bishops listened to our concerns, we regret to say that, judging by their response, they failed to take on board what we said and did not furnish any reasons for not accepting the concerns that we raised with them. We do not regard this as an appropriate form of listening or dialogue.
We remain convinced that introducing the new texts next November will have serious repercussions for parishes. While some priests may welcome them, it is clear that others will resist them, while many, maybe the majority, will accept them with a sense of resignation and without enthusiasm. In such circumstances it is, we believe, unwise to introduce them.
We will convene a meeting of our members on Thursday, June 2nd , at 2.30pm,  in the parish centre in Portlaoise to consider our response.  In the meantime we encourage our members to continue to discuss this matter with their pastoral councils, and indeed their parishioners generally.
Brendan Hoban  086  6065055                        Leadership Team
Sean McDonagh   087 2367612
P.J. Madden   087 2208882
Tony Flannery   087 6814699

5 comments:

scotju said...

I, for one, will welcome the new translation with open arms. I resent these pompous asses claiming I won't be able to "understand" the new translation. Hey boyos! I "understand" your current Mass quite well. It sucks! From what I have seen of the new and improved translation, it resemables the English translation of the EO. But this brings up this question: if it resemables the old English translation of the EO, why did they have to have a new translation in the first place? They could have just said; "Get out your old missals or buy reprints of the old EO missals." It would have saved us hundreds of hours of work and millions of dollars that could have been spent for other things.

kkollwitz said...

I wonder whom the Association of Catholic Priests represents?

Agellius said...

Yeah, I remember how much of a row was raised by the ACP when mass in the vernacular was introduced 40 years ago, due to the disruption and confusion it was likely to cause. I remember they wanted to introduce the vernacular, and any other liturgical changes, only very gradually and cautiously ... or was that a dream I had?

kkollwitz said...

The fact that I am content with the new Mass translation clearly marks me as a submissive Catholic dimbulb.

RONALD R. said...

Ron Mac Naughton
said back home we had a word for this
nonsence, BULLSHIT!
Let's move on from "ROMPER ROOM".