Fr. Barron comments on the new translation of the Roman Missal

Another part of a video series from Wordonfire.org. Father Barron will be commenting on subjects from modern day culture. For more visit http://www.wordonfire.org/

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Fr. Robert Barron
• Word On Fire
• Catholic
• Catholicism
• Christianity
• religion
• ministry
• Church
• God
• Jesus
• Christ
• Holy Spirit
• Lord
• mass
• new mass
• missal
• new missal
• Roman Missal
• Roman Catholic
• liturgy
• latin
• vatican II
• ICEL
• Vox Clara
• eucharist
• Advent

[Hope2009pc]

How does it feel to know that you have devoted your entire life to a myth? Once again.. you are using the bible to prove the bible!! That's a circular argument!! What a fool you are!! You have obviously found a way to suspend yourself from using any critical faculties that you might of had.

[wordonfirevideo]

@Hope2009pc Ah yes, still another compelling argument from the rational aresenal of the "new" atheism!  Friend, check out Logic 101, under the heading of the ad hominem.

[1spoon1fork]

From your explanation Fr. Barron, it seems like the idea was to reform to a more formal stately language, because after all we are praying to THE Lord. But in doing so I feel like they are forgetting the mass' connection to the people. we are supposes to spread the faith to the four corners of the world, bring people into the church, I just feel these changes are going to make it more intimidating for people who have never dealt with the church before to convert.

[wordonfirevideo]

@1spoon1fork But we're not praying to "the people." We're praying together to God.

[wordonfirevideo]

@montetoro Speak for yourself!  I think they're a lot more beautiful than their predecessors. "May this sacrament have an effect in our lives..." You think that's beautiful?

[chestypants78]

I believe in the Space Teapot. Prove to me it doesn't exist. I read about it in a very very old book.

[TekkonShiro]

The liturgist Klaus Gamber has convincingly explained that the celebration versus populum [towards the people] never existed in The Church.

This is the "protestant" invention of a theology that is fast becoming anthropology.

The new orientation of the liturgical celebration is a "man-centered program" of new direction for the Church contained within and according to the Second Vatican Council.

In the new rite "the priest" is facing towards people and turning his back on the Blessed Sacrament.

[TekkonShiro]

@wordonfirevideo

First of all, it should be clear that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is offered to God and to God alone, while the sacraments are primarily instituted for humanity, for the sanctification of souls.

Therefore, quite logically, the celebrant [the priest] is turned TOWARDS GOD, the Incarnate and Crucified God.

AS SHEPHERD, he [the priest] stands with the flock facing ONE DIRECTION [TOWARD TO THE TABERNACLE].

Both the priest and faithfuls TRADITIONALLY face the heavenly kingdom.

[5355vbxjbj76rvn]

@steakman1989

If the Aramaic ideas behind the words of institution had been addressed, instead of the Latin translation's being the starting-point, some issues would not have arisen. Like the agonising over the the *multis-omnibus* distinction: "The “for many” of the eucharistic words is...not exclusive (“many, but not all”), but, in the Semitic manner of speech, inclusive (“the totality, consisting of many”)..."

See p.154 of wwwDOTscotthahnDOTcom/download­/attachment/2523

[5355vbxjbj76rvn]

@steakman1989

It's very problematic. The Latin "Gloria...hominibus" gives the meanings of the words as grammatical units - but it does not give the meaning of the Hebrew expressions which the NT Greek of Luke 2.14 tries to render. Because Greek & Latin grammar differ, "purgationem peccatorum faciens sedit" in the Vulgate of Hebrews 1.3, which in English = "making purgation of sins He sat down", reads as though the Greek were not in the past tense showing completed action.

[5355vbxjbj76rvn]

@wordonfirevideo

The Latin of the Bible or the Liturgy often seems impressive only because it is unfamiliar. The Vulgate NT was so called because it was in the Latin not of Cicero & Virgil, but of the *plebs vulgaris Christiana* - of the Christian common people. The Bible was unimpressive & uncouth & ungrammatical to men of culture and taste brought up on Homer & Livy.

"May this sacrament have an effect in our lives..." - what's wrong with that ? It's clear. Is that bad ?

[boltorange]

The new translation is very worrisome to me. Is this a vernacular mass? I know it is "English" in the technical sense of vocabulary but the syntax is Latin. Moreover, vernacular is the language as it is spoken by the people who speak it natively. No native speaker of English talks like this even in the most formal situations. Papal insistence on the image of monarchy seemed archaic (and transparently political) in 1925; in 2011/12, this prop is all the poorer.

[steakman1989]

@thecommentmonster This doesn't really respond to what I said though. Why does it have to conform to the Latin when Latin is no longer used as the vernacular. Just because something is closer in translation to the Latin does not mean that it will be more theologically sound. Why not instead start from scratch to build the best liturgy in the vernacular of the region it is in?