AmericanPapist Comments
Dignum et justum est!
I can't wait to finally pray in English what everyone ELSE prays in Spanish, French, Italian, Latin and presumably other languages during the Glory Be, namely that God is to be glorified "forever and ever" and not "world without end" - because as we know from Revelation, the Gospel and science, this world, this planet will indeed HAVE AN END.
Just love it! The tricky part here ... our pastor hates Latin. So, how does this work? Will parishes be required to implement these? We had an awesome parochial vicar, that was transferred to another parish, that was trying to lead us toward Latin in Mass, but he is no longer with us ... I apologize if I am being ignorant here. Be patient with me fellow papists...
Sir:
I'm surprised that you're surprised about the involvement of ICEL!
There was never a change in the English-speaking nations' decision to have an international body to prepare translations of liturgical texts. There WAS a change, however -- a MAJOR change -- in the makeup of ICEL, a few years ago.
At the Holy See's insistence, all of ICEL's "bad eggs" were dumped on the floor, smashed, and replaced. Then the newly constituted committee worked, under the guidance of Cardinal Graham Pell's "Vox Clara" committee to produce the new translation of the Mass.
The final steps were for each national/regional episcopal conference vote to adopt local amendments and adaptations (if any) and to send the resulting text to the Vatican for approval/disapproval.
Frankly, I'm surprised to see that all of this has concluded so soon. I thought that it would happen next year.
Your specific revelations are good (and were expected). I look forward to seeing the ENTIRE new text, to see if the pro-dumbed-down-pro-feminist-text dissenters (e.g., Bp. Trautman of Erie) got away with any harmful amendments/adaptations. My understanding is that the ICEL/Vox-Clara text will be used in an UNCHANGED in most of the anglophone world -- including (1) the use of the word "consubstantial" in the Creed and (2) the absence of the improperly-added-in-1970 acclamation, "Christ has died ...", which fails to address Jesus in the second person as required by the Latin.
Ahh, never mind above comment. We will actually be responding in English, just now will be the correct version. Sheesh. It is Friday. Long week.
No problem, Michelle. You've misunderstood what has just happened.
There will be no new requirement to use Latin in the Mass. What has been announced is the approval of a new ENGLISH translation of the old (1969), official Latin text of the "ordinary form" of the Mass.
I foresee the new translation not being put into use until 2010 -- or perhaps at the beginning of Advent, near the end of 2009. TONS of work will need to be done first (in the publishing world, in musical composition/adaptation, etc.).
By the way, all of this is completely unrelated to last year's announcement of the approval of a wider use of the "extraordinary form" of the Mass (according to the 1962 Missal -- all in Latin).
Praise be to God! But let us hope and pray that we will not have to wait another 5 to 10 years (or more!) for this to be implemented.
I know it may seem trivial, but I long to say, "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed." Ever time that point of the Mass comes up, I want so much to say those words, though of course I do stick with the slightly inaccurate translation that we have currently.
I am VERY surprised that "pro multis" has not been corrected. ICEL missed the boat on that one.
WRC:
I think Thomas was just pointing out the changes in the parts of the Mass where there is a response from those in the pews, so pro-multis wouldn't be covered here.
Forgive me, but I'd like these changes, and the explanations behind them, to be written out in "plain English," printed in softcover with large print and various eye-catching colors, having copies delivered rolled up tightly...
...and hit over the heads of the Trautmanites as hard as possible. Bad hippies! Bad!!
crankycon, I missed that. Thanks.
John, the Latin is one thing, but I'd be more careful about going to the wall for the Spanish, and certainly for the French, translations. It's been awhile since I looked at them carefully, but they had their own problems, as I recall.
That said, it's odd how long it takes the various levels of Ch. bureaucracy to arrive at translations my first year Latin students would get right by Christmas.
Another reason for the people to know Latin: So that the Ch. bureaucracy will stay in line. It's been about 5 or 6 years, but I've been saying (quietly so as not to cause scandal) the official Latin responses to the bad English "translations." Et cum spiritu tuo. Domine, non sum dignus... dignum et iustum est. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa...
By the way, "Through my fault, etc.," hasn't been "added" to the English but restored! Same with the other things on the list. I'm old enough to remember the first blush of English in the liturgy in the late 60s, and this is the way it was then.
"Et cum spiritu tuo," at least is the quintessential Catholic response. It is literally translated for the Roman Mass in most modern European languages, and it is also the response in the Byzantine Divine Liturgy, in whatever language. Only us English speakers were limping. No one anywhere says, "And also with you" as a greeting. I can't imagine circumstances for using it outside of Mass (or in Mass for that matter) except absurd ones--so if it's a strictly liturgical response anyway, why not a BETTER strictly ligurgical response?
I think the Mass is better off in Latin, but I am very happy with what I've seen of this English translation.
I wish they would not change anything and just leave the words of the Mass in English the way they are now.
Michelle: But the words are are currently wrong! In the Latin-rite Mass and other sacraments, the vernacular language translation MUST be faithful to the official Latin version. Currently, it is not.
These translational issues are always turn into a mess, because someone is always trying to push an agenda through them. It's embarrasing not only that it's happened, but also that it's taking so long to correct.
Plus, none of this is necessary. The Latin never changed, so why not just use that. That puts us in unity of prayer with the Church and its saints throughout the ages, and other Latin-rite Catholics around the world. Are we so arrogant that we must force the Church to bend its neck down to us?
These responses are not difficult to learn or understand. My 6th grade religious ed class begins every morning with, "Dominus vobiscum," and the little angels reply, "Et cum spiritu tuo."
Am I hallucinating?
When we first had English in the Mass in the 1960s, I recall "and with your spirit," as well as "Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed."
Anybody else remember that?
There's another article up that says "pro multis" _is_ now translated "for many".
Emily -- If you go through the current Mass in Latin, or in another language even, and compare it to the English we use now -- well, the only reason it's a valid translation is the power of binding and loosing. Because it leaves a lot out, mistranslates other stuff, and just plain makes stuff up.
The new translation stops all this craziness and tells you what the Mass says. That's all.
Yes, they're bringing back the first English translation as I remember it - and here in our parish, anyway, we always continued saying "It is right and fitting" ;-)
No more "Mass of Creation!!!!!" WOOOO HOOOO!!!!!
Nine times out of ten, I am completely behind a faithful/literal English rendering of the Latin. But one of those "tenth times" is the instance you refer to, Paul H.: non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum. You are completely right that the literal meaning is "I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof." The current English version, "I am not worthy to receive you," obscures the Latin (I am not worthy to receive you as a guest in my home). I prefer the English in this instance because, at this point in the mass, I am/we are about to receive Jesus, not as a guest in our homes, but as food, the Living Bread, into out bodies. Here I am always reminded that I am not worthy to receive the gift of Holy Communion, but that by God's word/grace I may do so. But this is a singular instance and hardly merits an exception. Translations should be accurate.
Hey, brassband! You are not hallucinating; I remember the same thing. I especially remember the "roof" part, because as a child, I thought it was referring to the roof of my mouth! I still occasionally say "only say the word and my soul shall be healed". I don't do this intentionally, but it sometimes comes out that way.
Will we also be reverting to the striking of the breast as we say, "through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault"? I think that the Confiteor is one of the most moving prayers in the Mass. Question for all you more knowlegable than me..Is it acceptable to skip the Confiteor? As in, never use it in any Mass? This is the case in my home parish.
mary margaret--
LOL on the "roof of my mouth!"
I had the exact same image in my mind as a child! After all, we said those words right before Communion!
If the Church says this is the right way, then this is the right way.
That said, it may be true that some English translations are more faithful to the Latin, but there may be times when the English is more theologically appropriate. We do not merely receive Jesus into our homes (under our roof), but into our very selves, and if it was proper to adjust the scriptural text from healing our servant to healing us, then it seems proper to adjust the Latin from our roof to ourselves.
Furthermore, inasmuch as with the Theology of the Body, etc., we now have a greater understanding of the unitative nature of the person as body AND soul, to go from saying that the Lord should be with the entirety of the priest, body and soul, and instead say only with his spirit seems to be a step backward. Similarly, rather than healing the entirely of ourselves ("I shall be healed") and praying instead only that "my soul shall be healed," again, seems to be leaving out half of the human person. It may be truer to the Latin, but perhaps the Latin needs to be adjusted.
But if the Church says to do this, then so be it. Let us salute sharply and do it.
An interesting take on "Lord, I am not worthy..."
“Christians by definition ponder the words and actions of Jesus,” he writes. “For all of the statements over the centuries justifying the Christian condemnation of homosexuality, no one has ever quoted Jesus himself making such a pronouncement, because he never did. Instead, in his one encounter with what may well have been a homosexual man, Jesus offered no harsh judgment but instead went to unusual lengths to heal the man’s sick companion. . . . Historically, homosexuality has not been condemned by the Christian community because Jesus condemned it, but because the community inherited a condemnation of homosexuality from a worldview that did not understand the incidence, provenance, or nature of any form of human sexual attraction. The Gospel of Jesus should mean that the condemnation of anyone or of their relationship cannot be based on prejudice.”
Robinson also notes “one final irony.” “In the Roman Catholic Communion rite,” he reminds us, “the last words said by every communicant before receiving Holy Communion are: ‘Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but say the word and I shall be healed.’ These words may sound familiar now. They paraphrase the centurion’s words as recorded in Matthew. How surprised many of those who condemn homosexuality in Christ’s name would be if they realized that every time they take Holy Communion, the words on their lips are those of a gay man.”
Mike --
Are you referring to the account in Matthew, Chapter 8?
I understood that it was the Centurian's slave whom Jesus was asked to cure. What is the origin of your view that the slave was homosexual?
See: The Children Are Free: Reexamining the Bibilical Evidence on Same-Sex Relationships, by Jeff Miner and John Tyler Connoley...here is the excerpt:
When Jesus Met a Gay Man
By Jeff Miner and John Tyler Connoley
From our days in Sunday School, many of us are familiar with the Gospel story where Jesus healed the servant of a Roman centurion. The story is recorded in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10. In Matthew, we are told that the centurion came to Jesus to plead for the healing of his servant. Jesus said he was willing to come to the centurion’s house, but the centurion said there was no need for Jesus to do so. He believed that if Jesus simply spoke the word, his servant would be healed. Marveling at the man's faith, Jesus pronounced the servant healed. Luke tells a similar story.
Just another miracle story, right? Not on your life!
In the original language, the importance of this story for gay, lesbian and bisexual Christians is much clearer. The Greek word used in Matthews account to refer to the servant of the centurion is pais. In the language of the time, pais had three possible meanings depending upon the context in which it was used. It could mean son or boy; it could mean servant, or it could mean a particular type of servant one who was his master’s male lover. (Footnote 18) Often these lovers were younger than their masters, even teenagers.
To our modern minds, the idea of buying a teen lover seems repugnant. But we have to place this in the context of ancient cultural norms. In ancient times, commercial transactions were the predominant means of forming relationships. Under the law, the wife was viewed as the property of the husband, with a status just above that of a slave. Moreover, in Jesus’ day, a boy or girl was considered of marriageable age upon reaching his or her early teens. It was not uncommon for boys and girls to marry at age 14 or 15. (Footnote 19) Nor was it uncommon for an older man to marry a young girl. Fortunately civilization has advanced, but these were the norms in the culture of Jesus day.
In that culture, if you were a gay man who wanted a male spouse, you achieved this, like your heterosexual counterparts, through a commercial transaction purchasing someone to serve that purpose. A servant purchased to serve this purpose was often called a pais.
The word boy in English offers a rough comparison. Like pais, the word boy can be used to refer to a male child. But in the slave South in the nineteenth century, boy was also often used to refer to male slaves. The term boy can also be used as a term of endearment. For example, Jeff’s father often refers to his mother as his girl. He doesn’t mean that she is a child, but rather that she is his special one. The term boy can be used in the same way, as in my boy or my beau. In ancient Greek, pais had a similar range of meanings.
Thus, when this term was used, the listener had to consider the context of the statement to determine which mean
Thus, when this term was used, the listener had to consider the context of the statement to determine which meaning was intended. Some modern Christians may be tempted to simply declare by fiat that the Gospels could not possibly have used the term pais in the sense of male lover, end of discussion. But that would be yielding to prejudice. We must let the word of God speak for itself, even if it leads us to an uncomfortable destination.
Is it possible the pais referred to in Matthew 8 and Luke 7 was the Roman centurion’s male lover? Lets look at the biblical evidence.
The Bible provides three key pieces of textual and circumstantial evidence. First, in the Luke passage, several additional Greek words are used to describe the one who is sick. Luke says this pais was the centurion's entimos duolos. The word duolos is a generic term for slave, and was never used in ancient Greek to describe a son/boy. Thus, Luke’s account rules out the possibility the sick person was the centurion’s son; his use of duolos makes clear this was a slave. However, Luke also takes care for indicate this was no ordinary slave. The word entimos means honored. This was an honored slave (entimos duolos) who was his master’s pais. Taken together, the three Greek words preclude the possibility the sick person was either the centurion’s son or an ordinary slave, leaving only one viable option: he was his master’s male lover. (Footnote 20)
A second piece of evidence is found in verse 9 of Mathew’s account. In the course of expressing his faith in Jesus’ power to heal by simply speaking, the centurion says, “When I tell my slave to do something, he does it.” By extension, the centurion concludes that Jesus is also able to issue a remote verbal command that must be carried out. When speaking of his slaves, the centurion uses the word duolos. But when speaking of the one he is asking Jesus to heal, he uses only pais. In other words, when he is quoted in Matthew, the centurion uses pais only when referring to the sick person. He uses a different word, doulos, when speaking of his other slaves, as if to offer a distinction. (In Luke, it is others, not the centurion, who call the sick one an entimos duolos.) Again, the clear implication is that the sick man was no ordinary slave. And when pais was used to describe a servant who was not an ordinary slave, it meant only one thing: a slave who was the master’s male lover.
The third piece of evidence is circumstantial. In the Gospels, we have many examples of people seeking healing for themselves or for family members. But this story is the only example of someone seeking healing for a slave. The actions described are made even more remarkable by the fact that this was a proud Roman centurion (the conqueror/oppressor) who was humbling himself and pleading with a Jewish rabbi (the conquered/oppressed) to heal his slave. The extraordinary lengths to which this man went to seek healing for his slave is much more understandable,
con't...from a psychological perspective, if the slave was his beloved companion.
Thus, all the textual and circumstantial evidence in the Gospels points in one direction. For objective observers, the conclusion is inescapable: in this story Jesus healed a man’s male lover. When understood this way, the story takes on a whole new dimension.
Imagine how it may have happened. While stationed in Palestine, the centurion’s pais becomes ill experiencing some type of life threatening paralysis. The centurion will stop at nothing to save him. Perhaps a friend tells him of rumors of Jesus’ healing powers. Perhaps this friend also tells him Jesus is unusually open to foreigners, teaching his followers that they should love their enemies, even Roman soldiers. So the centurion decides to take a chance. Jesus was his only hope.
As he made his way to Jesus, he probably worried about the possibility that Jesus, like other Jewish rabbis, would take a dim view of his homosexual relationship. Perhaps he even considered lying. He could simply use the word duolos. That would have been accurate, as far as it went. But the centurion probably figured if Jesus was powerful enough to heal his lover, he was also powerful enough to see through any half-truths.
So the centurion approaches Jesus and bows before him. “Rabbi,” my the word gets caught in his throat. This is it the moment of truth. Either Jesus will turn away in disgust, or something wonderful will happen. So, the centurion clears his throat and speaks again. "Rabbi, my pais, yes, my pais, lies at home sick unto death.” Then he pauses and waits for a second that must have seemed like an eternity. The crowd of good, God fearing people surrounding Jesus probably became tense. This was like a gay man asking a televangelist to heal his lover. What would Jesus do?
Without hesitation, Jesus says, “Then I will come and heal him.”
Its that simple! Jesus didn’t say, “Are you kidding? I’m not going to heal your pais so you can go on living in sin!” Nor did he say, "Well, it shouldn't surprise you that your pais is sick; this is God’s judgment on your relationship.”
Instead, Jesus’ words are simple, clear and liberating for all who have worried about what God thinks of gay relationships. “I will come and heal him.”
At this point, the centurion says there is no need for Jesus to travel to his home. He has faith that Jesus’ word is sufficient. Jesus then turns to the good people standing around him those who were already dumbfounded that he was willing to heal this man’s male lover. To them, Jesus says in verse 10 of Matthews account, “I have not found faith this great anywhere in Israel.” In other words, Jesus holds up this gay centurion as an example of the type of faith others should aspire to.
Jesus didn’t just tolerate this gay centurion. He said he was an example of faith someone we all should strive to be like.
Then, just so the good, God-fearing people wouldn’t miss the point, Jesus
last con't...speaks again in verse 11: “I tell you, many will come from the east and the west (i.e., beyond the borders of Israel) to find a seat in the kingdom of heaven, while the heirs (i.e., those considered likely to inherit heaven) will be thrown into outer darkness.” By this statement Jesus affirmed that many others like this gay centurion, those who come from beyond the assumed boundaries of God’s grace are going to be admitted to the kingdom of heaven. And he also warned that many who think themselves the most likely to be admitted will be left out.
With this story, we rest our case. Who could ask for more? In this story, Jesus restores a gay relationship by a miracle of healing and then holds up a gay man as an example of faith for all to follow. What more do our fundamentalist friends want? Who is Lord? Jesus or cultural prejudice?
Footnotes:
18. K. J. Dover, Greek Homosexuality (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1978), page 16; Bernard Sergent, Homosexuality in Greek Myth (Beacon Press, Boston, 1986), page 10.
19. Mercer Dictionary of the Bible (Mercer University Press, Macon, 1994), page 554.
20. For an excellent and thorough discussion of the terms pais and entimos duolos in these two gospel accounts, see Donald Mader’s article The Entimos Pais of Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10, (Source: Homosexuality and Religion and Philosophy, Harland Publishing, Inc, New York, 1998).
Mike --
Assuming arguendo that all three possible meanings may be attached to the word "pais," what is the reason for selecting the one that you advance over the other possible meanings?
And, assuming further that your proposed meaning is possible, why would Jesus' act of healing connote acceptance of the alleged relationship between the Centurian and the "pais" as anything other than sinful?
Presumably you would agree with me that all of those whom Jesus healed during His time on Earth were sinners?
So I would not infer any kind of endorsement from His act of healing.
Just go to the Latin Mass and take your money with you! That's the best way to get Trauty interested in accurate translations. Tom
brassband-yes, I remember those words too!
Commenting by HaloScan
