Text of letter from Cardinal Medina Est vez rejecting ICEL translations

http://www.webelieve.cc/html/medinalet.htm ^ | 16 March 2002 | Jorge A. Car. Medina Estévez

[narses]

REJECTED!

[narses]

Ping

[narses]

Ping

[sinkspur]

The language often lapses into sentimentality and emotionality in place of the noble simplicity of the Latin. A focus on transcendent realities in the Latin prayers too often shifts in the English prayers to a focus on the interior dispositions and desires of those who pray. The overuse of the word "hearts" when the word is not present in the Latin text weakens the use of the term on those occasions where it actually occurs. Likewise, the overuse of the term "sharing" flattens and trivializes the content conveyed by the Latin word participes and consortes.

The guy doesn't like English, OK? This is inside baseball, as far as I'm concerned. Let's just stick with the English translation we've got now, as most of the American Church is familiar with it.

Battling the Vatican over a new translation is NOT worth the effort.

[american colleen]

Bump for later reading. Thanks for the post.

[Theresa]

"that the desire for constant variety, typical of many consumerist societies, not come to be regarded in itself as constituting a cultural value capable of serving as a vehicle for authentic inculturation; "

Ouch!! Ha!!!

[patent]

Let's just stick with the English translation we've got now, as most of the American Church is familiar with it.

That is what ICEL is trying to do. They keep sending up translations they know will be rejected, and figure that they will get a couple more years with the 1970 version. The Vatican seems to be tiring of the game, and will be translating it on their own soon.

Being a bit more Machiavellian, if that is possible, I would do something a bit different. I would say that the 1970 Latin typical edition and all translations thereof expire on July 1, 2003. If there is not a suitable translation into the vernacular by then, all priests will use the latest Latin Typical Edition, and will not be allowed to use the vernacular until a translation is approved.

I'd bet it would take about 3 months, and no way it would take to July 1, 2003, before ICEL would submit a serious effort.

patent

[Siobhan]

I thank you for the ping. I am delighted to read this letter and look forward to what Vox Clara produces.

[Jeff Chandler]

The guy doesn't like English? Oh, come on, Sinky! Please don't take us for fools. We all know what's going on here, and what the end game is.

The bishops desire to change the ancient, vertical, God-centered worship into a modern, horizontal, community-centered sharing. Catholic Churches become Catholic Communities. The Sacrifice of the Mass becomes the communal meal. This tranlation tiff is just the latest skirmish in a long battle between the Roman Catholic Church and "we the church".

Like all liberals, they understand the power of incrementalism. "Oh pooh, all this fuss over a couple words. Ridiculous! Don't be so petty, you stodgy bureaucrats- just do it MY way and let's get on with it."

[livius]

"...they understand the power of incrementalism."

You're absolutely right. A word here and a word there.

The things that the ICEl was attempting to pass off as innocent mistranslations, however, were clearly wholesale attempts to shift the emphasis of the Mass and even, in some cases, to seriously blunt traditional Catholic teaching. The ICEL changes also seemed to involve rearranging large parts of the liturgy, something which can in no way be considered a mere translation matter.

[Catholicguy]

As we Catholics like to say BINGO!!! Thanks for posting this. This should silence the "Rome is the problem" crowd. The ICEL is an abomination. Sink that garbage scow

[narses]

The bishops desire to change the ancient, vertical, God-centered worship into a modern, horizontal, community-centered sharing. Catholic Churches become Catholic Communities. The Sacrifice of the Mass becomes the communal meal. This tranlation tiff is just the latest skirmish in a long battle between the Roman Catholic Church and "we the church".

At what point do they/have they succeed(ed)? How many times have Masses been said so flawed as to be invalid? (Pita bread as a "host" for example was talked about here last week.)

[narses]

My pleasure. It is the ICEL and more properly said what they represent that the trads really are fighting.

[Desdemona]

Is there more to the response from Medina? I'm really curious about this. If the translation is going to cause this much trouble, going back to Latin may not be such a bad idea.

Yes, it is incrementalism. Really sad.

Does anybody know what the rejected translation of the Lord's Prayer is? Sorry, make that the Our Father.

[narses]

I fail to see why the liberals hate the Latin so much, unless it is their desire to REWRITE the Mass into something new.

[Desdemona]

"I fail to see why the liberals hate the Latin so much"

Has anyone else heard the argument that the people would understand better in their own language? Sounds good, I know, but when traveling overseas it's a pain.

If some CINOs were honest, they'd go find a Protestant sect.

[american colleen]

If some CINOs were honest, they'd go find a Protestant sect.

...and then they could be their own ultimate authority, since they obviously reject Papal and magesterium teaching authority anyway.

[Catholicguy]

My pleasure. It is the ICEL and more properly said what they represent that the trads really are fighting.

The soi disant "trads" are bitchmeisters. They have ZERO authority and they have ZERO effectiveness. As the account shows it is ROME, THE POPE, AND HIS CURIA that is doing the fighting.

The "Trads" oppose Rome, The Pope, The Curia. They pride themselves on fighting modernism when in reality they are nettlesome busybodies whose speciality is private judgement, carping, caviling, criticising and opposition to divinely-constituted authority.

On another current thread, one can witness the Calvinists going nuts with material promotomed by the SSPX, Lefebvre himself (and other soi disant "trads")etc involving photos of the Holy Father which have been subjected to ignorant or disingenuous interpretations meant to cast him in the worst possible light. The Pope-haters are rolling in this disinformation as though they were Tabbies in Catnip.

You can support the "Trads" all you like. So far, all they have "accomplished" is disunity. Jesus established a Hierarchy and gave The Keys to Peter. There IS a Divinely-constituted authority and it was not given to soi disant "Trads." ALL Catholics, by their nature, are traditionalists and it is THE MAGISTERIUM, not Lefebvre, Gruener, Matt, Vennari, McLucas, Galvin et al who decides what constitutes Tradition.

I think you know what Jesus had to say to the Pharisees which were the soi disant "Trads" of that time

[narses]

I would suggest that you might want to consider that the Pope has said (when he was told what the SSPX is fighting for), "That is me!". HH appears to perceive some of the Trads as being on his side (and those are the trads that are correct, imho). That does NOT mean HH is always right or should be free from humble, honest criticism when he errs.

[Mike Fieschko]

The "Trads" oppose Rome, The Pope, The Curia. They pride themselves on fighting modernism when in reality they are nettlesome busybodies whose speciality is private judgement, carping, caviling, criticising and opposition to divinely-constituted authority.

Your statements are false.

I am copying freeper livius with this, since I want to quote what he typed on another thread (post 254), he typed:

I do wish, however, that traditionalists would stop going for the jugular on other traditionalists, and would focus their attention on those people in the Church who really are evil (yes, I think there are some) and are out to destroy the Church.

The situation with SSPX and others will be worked out in good time. It would probably be worked out faster if everybody would lower the rhetoric level a bit. Why shed the blood of people who are basically on the same side?

Substitute whatever is appropriate, for livius' use of 'the traditionalists'.

Bl John XXIII's first encyclical, Ad Petri cathedram, nos. 71 and 72, says:

"71. The Catholic Church, of course, leaves many questions open to the discussion of theologians. She does this to the extent that matters are not absolutely certain. Far from jeopardizing the Church's unity, controversies, as a noted English author, John Henry Cardinal Newman, has remarked, can actually pave the way for its attainment. For discussion can lead to fuller and deeper understanding of religious truths; when one idea strikes against another, there may be a spark. (25)

"72. But the common saying, expressed in various ways and attributed to various authors, must be recalled with approval: in essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity."

(Emphasis supplied.) Folks on all sides are bitter. All the more reason to speak to one another in a civil manner.