Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
The new translation introduces more formal, rarefied language into the liturgy. But Cooper and others who have studied drafts say it ignores English grammar and syntax and introduces terms - "consubstantial," "oblation," "ignominy," to mention a few - unfamiliar to many American Catholics. And some worry it will sow division in the pews.
"You can call it whatever you like, but it's not English," said Cooper.
"The language of prayer is supposed to be evocative, graceful, uplifting," he said. "This reads like clunk-clunk-clunk-bang-boom."
This discussion of revision actually occurred at the church complex at which I attended mass as a young child and taught Sunday school when I was a slightly-older child. That means nothing, really — particularly since I left the Catholic faith even before Pope John Paul II died. Since I grew up in the faith, though, I think I can comment. Pope John Paul II made some very positive steps toward world peace and Catholicism's modern place in the world; Ratzenberger is working very hard to undo and withdraw all of those steps. Even if the Vatican supported this conference, is it not simply a distraction? The only meaningful linguistic thing the Catholic church has recently done was the approval of mass in local language, instead of Latin, ratified by Vatican II. The many U.S. archdioceses' trying to revise the missals seems to me to be an inelegant way to say "What pedophiles?" Deal with your real problems, Vatican. Pretend to be forward-looking only after you've finished with those, agreed?
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)