The ICEL has been one of the biggest problems for Evangelism, Catechesis, and simple Catholic piety in the U.S.A. I offer just one example: “Thomas, called DidyMouse….” Really!??? He was called “the Twin” - because he was IN FACT a twin. A western British (aka Irish) priest said DidyMouse “was his name” (in the British translation of the…
The ICEL has been one of the biggest problems for Evangelism, Catechesis, and simple Catholic piety in the U.S.A. I offer just one example: “Thomas, called DidyMouse….” Really!??? He was called “the Twin” - because he was IN FACT a twin. A western British (aka Irish) priest said DidyMouse “was his name” (in the British translation of the Gospel). But, you see Fr. West Brit, we translate (or should!) names and other words in Scripture: We call the first Pope… Peter, NOT Cephas, we call Jesus’ Mom … Mary, NOT Miryam. It’s the Gospel of John, NOT Iannis.
This example shows what’s wrong with the ICEL approach - it is very, very british: 10 of the 11 bishops on that committee are british speaking - (heck, maybe the only American on it is, too).
This means the group doesn’t speak or write in American English. In fact, it appears they detest our language. It should be called the International Committee on British in the Liturgy.
Having taught adolescents and young adults the Faith since the 70s, I found they don’t know what terms like ‘before’, ‘divine’, ‘people of God’, (nor DidyMouse) mean when used in the liturgy. “We come before you, Lord” is understood as “we get to church sooner than God does”, “divine” they understand to mean “nice” (as in that dress is divine), and “people of God” doesn’t mean “God’s People”, but only “people about God”. “Our Fawther who art in Heaven “ really does NOT mean an old guy drawing pictures in the clouds.
Once the actual meanings are give to them, the young can:
1- Understand them
2- Consciously (and conscientiously) choose to be Catholic
I, personally, have nothing against the britch language - in its place. (I am very fluent in both britch and SAE, and enjoy British authors (esp. Chesterton and Kipling!). But MY language is NOT britch - it is ‘Standard American English’. It is the language I ‘live’ in - in conversation, debate, combat, love making, economics, in ‘confession wording’ (like when I stub my toe or hammer my thumb). And it is the language I talk to my God in. And the more I talk to God - in MY language! - the less sinful do I speak when engaged in other talk. Being forced to pray at Mass (or in the Breviary) in a foreign language does two bad things: it mentally disjuncts my ‘prayer life’ from my ‘everyday life’ - which should be the same! And it risks consigning God to a small liturgical box on Sunday morning - there to be conveniently ignored the rest of the week (Biden or Pelosi come to mind?).
Liturgical ‘Britophilism’ is Ok - in the British Isles!!!
While I continue to fervently pray (yeah, in SAE) for us to be allowed to pray the Mass in our own language (300 million are all wrong? And to be forced into linguistic jingoism?) I have very little hope that the britch bishops on that committee will allow that. Especially under this America hating pope.
On the other hand, it is good to mentally, intellectually and spiritually distinguish between the profane, vulgar world in which we live as pilgrims and the Kingdom of God in which we ought to live as citizens.
I believe language plays a role in that distinction. And I rather like the more dignified, Roman Missal Third Edition, for example, over the editions immediately following the Second Vatican Council. The Divine Office hymnal is a welcome advancement, and the revised Liturgy of the Hours can't come too soon.
“More dignified” is subjective, and a conversation topic for you and me. My point is that what we might refer to as “dignified” (or pompous according to some) is simply gibberish to many young Americans.
“Leadeth us not into temptation” is a prime example of the problem.
I don't see that phrase in current use in Roman Catholic liturgy.
I appreciate your fervent desire to make Christianity (Catholicism, assumedly) appealing to young people. I believe the problem lies more with parents not providing a religious environment at home and allowing children to be exposed to a rotten culture. Perhaps most importantly, parents ought to instill a love of learning in their children as far as is possible. Discipleship has to ultimately mature into an adult vocation per Saint Paul: "When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways."
As a successful parent, I agree with the importance of their role in education. Problem is that is not so in our current culture. And one reason is the parents themselves never hear the “Good News” in our language either.
The rottenness in our culture can only be successfully countered with the Good News. Referring to it in an ancient british (Gospel) effectively camouflages it.
In our language that word has come to merely mean “true” or “honest”. See the problem with hiding our Faith in a foreign language?
I honestly don't understand your concern, Stephen.
I simply don't find any good reason to adopt things from the popular culture that degrade Christianity. I find Scripture and the history of Christianity often portrays separating oneself from the popular culture and attaching oneself to a religious community and its culture.
Then we should stop conversing - as I said, I agree with you regarding our Faith standing against cultural corruption (caused by sin).
My ONLY point is that using foreign languages to try and make it better has failed - catastrophically!
And the idea that if we ‘holier than everyone else’ types just more fervently pray in hocus-pocus foreign tongues society will somehow be evangelized is silly.
One of the main reasons for praying in ‘our own’ language is that it has a sanctifying effect on the one who prays.
And that, of course, is the goal of our Faith.
And as St.Paul also wrote, we are not to withdraw from the world, but to engage it so as to evangelize it. And he said he was the servant of the “Good News” (he did not write “gospel”). He communicated the Good News in the everyday language of his hearers. I’m simply advocating for doing that also.
Sorry, everyday language doesn't necessarily educate or inspire. Every field of endeavor has its unique vocabulary. But "gospel" is the everyday word for "euangelion" for most Christians. This conversation could be a Seinfeld episode. It seems to be about nothing!
I’ll follow St.Paul’s example and keep using plain American English to communicate the Good News. Saying “gawspel” doesn’t make it clearer, more profound, nor impressive.
And “most Christians”
Under 40 do NOT know ‘Gospel’ means Good News.
You see, in Britain (East and West) Britglish IS the everyday language. They don’t consider it special. Copying them doesn’t make us special, it just makes us sound pompous.
And here I have been calling the disaster of the current Mass texts latglish, because they certainly aren't in modern American English and are basically unintelligible. Thank you for correcting me, since I do like Latin in its classical place. Britglish it is.
Hi Stephen, I have two major concerns about the argument you put forward. The first, and less serious, is that the translation is somehow very British, to the point it is unintelligible to an American audience. Of the very many valid critiques of the current translation used in Mass, I’m not sure this one is accurate. If individuals are unable to understand the faith because of the usage of “before, of, and divine” as described above, in charity, it is not the translation that is the source of the problem. Those happen to be perfectly acceptable usages in American English. And in the case of divine, that’s actually it’s primary use.
Now, if the ancient Israelites transported the 10 commandments in the boot of a lorry, we might want to table that issue. But until then, I don’t think that’s the problem.
My bigger complaint would be about your demand that all names be translated. This is actually a much trickier subject than you made it appear. Among the examples you provided was Mary, not Miryam. Except that we keep Miriam as Moses’s sister, so your explanation cannot be sufficient. What if, for example, in a polyglot region, Thomas was literally called Didymus by fellow speakers of Aramaic? In that case, it wouldn’t be proper to call him “the twin” because that would lose the author’s intent. Similarly, Barnabas is not translated as “son of encouragement” everywhere, they stick with the transliteration. The largest example of this, however, is the choice of how to translate the name of the prophet Moses said would follow him. Two men fit the description who both have the same name. The first we call Joshua. The Second we call Jesus. But it’s the same name, and yet we expect it to be translated differently.
As a proud colonialist rebel, I am more than willing to consider examples of the Britishness of the current translation that show a disdain for Americans. I’m just not seeing it from your post or my “lived experience” (😂).
Critique accepted. My lived experience was what I listed. The translation prior to the one currently in use did say “twin”. Sticking to transliterations rather than translating is a problem. The point made was that we do not have a good American English translation in our liturgy - and we should, for the points made. Another example that has confused young people here is “deliver us from evil” - which is neither a translation nor a transliteration. In our language it means to take something to somewhere or to give birth. The actual meaning is “rescue us from the evil one”. Seriously, we don’t say that firefighters “deliver” a baby from a burning house when we mean “rescue”. When young people hear “rescue” it grabs their attention because they don’t know that we NEED to be rescued. It goes deeper - pedophilic clergy prefer kids to not understand the Faith in their own language - it facilitated molestation. I will admit that my career in law enforcement amped my desire for intended victims of all kinds of evil to know they need rescuing, and by whom.
The Lord does not require people to worship in only one language. High time we got one of our own.
"Save us from the evil one" is found in various Eastern liturgical texts. Though more often it is "Deliver us from the evil one."
I'm more concerned about the the awful translation "Lead us not into temptation..." The regularly elicits questions, especially from younger folks as to why God would lead us into temptation.
Yes, I know the usage is enshrined in popular piety and has centuries of vernacular use. It is still misleading.
This is opposed to what the original text actually says, "Save us in time of trial..." or "Do not let us be tempted beyond our strength..."
The ICEL has been one of the biggest problems for Evangelism, Catechesis, and simple Catholic piety in the U.S.A. I offer just one example: “Thomas, called DidyMouse….” Really!??? He was called “the Twin” - because he was IN FACT a twin. A western British (aka Irish) priest said DidyMouse “was his name” (in the British translation of the Gospel). But, you see Fr. West Brit, we translate (or should!) names and other words in Scripture: We call the first Pope… Peter, NOT Cephas, we call Jesus’ Mom … Mary, NOT Miryam. It’s the Gospel of John, NOT Iannis.
This example shows what’s wrong with the ICEL approach - it is very, very british: 10 of the 11 bishops on that committee are british speaking - (heck, maybe the only American on it is, too).
This means the group doesn’t speak or write in American English. In fact, it appears they detest our language. It should be called the International Committee on British in the Liturgy.
Having taught adolescents and young adults the Faith since the 70s, I found they don’t know what terms like ‘before’, ‘divine’, ‘people of God’, (nor DidyMouse) mean when used in the liturgy. “We come before you, Lord” is understood as “we get to church sooner than God does”, “divine” they understand to mean “nice” (as in that dress is divine), and “people of God” doesn’t mean “God’s People”, but only “people about God”. “Our Fawther who art in Heaven “ really does NOT mean an old guy drawing pictures in the clouds.
Once the actual meanings are give to them, the young can:
1- Understand them
2- Consciously (and conscientiously) choose to be Catholic
I, personally, have nothing against the britch language - in its place. (I am very fluent in both britch and SAE, and enjoy British authors (esp. Chesterton and Kipling!). But MY language is NOT britch - it is ‘Standard American English’. It is the language I ‘live’ in - in conversation, debate, combat, love making, economics, in ‘confession wording’ (like when I stub my toe or hammer my thumb). And it is the language I talk to my God in. And the more I talk to God - in MY language! - the less sinful do I speak when engaged in other talk. Being forced to pray at Mass (or in the Breviary) in a foreign language does two bad things: it mentally disjuncts my ‘prayer life’ from my ‘everyday life’ - which should be the same! And it risks consigning God to a small liturgical box on Sunday morning - there to be conveniently ignored the rest of the week (Biden or Pelosi come to mind?).
Liturgical ‘Britophilism’ is Ok - in the British Isles!!!
While I continue to fervently pray (yeah, in SAE) for us to be allowed to pray the Mass in our own language (300 million are all wrong? And to be forced into linguistic jingoism?) I have very little hope that the britch bishops on that committee will allow that. Especially under this America hating pope.
On the other hand, it is good to mentally, intellectually and spiritually distinguish between the profane, vulgar world in which we live as pilgrims and the Kingdom of God in which we ought to live as citizens.
I believe language plays a role in that distinction. And I rather like the more dignified, Roman Missal Third Edition, for example, over the editions immediately following the Second Vatican Council. The Divine Office hymnal is a welcome advancement, and the revised Liturgy of the Hours can't come too soon.
“More dignified” is subjective, and a conversation topic for you and me. My point is that what we might refer to as “dignified” (or pompous according to some) is simply gibberish to many young Americans.
“Leadeth us not into temptation” is a prime example of the problem.
I don't see that phrase in current use in Roman Catholic liturgy.
I appreciate your fervent desire to make Christianity (Catholicism, assumedly) appealing to young people. I believe the problem lies more with parents not providing a religious environment at home and allowing children to be exposed to a rotten culture. Perhaps most importantly, parents ought to instill a love of learning in their children as far as is possible. Discipleship has to ultimately mature into an adult vocation per Saint Paul: "When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways."
It was - obviously - hyperbole.
As a successful parent, I agree with the importance of their role in education. Problem is that is not so in our current culture. And one reason is the parents themselves never hear the “Good News” in our language either.
The rottenness in our culture can only be successfully countered with the Good News. Referring to it in an ancient british (Gospel) effectively camouflages it.
In our language that word has come to merely mean “true” or “honest”. See the problem with hiding our Faith in a foreign language?
I honestly don't understand your concern, Stephen.
I simply don't find any good reason to adopt things from the popular culture that degrade Christianity. I find Scripture and the history of Christianity often portrays separating oneself from the popular culture and attaching oneself to a religious community and its culture.
Then we should stop conversing - as I said, I agree with you regarding our Faith standing against cultural corruption (caused by sin).
My ONLY point is that using foreign languages to try and make it better has failed - catastrophically!
And the idea that if we ‘holier than everyone else’ types just more fervently pray in hocus-pocus foreign tongues society will somehow be evangelized is silly.
One of the main reasons for praying in ‘our own’ language is that it has a sanctifying effect on the one who prays.
And that, of course, is the goal of our Faith.
And as St.Paul also wrote, we are not to withdraw from the world, but to engage it so as to evangelize it. And he said he was the servant of the “Good News” (he did not write “gospel”). He communicated the Good News in the everyday language of his hearers. I’m simply advocating for doing that also.
Sorry, everyday language doesn't necessarily educate or inspire. Every field of endeavor has its unique vocabulary. But "gospel" is the everyday word for "euangelion" for most Christians. This conversation could be a Seinfeld episode. It seems to be about nothing!
I’ll follow St.Paul’s example and keep using plain American English to communicate the Good News. Saying “gawspel” doesn’t make it clearer, more profound, nor impressive.
And “most Christians”
Under 40 do NOT know ‘Gospel’ means Good News.
You see, in Britain (East and West) Britglish IS the everyday language. They don’t consider it special. Copying them doesn’t make us special, it just makes us sound pompous.
And here I have been calling the disaster of the current Mass texts latglish, because they certainly aren't in modern American English and are basically unintelligible. Thank you for correcting me, since I do like Latin in its classical place. Britglish it is.
Brilliant neologism - I’m adding it to my vocabulary!
Hi Stephen, I have two major concerns about the argument you put forward. The first, and less serious, is that the translation is somehow very British, to the point it is unintelligible to an American audience. Of the very many valid critiques of the current translation used in Mass, I’m not sure this one is accurate. If individuals are unable to understand the faith because of the usage of “before, of, and divine” as described above, in charity, it is not the translation that is the source of the problem. Those happen to be perfectly acceptable usages in American English. And in the case of divine, that’s actually it’s primary use.
Now, if the ancient Israelites transported the 10 commandments in the boot of a lorry, we might want to table that issue. But until then, I don’t think that’s the problem.
My bigger complaint would be about your demand that all names be translated. This is actually a much trickier subject than you made it appear. Among the examples you provided was Mary, not Miryam. Except that we keep Miriam as Moses’s sister, so your explanation cannot be sufficient. What if, for example, in a polyglot region, Thomas was literally called Didymus by fellow speakers of Aramaic? In that case, it wouldn’t be proper to call him “the twin” because that would lose the author’s intent. Similarly, Barnabas is not translated as “son of encouragement” everywhere, they stick with the transliteration. The largest example of this, however, is the choice of how to translate the name of the prophet Moses said would follow him. Two men fit the description who both have the same name. The first we call Joshua. The Second we call Jesus. But it’s the same name, and yet we expect it to be translated differently.
As a proud colonialist rebel, I am more than willing to consider examples of the Britishness of the current translation that show a disdain for Americans. I’m just not seeing it from your post or my “lived experience” (😂).
Critique accepted. My lived experience was what I listed. The translation prior to the one currently in use did say “twin”. Sticking to transliterations rather than translating is a problem. The point made was that we do not have a good American English translation in our liturgy - and we should, for the points made. Another example that has confused young people here is “deliver us from evil” - which is neither a translation nor a transliteration. In our language it means to take something to somewhere or to give birth. The actual meaning is “rescue us from the evil one”. Seriously, we don’t say that firefighters “deliver” a baby from a burning house when we mean “rescue”. When young people hear “rescue” it grabs their attention because they don’t know that we NEED to be rescued. It goes deeper - pedophilic clergy prefer kids to not understand the Faith in their own language - it facilitated molestation. I will admit that my career in law enforcement amped my desire for intended victims of all kinds of evil to know they need rescuing, and by whom.
The Lord does not require people to worship in only one language. High time we got one of our own.
"Save us from the evil one" is found in various Eastern liturgical texts. Though more often it is "Deliver us from the evil one."
I'm more concerned about the the awful translation "Lead us not into temptation..." The regularly elicits questions, especially from younger folks as to why God would lead us into temptation.
Yes, I know the usage is enshrined in popular piety and has centuries of vernacular use. It is still misleading.
This is opposed to what the original text actually says, "Save us in time of trial..." or "Do not let us be tempted beyond our strength..."
I pray: “Don’t let us be tested…”