VM294 (2005-23) June 10, 2005
| Sue Atkinson | Dear friends – There is a lot to read this week! Please take the time to prayerfully consider supporting the efforts of the various organizations trying to “kill Bill C-38”. A lot can be accomplished with prayer and a keyboard! |
| Hon. Dr. Grant Hill |
June 8, 2005
Urgent Action Alert Please Support the National Marriage e-Referendum! This may be our last best chance to show Parliament that a majority of Canadians oppose legalizing same-sex marriage. Actions Requested:
(Please see details below.) Dear Friend of Marriage,
Now I am asking you to act once again in defense of traditional marriage in Canada. Tens of thousands of Canadians have contacted the Prime Minister urging him to put the question of whether to legalize same sex marriage in Canada to a vote of the people under the Referendum Act of 1992. In fact, more than 45,000 of you have contacted him through our Defend Marriage Canada Project Web site alone. But even with this outpouring of support, and even in the face of national opinion polls showing that a large majority of Canadians want this question put to a national referendum, the Prime Minister stubbornly refuses to do so. Instead, he is doggedly trying to ram a bill through Parliament, Bill C-38, which would legalize same-sex marriage in Canada. This is why we are launching the National Marriage e-Referendum to give every Canadian the opportunity to make their voice heard on this critically important issue. The language of the referendum is simple: “Shall Parliament pass bill C-38 to legalize same-sex marriage in Canada?” It is posted on a special Web site, www.referendumcanada.org, and we have tried to make this site as neutral on the issue as possible. For those still undecided, we even provide links to Web pages of groups that have taken positions both for and against Bill C-38. The results of the referendum will be provided to every MP before the third reading vote on C-38. Time to act may be very short! The parliamentary situation is in a state of flux and the very continuation of this government is precarious at best. But we have to assume that the vote will come before Parliament rises for its summer recess at the end of June. Please act today! Take a few minutes and cast your vote on the e-referendum and then contact at least ten others to urge them to also vote. It does not matter so much how they feel about this issue as it does that as many Canadians as possible participate. If enough Canadians do participate, this referendum (and especially the publicity it would generate) can make the difference when the vote is as close as this one is likely to be. Please do everything you can to make this effort a success. The very future of our country, and of our children and grandchildren, literally depends on whether we can preserve traditional marriage and the natural family in Canada. Thank you for whatever you can do. Sincerely, Hon. Dr. Grant Hill, P.C. P.S. We need your financial support. Even though every one of us involved in directing United Families Canada and our Defend Marriage Canada Project is a volunteer, we still depend upon the generous contributions of people like you to support efforts such as this referendum. We still must pay for major expenses such as travel, copying, postage, supplies, maintaining our Web site and database, long distance phoning and so on. In addition, we are providing financial support for important marriage litigation now ongoing in Newfoundland, New Brunswick and the Northwest Territories. Please consider making as generous a contribution as you can to support our efforts. You can mail cheques to: United Families Canada Thank you for your support! |
| John Pacheco |
Friends, It's time to put on the heat. One or two more members leaving the Liberal Party could kill Bill C-38 if a confidence vote comes up in the House of Commons. OTTAWA -- Liberal MP Pat O'Brien, who opposes his party's position on gay marriage, says he's quitting the Grits to sit as an Independent. The move comes less than two months after he held a news conference to announce he was staying with the Liberals despite misgivings. O'Brien has long opposed the government's efforts to pass legislation to legalize same-sex marriage. He decided to stick with the Liberals in April after Prime Minister Paul Martin promised expanded debate of the marriage bill. But O'Brien said the "full and fair" debate he expected has not happened. The Liberals are pushing to pass the same-sex bill this month. ____________________________ Roger Gallaway: Constituency: Sarnia—Lambton Province: Ontario Telephone: (613) 957-2649 Fax: (613) 957-2655 Email: GallaR@parl.gc.ca ****************** Paul Steckle: Constituency: Huron—Bruce Province: Ontario Telephone: (613) 992-8234 Fax: (613) 995-6350 Email: Steckle.P@parl.gc.ca ********************** Paul Szabo :Constituency: Mississauga South Province: Ontario Telephone: (613) 992-4848 Fax: (613) 996-3267 Email: Szabo.P@parl.gc.ca ************************** Tom Wappel :Constituency: Scarborough Southwest Province: Ontario Telephone: (613) 995-0284 Fax: (613) 996-6309 Email: Wappel.T@parl.gc.ca ******************************** ESPECIALLY Rosemarie Ur, because she is not going to run again next election! Rosemarie Ur: Constituency: Lambton—Kent—Middlesex Province: Ontario Telephone: (613) 947-4581 Fax: (613) 947-4584 Email: Ur.R-M@parl.gc.ca |
| Michele Dow |
UNITED MOTHERS, FATHERS & FRIENDS - June 4, 2005 In this issue: 1) Our Last Stand: A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 2) Why a Constitutional Amendment is Necessary 3) STEP 1 - “Enshrine Marriage Alberta Campaign” - Partnership with Enshrine Marriage Canada 4) How A Constitutional Amendment Can Be Achieved 5) C-38 Update 7) Critical ACTION ITEM – Forward Quebec Invitation 8) Time is on Our Side – Shifting Public Opinion “The debate does not revolve around the monetary rights or social benefits of same-s_x partners. These have already been granted. What we are witnessing here is not progress and liberalism but rather the imposition of the philosophy of moral relativism on all of us. We are all called, nay coerced, to label some unions marriage that we simply cannot. The promise by the Prime Minister that the clergy will not be forced to administer same-s_x marriage does not give us any comfort. What about those who are not members of the clergy? Why should they be compelled to call this marriage?” Rabbi Eliezer Ben-Porat 1) CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT – OUR LAST STAND The majority of Canadians still know clearly which way is up, what is right and what is wrong. Marriage is still marriage whether certain politicians’ “moral compass’” say it is something else. We reach out with compassion and understanding to those who experience same-gender attraction. They are our friends, family, neighbours and colleagues. They are loved. Nevertheless, it is incumbent upon us to enshrine in our constitution what is best for the private welfare of children and our society as a whole. OUR LAST STAND A Constitutional Amendment is the only hope that Canada has to protect marriage, over the long run. It is the only thing that can ultimately put an end to judicial interference and the political tyranny of those manipulating the parliamentary process to ram genderless marriage down Canadian throats. It is that simple. There is no other way. If we can amend Canada’s constitution, it will supersede all other laws below it, including all court decisions and Bill C-38. 2) Why a Constitutional Amendment is Necessary to Preserve Marriage “The prevailing view in the courts is that [genderless] marriage is required to satisfy the equality sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms – even though the Charter, as enacted by Parliament in 1982 contains no such requirement. Given this interpretation of the Charter, any effort to protect marriage under the current constitutional regime is likely to be defeated. “However, Canadian lawmakers have traditionally “enshrined” in the Constitution the things that have a special place, or need special protection, in our laws. Therefore, one strategy – and we think it is the best strategy in today’s legal and political climate – to defend marriage in today’s society is to amend the Constitution to include its traditional definition. Marriage, as it is now and has been historically understood, would then be enshrined in the highest law of the land. “Section 91(26) of the 1867 Constitution Act enumerates marriage and divorce as federal powers, but it doesn’t define either term because, in 1867, “marriage” was clearly defined and understood in common law. An amendment to define marriage in the same or similar terms would not add anything new or revolutionary to the Constitution – it would merely make explicit the definition that has been implicit for centuries.” http://www.enshrinemarriage.com/english/goal1.aspx 3) STEP 1 - PARTNERSHIP WITH ENSHRINE MARRIAGE CANADA Enshrine Marriage Canada (EMC) is a national, not-for-profit organization based in Toronto. It recognizes the critical role of marriage in our society and is coordinating a national cam! paign to enshrine the traditional legal definition of marriage in the Canadian constitution. http://www.enshrinemarriage.com/english/aboutus.aspx United Mothers, Fathers and Friends is proud to announce our partnership with EMC in our “Enshrine Marriage Alberta” campaign. From this first step, we will expand our efforts to other provinces. 4) How a Constitutional Amendment to Enshrine Marriage Can Be Achieved Who Needs to Pass It? A constitutional amendment requires the passage of resolutions in Parliament and in the legislatures of at least seven provinces that together constitute at least 50 per cent of the population. Who Can Introduce It? Resolutions can be introduced by any elected member and are passed by a simple majority vote; they require only one vote, are not sent to committee, and do not require the support of the executive branch of government. Is There a Time Frame Involved? The process begins when one of the legislative bodies mentioned above passes a resolution to enshrine marriage in the constitution. According to section 39(2) of the Constitution, the resolutions required from other legislative bodies must be passed within three years of the initial resolution. Consequently, if resolutions in all necessary provinces are not passed within this time frame, the process must begin again. Doesn’t the Senate Have to Approve It? At the federal level, section 38(1a) of the Constitution states that resolutions of both the House of Commons and the Senate are required for an amendment. A Senate resolution is not always required, however. According to section 47 of the Constitution, if the Senate does not adopt the resolution within 180 days of its passage in the House, the House may ! pass the resolution a second time and it can proceed without Senate approval. Can the Opposition introduce the Resolution? Resolutions in the House of Commons may be introduced and declared votable by opposition parties as supply-day motions. How Do We Get the Ball Rolling? One Alberta MLA needs to introduce a motion for the resolution this fall when the Legislature resumes. It then needs to pass the legislature. Then we move on to other provinces. Is there enough support to pass a resolution for a constitutional amendment in the Alberta Legislature? A profound majority of Alberta’s MLAs are strongly in favour of marriage. After failing to stand up to Mr. Klein when he put his foot down by not renewing the notwithstanding clause in March, pro-family MLAs lost a lot of credibility with their constituents. These MLAs are very anxious to save face and do something. Mr. Klein himself has pledged that his government will do all it can legislatively and legally to uphold marriage. He said, "I'm willing to abide by the resolution of our caucus to use all political and legal means available to us to fight this.... We'll do everything we can politically. We will use every legal mechanism, absolutely." Passing this resolution is a means to prove it! Support: We need your help to keep up our
momentum. Please consider becoming a quarterly donor. In order to pay
for our technology and continue our efforts to uphold the family, we
need your financial support. If you are able to contribute $40, $75,
$100, or more to protecting the family, please click here for more
information:
http://www.unitedmothers.ca/donate.php There will be no cross Canada hearings on C-38 despite the Prime Minister’s pledge to do all he could to ensure that the committee would travel. Worse yet, this week we learned the government is determined to fast track C-38 through the House and Senate before summer, even if it means stifling debate and extending the session into summer. http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=6f217504-ea99-4f05-8e96-e97f3fe7e277 Pro-family Liberal and Conservative MPs are working valiantly to do what they can to stop C-38. Here is one simple thing you can do to help them stop C-38. 67% of Quebecers support the traditional definition of marriage, according to a February 2, 2005 Compass Poll. Yet only 14% of Quebec MPs voted against Bill C-38 at 2nd reading. Quebec MPs are clearly in deep contradiction with their constituents and need a wake up call. In an effort to educate and sway Quebec MPs at this critical time a Quebec group, “Unissons Nos Voix,” has been formed to stop Bill C-38. By taking action and influencing Quebec MPs, a potential closure motion on 3rd reading debate could be averted. (With the support of the NDP and the BLOC, the government could attempt to invoke closure on 3rd reading debate and deprive MPs of their right to speak for 10 minutes each.) Furthermore, if Quebec MPs could be swayed to change their vote on C-38, or at least abstain, the balance on 3rd reading vote could be swung in our favour. We need your help. 7) CRITICAL ACTION ITEM – Forward Quebec Invitation ACTION ITEM: Please cut and paste, into a new email, the following invitations to everyone you know in Quebec who may be able to help spread the word, or get involved with Unissons in this critical effort. (Whether your friends are Francophone or English, please FORWARD BOTH THE FRENCH AND ENGLISH MESSAGES, so that they can forward both messages.) Then, ask them to forward both messages to help spread the word. Thank you!
8) TIME IS ON OUR SIDE – SHIFTING PUBLIC OPINION In the United States we have seen that the longer this issue has been debated in the public forum, the stronger support has become for upholding marriage. In a recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll 68 percent of the respondents said that marriage, and the benefits the government gives to married couples, should be reserved for one man and one woman. Similarly, 66 percent of Canadians support the traditional definition of marriage according to a recent Compass Poll. http://www.compas.ca/data/050202-SameSex-EPC.pdf Why is there growing support for marriage? Education. People are forced to move beyond name calling like “Discrimination” and “Homophobic” and slogans like “Inclusiveness,” “Tolerance,” and “Love”. They are forced to examine and intelligently reason on the vital social institution of marriage itself, which is really what the debate is all about. In addition, Canadians are beginning to reflect upon the profound impact that re-defining marriage would have on the most susceptible members of our society – children. What about the fence sitters? We know there are many fence sitters in Canada who honestly wonder, “What is the big deal if two people love each other and want to get married?” With a little education, many of these Canadians will come to see clearly what a big deal marriage is and why it needs to be enshrined. Rational Arguments are on our side: As this issue continues to be debated and fought in the public forum, time will allow the rational voices of researchers and scholars to expound upon the latest research that decisively demonstrates that marriage is a vital social institution and that re-defining marriage will hurt society and, most profoundly, children. Please forward this newsletter to your contacts. The future still looks bright! We see it in the faces of children. Michele Dow United Mothers, Fathers and Friends
|
| Fr. John Vandenakker |
Hi. Many thanks to Halifax CC Lay Associate Esther Lancaster for sending some photos of the first Corpus Christi procession at St. John the Baptist parish in 35 years. Fr. John Fletcher is the pastor. Also, the Companions gathered in the hall of St. Mary's church in Ottawa on Saturday night for an 'in-house' celebration of Fr. Bob Bedard's Golden Jubilee of ordination to the priesthood. It was a very enjoyable and blessed evening for the Ottawa area CCs. Finally, CC seminarian Rachad Khadij passed along some interesting photos of our seminarian summer formation program at Assumption Farm near Combermere. Now you can see what the guys have been up to! You can view these photos by visiting our PictureTrail online photo album by clicking here: http://www.PictureTrail.com/gid7580114. Enjoy! - Fr. John Vandenakker |
| Graham | Please see Graham's Corner for information about several programs being aired on Sunday June 12 and Monday June 13. EWTN will be airing a program in which Fr. Benedict Groeschel speaks about Pope Benedict XVI and will be airing an interview in with Canadian journalist Michael Coren. CTS will be airing a progam in which Dr. Charles Stanley speaks about the practice of fasting. |
| Graham |
SAINT PETER AND THE VATICAN: THE LEGACY OF THE POPES an exhibit featuring more than 300 impressive works of art and historically significant objects from the Vatican, will be presented in the Crypt of Notre Dame Basilica in Montreal from June 4 to September 18, 2005. Please see two links below for further information. Official website: http://www.vaticanmontreal.ca/ Article about the opening of the exhibit: |
| Fr. Lindsay Harrison |
Below is an article on a proposed new translation of the Roman Missal from the Latin into English. To some of you this may be news but it has been an ongoing project for quite some time. For years now there has been talk of promulgating a new translation of the Latin Mass into English. The translation of the New Roman Missal we have been using for going on forty years now is actually (to put it charitably) quite inaccurate and banal. There is a classic Latin expression, “lex orandi, lex credendi,” which can be translated “as we pray, so we believe” or “praying shapes believing.” If it is true (and I suspect it is) then it is almost a crime against God and man that we have been yoked to the current English version in the first place let alone for so long. It is difficult to say why it has taken so many years to establish an acceptable retranslation of the Latin text. I remember 15 years ago reading liturgical magazines that were printing samples of a fourth revised version of the Latin text in English! I fear it is not that it is so difficult to translate (though translating it into a worthy, elegant prose would be more demanding). I fear the real reason is probably that the same forces that intentionally mistranslated it in the first place (the members of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy, ICEL) and those who backed them up were simply stalling and obfuscating to prevent an accurate rendition. If the goal had been simply to give us an "inclusive language" version I suspect we would have had it years ago...with all the banalities and inaccuracies of the text still intact. Hopefully the new translation, when it finally does come out, will have done away with all that -- but there is no guarantee. Whole generations of Catholics will have to unlearn the present version and learn the new. Our many occasional Catholics will be hopelessly lost (most already are) as will some elderly souls. New music will have to be written for the responses and prayers. And if the music is of any real quality it will not happen overnight. The revised text is going to cause quite a bit of confusion, tension, controversy and expense no matter how and when it is done. The only legitimate rationale for causing such disruption would be to give us a true, accurate and more beautiful English rendition of the Latin Roman Missal. Anything less...why bother? Father Lindsay To give you an idea of just how bad some of the recent translation proposals have been (even though accepted by our bishops' conference) I will quote below from two press articles on the Vatican's responses to them: Vatican City - In a strongly worded letter of March 31 [2002] to the English speaking Bishops' Conferences, the Vatican has rejected the earlier proposed English Sacramentary (or Roman Missal) based on the second edition of the Missale Romanum. The ICEL translation, it states, favours "constant variety" and abandons sacred language in favour of "compositions superficially attractive by virtue of their emotional impact." The text, the letter states, sounds like commands to God rather than prayers, reflecting a have-it-now consumerist spirit; and it uses inclusive language avoiding gender-specific terms, in a "faddish" manner. The new prayers are inferior to ancient ones; they include many mistranslations which alter the meaning of phrases and expressions; and there are many, many other problems." And again, this time on the translation made of the Rites of Ordination for Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons: In a letter dated 20 September 1997 from Archbishop (now Cardinal) Jorge Medina Estevez, Pro-Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments to the president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops...he stated that the ICEL ordination ritual revision, titled Rites of Ordination of Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons, "cannot be approved or confirmed by the Holy See for liturgical use." This revision had been approved by the Administrative Committee of the US Bishops’ Conference in March 1996 (but not by the whole Conference) and submitted to the Holy See for approval as required for all revised liturgical texts. The new text could not be confirmed for liturgical use, "Not only by reason of its failure to adhere faithfully to the Latin editio typica altera and to convey accurately in English its contents, but also because its translation is not without doctrinal problems." Because "the shortcomings are so diffused," the Vatican letter added, "minor isolated corrections will not suffice." It further advised that "it may be helpful to recommend that there be a complete change of translators on this project and that a new, independent and definitive English version be made afresh from the Latin texts." Note how these terrible translations get approval by bishop's conferences or the committees they set up to oversee them. Now the article on the newest translation: From Catholic Insight, September 2004: The following article is reprinted with permission from the July edition of the Australian magazine AD2000. Mr. Gilchrist is its editor. The Roman Missal is the book on the altar. The draft of the new translation has circulated for some time among the bishops of the English speaking world. In England the Catholic weekly The Tablet printed the text of the four Eucharistic prayers or Canons of the Mass in full (May 22, 2004). The following, we believe, will be of interest to our readers. While written specifically for Australia, most of it is applicable to Canada, we hope. Editor ----- The long-awaited revised English translation of the Roman Missal is now approaching its final phase, with bishops’ conferences around the English-speaking world recently examining the latest draft translation produced by the Bishops’ Committee of ICEL (the International Comission on English in the Liturgy), and offering their comments. By all accounts, the present draft is likely to be adopted with relatively few alterations. This is to be welcomed, as the new translation is a considerable improvement on the one currently used, both for its accuracy and for its more dignified language—a far cry from the dumbed-down prose style of the translation used over the past 30 years. A copy of the new draft translation was recently obtained by AD 2000, courtesy of the Australian Bishops Conference’s religious affairs department. Marked contrast A close reading of the document reveals that the overall tone of the new Missal—with its strong emphasis on the sacredness of the divine liturgy and our dependence on God’s goodness and mercy, and our own unworthiness contrasts markedly with the colloquial approach of the present translation. When one places sections of the present Missal translation alongside the new draft version and the Latin master edition of the new Mass, as promulgated after Vatican II, one is struck by the many glaring linguistic inaccuracies, not to mention the theological distortions or omissions, Examples of these will be set out further on in this report. The current draft, which has just been examined by English-speaking bishops’ conferences, has elicited generally positive responses, with only a few minor adjustments being requested. The present timeframe envisages a new Missal being available for use in parishes within two years, together with the first volume (Sundays and Feasts) of the new translation of the Lectionary which contains the Mass readings. The Lectionary text will be taken from the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version), corrected according to the Latin of the New Vulgate. An International Commission for that work has now been set up, with Melbourne auxiliary Bishop Mark Coleridge playing a prominent role. The NRSV translation (like its predecessor the RSV) is generally superior to that of the Jerusalem Bible being presently used in Masses (with its “happy” preferred to “blessed”). While the NRSV contains some questionable use of inclusive language, this is to be carefully monitored in terms of doctrinal precision. Following introduction of the new Missal and Lectionary, there will be a uniform national education program set up by the bishops. This will be necessary for priests, religious, and laity to prepare for the new translation after 30 years of using a defective one (completed in haste during the heady years after the Council, when the “spirit of Vatican II” was rampant). Bishops will face the major challenge of steering through the liturgical reforms in their dioceses and ensuring that they are observed in letter and spirit. The new Missal translation is the culmination of a series of significant, convergent developments that have challenged the post-1960’s laissez-faire liturgical culture. These include the Pope’s encyclical on the Eucharist, with its emphasis on the centrality of the Eucharist and its strong criticism of liturgical abuses. The Vatican document Redemptionis sacramentum—foreshadowed in the Pope’s encyclical—complements this, setting out the do’s and don’ts of liturgical celebrations (Editor: See C.I., June 2004, “Vatican halts liturgical abuses,” pp. 13-15). Radical reforms to ICEL’s operations and membership in recent years have brought that once semiautonomous body firmly under the control of the Holy See and bishops’ conferences. In addition, the Congregation for Divine Worship’s document Liturgiam authenicam sets out the basis for authentic liturgy and liturgical language, while the establishment of the Vox Clara Committee, under the chairmanship of Cardinal George Pell, has ensured that ICEL’s on-going translation of the Roman Missal proceeds in accordance with the principles set out in Liturgiam authenticam (Editor: see C.I., July/August 2001, pp. 10-11). Striking changes The following analysis identifies a few of the more striking examples of change in the new translation—but there are many more. The first indication that things are to be different will come early in the Mass with the congregation’s response to “The Lord be with you” where they are to say: “And with your spirit”—not “And also with you.” The original Latin reads: Et cum spiritu tuo, which is now correctly translated. The original ICEL translators appeared to have major difficulties with “soul” and “spirit,” purging mention of these in a number of places, despite what the Latin edition clearly states. These are now restored across the entire Missal. During the Confiteor, the Latin mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa is translated accurately as “through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault” and not just “through my own fault.” Worshippers are also reminded to strike their breast as they say these words—a practice that has fallen into general disuse, though it is called for in the present Missal. In the Gloria, “peace to his people on earth” becomes “peace on earth to people of good will,” which is literally what the Latin says, although the inclusive “people” is retained for hominibus, which is literally the generic “men.” “Sin” of the world now becomes “sins” of the world—the Latin peccata being plural. “Sin” suggests a collective guilt or “sinful structures” rather than our personal sinfulness. The omission in the present translation of numerous expressions in the Latin text that emphasise a Catholic theological understanding has been rectified in the new translation. Examples of these include the phrase: only begotten Son, of your bounty, deigned, humbly, blessed, almighty, most merciful, glorious, and graciously. Another significant change occurs in the Nicene Creed, where Credo is translated accurately as “I believe” rather than the present “We believe.” In addition, people are reminded to bow at the words “and by the Holy Spirit became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and was made man.” This practice, while called for in the present Missal, is rarely encountered. It seems taken for granted, even by those who should know better, that most Catholics now find the generic expression “man”—meaning the human race—jarring. Yet one continues to hear in science documentaries about the origins of man. Fortunately, there are few such “lapses” in the new translation. The Orate Fratres (Pray my brothers and sisters, or more literally, my brethren) translates meum ac vestrum sacrificium as “my sacrifice and yours” and not “our sacrifice.” The latter blurs the role of the priest celebrant and worshippers. Perhaps the most striking example of the liberties taken by the earlier ICEL translators can be found in Eucharistic Prayer I (the original Roman Canon carried over from the Tridentine Mass). Here, the present English version is almost unrecognisable when set against the Latin edition and the new draft translation, which follows the Latin text closely and restores a much-needed sense of the sacred. A typical example of the new prose used is: “Most merciful Father, we therefore humbly pray and implore you through Jesus Christ, your Son, our Lord, to accept and bless these gifts, these offerings, these holy and undefiled sacrifices.” In the present Missal, this passage reads as: “We come to you Father, with praise and thanksgiving, through Jesus Christ your Son. Through him we ask you to accept and bless these gifts we offer you in sacrifice.” Instead of the priest “asking” God, he will say that we “humbly pray and implore”—a more appropriate approach for mere mortals in the presence of the Almighty. The pattern continues throughout Eucharistic Prayer I—and to some extent in the other Eucharistic Prayers. The text now used during the Consecration reads: “Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said….” The new translation follows the Latin closely: “…taking also this noble cup into his holy and venerable hands, once more giving him thanks, he blessed it and gave it to his disciples, saying….” Following the Consecration, the present first Acclamation, “Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again,” becomes in the new translation, “We proclaim your death, O Lord, and profess your resurrection until you come”—which is what the Latin actually says. Later, “Look with favour upon these offerings and accept them as once you accepted the gifts of your servant Abel…”—which sounds as if the priest is telling God to do something—is correctly translated as: “Be pleased to look on them with a favourable and kindly face and to accept them, as you were pleased to accept the gifts of your servant Abel….” At the beginning of Eucharistic Prayer III, the words, “From age to age you gather a people to yourself, so that from east to west a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your name,” becomes in the new translation: “…you never cease to gather a people to yourself, so that from the rising of the sun to its setting a pure oblation may be offered to your name”—with geographical space transformed into time. In the introduction to the Our Father (the only portion provided), the present words “Jesus taught us to call God our Father, and so we have the courage to say” become the more literal: “Taught by commands that bring salvation and formed by the divine instruction, we have the courage to say.” The celebrant’s words before Communion are currently: “Lord Jesus Christ, with faith in your love and mercy I eat your body and drink your blood. Let it not bring me condemnation, but health in mind and body.” The new version reads: “May receiving your Body and Blood, Lord Jesus Christ, not bring me to judgment and condemnation, but through your love and mercy let it be my protection in mind and body, and a healing remedy.” The priest says in the present Missal: “This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to his supper.” The new version is far more striking, with the words “This is” replaced by the stronger (and more accurate) “Behold” (Ecce), and the word “happy” by “blessed” (beati): “Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sins of the world. Blessed are they who have been called to the supper of the Lamb.” Mistranslation At this point, congregations will be made particularly aware of the extent of change as they recite the words, “Lord, I am not worthy that thou should come under my roof but only say the word, and my soul shall be healed.” The present version, which is a gross mistranslation, empties the response of its scriptural echoes, reading: “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.” The new text refers us to Luke 7:6-7, from which the words “come under my roof ” (sub tectum meum) derive. This is the Gospel account of Our Lord’s curing of the centurion’s dying slave. The centurion says: “I am not worthy to have you come under my roof ” (Catholic RSV edition). Similar illustrations can be multiplied. But what these examples demonstrate most strikingly is that English-speaking Catholics for far too long have had to put up with a poorly translated Missal text which, arguably, has eroded for many their sense of the sacred and their doctrinal understandings. We can now look forward with keen anticipation to a new English Missal that faithfully conveys the truths of faith and inspires a sense of the sacred: lex orandi, lex credendi. |
God bless! Sue (Proverbs 31:30)
