December 26, 2011

While I am open to a new Mass translation, I am not open to a 40-year step backwards as is represented by some of the new Roman Missal. If the new translation is a more accurate translation from the Latin, then surely the Latin was flawed, examples of which are given below.

I wonder, however, why anyone would in this modern age want to translate from Latin when clearly the epistles and Gospels of the New Testament were originally written in Hebrew, Arabic and Greek. If we really want to get an exact translation then the English version should be translated from either Hebrew and/or Greek.

Why do we want to try to translate from the past? Isn't the Second Vatican Council's emphasis on the involvement of the laity one major reason why the Mass was translated into the vernacular?

Even though a large number of countries of the world use a form of English as their national language, there are major differences peculiar to each country. Even the way in which the different English speakers sound many words is different.

So even if one tries to make the language consistent across a large number of countries, there are going to be major differences in pronunciation.

Then there are some glaring errors in the new translation. A case in point is the use of the word chalice." Surely when Jesus and his disciples were at the Last Supper, they didn't use chalices to hold the wine. They used a cup.

Another concerns the response at Communion. I am not asking Jesus to come "under my roof." I have a roof in my house as did the centurion, but I am not asking Jesus to come to my house. I am asking him to come to me.

Wilbur Colin
Edmonton