I am not terribly enthusiastic about this so-called ' reform'. It seems to me more a kind of ' set back' and, in places, confusing. Some of the new translations appear crudely archaic, in an attempt to render the original Latin word order. The Nicene creed now reads:
" One in being with the Father.. by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary". The proposed new translation reads:
" consubstantial with the Father.. by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary." We can expect a new slew of archaic words such as vouchsafe and deign. I also strongly oppose the shift in the new words of consecration which now say that Jesus' blood is shed for all men and women. In the new translation it will say:"
The blood which is shed for the many". This new translation does, of course, capture the scriptural words used for the last supper when Jesus said to his disciples:
" This is the blood of the covenant, which is poured out for the many for the forgiveness of sins." ( Matthew 26:26).
3 comments:
Looks like a Jesuit coordinated attack of the few, with America as a ringleader trying to influence the many.
Is it the few attacking the many? If so, who is the few and who is the many?
These changes reflect the judgment of a Church committee. The changes are not divinely inspired. In making such non-divinely inspired decisions, what is the appropriate way to make such a decision?
I am neither for nor against these changes. But I am concerned about how we define ourselves before God when making such decisions.
I am delighted with the change. We are getting closer to the correct interpretation of Vatican II. The modernists, and that includes a few Jesuits, acted like Judas' and betrayed Christ. So as a church committee screwed it up, a church committee will correct it.
Now if we can get a full implementation of Summorum Pontificum, we would be on the road to recovery.
Post a Comment