The Incestuous Virgin Mary? (cf US Bishops). *

This post has moved to my new domain at http://queering-the-church.com/blog

Advertisements

4 Responses to “The Incestuous Virgin Mary? (cf US Bishops). *”

  1. Phillip Clark Says:

    The new proposed translations for the English edition of the Roman Missal, are at the very least, problematic. While, having dabbled in Anglo-Catholicism, I am a bit aquainted with and somewhat appreicative of this kind of poetic liturgical language that mimics so closely the original Latin translation, one wonders how much the average Catholic will be able to grasp from this newly translated Missal.

    True, if a comprehensive cathechesis explaining WHY and WHAT these changes mean, it might not be that bad (the fact that the USCCB has even set up a website dedicated to this purpose is exemplary). But the point of the issue is, as Bishop Trautman of Erie, PA has continously argued and proved, these Latin translations do not reflect the English mode or cadence of speaking.

    Now, with the sections of the translations you provided, reading it word for word it’s easy to see how that passage could be construed as implying the Blessed virgin was St. Joseph’s mother =P But, to me, as much as it sounds like a concession, to the priest celebrating the Eucharist, wouldn’t he know the difference and what the text was trying to say, so as to inflect his voice at the right moments to convey what the prayer is saying? True, why should the priest have to go through all this trouble if the texts were just written like that in the first place?

    Well, let’s hope and pray that at least here in the States perhaps, that Bishop Trautman’s hope, that somehow there might be some way to halt the translations before the final decision is made by Rome might be possible.

    • Joseph O'Leary Says:

      No, the text about “mother of Joseph” is just a screw-up a. I brought it to Bp Trautman’s attention and it was corrected the next day.

      There are still two different texts of the Roman Canon on the USCCB website — one reads “we make humble prayer and petition… that you accept”, the other reads: “we make humble prayer and petition…. We ask you to accept…”

      It seems to me that the former text is the definitively approved one. It was in the latter text that the now corrected theological howler appeared (and if you think reading a heresy or blasphemy in a pious voice can whisk it away you are deluded).

      • queeringthechurch Says:

        Thank you Joseph, for getting this howler fixed. How to resolve the larger question for a generally misguided and clumsy attempt to “improve” the language by going backwards will not be so speedily resolved.

  2. colkoch Says:

    I have a number of problems with these translations, more on the theological side of things, than the wording side. It is precisely the catechesis which I am interested in because I see this whole process as another way of substituting Vat I Christology for VAT II Christology.

    As Joseph points out at the end of his piece, the transcendant, majestic, ineffable, and all mysterious God is too frequently defineded against his worm of a creation. This God is so transcendant He is no longer interested in saving all the worms.

    This leads one to wonder what kind of tin pot God is this, and for what reason did He ever create all us worms. He must have had a very bad day, or maybe God just wanted to give Lucifer his own personal set of toys. Not a lot of love here.

    I just broke up laughing when I read the sentence which clearly states Mary was the mother and bride of Joseph. Maybe they were just reflecting back on Genesis, since the abscence of any other women means Eve was quite busy herself.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: