New York Times article on new missal translation
CWN - April 12, 2011
The New York Times has published an article on the forthcoming revised translation of the Roman Missal. Quoting five critics and only one supporter, reporter Laurie Goodstein states that “thousands of priests” find the more accurate translation to be “awkward, archaic and inaccessible.”
The new translation will be implemented in the United States on the First Sunday of Advent.
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach five million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Our Fall Campaign
Progress toward our final 2013 goal ($15,951 to go, assuming receipt of matching funds):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: impossible -
Apr. 15, 2011 9:28 AM ET USA
Attacks from the New York Times and others outside of the Church are not nearly as destructive and worrisome as the attacks from within.
Posted by: AgnesDay -
Apr. 13, 2011 12:30 PM ET USA
Like I care what the NYT says about anything.
Posted by: hartwood01 -
Apr. 12, 2011 9:27 PM ET USA
We Catholics sure get a lot of press from the NYT. I'd say they were obsessed with Catholicism. Obsessed enough to present a distorted image, out of fear.
Posted by: BobJ70777069 -
Apr. 12, 2011 8:50 PM ET USA
Cincinnatus: "...that address only the translation are uniformly favorable." Favorable to what? - the Times position or the translation. I vote in favor of the new translation. (and I'm familiar with it.
Posted by: Obregon -
Apr. 12, 2011 4:32 PM ET USA
Gee, what can we expect from the ultra-liberal New York Times, a objective assessment of the new translation of the Mass?
Posted by: cincinnatus -
Apr. 12, 2011 11:56 AM ET USA
Reader comments to the Times itself are up to 130 and increasing. Most are the same kind of rants that are triggered by anything the Times writes about the Church. Those that address only the translation are uniformly favorable.