16-year-old Latin whiz finds new liturgy language lacking

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ahimsa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Ahimsa

Guest
Let’s start at the beginning. The first major change is to the Confiteor, the prayer used in most forms of the Penitential Rite. The new translation translates the adverb “nimis” as “greatly”, so that it now reads “I have greatly sinned.” It’s certainly a dramatic change, but one that’s grounded in the Latin. In fact, the word “nimis” means something more than “greatly”; it actually connotes the idea of “excessiveness”. The other change is that the Latin “mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa” is now translated “through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault.” This is pretty much a literal translation. So the Latin is solid.

The problem, though, is that the Latin itself seems to be hyperbolically critical of humanity. It might aim to promote humility, but inevitably it fosters guilt instead. It promotes a vision of human nature as overwhelmingly and inexorably sinful-- a vision more in line with the heretical Janesenist doctrine of centuries past than Catholic dogma.

An apologist of the translation reminds us that “the guiding principle of the new translation is a closer adherence to the Latin–not a sharper critique of our virtue.” But this makes absolutely no sense. Who cares what the “guiding principle” was? The end result is that the Latin is more condemnatory for no discernible reason. And there is no scriptural grounding for this “sharper critique” either-- the first appearance of the prayer is in 1100 AD, over a millennium after Christ.
Click to expand...
 
I feel people (not on the forum, but in general) would be reluctant to criticize this because the reort will be “oh, you are picking on him because of his age”. Personally, I find it severely NOT because of his age (I’m well within a decade of it and I think people can in fact, write intelligently at that age) but because aside from very few things like:
Surely not. The first rule that every Latin translator learns is that often Latin words may look like certain long, rare English words – but comprehensibility matters more. The same applies to “was incarnate.” The whole reason why an English translation is used in the first place is so people can actually understand the Mass. For the average churchgoer “consubstantial” is no more comprehensible than "consubstantialem.” Ridiculous words defeat the point of a translation in the first place.
Click to expand...
really he has very little to say about the translation. His issue is with the Latin, and with what he thinks things should be. He has a whole different vision of what theology, Church, Eucharist, etc. Fair enough, power to him - I’m sure many people within the Church have the same thoughts.

But people opposed to the translation masquerading this as a translation critique - that is just dishonest, because there is very little critique of the TRANSLATION. I happen to think that there are several things in the translation (particularly the Propers) which can be intelligently critiqued. This is not a critique.

Reading comments at the newspaper and a couple of blogs just seems to indicate (to me) how many people nowadays are rarely evaluating the merits of an arguments (whether pro or against) but only seeing whether it supports their stance on the translation. There is no engagement, only a rah-rah mentality.
 
I’ll give a rebuttal of this the day this kid has a Doctorate in Sacred Theology focussing on the theology of the Mass and finds himself in the CDW or ICEL.

Until then…

Though I admire his Latin knowledge and I am a bit jealous 🙂
 
The real title of this article may as well be, “Latin student agrees new translation is fine, but realizes for the first time that he doesn’t like the actual words and theology of the Catholic Mass.” No surprise NCR was thrilled to run it.
 
MarkThompson said:
The real title of this article may as well be, “Latin student agrees new translation is fine, but realizes for the first time that he doesn’t like the actual words and theology of the Catholic Mass.” No surprise NCR was thrilled to run it.
Click to expand...
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
 
MarkThompson said:
The real title of this article may as well be, “Latin student agrees new translation is fine, but realizes for the first time that he doesn’t like the actual words and theology of the Catholic Mass.” No surprise NCR was thrilled to run it.
Click to expand...
I know. I was reading it, and said to myself:

“Hey wait?! The title says he doesn’t like the translation! But he just said here that the translation is great, it’s just the original texts that are off… oh wait. This is the National Catholic Distorter. Never mind. Should have seen that one coming…”
 
Maybe they should translate it, “through my mistake, my mistake, my like totally embarrassing 'n stuff mistake”.
 
TheMc said:
I know. I was reading it, and said to myself:

“Hey wait?! The title says he doesn’t like the translation! But he just said here that the translation is great, it’s just the original texts that are off… oh wait. This is the National Catholic Distorter. Never mind. Should have seen that one coming…”
Click to expand...
I was thinking the same thing, then I saw the source of the article - so much for that. Some of the comments are priceless - like “I will not attend Mass any longer because I don’t like the language” - LAME.
 
Regi said:
I was thinking the same thing, then I saw the source of the article - so much for that. Some of the comments are priceless - like “I will not attend Mass any longer because I don’t like the language” - LAME.
Click to expand...
Meh, same as for those who stopped attending mass when the OF became the norm post-Vatican II… for them, well, they choose their own fate when they abandon the obligation to attend mass.
Seperate issue and not addressed to Regi specifically
Click to expand...
Where the kid disagrees with the embodiment of the ideals of the latin, I think he’s quite wrong. Here I refer to his complaints about “Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa” (and perhaps I like this because I have done it as a personal devotion for the last 10 years, but I agree that it needs a place in the mass).

However, where he talks about literal translations of roman/latin colloquialisms, I do believe he has a small point. There’s no difference between saying to receive someone or saying they should come under your roof… other than that “come under my roof” has never been a common way of referring to someone coming into your home in the English language. The translation without allowing that colloquialisms can be left behind (or changed to reflect parlance in the target language) is a bit awkward. In this regard it appears that it’s about 50/50 split on languages… some translate it into regional dialects (Spanish, French, Italian, current English translation, etc) and some translate it literally (German, new English translation, etc).
 
promethius said:
However, where he talks about literal translations of roman/latin colloquialisms, I do believe he has a small point. There’s no difference between saying to receive someone or saying they should come under your roof… other than that “come under my roof” has never been a common way of referring to someone coming into your home in the English language. The translation without allowing that colloquialisms can be left behind (or changed to reflect parlance in the target language) is a bit awkward. In this regard it appears that it’s about 50/50 split on languages… some translate it into regional dialects (Spanish, French, Italian, current English translation, etc) and some translate it literally (German, new English translation, etc).
Click to expand...
But there’s a problem with this: The saying “come under my roof” is a latin colloquialism as much as it is in english. It’s not an idiom, it’s just a clear reference to scripture. That’s why it should be translated literally into english: There’s no reason not to.
 
TheMc said:
But there’s a problem with this: The saying “come under my roof” is a latin colloquialism as much as it is in english. It’s not an idiom, it’s just a clear reference to scripture. That’s why it should be translated literally into english: There’s no reason not to.
Click to expand...
That’s all well and good until we consider that about 50% of bible translations use the term “come into my house” rather than “come under my roof”

Even colloquialisms and idioms are done away with by most modern translators. If you were to, for example, go to google translate, you will find that their algorithm largely translates any use of “come under my roof” in any language to “enter my house” (or, in some cases, it even translates it as “to receive you”) .

And yes, I realize it’s a reference to scripture… but it’s a reference to an idiom contained in scripture (much as “Jesus’ brothers” is taught by the church to be an idiom refering to cousins and followers)

The bottom line is that “that you should come under my roof” is a saying that has never been in popular use in the English language. A idiom without meaning any more than if I were to use “the mustard climbs my nose” (a french idiom) rather than saying “I’m annoyed”. Literal translations are fine, but we CAN recognize that they CAN be awkward.
 
promethius said:
That’s all well and good until we consider that about 50% of bible translations use the term “come into my house” rather than “come under my roof”
Click to expand...
And the old translation of the Mass didn’t use either of those. Your point is? Both make it clear that the lord is coming into your home. That’s the idea of the Latin. The current translation is much more surface level superficial.
 
promethius said:
The bottom line is that “that you should come under my roof” is a saying that has never been in popular use in the English language. A idiom without meaning any more than if I were to use “the mustard climbs my nose” (a french idiom) rather than saying “I’m annoyed”. Literal translations are fine, but we CAN recognize that they CAN be awkward.
Click to expand...
Except that “under my roof” to mean “in my home” is idiomatic in English, as in that ultimate trump card of a father: “As long as you live under my roof, young lady, you’ll abide by my rules.” We aren’t talking about translating “What’s up?” as “¿Qué está arriba?”
 
I find this quote:

“The problem, though, is that the Latin itself seems to be hyperbolically critical of humanity. It might aim to promote humility, but inevitably it fosters guilt instead.”

is indicative that this is not an opinion on the language, but on the theology of the Mass. On the other hand, Catholic Answers Magazine (formerly This Rock) had an excellent article on the translation. Jimmy Akin points out that the change in translation from the dynamic equivalency to a formal equivalency is a papal mandate. It is not open to the opinion of translators which is preferrable. ICEL followed the instructions given to them in their translating. FYI, the CA video site here has Jimmy Akin explaining several points on the new translation for those interested.
 
I don’t blame the kid. Which first-year Latin student would translate “Sursum corda/Habemus ad Dominum” as “Lift up your hearts/We have lifted them to the Lord.”?

Or even “Dominus vobiscum” as “The Lord BE with you” for that matter?

Anglosphere can’t seem to accept that certain things just can’t be translated into English and retain their original meaning.
 
ProVobis said:
I don’t blame the kid. Which first-year Latin student would translate “Sursum corda/Habemus ad Dominum” as “Lift up your hearts/We have lifted them to the Lord.”?

Or even “Dominus vobiscum” as “The Lord BE with you” for that matter?

Anglosphere can’t seem to accept that certain things just can’t be translated into English and retain their original meaning.
Click to expand...
It could be worse - there seem to be an awful lot of people who think that “if English was good enough for Jesus and the Bible, it’s good enough for me.” :eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top