An approved "Our Father" in contemporary English?

[Praedicare]

Friends,

For the UK, America, Canada, et. al., was a translation of the Lord’s Prayer in modern English ever approved by the Church? Must it always be the traditional, hieratic English to be liturgically authentic & correct? I’m referring to the legitimate use of such a version in the* public* celebration of the Liturgy of the Hours and Mass.

I’d imagine the biggest problem in making it contemporary is the word “hallowed”. it’s difficult to be faithful in “updating” such a word for English.

Thank you. God love you.

 

[Neofight]

The prayer, outside a liturgical setting does not require Church approval. However, as part of a liturgy, prayers should be prayed as approved in the normative liturgical text.

In other words, in your private devotion, if you choose to “free-style” prayer, no harm, however there would be concerns if the liturgical text were purposely manipulated without explicit consent of the Church.

Peace and all good!

 

[Praedicare]

The prayer, outside a liturgical setting does not require Church approval. However, as part of a liturgy, prayers should be prayed as approved in the normative liturgical text.

In other words, in your private devotion, if you choose to “free-style” prayer, no harm, however there would be concerns if the liturgical text were purposely manipulated without explicit consent of the Church.

Peace and all good!

Thank you for your reply, but this is an answer to the opposite side of my question.

I am not interested in private devotion in this case. I am wondering if one of the competent authorities in Rome ever approved a translation of the “Our Father” that is different from the one printed in the 2011 English translation of the Roman Missal used in the US & Canada. Is there only one liturgically-approved version Lord’s Prayer in English?

I ask this because nowhere in the Liturgy of the Hours is the entire text of the Lord’s Prayer printed. All the rubrics merely say “Our Father…” in the proper place, and never print the full text. I’m wondering if this was because of a multiplicity of translations accepted for public worship.

 

[Neofight]

Thank you for your reply, but this is an answer to the opposite side of my question.

I am not interested in private devotion in this case. I am wondering if one of the competent authorities in Rome ever approved a translation of the “Our Father” that is different from the one printed in the 2011 English translation of the Roman Missal used in the US & Canada. Is there only one liturgically-approved version Lord’s Prayer in English?

I ask this because nowhere in the Liturgy of the Hours is the entire text of the Lord’s Prayer printed. All the rubrics merely say “Our Father…” in the proper place, and never print the full text. I’m wondering if this was because of a multiplicity of translations accepted for public worship.

Although I certainly do not speak with authority of the Church, my thoughts are that when you see the lead in to the Prayer, without the full text, it means the approved text in the Roman Missal, rather than a multiplicity of translations for public worship. To the best of my limited knowledge, there are not multiple translations approved for public liturgy.

However, you would be better asking a religious, a priest or deacon, or a theologian than me, or most others, at this forum.

Peace and all Good!

 

[Digitonomy]

I am wondering if one of the competent authorities in Rome ever approved a translation of the “Our Father” that is different from the one printed in the 2011 English translation of the Roman Missal used in the US & Canada…All the rubrics merely say “Our Father…” in the proper place, and never print the full text. I’m wondering if this was because of a multiplicity of translations accepted for public worship.

I’m fairly certain there is no alternative translation in English to the prayer we are familiar with.

It does stand out as an exception, since most other liturgical texts have been revised, while the Our Father text continues to use archaic language like “art”, “hallowed”, and “thy”. During mass, I am always on alert so I remember to speak the 2011 versions of the creed, confiteor, etc. rather than the older versions rattling around in my head. When it is time for the Our Father, it is sometimes only once the prayer has begun that I relax as I realize they never revised this part of the mass.

 

[unstoppable_II]

… there would be concerns …
…

I think “suspicions” would be a better term.

 

[Praedicare]

Thank you for all your replies. Very helpful and interesting. I just found it fascinating that the Liturgy of the Hours prints all other approved liturgical texts, but only the first two words of the “Our Father”. Perhaps the publishers of this edition (US/Canada) were hoping celebrants & leaders of the Hours would extemporize the Lord’s Prayer.

I was always struck by the fact that the Lord’s Prayer retained its “old” English form, even in the 1970s. It does indeed act as a moment of relaxation for many people in this era of still-changing texts. I myself find it odd to have contemporary English for 95% of the Mass, and then hieratic Cranmer English for a single prayer. It’s not world-destroying, though.

 

[agnes_therese]

Perhaps the publishers of this edition (US/Canada) were hoping celebrants & leaders of the Hours would extemporize the Lord’s Prayer.

I think it’s more likely that they expected us to already know it.

 

[dochawk]

It does stand out as an exception, since most other liturgical texts have been revised, while the Our Father text continues to use archaic language like “art”, “hallowed”, and “thy”.

The Divine Liturgy for (Ruthenian) Byzantine Catholics was revised and retranslated a few years ago–except for the Lord’s Prayer.

The explanation is that this translation, which is pre-Reformation, is common to all English speaking Christians, and an element of unity.

hawk

 

[CB_Catholic]

I think it’s more likely that they expected us to already know it.

And to save space and cost. If the Our Father, Hail Mary and Glory Be were printed in their entireties each time, the already thick books would be considerably thicker.

 

[ProVobis]

I myself find it odd to have contemporary English for 95% of the Mass, and then hieratic Cranmer English for a single prayer. It’s not world-destroying, though.

I agree, although I think I read somewhere the English form used today was mandated by Henry VIII. I believe other Protestant denominations favor “debts” instead of “trespasses” among other things.

 

[Digitonomy]

I agree, although I think I read somewhere the English form used today was mandated by Henry VIII. I believe other Protestant denominations favor “debts” instead of “trespasses” among other things.

Our current form differs slightly from the version of a few centuries ago (e.g. “which art in heaven”, not “who art in heaven”, “Them that” not “Those who” tresspass…)[

Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord’s_Prayer#English_versions) suggests that the earlier version you mention dates to the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, while the source of our current version is listed as the 1928 BCP. This sounded suspicious to me, and in a Google book search the first example of our current version I could find was 1763:
A Form of Prayer, and a New Collection of Psalms,: For the Use of a Congregation of Protestant Dissenters in Liverpool. The only change between that publication and our version was the addition of “and” in two places.

Looking up Protestant dissenters, there seems to be a wide gamut, and 1763 seems to be toward the end of their identification by that term. I wish I knew more about the particular dissenters who would be publishing in Liverpool in 1763.

We also discussed the source of the current Our Father earlier this year (without much luck):
“Our Father…” From which Bible?

 

[unstoppable_II]

Our current form differs slightly from the version of a few centuries ago (e.g. “which art in heaven”, not “who art in heaven”, “Them that” not “Those who” tresspass…)

Which always struck me as using grammatical errors in weak attempts to sound elegant and esoteric.

 

[thistle]

Friends,

For the UK, America, Canada, et. al., was a translation of the Lord’s Prayer in modern English ever approved by the Church? Must it always be the traditional, hieratic English to be liturgically authentic & correct? I’m referring to the legitimate use of such a version in the* public* celebration of the Liturgy of the Hours and Mass.

I’d imagine the biggest problem in making it contemporary is the word “hallowed”. it’s difficult to be faithful in “updating” such a word for English.

Thank you. God love you.

Many of the Churches in which I have attended Mass use “Holy” be your name and not Hallowed. They also use “do not bring us to the test” instead of “lead me not into temptation.”

 

[ProVobis]

Our current form differs slightly from the version of a few centuries ago (e.g. “which art in heaven”, not “who art in heaven”, “Them that” not “Those who” tresspass…)

That’s true. There was also a version if I recall which reversed the “u” and “v” in its spellings. To this day we say “double u” when we write it as “double v.”

Problem is when a question about “contemporary” English is asked, just how “contemporary” do you want to make it? Furthermore, there really is no ideal period in English which could serve as a standard and make the prayer immortal in the verbatim sense.

 

[porthos11]

The ICET translation is approved for use outside the US and Canada (e.g. in the Philippines)

Our Father in heaven
Holy be your name
Your kingdom come
Your will be done on earth as in heaven
Give us this day our daily bread
And forgive us our sins
As we forgive those who sin against us
Do not bring us to the test
But deliver us from evil.

Presumably, this is approved for use there for both Mass and the Liturgy of the Hours.

 

[Digitonomy]

I agree, although I think I read somewhere the English form used today was mandated by Henry VIII. I believe other Protestant denominations favor “debts” instead of “trespasses” among other things.

Looking back at the Rheims and the KJV, both used “debts” in the verses in Matthew. This was a number of decades after Henry VIII. Since James I published a meditation on the Lord’s Prayer in 1619 using “debts,” I think it’s safe to say that even the form in the 1662 BCP does not come from Henry.

ProVobis:

Problem is when a question about “contemporary” English is asked, just how “contemporary” do you want to make it? Furthermore, there really is no ideal period in English which could serve as a standard and make the prayer immortal in the verbatim sense.

This doesn’t seem to be a problem in translating other parts of the mass. Contemporary just means contemporary. The debate over words focuses on accuracy and what can be understood, not how old the words are.

It’s quite clear that using for instance “your” instead of “thy” is just as accurate. It’s true that “thy” is explicitly informal, while “your” is indeterminate in contemporary English, but since this is not a feature of contemporary English, few appreciate this distinction anymore.

 

[Digitonomy]

The ICET translation is approved for use outside the US and Canada (e.g. in the Philippines)

Interesting. Reviewing the ICET (now ELLC), I found this:

In 1984 the New Zealand Roman Catholic Bishops permitted and encouraged the use of the ELLC version of the Lord’s Prayer (in all Dioceses except Christchurch). With the introduction of the Third Roman Missal the ELLC version of the Lord’s Prayer was not recognized and therefore had to be changed back to the traditional text. The ELLC version is still permitted for use outside of mass.

 

[ProVobis]

This doesn’t seem to be a problem in translating other parts of the mass.

Except for all the “vouchsafes” and other such not-so-contemporary translations.

Have you checked out the Anglican Ordinariate?

As for what passes for contemporary, you’ll get lots of disagreement there. How many tries did it take to get the English up to speed? And then how permanent is that?

 

[Phemie]

Thank you for all your replies. Very helpful and interesting. I just found it fascinating that the Liturgy of the Hours prints all other approved liturgical texts, but only the first two words of the “Our Father”. Perhaps the publishers of this edition (US/Canada) were hoping celebrants & leaders of the Hours would extemporize the Lord’s Prayer.

I was always struck by the fact that the Lord’s Prayer retained its “old” English form, even in the 1970s. It does indeed act as a moment of relaxation for many people in this era of still-changing texts. I myself find it odd to have contemporary English for 95% of the Mass, and then hieratic Cranmer English for a single prayer. It’s not world-destroying, though.

ICEL tried to modernize the text in the latest translation. It was roundly rejected. Here is an excerpt from** Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal**, Rome, 16 March 2002, Prot. n. 429/02/L.C. The Congregation in the course of its various contacts and consultations has encountered widespread *indeed, virtually unanimous-opposition to the institution of any change in the wording of the Lord’s Prayer. More than one reader cited poignantly the experience of having seen this prayer coming to the lips of Christians who had otherwise appeared unconscious, its familiar wording having been learned by them from infancy. By contrast, the Mixed Commission’s justification for its changes, in its Third Progress Report on the Revision of the Roman Missal, seem inadequate and somewhat cerebral.