An approved "Our Father" in contemporary English?

[Praedicare]

ICEL tried to modernize the text in the latest translation. It was roundly rejected. Here is an excerpt fromObservations 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.

This seems like it might be one of those ugly politicized issues. Interesting quote, nonetheless.

I suppose people are just so attached to the traditional form that even something like: “Our Father in Heaven, holy/hallowed be your name; your kingdom come; your will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven…” would simply not be acceptable. Ironically, the prayer to which most Catholic people are even more radically attached – the Hail Mary – was freely changed to include “you” and “yours” in the official US/Canada text of the Liturgy of the Hours.

I wish it was possible to address our Father liturgically in a way that wasn’t like reciting Shakespearean text. I just don’t understand why this textual tradition needs to be held, when almost every other one has been changed – subconscious utterances by the comatose & sleeping notwithstanding.

 

[ProVobis]

I wish it was possible to address our Father liturgically in a way that wasn’t like reciting Shakespearean text. I just don’t understand why this textual tradition needs to be held, when almost every other one has been changed – subconscious utterances by the comatose & sleeping notwithstanding.

I agree with you. But anything recited in cadences or sung in public does need to have some uniformity. That’s what we’re taught anyway. I only dread when they pray the St. Michael prayer with its thrust/cast defend/protect, etc variations. It’s like everyone is praying a different prayer.

 

[Phemie]

This seems like it might be one of those ugly politicized issues. Interesting quote, nonetheless.

I suppose people are just so attached to the traditional form that even something like: “Our Father in Heaven, holy/hallowed be your name; your kingdom come; your will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven…” would simply not be acceptable. Ironically, the prayer to which most Catholic people are even more radically attached – the Hail Mary – was freely changed to include “you” and “yours” in the official US/Canada text of the Liturgy of the Hours.

I wish it was possible to address our Father liturgically in a way that wasn’t like reciting Shakespearean text. I just don’t understand why this textual tradition needs to be held, when almost every other one has been changed – subconscious utterances by the comatose & sleeping notwithstanding.

I have to say that I simply cannot say the Hail Mary without thee, thou, and* thy*.
I pray the Liturgy of the Hours using two different apps. One has the Glory Be ending “and ever shall be, world without end” and the other “and will be forever.” I find the second very difficult to “pray.” I can read it, but it certainly doesn’t come readily to my lips.

 

[Chatter163]

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.

This was what they found in the late 1960s and early 1970s, as well. People are generally quite attached to the versions of the Our Father, Hail Mary and a few other prayers that they learned as children. There had been discussions of modifying both, but in the end, it was not worth the trouble of forcing a change.

 

[Phemie]

This was what they found in the late 1960s and early 1970s, as well. People are generally quite attached to the versions of the Our Father, Hail Mary and a few other prayers that they learned as children. There had been discussions of modifying both, but in the end, it was not worth the trouble of forcing a change.

As difficult as it was, it was easier for me to learn to pray the French “Notre Père” in the second person singular than it would be to learn a “modern” version of the “Our Father.”

 

[pnewton]

I just don’t understand why this textual tradition needs to be held, when almost every other one has been changed – subconscious utterances by the comatose & sleeping notwithstanding.

I do not see why it would need to be changed. A contemporary version would be just as likely to become subconscious utterance to on who is not in tune with the liturgy. While the English language as a whole is dumbing down as it evolves, there are still a myriad of exceptions to this, including foreign words and phrases, as well as place where the archaic is retained. This is probably simply a case where if something isn’t broken, then do not fix it.

 

[thistle]

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.

Its also used in Singapore.

 

[ProVobis]

I do not see why it would need to be changed. A contemporary version would be just as likely to become subconscious utterance to on who is not in tune with the liturgy. While the English language as a whole is dumbing down as it evolves, there are still a myriad of exceptions to this, including foreign words and phrases, as well as place where the archaic is retained. This is probably simply a case where if something isn’t broken, then do not fix it.

Also consider the English language is not as uniform as we Americans expect it to be. While an American would probably have no problem spending a weekend in the U.K., living there would force a redefinition of many terms and expressions.