BREAKING: Pope Francis gives local bishops more responsibility for Mass translations

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimR-OCDS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ll wait until we see some results (and I won’t be holding my breath) before I say whether or not I think this is a good or bad development.

Dan
(formerly dans0622)
 
You need to learn the meaning of the word “proper” (Latin proprius) in a liturgical context.
 
1973 ICEL Translation (now obsolete):

Father,
your love for us
surpasses all our hopes and desires.
Forgive our failings,
keep us in your peace
and lead us in the way of salvation.

Current 2011 ICEL Translation:

Almighty ever-living God,
who in the abundance of your kindness
surpass the merits and the desires of those who entreat you,
pour out your mercy upon us
to pardon what conscience dreads
and to give what prayer does not dare to ask.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I actually prefer the prior translation. Other than “liturgy nerds” (and I mean that affectionately) the average parishioner has been virtually unanimous in rejecting the new translation. While the previous translation wasn’t perfect it was far easier to follow and understand for the average listener.
 
“Virtually unanimous”? What poll proved that declaration?

I actually dislike both translations (for very different reasons)…but at least the new one doesn’t just make a mincemeat wreckage of what the Latin actually says.
 
Vadne said:
One imagines of course that those who might prefer the loose, indeed inaccurate, and generally all-around insipid translations that were composed in the 1960s and 1970s will view this as their chance to restore the glories of those bygone days. My prediction is that this particular motu proprio will lead to greater confusion and Babel-like disunity. From a political point of view of course, it does serve to further the apparent papal agenda of disempowering the Roman Curia.
Click to expand...
I agree, and so does at least one of my priest friends.
 
“Virtually unanimous”? What poll proved that declaration?
Click to expand...
I thought it was pretty clear I was speaking from personal experience of hearing constant complaints (and virtually no compliments) of the current translation. And at clergy gatherings its pretty much widely panned. Archbishop Gregory acknowledged as much a few years ago.
the new one doesn’t just make a mincemeat wreckage of what the Latin actually says.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but the old one wasn’t a meandering mouthful.
 
Last edited:
Okay, let’s look at this.
The Roman Church has special obligations towards Latin, the splendid language of ancient Rome, and she must manifest them whenever the occasion presents itself” (Dominicae cenae, n. 10)
Click to expand...
Presumably, logically, whenever the occasion presents itself is during the weekly sacrifice of the Mass, on Sunday, to fulfil the commandments of Our Saviour.

Now, this.
“But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters. (§ 2)

“These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language. (§ 3)
Click to expand...
Look at the language. Read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest. The interpretation is quite clear, and the above quote is taken from S.C. Latin is the proper language of the Roman Rite. It has been aways, and ever shall be - Latin contains such descriptors, verbs, nouns, acclamations, and sentences which cannot be fully translated in their true glory into the vernacular tongues. That is why we preserve it, for its sanctity of not being the vulgar tongue. Latin is to be preferred, and used at any time.

This is why we needed a new translation. How do we address the sovereign King of the Universe? With some hippy dippy children chat, or with a refined language of beauty. Ought we not speak to, and offer our sacrifice in, the most beautiful form of language that the Creator has deigned us with?
 
Last edited:
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with your point of view, however there’s a reality that pastors have to deal with. That reality is that in many places most people do not want Latin in the Mass. No pastor is going to drive people away from his parish simply to make a liturgical stand on Latin. But then again, if the church down the road from me wants to start doing that I’d have no problem with it… 😉
 
Last edited:
Oh, I understand that. People left when we changed to the new translation, but I don’t know where they went.

If they didn’t like that, and they became Anglican, then they’d need a translator!
 
Last edited:
One thing I will say about Vatican II and its nebulous “spirit” - it is a day that never ends. Gaudium et Spes speaks of “hoc hodiernum tempus” (“today”/“contemporary times”).

For some people, it is always and ever 1965, as much a Golden Age as 1955 is for others.

The former group will always adore the 1974 Sacramentary (artwork and all). It is a monument to the “Spirit of '65.” It is a monument to a moment in liturgical history that - I am sure - historians of a future age will look back on with shaking of the heads and wonder at the sheer arrogance of it all (as in, the implicit “we know better than centuries” attitude).
 
Last edited:
My guess would be that they simply stay home. Its unfortunate but it is the ways of the modern world I guess…
 
That’s one way to view it. I’m no fan of the “spirit of Vatican II” since, as you mention, it can literally mean almost anything. However, I do think that the general view will be favorable. Not necessarily favorable towards the silly experimentation that took place, but favorable in that what was eventually settled on helped the Church prevent a much worse desertion of the laity.
 
I found it interesting that when I was in Europe and attended Mass at San Marco & Notre Dame the Mass was in the vernacular except when the people had to respond, then it was sung in Latin - with a smattering of Greek of course. That’s what SC called for I believe.
It was the first time in more than 35 years that I’d heard Gloria VIII.

Then again, I attended Mass in the Netherlands where Mass was totally in Dutch. It was Mass, even though I speak nary a word of Dutch, I could still follow what was going on. When it came to the Lord’s Prayer, I said it quietly in French.
 
Last edited:
Nonsense. The recent translations were meant to reflect the actual translations from the Mass handed down through the centuries. The previous “translations” were pulled out of thin air and made no sense within the context of the Mass.
 
They weren’t “pulled out of thin air.” It was a translation approach called dynamic equivalence. You might prefer the formal equivalence approach but its just that, a preference. Neither approach is incorrect, they’re two different ways of skinning the cat. Usually in biblical translations a combination of the two approaches is used to ensure readability (sometimes called optimal equivalence).
 
Sorry, but I actually prefer the prior translation. Other than “liturgy nerds” (and I mean that affectionately) the average parishioner has been virtually unanimous in rejecting the new translation. While the previous translation wasn’t perfect it was far easier to follow and understand for the average listener.
Click to expand...
As you mentioned to Vadne, this is an anecdote from personal experience. Besides, the Church isn’t a democracy. It’s sad but true that sometimes, people don’t want to think too hard. A lot has been said about “noble simplicity”. What is “noble” about the 1973 translation? It sure is simple; simple enough for a 5 year old to grasp as the translation from the original Gelesian Sacramentary has been drained of all it’s beauty, meaning, and poetry. It’s like saying that we should dumb down Edgar Allen Poe’s poetry so a third grader can understand. How is that “noble”? Like the translations used in the Divine Worship of the Anglican Use of the Latin Rite, the general Latin Rite has salvaged the beautiful prayers that saints have been praying for centuries. Is a cobbled together, ugly, on the spot prayer, really “noble”? If so, why and how?

You also chopped off the commentary from the other priest. The original prayer (and the 2011 ICEL translation) paints a beautiful picture of a man “who is bowed down… [and] petitions the Almighty Father, merciful and good…” The obsolete 1973 “translation” paints no picture. There is no poetry. The prayer is not beautiful, and not part of our Latin tradition that has developed over the years. To quote Benedict XVI it’s a “banal, on-the-spot product.”

Archbishop Gregory doesn’t elaborate on why the accurate translations are “inadequate” or full of “difficulties”. If “consubstantial” is really that hard to say, people need to get over themselves. Find out what the word means. That’s what I do when I encounter a word I don’t know. The word, and others are really not that hard to explain, and if it can get people thinking about God in a deeper way, I would consider that a good thing. And good not only for “liturgy nerds” but all people. One doesn’t need to be a liturgy nerd to appreciate a beautiful, well thought out prayer; one that is indicative of a person’s hard work to give glory to God through a form of prayerful poetry. Obviously, that poetry is seen more in the original Latin, but the 2011 translation of the original works much better in this regard than the 1973.
 
Do we as laypeople “participate” in Mass or are we “present” at Mass?

If we are to participate actively, is it not better to at least use language that is understandable to the public?

I’ve read people say Latin is the preferred language and that demons fear Latin more (not sure if that’s true or not).

To those that prefer Latin: Is there a theological/doctrinal basis for that or is it because Latin is the ancient language of the Church?
 
The problem is that the recent English translation from Latin was almost a literal translation from a text which included the Latin context of the past.

It was meaningless to contemporary English speaking people.

“Consubstantial,” is never heard by people today, nor is “and with your spirit,” which again came out of the Latin cultures and the Church had to go through the gymnastics of
explaining just what those terms meant. I assure you, only those with the intellectual curiosity bother to find out. The majority of the Catholics just repeat the terms because it’s now
what is expected.

The worse for me is “Lord I am not worthy to receive you,” “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.”

The former reflects the reality taking place, that the faithful are about to receive Jesus in the Eucharist.

The later reflects the words of the Roman centurion from Scripture, but is abstract to the personal meaning of what is taking place.

The former translation of the Mass was more contemplative, the current is more literal and spiritually elementary.

There are Catholics who have religion and spirituality, but most have religion without spirituality. The new translation serves the latter.

Jim
 
That’s pretty harsh to say that they lack spirituality because they prefer a more accurate translation. In my experience it is the Catholics you describe as saying what is expected of them with no intellectual curiosity that lack spirituality, which is not to say someone like you, who obviously took the time to find out whaf is actually meant, but just prefer the former.

I think we should usually focus on the “hard-core” and not worry so much about appealing to the transients, but this seems an unpopular opinion among the Hierarchy, may they be blessed.

As to the topic: the boss gets what the boss wants.
 
The evocation of the centurion is what is in the liturgy. That was deliberate when the Church composed that prayer. To lose it in a faulty translation is an impoverishment.

“And with your spirit” expresses spiritual realities. “And also with you” might as well just mean, “Hi there!”

Critics of the new translation really do sooner rather than later reveal the rather condescending view that they think the “people” are dumb. Certainly that they are incapable of catechesis and education.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top