Can the Old Translation Still be Used?

[MichaelPaul]

I overheard a conversation where I heard the music director at my home parish isn’t too fond of any of the musical settings for the revised translation of the “Gloria” and would rather use one of the old settings. I was surprised to hear this because I thought previous settings could no longer be used since the translation is no longer the official version. Is this allowed?

I imagine I have sung pieces from 1960s Mass settings as is or adapted for the ICEL translation. But the concept of the so-called four hymn sandwich was common in the parishes I attended. It wasn’t until the 1970s that I remember singing anything other than hymns with the occasional exception of poorly chanted English

Please, please PLEASE bring the old version back.

 

[drforjc]

Please, please PLEASE bring the old version back.

If you are referring to the 1970 translation, I say no way. When I compare the Latin original to the (now obsolete) ICEL translation it makes me want to bang my head against the wall. Entire phrases and words simply dropped.

 

[Digitonomy]

In the Archdiocese of Lingayen-Dagupan, parishes starteryd using the new English version of the Lord’s Prayer since February.

What changes have they made to the Lord’s Prayer?

 

[Philip76]

If you are referring to the 1970 translation, I say no way. When I compare the Latin original to the (now obsolete) ICEL translation it makes me want to bang my head against the wall. Entire phrases and words simply dropped.

The 1970s translation of the spoken parts of the Mass was far more rhythmic and poetic than the new translation. Consequently, the previous translation was easier to master and easier to remember. After a full year, people still stumble over much of the altered parts of the Mass at the parishes I attend.

Personally, I speak a bit of the new translation and stay silent most of the time. The new phrases are simply too cumbersome and difficult to say. Whether they are a closer approximation (in the translators’ opinions) to the original Latin is immaterial - the subtle differences in meanings between the previous and current English translations are obvious to native English speakers and we can see that everything essentially means the same as it did before. Therefore, to change to the new translation would appear to have no purpose other than to satisfy those who want to make every word mechanically perfect (in their own opinion of how it should be translated) and care not whether it sounds beautiful when spoken.

And if, in the Gloria, we really are professing peace only to people of good will (as distinct from “to all people on Earth”), I rather think that’s a backward step in relations among human beings. Surely the people who lack a bit of good will are those most in need of peace…

 

[superamazingman]

The 1970s translation of the spoken parts of the Mass was far more rhythmic and poetic than the new translation. Consequently, the previous translation was easier to master and easier to remember. After a full year, people still stumble over much of the altered parts of the Mass at the parishes I attend.

Personally, I speak a bit of the new translation and stay silent most of the time. The new phrases are simply too cumbersome and difficult to say. Whether they are a closer approximation (in the translators’ opinions) to the original Latin is immaterial - the subtle differences in meanings between the previous and current English translations are obvious to native English speakers and we can see that everything essentially means the same as it did before. Therefore, to change to the new translation would appear to have no purpose other than to satisfy those who want to make every word mechanically perfect (in their own opinion of how it should be translated) and care not whether it sounds beautiful when spoken.

You know, if you don’t like the new translation, feel free to ask your parish priest about celebrating the Mass in latin. You can still have it be the new Mass, but the prayers would just be in latin, the normative language for the Mass even today (that’s what Vatican II says).

And frankly, many parishes have it down just fine. It’s not that difficult. And anyways, many believe it is much more beautiful than the old text.

And don’t get ticked at the translators: John Paul II was the one who asked them to do it in the way they did.

And if, in the Gloria, we really are professing peace only to people of good will (as distinct from “to all people on Earth”), I rather think that’s a backward step in relations among human beings. Surely the people who lack a bit of good will are those most in need of peace…

Don’t blame the translators. That’s simply what the ages old text of the gloria says, as well as many other languages who translated it correctly. This has nothing to do with the translation. The fact that it was previously mistranslated doesn’t mean that the original text was theologically wrong.

 

[Philip76]

Don’t blame the translators. That’s simply what the ages old text of the gloria says, as well as many other languages who translated it correctly. This has nothing to do with the translation. The fact that it was previously mistranslated doesn’t mean that the original text was theologically wrong.

Yes I can see that now that I’ve read a bit more - it’s now actually more inclusive than it was. I apologise for my earlier misunderstanding.

And frankly, many parishes have it down just fine. It’s not that difficult. And anyways, many believe it is much more beautiful than the old text.

I disagree with those ‘many’. I guess my main gripe is that there appears to have been no attempt made to massage the language so that it fits a comfortable rhythm of speaking, which the previous translation did quite well. The effort has been solely around technical accuracy which will be wasted on anyone other than scholars. It was poetic in English, and now the passages that have changed are quite clumsy.

It shouldn’t be difficult to say at all, if the aim is to get people to participate. We’re not dealing with intellectuals or scholars of theology - we’re dealing with families who are trying to maintain their observance of weekly Mass and really don’t need yet another reason to abandon it and sleep in on a Sunday morning. An improvement on the technical accuracy of the translation at the expense of the flow of the text is not an improvement in the translation - it’s just a change. I note with interest that there has been no change to the Lord’s Prayer. I shudder to think what would happen to it if such a committee was given the chance to fool with it.

 

[superamazingman]

Yes I can see that now that I’ve read a bit more - it’s now actually more inclusive than it was. I apologise for my earlier misunderstanding.

I disagree with those ‘many’. I guess my main gripe is that there appears to have been no attempt made to massage the language so that it fits a comfortable rhythm of speaking, which the previous translation did quite well. The effort has been solely around technical accuracy which will be wasted on anyone other than scholars. It was poetic in English, and now the passages that have changed are quite clumsy.

It shouldn’t be difficult to say at all, if the aim is to get people to participate. We’re not dealing with intellectuals or scholars of theology - we’re dealing with families who are trying to maintain their observance of weekly Mass and really don’t need yet another reason to abandon it and sleep in on a Sunday morning. An improvement on the technical accuracy of the translation at the expense of the flow of the text is not an improvement in the translation - it’s just a change. I note with interest that there has been no change to the Lord’s Prayer. I shudder to think what would happen to it if such a committee was given the chance to fool with it.

You speak as if the committee was just trying to fool with the texts for the sake of messing with people. The real thing we should shutter to think would have happened if it was mistranslated in the first place, and we were praying all along something different than Christ taught us.

Think about it this way: the primary and normative language of the Mass was and is latin. Sacrosanctum Concilium no. 36 from Vatican II reiterates that.

So clearly, the ability of the congregation to be able to understand very clearly every word that is spoken is not the primary goal of the Mass. That is because the Mass is not about us and how we understand the prayers.

If it was about us, then yes, it would be important for everyone to understand and speak those prayers clearly. But it’s not. That’s what you’re really missing.

The liturgy is something Christ gives us through the church, the same church that has now given us a text more faithful to the other languages. If you think about it that way, we are now also more united with the other language groups, since we are all praying the same prayers, not just similar prayers.

Also, the primary aim is not to get people to participate vocally. You also have a flawed idea of participation. If participation was everyone being outwardly (vocally and physically) involved, then Vatican II would contradict itself, saying that polyphony is one of the best forms of music for the liturgy, which by definition, is not congregational.

True active participation is a faithful and attentive listening to the prayers of the Mass, to the sacred music (which can include participating outwardly, but doesn’t need to), to the readings, to the voice of God speaking to you. THAT’S participation.

 

[Phemie]

I note with interest that there has been no change to the Lord’s Prayer. I shudder to think what would happen to it if such a committee was given the chance to fool with it.

Oh, ICEL tried, but it was roundly rejected by Rome as early as 1998. From March 2002’s “Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal” by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacrament

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 is what they had in the revision:

Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done, on earth as in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
Forgive us our sins
as we forgive those who sin against us.
Save us from the time of trial
and deliver us from evil.

 

[drforjc]

And if, in the Gloria, we really are professing peace only to people of good will (as distinct from “to all people on Earth”), I rather think that’s a backward step in relations among human beings. Surely the people who lack a bit of good will are those most in need of peace…

You just contradicted your assertion that the “old” translation means the same as the new, just not as literally. Now you are favoring a mistranslation for the sake of a meaning different from that of the Latin.

 

[Ian1968]

The Old Testament is part of the canon of Scripture. Of course it is useful. There are parts that no longer apply to Christians, but the OT is still useful.