Catholics Will No Longer Recite 'And Also With You'

[AMDGtoo]

SMHW: That’s just my point. Change after change after change.
Why? What makes the latest change better than ones that have stood for decades? Unless something is drastically in error or offensive or not according to the magisterium what’s the problem?? We don’t seem to get one new lectionery out before it is outdated and they’ve already changed something else.

This correction to the translation (change) will make the English translation of the Roman Missal what the magisterium wants. In that regard, it is hardly “change for the sake of change”.

 

[Muppett]

Any response as to why we dropped the Amen for the Our Father?

 

[ProVobis]

We have just been using a poor translation all this time.

No one except the Latin scholars and linguists made it an issue though.

Are you saying the current English Mass is defective? I don’t think most of those that regularly attend Mass think so; they like it just fine. Just give them a English-speaking priest and they’re happy.

 

[benedictgal]

No one except the Latin scholars and linguists made it an issue though.

Are you saying the current English Mass is defective? I don’t think most of those that regularly attend Mass think so; they like it just fine. Just give them a English-speaking priest and they’re happy.

I have a copy of the 1966 Sacramentary, with the imprimatur from Cardnial Spelling. Compare this translatino to what we have now and you’ll notice a marked difference. Now, compare the 1966 translation to the one just approved by the Holy See and you’ll see some huge similarities.

The language used in the current translation lacks the beauty that is found in the 1966 version and the new one. Even the wording used in the Anglican Rite-Use Mass is more beautiful.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Any response as to why we dropped the Amen for the Our Father?

An “Amen” was said at the conclusion of the “Our Father” (“but deliver us from evil”) as a sort of ratifying exclamation–or so it was explained to us when after Vatican II, the doxology was added (“For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, forever.”) Then the priest continued with the prayer ("Lord Jesus Christ, you said to your apostles…) It is then that the “Amen” (which is really not part of any prayer) is said. I remember a lot of confusion when it began to be done. Is this what you mean?

 

[preV2tradcath]

In the EF, the priest says the Our Father as far as “and lead us not into temptation”. The server replies “sed libera nos a malo” (“but deliver us from evil”). The priest quietly says Amen before starting his next prayer.

 

[Brendan]

No one except the Latin scholars and linguists made it an issue though.

Actually, Pope John Paul II made it an issue when he issued Liturgicam Authenticam. In that document, he outlined the rules for translations from the Latin original.

The current English translation was defective on several fronts, so it had to be retranslated.

Are you saying the current English Mass is defective?

No, but Pope John Paul did, and so did Cardinal Arinze. That is why the document was issued. Any translation that met the criteria was fine and could continue to be used. English was not one of those languages. In fact, it was the language that failed the worst.

I don’t think most of those that regularly attend Mass think so; they like it just fine. Just give them a English-speaking priest and they’re happy.

They might like it, but that does not necessarily mean that it is the best one they could have. That is what Rome desires, the best possible translations.

 

[freshwater]

**I may find it difficult to change my ways . Hope it don’t end up offending any one . Love of God , freshwater: **

 

[benedictgal]

**I may find it difficult to change my ways . Hope it don’t end up offending any one . Love of God , freshwater: **

No; however, the bigger issue lies in maintaining fideilty with what the Church requires. Let’s face it. What we have right now is flawed and needs to be fixed. That is why Pope John Paul II promulgated Liturgicalm Authenticam because the words that we are praying need to be an authentic translation of the liturgy found in the Latin Roman Missal.

Yes, the Church wants us to change our ways, or, rather, our words, so that they conform to the norms and standards that she has set forth.

 

[ProVobis]

The language used in the current translation lacks the beauty that is found in the 1966 version and the new one. Even the wording used in the Anglican Rite-Use Mass is more beautiful.

Then, seriously, maybe we should maybe replace the ICEL with Anglican clerics.

 

[PacoG]

I have read the Spanish Roman Missal and the translation is in line with the original Latin version. In Spanish, the people say, “Y con tu espiritu”, which means, “and with your spirit”.

The Spanish Missal has its own translation problems. In the Sanctus, “Dominus Deo Saboeth” is translated into “Senor Dios del universo” (translated: “Lord God of the universe”). If “Lord God of power and might” didn’t cut it and is being changed back to the traditional translation “Lord God of hosts,” then “God of the universe” falls way short.

From what I read, the phrase “Dominus Deo Saboeth” means Lord God of the Armies. Saboeth is a transliterated Hebrew word which means that. “God of power and might” express that more accurate than the word “universe” does.

It is my hope that when the Vatican takes on the USCCB’s Spanish Missal, that they will insist on accurate translation also. Spanish-speaking American Catholics deserve the same that English-speaking American Catholics will get soon…

Maybe we need to return to Latin and dispense with this translation nonesense.

 

[Tepeyac]

There’s a musical setting of the Spanish Sanctus that uses “Senor Dios de los ejercitos” or “Lord God of hosts” which is closer to Dominus Deus Sabaoth than the regular, written text. I’ve heard this setting often in both Mexico & the U.S. so I assume there must be some sort of permission for it (I also wonder if it’s a leftover translation from the 60s when mass was first said in the vernacular). Anyway, the Spanish Missal has it’s problems but I don’t think they’re as many as the english translation. If you ever compare the prayers of the day in both languages, you can often tell something was left out in the english version.

edited to add: It also occured to me that if we are to revisit the translations, we might as well do so now before people get even more used to them.

 

[ProVobis]

Maybe we need to return to Latin and dispense with this translation nonesense.

I agree with you but apparently after Vatican II professional translators have found another niche in the marketplace. You don’t want to deprive them of their livelihood, do you? Knowing that people usually follow the path of least resistance, and that vernacular is the path of least resistance, and more and more vernaculars are always popping out, one has a heck of a growing opportunity to manifest his intellectual prowess if he’s inclined to go into the career of translations. They couldn’t stick to just math and physics, could they?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

“Does anyone know if and/or when there will be new and better translations for the Liturgy of the Hours?”
What’s wrong with the Gelineau Psalter?

There’s more to the Liturgy of the Hours than just the Psalms (which fall way short, more on this soon). There are the Psalm Prayers, the Intercessions, Canticles, Readings, Responses, Concluding Prayers, etc. Some are better than others, but all could use an update in the same manner the the Mass is now getting.

As for the Psalms, there are so many issues with them, it is hard to list them all. Here are a few snippets:

Happy is used instead of Blessed (not the same thing - example - Psalm 1:1 - Happy the man/Blessed the man; Latin - Beatus vir).
“Valley of Darkness” instead of “Valley of the Shadow of Death” (Latin - in valle umbrae mortis).
“His love endures forever” instead of “His mercy endures forever” (this one isn’t that big of a stretch, but it still is a deviation from the Latin - quoniam in aeternum misericordia eius).

Those are just a handful of poor and erroneous translations currently in use (there are some that are much more egregious).

 

[Tepeyac]

As for the Psalms, there are so many issues with them, it is hard to list them all. Here are a few snippets:

Happy is used instead of Blessed (not the same thing - example - Psalm 1:1 - Happy the man/Blessed the man; Latin - Beatus vir).
“Valley of Darkness” instead of “Valley of the Shadow of Death” (Latin - in valle umbrae mortis).
“His love endures forever” instead of “His mercy endures forever” (this one isn’t that big of a stretch, but it still is a deviation from the Latin - quoniam in aeternum misericordia eius).

Those are just a handful of poor and erroneous translations currently in use (there are some that are much more egregious).

The English translation of the Liturgy of the Hours uses the Grail translation for the Psalms, which were translated from Hebrew. That’s probably why they don’t match the Latin exactly.

It uses the 1963 translation, by the way, not the later inclusive-language version.

 

[GemmaRose]

I don’t like change. Any kind of change. I know I’ll be grousing about the changes for quite some time after they occur. But that’s just me.

I have a reservation when it comes to “exact” translations: I’ve been studying Italian for a while (I’ll probably need to study the rest of my life - I’m not good with languages), and so often I’ll think what I want to say, look up any words I don’t know in the dictionary, check my textbook for conjugation, etc., and my Italian teacher will smile and say, “I understand what you’re trying to say, but we don’t say it that way in Italy.”

Now, I certainly don’t understand Latin and never studied it (although I do now understand a little of it since I’ve been studying Italian), and my reservation is that “exact” translations of the Latin may not really convey the meaning into English. But, I’m not sure.

In any event, I just hope that when they officially publish the changes, they also publish the whys and wherefores for language dummies like me.

 

[Corki]

There’s a musical setting of the Spanish Sanctus that uses “Senor Dios de los ejercitos” or “Lord God of hosts” which is closer to Dominus Deus Sabaoth than the regular, written text. I’ve heard this setting often in both Mexico & the U.S. so I assume there must be some sort of permission for it (I also wonder if it’s a leftover translation from the 60s when mass was first said in the vernacular). Anyway, the Spanish Missal has it’s problems but I don’t think they’re as many as the english translation. If you ever compare the prayers of the day in both languages, you can often tell something was left out in the english version.

edited to add: It also occured to me that if we are to revisit the translations, we might as well do so now before people get even more used to them.

Spanish is an interesting case. I lived for a while in South America and they used a translation that was approved by the Spanish speaking Bishops. In the US, sometimes they use that one but sometimes they seem to use a translation from the English. An example is the consecration where “pro multis” (Latin) is translated in SA as “por muchos los hombres” (I am doing this from memory so that might not be exact) but in the US as “por todos”. On the other hand they all seem to use “credo” for the creed and the three part “por mi culpa, por mi culpa, por mi gran culpa” which are closer to the Latin than the current English translation is.

 

[Kevin_Driffield]

All of the changes that I’ve heard about I like so far. The points you highlight both add to the Mass in my view. The first adds imagery through the simile. As for the change to the Mystery of Faith, I’ve always found the ‘familiar’ version more bland than the others, just compare the new and old option A:

“Christ has died” to “We proclaim your death, O Lord,”
“Christ is risen” to “and profess your resurrection”
“Christ will come again” to “until you come again”.

They do say more or less the same thing at the end of the day but the new one is far richer in meaning to my mind. Perhaps especially in the last line where ‘until’ conveys better the sense we are actually waiting for him to come.

Catholics in England, to my knowledge, have not yet received any concrete information of the changes in the prayers of the Mass so my knowledge of these changes comes from the pages of this forum.
Frankly I am horrified by the examples displayed of the changes about to be made. They display the triviality and ultimate futility similar to the discussions of mediaeaval philosophers about how many angels can stand on the head of a pin.
In a world of militant secularism, blatant materialism, total injustice towards the starving and the oppressed and the haemorrageing of the numbers of the faithful, the deliberations of the great and the good of the Church appear to be the equivalent of re-arrainging the deckchairs of the Titanic.
In the example quoted by snhs the writer admits the new version “says more or less the same thing at the end of the day”. If this is true why bother to change. If it is in any way superior to the present translation the difference is so marginal as to be not worth the effort.
The present translation is perfectly adequate as long as it is said with due reverence and attention. I fear the whole process reveals once again the woeful priorities and blinkered outlook of the upper hierarchy and I pray that they will address their attentions to the vastly greater problems facing our Holy Church

 

[SMHW]

I have a reservation when it comes to “exact” translations: I’ve been studying Italian for a while (I’ll probably need to study the rest of my life - I’m not good with languages), and so often I’ll think what I want to say, look up any words I don’t know in the dictionary, check my textbook for conjugation, etc., and my Italian teacher will smile and say, “I understand what you’re trying to say, but we don’t say it that way in Italy.”

Now, I certainly don’t understand Latin and never studied it (although I do now understand a little of it since I’ve been studying Italian), and my reservation is that “exact” translations of the Latin may not really convey the meaning into English. But, I’m not sure.

That’s supposedly one of the reasons for the current translation we are using.

I’m not a proponent of Latin only, but but one of the better arguments for using Latin is that any translation from Latin into a modern language can only be imperfect. A literal translation may not confer the actual intent of the words in context but a thought translation will lose the history and layers of meaning the words.

Unfortunately unless everyone learns Latin (comprehension, not just pronunciation) we are going to have the situation where some people lose part of the flavor of the Mass parts.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Kevin:

Just a friendly note here: You’re raising a ‘false dichotomy’.

That The Church is concerned over less than correct translations does not mean that it is paying ‘less attention’ to other issues, especially to those issues which you feel are more important than this one.

Even if the issue were of as little importance as you think (and it is indeed more important than you think), it still doesn’t make it a ‘non-issue’.

Especially since all those major issues you worry about are addressed by The Church (meaning hierarchy and laity) every day.

So rather than get all exercised over the Church ‘wasting time’ (according to you) over an issue you feel is not ‘important’ (again, according to **you), **why not let the Church do what it needs to do, and you do what you need to do.

Do all those ‘important things’ yourself to the best of your ability, and submit yourself, in humility, to accepting the Church and what it is teaching on this ‘unimportant’ (according to you) issue without griping or complaining about its lack of importance in the grand scheme of Christianity.

God bless.