Concern over the new Missal translation

[benedictgal]

Here is the new and improved version of the Creed:

believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.

God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.

For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit
was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.

For our sake
he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.

He ascended into heaven and is seated
at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord,
the giver of life, who proceeds
from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son
is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

And one, holy, catholic
and apostolic Church.
I confess one baptism
for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection
of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

While these are rather long sentences, there appears nothing in the Creed that would contradict the laws of grammar.

Now, here is the new and improved version of the Gloria:

Glory to God in the highest,
and on earth peace to people of good will.

We praise you, we bless you, we adore you, we glorify you, we give you thanks for your great glory, Lord God, heavenly King, O God, almighty Father.

Lord Jesus Christ, Only Begotten Son,
Lord God, Lamb of God,
Son of the Father,
you take away the sins of the world,
have mercy on us;
you take away the sins of the world, receive our prayer;
you are seated at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us.

For you alone are the Holy One,
you alone are the Lord,
you alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit,
in the glory of God the Father. Amen.

Perhaps those who are against the new translations should avail themselves of Praying the Mass or a visit to the USCCB website and read the wording before making baseless accusations. It would be most edifying experience for them.

 

[FrDavid96]

I’m not quoting anyone. I don’t have an agenda nor am I quoting anyone that does. DO NOT accuse me of doing things which I am not doing.

I DO know how the sentence reads, I read it myself. I can’t find it at this time. For the 5th time now, I can’t find it. If you all want to sit and attack me because I can’t find something, fine go ahead.

BUT DO NOT accuse me playing tricks, nor of quoting agenda. I am doing neither.

Fr, do you speak to your parishioners this way? With the sarcasm and accusations? THAT sir, is not a nice trick.

Prior to post #112, the following is the extent of your posts in this thread.

The problem with calling it a higher form of language is that it isn’t. Have you actually read some of the prayers that will be in the missal? There was one sentence that was something like 48 or 68 words long (I was trying to look it up but I can’t find it) It was impossible to diagram, because it was so nonsensical. That is not a higher language, that isn’t even good grammar. Its a bunch of run on sentences with commas in between.

While I believe a revised translation could be wonderful, and I submit to the authority of my church for this, I think that this will also bring problems. Like simple following of some of the prayers.

I’m also concerned about the lack of catechesis that might happen with implementation. “And with your spirit” is very likely to give the idea of a mannicheistic heresy.

Again, I hope this brings deeper faith, but I do have concerns about some things.

In the above quote, you criticize a sentence for length, but you don’t know how long it is “something like 48 or 68 words”. You admit you can’t find the sentence.

Benedictgal, once again, you haven’t addressed anything I said.

Just because “with your spirit” is being used in other languages, does not mean my point is moot.

How do you know I wasn’t at the conference? You don’t. In fact, this point was addressed there, AND the panel AGREED WITH ME, as well as having discussions/evals with me after the conference was over, over a meal.

My point still remains, there is bad grammar. Run on sentences with over 50 words is not a “higher form” of language as attributed earlier.

You still have not yet made any point, other than to continue to criticise a sentence with “over 50 words” --a sentence which, at this point, you apparently still have not yet found. You also say that these sentences (moved into the plural now) are “run on sentences” but you don’t quote them to show how (or even IF) they are run-on sentences.

I can’t find it, as I said. You want to doubt that these long sentences exist, fine. I don’t care. You will see when you hear them with the new mass. Bad grammar everywhere. Hard to follow sentences. Its textbook fact. It exists, whether I’m able to quote the sentences here or not…I don’t care to “win” an argument, its what exists. The evidence is there, I’m just not able to get at it at the present time.

YOU were the one that told me I should have been at the conference, and YOU were using that as a backup to your point. I am saying that it does NOT backup your point, I am saying that it could lead to confusion, regardless of it being used in other languages. and I guess I have to say it yet AGAIN…I’m not arguing against the changes, and I submit to the authority of the church, so your admonishment is not necessary.

You say “bad grammar everywhere” but you do not give one single example of this alleged “bad grammar” which is “everywhere.” If it’s truly “everywhere” then why not provide an example or two, or a dozen?

Why don’t you look back through the thread to see what I am referring to… You state that you are being sincere, but its kind of hard to believe… really? I mean, really? Do you get on everyone for the bad grammar in their posts?

Someone said that its going to be a higher form of language. I said, Nope. I explained it pretty well, and I’m tired of having to repeat myself.

I should think that the standards of the language used in the missal should be higher than what is expected on a quick reply on a forum where full sentences are generally not expected, many acronyms and abbrevations are used for the sake of time in typing, and the point is communicated anyway.

Now here, you say that you “explained it pretty well.” Well, as I re-read your own posts, I do not find any explanations at all . I find only a vague reference to a sentence which you yourself can’t find, and references to “bad grammar” which you haven’t provided. The posts are right here. Tell us, if you will, how you “explained it pretty well”???

You ask “why don’t you look back through the thread to see what I am referring to…” We have looked back, and we can’t find what you are “referring to” becuase you yourself have not provided one single example of the text to which you refer.

The whole point is being lost. Someone here, (as well as other places) , claim that this is a higher form of language. I brought up the fact that the sentences are so long that the point is lost. It isn’t a higher form of language by that standard.

Again, here you say “the sentences are so long that the point is lost.” Still, you have not quoted one single sentence. How are we to accept what you claim: bad grammar, run-on sentences, and sentences so long that they can’t be understood, when you still have not provided one example of this?

And yet, you claim that you have “explained it pretty well.”

These are your posts. Let the reader here judge for himself whether or not you have explained yourself “pretty well.”

 

[agapewolf]

My explaining it pretty well does not need to include the example in order to explain. it. I’m sorry I can’t find it, really I am. I’m ready to drop it because I can’t find it, but I do not think that just because I cant find it means that I don’t have a point at all.

I, however, cannot believe the accusations I am getting here, which is extremely ridiculous…as if I had a hand in the old translations? That I think old translations will stop? This is rubbish. The assumptions made here are unfounded and ridiculous. It is pointless to continue with people who make such accusations

I once again ask those that see no problems with the new translations WHATSOEVER to consider that I might have a point. INstead of just insisting me out of here to win an argument, rather, what if its true? What if there are some sentences there that are bad grammar, run on. All I’m saying is its not necessarily a higher form of language. Thats all. What is so bad about saying that? Really?

I also don’t see why people are so against the idea that this could cause any sort of misunderstandings of theology …with mannicheism. How would this deflate your bubble? Instead, being that it is a possibility here, why not work to not let that happen? Why not heed a potential warning that their might be a problem…instead of arguing off that there is no way there is a problem. To win an argument?

FOR THE LAST TIME…I LIKE THE NEW TRANSLATIONS!!! You don’t have to win an argument with me. I’m not hanging on to anything. I simply suggested a few points about it that I’m now being accused of wanting bad texts, defending the use of past translations, being rude, which I have not been. Can’t someone ever be in the middle here? Can someone like something, but still have a critical analysis and be cautious? To not have caution with this would be the naive side.

What are YOU all hanging on to here?

Fr. David, you ripped my statements to shreds and took them out of context because they were IN REPLY to a specific point made.

 

[agapewolf]

Too late to edit:
Pardon me, Fr, you did not rip my statements to shreds. I was reacting. You did quote me in full, but you did take me out of context. You are taking one thing I say in response to one person’s point, and applying it as if I was supporting my own in another subject.

This particular sentence is not the worst I have seen, but its the best I could come up with right now.
This would be in a textbook for bad sentence structure:

“It is truly right and just, our duty and salvation, always and everywhere to give you thanks, Father most holy, through your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, your Word through whom you made all things, whom you sent as our Savior and Redeemer, incarnate by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin.”

There’s a better way to organize the sentence, without losing any of the words. All I’m saying is that I wouldn’t call this a “higher form of language” as asserted by a poster here. That’s all. I like the new vocabulary translation. I think its very good to have accurate translations. I don’t want to dumb anything down. Adding a period and reintroducing the subject once more would not change anything in the meaning.

 

[Chatter163]

What are YOU all hanging on to here?

We are hanging on to the hope that someone who repeatedly made sweeping claims about the poor grammar and improperly written new texts will produce some evidence to back up the grand claims that he made. We are hanging on to the belief that surely someone who so firmly says things like “My point still remains” and “That was my original point and there it stays” will quote his sources and give examples from the text in question to support his argument, because obviously anyone who dares to make such confident assertions must be an intelligent individual, and can engage in reasoned discourse. (Yikes, a 67-word sentence! Is it a run-on? No, it is most assuredly not, and neither are the sentences in the new translations.) This is what we, to use your words, hang on to. We hang on to this type of discussion, rather than the regrettable practice of making claims and then becoming histrionically glib when asked to provide evidence. Maybe it is because we were raised in educational or professional environments that, in order to produce true thinkers, required us to think and articulate with some measure of knowledge. When we could not support our positions, we learned to observe humble silence, rather than use pretense and smokescreen.

My suggestion would be to simply state that you prefer the current translations, but acknowledge that you are completely unfamiliar with the new translations, can offer no grammatical or linguistic reasons for rejecting them, and cannot even explain what a run-on sentence is, much less locate specific examples of them in the texts in question.

 

[agapewolf]

My suggestion would be to simply state that you prefer the current translations, but acknowledge that you are completely unfamiliar with the new translations, can offer no grammatical or linguistic reasons for rejecting them, and cannot even explain what a run-on sentence is, much less locate specific examples of them in the texts in question.

and again, I do NOT prefer the current translations, and I am not rejecting the new ones. Again, read my posts. What YOU are claiming is unfounded and you have no evidence to back yourself up here.

 

[agapewolf]

This is the whole problem with this forum. Someone introduces a thought or a point that isn’t an all or nothing support of something and they are accused of being against something. That is not critical or analytical thinking and is going against what you are accusing me of, making baseless accusations.

Its not an all or nothing situation folks. My diocese just had a long meeting with the priests about how to implement the new translations. WHy? Because we need to be cautious and thoughtful in doing so. Why? Because if we weren’t, there will be problems. To think otherwise is naive. Even the church at the higher levels can recognize this.

 

[Chatter163]

and again, I do NOT prefer the current translations, and I am not rejecting the new ones. Again, read my posts. What YOU are claiming is unfounded and you have no evidence to back yourself up here.

Ah, the old turn-the-tables distraction, whereby one attempts to force one’s critic to answer similar charges, without the first person ever having done the same…another symptom of the unprepared argument, or at least a ploy to buy time while one actually consults the texts in question. This is a shrewd, but transparent, tactic.

My response is that I will gladly do so, and will happily do so after you have submitted your evidence concerning the new translations. Since you cannot edit posts after 15 minutes or so, there are plenty of examples from which one can pull, where you make claims, then acknowledge that you cannot offer evidence. It will be easy, I can assure you, so you may wish to withdraw this challenge. However, since you made your claims long before I wandered in, and again after my arrival, you get to make your case first, after which I will respond in kind. It will not be today, due to my schedule, but within the next 48 hours. However, if you fail to produce your evidence first, then there will be no need for me to even try to respond to this ludicrous attempt to turn the tables, since you will have already proven yourself less than honorable in this forum.

 

[bkovacs]

Here is the new and improved version of the Creed:

While these are rather long sentences, there appears nothing in the Creed that would contradict the laws of grammar.

Now, here is the new and improved version of the Gloria:

Perhaps those who are against the new translations should avail themselves of Praying the Mass or a visit to the USCCB website and read the wording before making baseless accusations. It would be most edifying experience for them.

I don’t know about improved, it still includes the Filioque.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Unfortunately the new translation has become just one more thing for groups within the Church to fight with each other.
If anyone dare claim they don’t like the new translation then they must be some 60’s hippie who is unorthodox and hates authority.
If anyone dare claim they like the new translation then they must be some right-wing uber-conservative who hates Vatican II and wants to return the Church to the middle ages.

It is what it is, its coming whether we like it or not. Some will like it, some will hate it, but we’re all in this together…

 

[Sarabande]

Come on, guys. Give her a break. In her original posts she may not have explained her position regarding the translations well enough, due to the fact that many people on the thread have interpreted her words in a way which she may not have intended to be comprehended. (And one lesson learned in writing, as well as in speaking, is that if many people listening and/or reading are misinterpreting what one is saying, then perhaps one may need to rethink, pardon oneself and explain with more clarity.) We have all done this, whether or not our expertise is in writing, especially in forae when we are writing and thinking quickly, and not paying as close attention to the details of writing. I personally think it’s important even if one person misunderstands you.

It doesn’t mean any of us have little knowledge or are not well-educated. I believe everyone in this particular thread appear well-educated and have decent critical thinking skills. But in this last page, through her obvious frustration in the construction of her words, she has been trying to make her position clearer on what she meant, and I think she has. She has made the point to indicate that she isn’t against the new translations at all, but that she did have some concerns in the construction of the language for certain passages in how it will be comprehended. And she also was referring to someone’s idea that this was a higher form of language, in which she did not believe was necessarily so. She finally did produce a sentence, which may have been correct and more true to the translation, but not necessarily a high form of language.

To me, I may not believe that a few imperfect sentences causes an entire translation to be considered less than a higher form of language (and I don’t think that is what she is meaning here - at least I hope that is not what she means), but there is a point to be made that if one wanted the translation to be completely perfect, filled with that sacred awe which is often found in beautiful writing in order to create that sense of something extremely important and holy, then some criticism is valid. There is nothing wrong to critique things like this. Although, I also understand others’ frustrations as to not having any examples to look at prior to this page. Perhaps this is why people have been really critical of her?

Anyway, those are my thoughts. Now back to just observing, since I can’t add anymore in regards to the actual translations.

 

[ChadS]

I think I may have been the one to first use the phrase “a higher form of language” on this thread. When I used that phrase I was referring specifically to the more literal, and theologically correct, use of words like “consubstantial” replacing “one in being with.” Or using “and with your spirit” in place of “and also with you.” Or replaceing “we believe” with the more grammatical “I believe.” My point was that these words expressed a deeper understanding of sacredness and theology than the ones that are currently being used and thus a good thing.

Once agapewolf started to make the claim that this was not a “higher form of language” due to run on sentences I took a look at some of the resources on the USCCB’s site. She is correct there are some long sentences, but I couldn’t find any that even approached the 60 word mark, but some ran into the low 40s. However, from what I could see they were all correctly punctuated with clauses properly set aside. Could those sentences be shortened and made simpler? Almost certainly, but would they still be faithful to the original Latin or express any higher thoughts or expressions? I sincerely doubt it.

ChadS

 

[FrDavid96]

One of the issues brought-up by those who oppose the translation (not necessarily those posting here, but those making a public display of their opposition), make the comment that the sentences are too long. That statement, all by itself, seems to support their position. Yet, we have to put the sentence itself into the contest of the Eucharistic Prayer (in this case, EP I, the Roman Canon) and try reading it. The following is certainly a long sentence–bases on a word-count, but let us look at the text itself. Here is it from the “white book,” Note that it has 64 words:

In humble prayer we ask you, almighty God:
command that these gifts be borne
by the hands of your holy Angel
to your altar on high
in the sight of your divine majesty,
so that all of us who through this participation at the altar receive
the most holy Body and Blood of your Son
He stands upright again and signs himself with the Sign of the Cross, saying:
may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing.

And here it is from the 1974 Sacramentary (the version currently in use)

Almighty God,
we pray that your angel may take this sacrifice
to your altar in heaven.
Then as we receive from this altar
the sacred body and blood of your son,
He stands up straight…
let us be filled with every grace and blessing.

I would ask readers here to read that new version aloud as you look at your screen. Is it difficult? Does it sound like something that does not make sense?

Now I do have one problem with it as written:

so that all of us who through this participation at the altar receive
the most holy Body and Blood of your Son

This is difficult to read aloud; because the word “receive” is out of place. Try it this way

so that all of us who through this participation at the altar
receive the most holy Body and Blood of your Son

Does that sound better? Personally I think so. But the issue here is not one of translating, but of formatting. Move a word to a different line, and the sentence flows rather smoothly.

The point I am making here is that we hear soundbites from people who oppose the translation. They say that the sentences are too long, and they cite the number of words. Yes, based only on the number and nothing else, it seems to support what they are saying. But when we actually look at the text itself, we realize that it is not nearly as much of a problem as they would have us believe. I also cannot help but point-out the irony that the same people who have so staunchly defended the old ICEL interpretation, some of them who even had a direct role in that interpretation, have never expressed regret over the exact same issue in the old interpretation. Some of the most public criticism of the new translation comes from these same people. As I stated in a post above, the current Roman Canon is filled with long sentences. One of them being 52 words long. I must ask the question: if long sentences are such a problem now, why were they not a problem in 1973? Why have these long sentences serves us so well since the Sacramentary was printed in '74, but suddenly, long sentences are such a shortcoming in the new translation? To put it another way: why are long sentences not a problem when you do the interpretation, but long sentences suddenly become a problem when someone else does a translation? That, I cannot understand.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Why have these long sentences serves us so well since the Sacramentary was printed in '74, but suddenly, long sentences are such a shortcoming in the new translation? To put it another way: why are long sentences not a problem when you do the interpretation, but long sentences suddenly become a problem when someone else does a translation? That, I cannot understand.

Well, I have thought ill of the long sentences in the current translation. I’ve also heard the current long sentence translations made fun of by priests. So I guess this is simply a case of “nothing new under the sun.”

 

[benedictgal]

I don’t know about improved, it still includes the Filioque.

That is part of our Credo. This is an essential dogmatic statement. Remember, this concerns the worship of the Church. We cannot edit and excise to please others. This is our Faith. This is the Faith of the Church and we are proud to profess it.

 

[benedictgal]

Come on, guys. Give her a break. In her original posts she may not have explained her position regarding the translations well enough, due to the fact that many people on the thread have interpreted her words in a way which she may not have intended to be comprehended. (And one lesson learned in writing, as well as in speaking, is that if many people listening and/or reading are misinterpreting what one is saying, then perhaps one may need to rethink, pardon oneself and explain with more clarity.) We have all done this, whether or not our expertise is in writing, especially in forae when we are writing and thinking quickly, and not paying as close attention to the details of writing. I personally think it’s important even if one person misunderstands you.

It doesn’t mean any of us have little knowledge or are not well-educated. I believe everyone in this particular thread appear well-educated and have decent critical thinking skills. But in this last page, through her obvious frustration in the construction of her words, she has been trying to make her position clearer on what she meant, and I think she has. She has made the point to indicate that she isn’t against the new translations at all, but that she did have some concerns in the construction of the language for certain passages in how it will be comprehended. And she also was referring to someone’s idea that this was a higher form of language, in which she did not believe was necessarily so. She finally did produce a sentence, which may have been correct and more true to the translation, but not necessarily a high form of language.

To me, I may not believe that a few imperfect sentences causes an entire translation to be considered less than a higher form of language (and I don’t think that is what she is meaning here - at least I hope that is not what she means), but there is a point to be made that if one wanted the translation to be completely perfect, filled with that sacred awe which is often found in beautiful writing in order to create that sense of something extremely important and holy, then some criticism is valid. There is nothing wrong to critique things like this. Although, I also understand others’ frustrations as to not having any examples to look at prior to this page. Perhaps this is why people have been really critical of her?

Anyway, those are my thoughts. Now back to just observing, since I can’t add anymore in regards to the actual translations.

Sarabande, she never offered any examples of things that she found problematic. One thing is to complain and present the texts that you might think are problematic. However, a completely different thing is to levy criticism and opinions with nothing to back them up.

If one is going to criticize, then, she should list what is problematic instead of making sweeping generalities, which is what she has been doing in all of your posts.

By the way, I know it’s OT, but, how is the baby doing?

 

[5Loaves]

I don’t know about improved, it still includes the Filioque.

Back in 2003 the USCCB and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops recommended

that the Catholic Church use the same text (without the Filioque) “in making translations of that Creed for catechetical and liturgical use,” and declare that the anathema pronounced by the Second Council of Lyons against those who deny that the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son is no longer applicable.

We in the ECCs don’t use it.

 

[Phemie]

Here is the new and improved version of the Creed:

While these are rather long sentences, there appears nothing in the Creed that would contradict the laws of grammar.

Now, here is the new and improved version of the Gloria:

I saw nothing wrong with the Gloria but, grammatically speaking,
“And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.”
is bad. It’s a ‘sentence’ without subject or verb. “I believe” rather than ‘And’ should be there even though it’s not in the Latin.

 

[Belfarmer]

Just wondering, is there any timeline as to when the new translation could be implemented?

 

[Chatter163]

I saw nothing wrong with the Gloria but, grammatically speaking,
“And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.”
is bad. It’s a ‘sentence’ without subject or verb. “I believe” rather than ‘And’ should be there even though it’s not in the Latin.

I would agree. As much as I have defended the new texts here, there are several features that I would have preferred to be handled differently. This is one of them.