Criticism of the New Translation

[TheMc]

Does anyone else notice that the majority of the criticism of the new translation doesn’t actually have to do with the new translation itself, but rather, is really a criticism of the original texts of the Mass, which many are just hearing for the first time? The problem isn’t with the translation, it is with the texts of the Mass itself.

For example:
From The Tablet
No-one today in their right mind – unless perhaps they have just murdered someone – is going to harp on about “my fault, my fault, my own most grievous fault” while beating their breast, especially if they are reflecting on ordinary everyday thoughts or words that most Mass-goers might be expected to have. The picture the words give of breast-beating illiterate peasants with cloth caps and mud-clotted boots is like something out of Monty Python.

From a combox
Jesus Christ did not take “a precious chalice".
“He the cup” (I Cor 11: 25)
“He took a cup” (Matt 26:27)
“He cup a cup” (Mark 14:23
“He did the same with the cup after supper…” (Luke: 22:20)
“The inspired books teach the truth. Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confined to the Sacred Scriptures.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church No. 107)
Just as the Sacred Scripture is the “soul of theology” it should also be the “soul of the Liturgy”. Let’s not alter Holy Writ for pious claptrap!

Has anyone else noticed this common thread in nearly all of the criticism?

 

[promethius]

Has anyone else noticed this common thread in nearly all of the criticism?

Nope. Most of the complaints I’ve heard have to do with the fact that literalist translations are often… well, awkward.

For example, if we look at the french cliche “le moutarde monter mon nez”, a literal translation is “The mustard climbs my nose”, but the MEANING is I’m getting annoyed.

Same with the latin literalism. I don’t have a problem with literal meaning… but I think changing from “I am not worthy to receive you” to “I am not worthy that you should come under my roof” is a bit asinine. However, it is not my call, so I am biting my tongue, generally speaking. And I think that’s the way most people who are aware of the mass documents behave… the people who are vocal don’t care about submission to authority AT THE SAME TIME that they don’t know the original texts.

 

[ProVobis]

The problem isn’t with the translation, it is with the texts of the Mass itself.

I haven’t heard much criticism of the Latin, which are the actual texts of the Mass itself.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I haven’t heard much criticism of the Latin, which are the actual texts of the Mass itself.

His point is, though, that if people are complaining about the new translation, which is much closer to the Latin, then essentially, they are complaining about the Latin. People aren’t so mad about the new translation as they are about what the text always has been, and are just now realizing it.

 

[TheMc]

Nope. Most of the complaints I’ve heard have to do with the fact that literalist translations are often… well, awkward.

For example, if we look at the french cliche “le moutarde monter mon nez”, a literal translation is “The mustard climbs my nose”, but the MEANING is I’m getting annoyed.

Same with the latin literalism. I don’t have a problem with literal meaning… but I think changing from “I am not worthy to receive you” to “I am not worthy that you should come under my roof” is a bit asinine. However, it is not my call, so I am biting my tongue, generally speaking. And I think that’s the way most people who are aware of the mass documents behave… the people who are vocal don’t care about submission to authority AT THE SAME TIME that they don’t know the original texts.

But there is an esencial difference between the Domine non sum dignus and le moutarde monter mon ne: The french phrase is an idom of french. Something other languages don’t use. It’s equivalent to Americans saying “What’s up?” The translation of the Domine non sum dignus is a completely different matter. Of course, the intended, superficial surface level meaning is translated in the current sacramentary. But there’s one big difference. The latin text of the Domine non sum dignus is not an idiom of latin. It is clearly a scriptural reference, and intended to be as such. And because of this, we should translate the text as it is, because that is the whole point of the text. In the french phrase, it’s obvious that it’s an idiom. With Domine non sum dignus, it’s not.

 

[SMHW]

Nope. Most of the complaints I’ve heard have to do with the fact that literalist translations are often… well, awkward.

I would agree with this. I think some of the new translations are awkward too. …and not in a poetic way.

Same with the latin literalism. I don’t have a problem with literal meaning… but I think changing from “I am not worthy to receive you” to “I am not worthy that you should come under my roof” is a bit asinine.

Disagree about this one however.

This has long been understood to be a scriptural reference to the Centurion’s statement of faith to Jesus in Matthew 8:8. I’ve always told my students where it came from. It was possibly the only change that bothered me a lot back when the English translation of this was updated. Almost every other ICEL translation was more or less a thought for thought translation of the original Latin. (Yes, I know people will argue that it was not.)

But to throw away the Centurion? That was a biblical elimination not a more modern translation!

 

[NewsTheMan]

“I am not worthy to receive you” to “I am not worthy that you should come under my roof” is a bit asinine.

Matthew 8:5-13 is asinine? Strange.

As for the criticisms. What do you expect from people who have been brought up on poor translations and fed lies, heresy and falsehoods often from the pulpit? We’re seeing the fruits of the erroneous “spirit of VII” more and more and this is just another area that the dissidents love to attack. To them, Latin represents a different Church. They would faint at the idea of a Latin Mass.

I’ve heard the criticism for the “mea culpa” a million times.

“Oh no! I have to admit that I am a grievous sinner! But, but, but, doesn’t Jesus love me and that means I can’t do any wrong? Isn’t this ‘celebration’ all about me?”

I am sick to death of dissidents in the Church trying to change the Mystical Body of Christ into something more suited to themselves. They want a democracy where sin is glorified and emotions are front and centre. It makes me shudder.

Praise be to Jesus Christ for setting up a Church with guidance by the Holy Spirit.

 

[TheMc]

His point is, though, that if people are complaining about the new translation, which is much closer to the Latin, then essentially, they are complaining about the Latin. People aren’t so mad about the new translation as they are about what the text always has been, and are just now realizing it.

Exactly what I was trying to say.

 

[TrueLight]

lf.

For example:
From The Tablet
No-one today in their right mind – unless perhaps they have just murdered someone – is going to harp on about “my fault, my fault, my own most grievous fault” while beating their breast, especially if they are reflecting on ordinary everyday thoughts or words that most Mass-goers might be expected to have. The picture the words give of breast-beating illiterate peasants with cloth caps and mud-clotted boots is like something out of Monty Python.

I hate to admit it, but this is funny!

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Oh, The Tablet, filthy heretical thing. Of course they would complain in this way. Nothing intelligent to offer, just insults to orthodoxy.

 

[Vincent1984]

Does anyone else notice that the majority of the criticism of the new translation doesn’t actually have to do with the new translation itself, but rather, is really a criticism of the original texts of the Mass, which many are just hearing for the first time

Another thing I’ve noticed:

It’s strange how people who could never bring themselves to use the old translation accurately now seem to be its biggest fans vs. the new translation…

 

[adrift]

I

But to throw away the Centurion? That was a biblical elimination not a more modern translation!

My mother never could accept the change and always said “under my roof”. I am glad it is back.

 

[NewsTheMan]

Another thing I’ve noticed:

It’s strange how people who could never bring themselves to use the old translation accurately now seem to be its biggest fans vs. the new translation…

LOL!

 

[promethius]

It is clearly a scriptural reference, and intended to be as such. And because of this, we should translate the text as it is, because that is the whole point of the text. In the french phrase, it’s obvious that it’s an idiom. With Domine non sum dignus, it’s not.

This has long been understood to be a scriptural reference to the Centurion’s statement of faith to Jesus in Matthew 8:8. I’ve always told my students where it came from. It was possibly the only change that bothered me a lot back when the English translation of this was updated. Almost every other ICEL translation was more or less a thought for thought translation of the original Latin. (Yes, I know people will argue that it was not.)

But to throw away the Centurion? That was a biblical elimination not a more modern translation!

Matthew 8:5-13 is asinine? Strange.

I’m well aware of where the quote comes from. I have the centurion’s words tattooed over my heart.

The point I am making is that “to receive” means, in English usage, to welcome to one’s home, as in guests. In other words, the change is asinine because it goes from one english phrase to another that means the same thing, but is, at best, awkward in the english language.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

The point I am making is that “to receive” means, in English usage, to welcome to one’s home, as in guests. In other words, the change is asinine because it goes from one english phrase to another that means the same thing, but is, at best, awkward in the english language.

Perhaps it is just a question of habit. If one expression is better than the other, than it makes sense to go for the better option that is closer to the original.

 

[liturgyluver]

Does anyone else notice that the majority of the criticism of the new translation doesn’t actually have to do with the new translation itself, but rather, is really a criticism of the original texts of the Mass, which many are just hearing for the first time? The problem isn’t with the translation, it is with the texts of the Mass itself.

You have definately hit the nail on the head.

 

[PerfectTiming]

Stuff like this was to be expected. Some people just don’t like change so are being stubborn and obnoxious about it. I don’t know if maybe some parishes aren’t necessarily informing parishioners too well on why the translation has been updated, what the benefits are, etc. so they’re ill-informed and confused and that comes out as simply rejecting it because they lack understanding.

I find the new translation strange because I’ve never known anything other than the old one but in the end I know that it is a better translation and I will get used to it. I used to know a different version of the Nicene Creed and I used to find the one they use at my new parish to be very strange but I got used to it. People just need to chill and stop being so pigheaded.

 

[jimrob]

Words are easy to translate. Meaning is more difficult.

The translations that became the 1970 edition of the Roman Missal paraphrased the Latin original. Much was a poor translation of the Latin, but the meaning was preserved. The new translation is a far more literal rendering of the Latin, but the meaning is not always preserved. That applies in particular to mediaeval Latin figures of speech such as “et cum spiritu tuo”. “And with your spirit” is a good literal translation but it leaves non-Italian speakers totally baffled.

We’ll get used to it. I’m just hoping we don’t get a Society of Paul VI who insist on using the 1970 Missal - unless that means I can go back to putting flowers in my hair.

 

[SMHW]

I’m well aware of where the quote comes from. I have the centurion’s words tattooed over my heart.

The point I am making is that “to receive” means, in English usage, to welcome to one’s home, as in guests. In other words, the change is asinine because it goes from one english phrase to another that means the same thing, but is, at best, awkward in the english language.

I don’t know that this was intended…

But the the original/coming translations of the Latin make Jesus the subject of both actions: entering and healing. The current translation has the communicant as the subject of the first action (receiving).

But I admit it’s mainly that I grew up hearing “come under my roof” (in English; I don’t remember it in Latin) so it doesn’t sound strange to me.

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

In my parish the majority of parishioners speak Spanish, and we have a bilingual Sunday Mass every week. One week, the Mass prayers will be in English and the homily will be in Spanish (printed on handouts in both languages), and the next week it will reverse. The new English translation will allow those Spanish-speakers who are following the Mass in English to understand better what is being said, because the Spanish Mass translation is much more accurate than the outgoing English one. It will show the catholicity of the Mass to those bilingual people who have often wondered about the discrepancies between the two translations.

My only gripe is with the Gloria - “people” of good will. I don’t want to get into an argument of the meaning of homine versus vir, but the phrase “peace to men of good will” is familiar in Christmas carols and less PC-sounding.