Criticism of the New Translation

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheMc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
lucusk said:
As someone who is learning about the Catholic faith and seeing the 10,000 ft view, is the end result not the same regardless of which language or translation is used?
Click to expand...
Very well put. Since you’re a new member here, you should probably keep in mind that this forum is full of nitpickers who get worked up over trivial details, or at least who argue strongly enough that it sounds like we’re getting worked up. If you enjoy this sort of thing, dig in. If not, enjoy the 10,000 foot view, and don’t get dragged down by our back and forth clawing.
 
cothrige said:
I am personally very glad to read this thread and see people generally admit that the complaints are not about the Latin original. Obviously, many people were bothered by the old translation, and likewise many by the new, but apparently none by the original. Therefore, I submit that that we should simply return to using the Latin and make everyone happy. 🙂
Click to expand...
👍
 
What do you all think about the change from “suffered, died” to “suffered death”?

I posted this as a new thread earlier this morning, but then found this thread for discussions of this sort.

Anyway, “suffered, died” seems to be more accurate and powerful, because it indicates that Jesus suffered prior to death. Everyone who dies “suffers death,” but not everyone suffers first, then dies. Some die peacefully.

Since you folks are so well-versed in the original Latin and in the history of the changes, I’m hoping you can enlighten me so I can be more accepting of the new wording.
 
I have no criticism of the new translation. I am looking forward to it.

I’ve read the Latin / English prayers in my 1962 Roman Missal, and they did a MUCH better job of translating the prayers in that Missal. They actually translated “Et cum spiritu tuo” to “And with your spirit” not the “and also with you” that I’ve had all my life. Keep in mind, I was born after Vatican II, and go to the EF Mass sometimes.
 
Larry1700 said:
What do you all think about the change from “suffered, died” to “suffered death”?
Click to expand...
It’s one word in the Greek (pathontas) and Latin (passus). The Greek verb could simply mean “suffered”; the Latin as well. The Creed already says that Jesus was crucified and buried, and the Gospel are clear that Jesus died. So what is passus doing in the Creed?
  1. It could be emphasizing that Jesus’ death was not an easy act: He truly suffered in his crucifixion.
  2. It could be used to mean Jesus suffered death, that is, He endured death, He willingly underwent death.
 
cothrige said:
I am personally very glad to read this thread and see people generally admit that the complaints are not about the Latin original.
Click to expand...
They shouldn’t because the Latin original is perfect in every way and always has been 😉
 
Larry1700 said:
Anyway, “suffered, died” seems to be more accurate and powerful, because it indicates that Jesus suffered prior to death. Everyone who dies “suffers death,” but not everyone suffers first, then dies. Some die peacefully.
Click to expand...
The fact that “death” is in there at all is not entirely accurate. Its not present in the Latin.
A strict literal translation would be “He suffered and was buried.” The addition of the word “death” to the new translation is presumedly because of the context: this line is speaking of Christ’s Passion, which was not simply a generic suffering, but rather a suffering of “death.” The focus is not on the details of the suffering but rather is on the saving death of Christ.
 
iloveangels said:
Yes it is real.

I also expect that there will be changes in the years to come. Up until 1970, there were many changes and I don’t expect the future to be any different. But I also don’t expect we will be going backwards at all. The church has finally decided to move forward after sitting dead-still for many years, and I"m very glad to see it.
Click to expand...
It is very unlikely that there will be any changes to this revised text. 10 years of revsions. multiple committies in reveiw, 100’s of eyes making judgement.
What the critiques need to understand is that work of man was done with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Niether the previous and certainly not the current would I presume to know better than He. We can certainly asked questions for clarifiaction, but not to condemn.
 
FAB said:
It is very unlikely that there will be any changes to this revised text. 10 years of revsions. multiple committies in reveiw, 100’s of eyes making judgement.
Click to expand...
Given the history of liturgical documents, there is no reason to think that this new missal will be the English version for the rest of eternity. That said, I don’t expect more than minor tweaks over the next few decades.
40.png
FAB:
What the critiques need to understand is that work of man was done with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Niether the previous and certainly not the current would I presume to know better than He. We can certainly asked questions for clarifiaction, but not to condemn.
Click to expand...
I think it’s safe to say that the Holy Spirit didn’t interfere too much in the work of the translators in the first edition, or an overhaul wouldn’t have been needed. With that in mind, I would suggest that the Holy Spirit is not meddling much this time, either - rather, the translators and other Church officials involved are simply using their God-given talents and the wisdom won from past experience to produce an improved translation, without requiring any supernatural guidance. I hope they’ve produced a translation that is pleasing to the Lord, but I don’t think there is any need for rose-colored glasses. Improvements are certainly possible, and I expect we’ll see some in coming years.
 
Why “closer to the original”?

GO BACK TO LATIN AND STAY THERE> this whole thing wouldn’t have had to happen at all if they would have left the mass in Lain.
 
ProVobis said:
As Vatican II required.
Click to expand...
You’re not suggesting that translation of the Latin into the vernacular was not an intended outcome of Vatican II are you? Vatican II was misinterpreted by some to mean that Latin should never be used, and of course this is completey incorrect - but it was very clear that as a result masses should also be offered in the vernacular.

If you read about the Liturgical movement, it’s clear that pressure for this began well before Vatican II at the turn of the century, especially from the low countries and France and Germany, where, of course in the 18th and 19th centuries the vernacular had already been introduced in some instances - though illicitly.
 
liturgyluver said:
You’re not suggesting that translation of the Latin into the vernacular was not an intended outcome of Vatican II are you? Vatican II was misinterpreted by some to mean that Latin should never be used, and of course this is completey incorrect - but it was very clear that as a result masses should also be offered in the vernacular.

If you read about the Liturgical movement, it’s clear that pressure for this began well before Vatican II at the turn of the century, especially from the low countries and France and Germany, where, of course in the 18th and 19th centuries the vernacular had already been introduced in some instances - though illicitly.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what the documents say about Latin as far as to how much it is to be used, but I do know that the documents say that it must be retained.

Can we get one of our resident experts to shed any light, even if it only be on some ambiguous wishy-washy wording?
 
YoungTradCath said:
I don’t know what the documents say about Latin as far as to how much it is to be used, but I do know that the documents say that it must be retained.

Can we get one of our resident experts to shed any light, even if it only be on some ambiguous wishy-washy wording?
Click to expand...
I am faaaaaaaaaaaaar from an expert but here is something relevant.

Sacrosanctum Concilium said:
36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
  1. 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. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.
Click to expand...
Parts in bold are the ambiguities. I mean, what can be expected from such ambiguous statements?
 
NewsTheMan said:
Parts in bold are the ambiguities. I mean, what can be expected from such ambiguous statements?
Click to expand...
Nothing. All I can logically grasp from this is that:

A: Latin must be retained

B: How far is up to the bishop

Thus C: If a mass contains one Latin word, it works. :confused:
 
YoungTradCath said:
Nothing. All I can logically grasp from this is that:
A: Latin must be retained
B: How far is up to the bishop
Thus C: If a mass contains one Latin word, it works. :confused:
Click to expand...
Exactly. It’s pretty poor wording and allows for lots of “giving a hand, taking an arm” kind of liturgical practice at least in terms of the language.
 
YoungTradCath said:
Nothing. All I can logically grasp from this is that:

A: Latin must be retained

B: How far is up to the bishop

Thus C: If a mass contains one Latin word, it works. :confused:
Click to expand...
Not simply ‘the bishop’ but the Conference of Bishops. Once the Roman Missal was totally written in the vernacular and approved by Rome, there was no longer any restraints applied to how much of it to use.

What one should not forget is CSL 54 which says
  1. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and “the common prayer,” but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.
    **Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them. **
    And wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Art. 40 of this Constitution is to be observed.
Click to expand...
 
Phemie said:
Not simply ‘the bishop’ but the Conference of Bishops. Once the Roman Missal was totally written in the vernacular and approved by Rome, there was no longer any restraints applied to how much of it to use.

What one should not forget is CSL 54 which says
Click to expand...
So the English missal is the qualifier that allows full masses to be said in English? But by its very nature, that doesn’t fulfill the either requirement of Sacrosanctum Concilium on retaining Latin and making sure the congregation knows it.

And no, even if, say, the Archbishop of New York wanted to forbid English masses in his diocese, he very well could without even the slightest repercussion from the USCCB. That’s what I meant as far as “the bishop” having ultimate ecclesial authority.

Ugh. Wishy-washy. Trent was so simple: “Do this, you BETTER not do that.”
 
Annabelle_Marie said:
Really? Hate it? You’re not even going to give it a chance? What exactly about it makes you hate it so much?
Click to expand...
First I do need to explain that I suffer with OCD REALLY badly so that’s part of my problem. When there is change I get really anxious. We’ve only been using the new musical responses at this point and I went home having a bad panic attack.

My biggest problem is that they totally ruined my two favorite prayers. These were prayers that really spoke to me with this stupid anxiety disorder I live with and now I don’t have anything to cling to…I’ve read every article, trying to resolve how I feel and basically I’m left really upset. Nothing I can do either. I just sit and don’t participate, but figure if I listen to it enough ( attend mass daily) maybe my panic will go away. I truly HATE some of it…some of it is OK. I feel so lost. I just came home to the Catholic Church in June and now I wish I hadn’t. I’m not leaving but everything in me screams to leave. I just liked the familiar responses, they gave me great comfort. Now I face a mass tonight with the same anxiety. I only have a few days left and my prayers will never be prayed again … it really hurts. :eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top