Criticism of the New Translation

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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.

This is a new one to me.

“To receive” means “to welcome to one’s home”?

That totally changes the meaning of to receive a gift.

 

[MarkThompson]

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.

Oh really? Because in Spanish it’s “Y con tu espíritu,” in French it’s “Et avec votre esprit,” in German it’s “Und mit deinem Geiste,” in Swedish it’s “Och med din ande,” in Dutch it’s “En met uw geest,” and so on, which are all the same thing: “And with your spirit.” Do you have some evidence that the speakers of all those languages throughout the world been “totally baffled” by saying this for the last 40 years?

 

[promethius]

This is a new one to me.

“To receive” means “to welcome to one’s home”?

That totally changes the meaning of to receive a gift.

Do you think that according to scripture Jesus had literal brothers, or can one word have multiple meanings as the church teaches?

Don’t be snarky. To receive visitors used to be a common term in English and still is in England. Just because you’re not familiar with the usage is not a reason to be rude.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

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.

The point is not that they basically mean the same thing. It was not til it was pointed out to me that I am not worthy to recieve you. was from the centurion saing I am not worthy for you to come under my roof did I make the connection as to why we are even saying this.

Why would we not say it say way it reads in scrioture since it comes from scripture?

 

[FAB]

Perhaps it’s just a human thing, no matter how good the translation is, someone is going to complain. Today’s Gospel, Jesus healed a woman on the sabath, there were complaints because He did so.
These reactions to the revised misssal are the swine trampling the pearls.

 

[cothrige]

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.

 

[Digitonomy]

These reactions to the revised misssal are the swine trampling the pearls.

As one of the swine, I do agree that the new missal is awkward in spots. I am glad they decided to convert the Nicene Creed into proper sentences, although the downside to that is it is now longer and more repetitive.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Do you think that according to scripture Jesus had literal brothers, or can one word have multiple meanings as the church teaches?

Don’t be snarky. To receive visitors used to be a common term in English and still is in England. Just because you’re not familiar with the usage is not a reason to be rude.

As I was trying to point out, which you agree with here, there are multiple meanings.

So to make the meaning clear and to be closer to the actual Scripture that it is quoting, the new translation is more correct.

Also as Mark points out in post #22 for “And with your spirit” other languages, most notably Spanish, use the word for house (casa in the case of Spanish) so if it is good enough for a literal translation of the Scripture to be accurate then why not so for English?

I know many people who are not aware of the connection to the Scriptural passage because it is so different.

As for snarkyness, maybe if the word “asinine” was not used I might have restrained myself.

 

[Edward_H]

The new translation draws us closer to not only other Enlish speaking Catholics ( there are 3 separate translations today) but also closer to other languaged Catholics.

The new translation is more Biblical, more personal, more tender hearted, and carries more supernaturally meaning (Begotten Son, consubstantial, visible and invisible, incarnate).

 

[TheMc]

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.

The meaning is not any less awkward in the latin. You’re missing the point.

 

[TheMc]

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.

Hint: Has your parish ever considered celebrating the Mass in latin, with at least some chant?

That’s what the church has asked for in situations such as these.

You may wish to show your pastor this:

from Sacramentum Caritatis

1. None of the above observations should cast doubt upon the importance of such large-scale liturgies. I am thinking here particularly of celebrations at international gatherings, which nowadays are held with greater frequency. The most should be made of these occasions. In order to express more clearly the unity and universality of the Church, I wish to endorse the proposal made by the Synod of Bishops, in harmony with the directives of the Second Vatican Council, (182) that, with the exception of the readings, the homily and the prayer of the faithful, it is fitting that such liturgies be celebrated in Latin. Similarly, the better-known prayers (183) of the Church’s tradition should be recited in Latin and, if possible, selections of Gregorian chant should be sung. Speaking more generally, I ask that future priests, from their time in the seminary, receive the preparation needed to understand and to celebrate Mass in Latin, and also to use Latin texts and execute Gregorian chant; nor should we forget that the faithful can be taught to recite the more common prayers in Latin, and also to sing parts of the liturgy to Gregorian chant.

 

[TheMc]

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.

The meaning is not any less awkward in the latin. You’re missing the point. Other languages have translated this literally, along with the rest of the Mass. Why should we do anything different.

If you don’t like how it was translated, you are free to ask your pastor to celebrate the OF in latin at any time.

 

[fall_fox]

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.

fall fox

I am so impressed with the knowledge you folks have shown here. I hate to bring up my little observations. It seems that the translation of the Latin Mass to those languages that have their origins in Latin, French, Spanish, were much smoother than Latin to English. Of course we mustn’t use the generic word men in our translation, so we can stumble over the word " people " in the Gloria. I am still looking forward to the change, what else can we do? I suppose it’s a moot point, but it looks like the Church did a 180 degree turn and went to strict translation. Maybe next time, they can really look at a sentence in Latin and make a better judgment that the idea of the sentence would be better than the strict translation of the Latin. Other places the strict translation might be better.
Well there doesn’t seem to be that many changes for us we’ll get used to them. The biggest changes are for the Priests. I have hope upon hope that their part will bring more of the sacredness back to our Mass.

 

[FAB]

As one of the swine, I do agree that the new missal is awkward in spots. I am glad they decided to convert the Nicene Creed into proper sentences, although the downside to that is it is now longer and more repetitive.

This is good, It causes more reflection and drives home the points of our faith.

 

[stephraim]

WThat applies in particular to mediaeval Latin figures of speech such as “et cum spiritu tuo”.

“Et cum spiritu tuo” is not a medieval Latin figure of speech. It dates from Antiquity, as seen in St. John Chrysostom, and it is found in almost all liturgies, including those non-Latin. In fact, St. Paul uses it several times in his Greek epistles (even though it’s a Hebrew idiom).

 

[Digitonomy]

This is good, It causes more reflection and drives home the points of our faith.

I don’t think adding words to the creed that are only implied in Latin (multiple "I believe"s) necessarily causes more reflection, but it does make it clearer what we are saying, in contrast to the run-on sentences that were originally proposed.

 

[promethius]

As I was trying to point out, which you agree with here, there are multiple meanings.

So to make the meaning clear and to be closer to the actual Scripture that it is quoting, the new translation is more correct.

More accurate. Not more correct. There is a fundamental difference. The previous masses were not wrong, they were simply less accurate in terms of literal translations.

Also as Mark points out in post #22 for “And with your spirit” other languages, most notably Spanish, use the word for house (casa in the case of Spanish) so if it is good enough for a literal translation of the Scripture to be accurate then why not so for English?

Except for one problem: Spanish doesn’t literally translate. They say “I am not worthy that you should enter into my house”. The Italians say “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I will be saved” (O Signore, non sono degno di partecipare alla tua mensa: ma di’ soltanto una parola e io sarò salvato). The Centurion said, in latin idiom, “I am not worthy that you should come under my roof.”

So your argument works against you, because the spanish, the french, the Italians, and until recently the english ALL did away with a literal translation of this phrase. Now only the english translation will be insisting on an exact literal translation.

Not that this is a problem, but it does nothing to change the meaning. It just forces english speakers to use roman idioms, unlike any other language translation is doing.

I know many people who are not aware of the connection to the Scriptural passage because it is so different.

Making use of an awkward roman idiom rather than saying something with the same meaning in english will do nothing whatsoever to fix those who, through poor catechesis, know nothing about the mass and where it comes from. If you want people to understand the mass BETTER, the answer lies in proper catechesis, not treating a new translation as though it’s some magic bullet to fix all our problems.

And that, I think, is my main complaint… latin is not a magic bullet to fix problems with poor catechesis and treating it like it is will only do more damage.

 

[MarkThompson]

The Italians say “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I will be saved” (O Signore, non sono degno di partecipare alla tua mensa: ma di’ soltanto una parola e io sarò salvato). The Centurion said, in latin idiom, “I am not worthy that you should come under my roof.”

The Italian passage here actually says, “O Lord, I am not worthy to participate at your table: but say only one word and I shall be saved.” By contrast, a standard Italian Bible would properly have “that you should enter under my roof” (“che tu entri sotto il mio tetto”) in the story of the Centurion.

 

[promethius]

The Italian passage here actually says, “O Lord, I am not worthy to participate at your table: but say only one word and I shall be saved.” By contrast, a standard Italian Bible would properly have “that you should enter under my roof” (“che tu entri sotto il mio tetto”) in the story of the Centurion.

Mea Culpa for trusting google translate on that one. However, two things to note:

1. I pulled that statement from the italian ordinary of the mass
2. It’s still not a literal translation of the scripture, so the italian masses are not saying the same thing as the centurion either.

 

[Brendan]

It seems that the translation of the Latin Mass to those languages that have their origins in Latin, French, Spanish, were much smoother than Latin to English.

I just spend a few weeks in rural Tanzania. As part of that, I spend most of the time staying in the residence of the local bishop.

We had several conversations about the new translation, as Tanzania is a former English colony and still uses English somewhat extensively. Secondary education is most commonly conducted in English for example.

The bishop was very much looking forward to the new translation, as he was somewhat tired of trying to explain how what was said during the Mass in Swahili didn’t correspond to what was said in the Mass in English.

The Mass is Swahili, even though it is a Bantu language TOTALLY unrelated to Latin, still was done in a manner that was faithful to the Mass as promulgated by Rome.

FYI, he is already using the new translation for English Masses that he says personally, and it is also being said daily in his minor seminary.

I suppose it’s a moot point, but it looks like the Church did a 180 degree turn and went to strict translation. Maybe next time, they can really look at a sentence in Latin and make a better judgment that the idea of the sentence would be better than the strict translation of the Latin. .

No, the CHURCH has held that the translation should be faithful, as it is pretty much everywhere EXCEPT in the English speaking world.

All the Church is asking is for the Anglophones of the world to use texts that are as faithful to the Mass as all the other translations are: Spanish, German, Polish, and yes Swahili.

The question you should be asking is why would be want to worship in a way that is so different from the rest of the diocese of the world.

If poor rural farmers in east Africa can manage to note that they have sinned, sinned and sinned greviously, to recieve the Lord under their roof, and to wish that the Lord remain with the priestly spirit of the celebrant, why cannot we.

(as a side note, not only do the Tanzanian Catholics strike their breasts during the Pennitential Rite, the entire prayer is said by all while kneeling. It is really quite humbling to watch. All kneel for the prayers of the faithful too. And yes, they do so even in the dirt)