Criticism of the New Translation

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheMc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
promethius said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not true, as I mentioned, in my discussions with the bishop, Swahili uses a literal translation.

As does German
Herr, ich bin nicht würdig, dass du eingehst unter
the word, and I shall be healed. mein Dach, aber sprich nur ein Wort, so wird meine
Seele gesund.
Click to expand...
As does the Norwegian
Herre, jeg er ikke verdig at du går inn under mitt
tak, men si bare ett ord, så blir min sjel helbredet
Click to expand...
 
TheMc said:
Point in case:

ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/16-year-old-latin-whiz-finds-new-liturgy-language-lacking

He doesn’t find the new translation bad, he actually thinks it’s quite accurate. But what he really doesn’t like is the texts of the Mass himself. Typical liberal.
Click to expand...
His views are very sadly mistaken, but inasmuch as he is 16 years old we can probably stand to lay off the ad hominems.

In any event, it is worth identifying the three main things people are complaining about when they complain about “the new translations.” (Usually, they are not themselves actually aware of which of these facets it is that is bothering them):


  1. *]The actual translations. I’ve been disappointed by the tendency to change things like “ut mereamus pervenire” (“so that we may merit to come”) to “so that we may come,” and others are up in arms with the misplaced modifier in the Advent 1 collect which makes it sound like it is the “passing things,” rather than the sacramental mysteries, which God is using to teach us to love “the things of heaven.” There is a wide variety of other mistakes and infelicities in the final product, not least among them continuing to translate “Agnus Dei, qui tollis” as “Lamb of God, you take away” instead of “… who take away.”
    *]The “process” of the translations, as an issue of ecclesial power structures. This is super-inside baseball, in which people are outraged that one committee of prelates stepped on the toes of another committee of prelates. 90% of PrayTell is about this, even when it pretends not to be.
    *]People, like our 16-year-old friend here, who are now realizing that they just don’t like the actual texts of the Mass. All the criticism of how confusing “that you should come under my roof” is, or how degrading it is to be forced to say “through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault,” or how un-fellowshippy it is to have “I” in the Credo, and so on, fall under this head. To these people I say, the very fact that you feel so shocked and alienated by the traditional texts and teaching of the Catholic Church is EXACTLY THE REASON WHY WE HAD TO FIX THE TRANSLATION, GENIUSES.
 
MarkThompson said:
…To these people I say, the very fact that you feel so shocked and alienated by the traditional texts and teaching of the Catholic Church is EXACTLY THE REASON WHY WE HAD TO FIX THE TRANSLATION, GENIUSES.
Click to expand...
Ding. You just hit the nail on the head with that one.
 
MarkThompson said:
The “process” of the translations, as an issue of ecclesial power structures. This is super-inside baseball, in which people are outraged that one committee of prelates stepped on the toes of another committee of prelates. 90%of PrayTell is about this, even when it pretends not to be.
Click to expand...
Yes, I have heard this first-hand (in person), and also read it online. At least on the part of some American clerics, they felt that they should have been able to join more “democratically” (paraphrasing) in the process. (Should have been invited to participate, assumptively.) Hence, many of these not invited have now Gone Negative on the entire project. Given that emotional nature of the response, it is difficult to separate genuine criticism from what is politically-based.

I have not heard grumbling from lay or clergy in the parish closest to me, but this is an ultra-traditional parish with tons of EF and OF Masses. (So maybe that’s why.)
 
MarkThompson said:
The “process” of the translations, as an issue of ecclesial power structures. 90% of PrayTell is about this, even when it pretends not to be.
Click to expand...
[SIGN]Fact.[/SIGN]I complained a few months ago to a pastor about the things that his associate pastors were doing at Mass. He brought up this issue to argue that if the institutional Church broke her own rules, why can’t priests in his parish? I suspect he got it from The Tablet not a blog, but you are right that it’s another bee in some people’s bonnets.
 
YoungTradCath said:
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.
Click to expand...
BINGO! :clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:
 
TheMc said:
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.
?
Click to expand...
guess us oldtimers are not in our right mind when we instinctively repeat the words and gestures we grew up with, thanks for the reminder, when I forge my meds I forget how non compos I really am. Just because the present generation is bone ignorant of Latin gives them no right to criticize those who have gone before. If the Latin says it was a chalic, it is a chalice. If it said basin, crater, dish, styrofoam cup or thermos, that is what the translation would be.
 
jimrob said:
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.
Click to expand...
And go barefoot, sit on the floor and say “Grrooooovy” and “Faaaaaaar out.”
 
It is a sad day for english speaking Catholics. This new translation is very poor and arkward sounding. I was always taught in Latin class that a translation must be accurate and free flowing. Clearly someone was not paying attention in class.

The thing that bothers me most is that the people who gave us this poor translation basically had an agenda and used the mass to further that agenda.

For instance, they wanted to impose on us some artificial “sacred language” so they used Latin words which are really never used in english, “oblation” for is a good example “ineffable” is another. Heck I think I am an educated person. I really don’t know what that last word means. The use of “consubstantial” is simply beyond being rational. One of the purposes of the liturgy is to teach. How does using these impossible words instruct? Clearly, since few people would stand for the reimposing latin, the Vox Obscura group (more appropriate than Vox Clara) thought they would push this on us as the next best thing.

However, the thing that bother me the most is how the translators introduced a comical element in the consecration, the most sacred part of the mass. They have Jesus taking “a Chalice” at the Last Supper. This is absurd. “Chalice” has a clear meaning in modern English of a jeweled golden cup. Now we have to bear every Sunday with a comical image being invoked of Jesus taking a jewel encrusted chalice in his hand . The correct translation for the Latin word “Calix” is “drinking vessel.” This was rendered with great dignity and accuracy with the simple english word “cup.”

As seen by hundreds of millions of people, there is a scene in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade where Indiana is faced with a whole table of possible Holy Grails. He is told to choose wisely. He picks out the simplest earthern cup because that is what a simple carpenter would use. Unfortunately, our Church did not choose wisely with this new translation.
 
Thomas_Redd said:
It is a sad day for english speaking Catholics. This new translation is very poor and arkward sounding. I was always taught in Latin class that a translation must be accurate and free flowing. Clearly someone was not paying attention in class.

The thing that bothers me most is that the people who gave us this poor translation basically had an agenda and used the mass to further that agenda.

For instance, they wanted to impose on us some artificial “sacred language” so they used Latin words which are really never used in english, …
Click to expand...
The translation is based on an underlying, clunky, sacred language - Latin. The committee actually had as one of its goals to match the rhythm and pace of the original language. Changing the flow to “free flowing”, when the original was not however so slightly changes the mass.
 
Thomas_Redd said:
It is a sad day for english speaking Catholics. This new translation is very poor and arkward sounding. I was always taught in Latin class that a translation must be accurate and free flowing. Clearly someone was not paying attention in class.

The thing that bothers me most is that the people who gave us this poor translation basically had an agenda and used the mass to further that agenda.

For instance, they wanted to impose on us some artificial “sacred language” so they used Latin words which are really never used in english, “oblation” for is a good example “ineffable” is another. Heck I think I am an educated person. I really don’t know what that last word means. The use of “consubstantial” is simply beyond being rational. One of the purposes of the liturgy is to teach. How does using these impossible words instruct? Clearly, since few people would stand for the reimposing latin, the Vox Obscura group (more appropriate than Vox Clara) thought they would push this on us as the next best thing.

However, the thing that bother me the most is how the translators introduced a comical element in the consecration, the most sacred part of the mass. They have Jesus taking “a Chalice” at the Last Supper. This is absurd. “Chalice” has a clear meaning in modern English of a jeweled golden cup. Now we have to bear every Sunday with a comical image being invoked of Jesus taking a jewel encrusted chalice in his hand . The correct translation for the Latin word “Calix” is “drinking vessel.” This was rendered with great dignity and accuracy with the simple english word “cup.”

As seen by hundreds of millions of people, there is a scene in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade where Indiana is faced with a whole table of possible Holy Grails. He is told to choose wisely. He picks out the simplest earthern cup because that is what a simple carpenter would use. Unfortunately, our Church did not choose wisely with this new translation.
Click to expand...
First of all you should understand the process. It was not Vox Clara who prepared the translation…they saw it after the group of Bishops. Vox Clara works for the Vatican and approved the new translation. As for rules of translation its nice to know that you presume to know more then those with degrees in it.

Our teacher was/is one of the members of Vox Clara and is a humble and holy priest. The last session he compared different prayers from what we have now. I find the new text to be a higher language (which I enjoy) - when we are at Mass it should be different then how we are talking on the street…no? I personally find the new prayers beautiful! Some of the old prayers/translation are actually not theologically correct. For example, one of them makes it sound like its our celebration that saves us…not Christ.

So I know it will be a little difficult at first but I am still looking forward to it!👍
 
Thomas_Redd said:
It is a sad day for english speaking Catholics. This new translation is very poor and arkward sounding. I was always taught in Latin class that a translation must be accurate and free flowing. Clearly someone was not paying attention in class.

The thing that bothers me most is that the people who gave us this poor translation basically had an agenda and used the mass to further that agenda.

For instance, they wanted to impose on us some artificial “sacred language” so they used Latin words which are really never used in english, “oblation” for is a good example “ineffable” is another. Heck I think I am an educated person. I really don’t know what that last word means. The use of “consubstantial” is simply beyond being rational. One of the purposes of the liturgy is to teach. How does using these impossible words instruct? Clearly, since few people would stand for the reimposing latin, the Vox Obscura group (more appropriate than Vox Clara) thought they would push this on us as the next best thing.

However, the thing that bother me the most is how the translators introduced a comical element in the consecration, the most sacred part of the mass. They have Jesus taking “a Chalice” at the Last Supper. This is absurd. “Chalice” has a clear meaning in modern English of a jeweled golden cup. Now we have to bear every Sunday with a comical image being invoked of Jesus taking a jewel encrusted chalice in his hand . The correct translation for the Latin word “Calix” is “drinking vessel.” This was rendered with great dignity and accuracy with the simple english word “cup.”

As seen by hundreds of millions of people, there is a scene in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade where Indiana is faced with a whole table of possible Holy Grails. He is told to choose wisely. He picks out the simplest earthern cup because that is what a simple carpenter would use. Unfortunately, our Church did not choose wisely with this new translation.
Click to expand...
A. This is not a movie.
B. It’s happened. It’s done. I’m sorry you don’t like it for some reason, but it will help YOU if you stop pouting about it and give it a chance.
 
iloveangels said:
A. This is not a movie.
B. It’s happened. It’s done. I’m sorry you don’t like it for some reason, but it will help YOU if you stop pouting about it and give it a chance.
Click to expand...
A. No one said it was a movie. Unfortunately it is real.
B. It’s not done. I predict that in a few years, we will be getting a more appropriate and pastoral translation. The whole process was flawed as this translation is.
 
I am excited and enthusiastic about the re-translation and can’t wait to get started!
 
Thomas_Redd said:
A. No one said it was a movie. Unfortunately it is real.
B. It’s not done. I predict that in a few years, we will be getting a more appropriate and pastoral translation. The whole process was flawed as this translation is.
Click to expand...
Would you care to explain why you think what you think? I really would like to know.
 
Our parish used this Sunday for a dress rehearsal for the new translation. It was certainly more reverent by its wording. I loved it and cannot wait until next Sunday to hear Mass again!
 
Thomas_Redd said:
A. No one said it was a movie. Unfortunately it is real.
B. It’s not done. I predict that in a few years, we will be getting a more appropriate and pastoral translation. The whole process was flawed as this translation is.
Click to expand...
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.
 
promethius said:
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.
Click to expand...
Amen!! I am having a very hard time with this…I attend daily mass and I would rather go back to the original Latin than have this. First we chuck the Latin, now we worry about what we say being “faithful” to it. Make up your minds.

I for one pull out my rosary and just tune out. I suffer from two mental illnesses and this “change” is really difficult–put the mass back into Latin and be done with it. I hate it and haven’t sung any of the responses…I figure I can get my Bible reading in instead. The prayer you commented on MEANT something to me, now it sounds stupid. The other prayer used the word anxiety. I suffer from a crippling anxiety disorder and that MEANT something to me. Oh well, who cares what we think?
 
I can’t help but comment… Our priest in RCIA also does the Spanish masses and has said most of the new English translation (except the whole chalice/cup piece and a few other things) have been in use in the Spanish mass since he began doing them. A little bit of research has turned up that most all other translations of the Latin mass have been saying what we will soon be saying since their original translation.

It is puzzling to me that before Vatican II we had Latin service that few understood, after Vatican II we had an English translation which everyone understood and was incorrect, and now we have a translation which is, by and large, a very literal re-translation of the original Latin and the fruit basket gets upset.

Perhaps I have missed something. 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?

If this is an incorrect assumption, please help to enlighten me. Just curious…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top