Criticism of the New Translation

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheMc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thomas_Redd said:
The problem as everyone knows is the poor english and using words that are not understandable. This was not a pastoral translation but one with an agenda.
Click to expand...
I have gone through the new translation with my 8th CCD class and they understand the words. 🤷

Maybe I just have kids with an extremly high Intelengence. 😃
 
ByzCath said:
So you can totally understand the Mass in Latin without a side by side translation in a Missal?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I can. I don’t need a translation to look at. I’ve stared at the Order of Mass long enough (which isn’t very long) on my computer and I’ve thought about it long enough to comprehend it and understand it when I hear it at mass. Imagine that, someone understanding the mass in Latin. The HORROR!
 
I have been ready the revised missal getting ready for this weekend. Those who want to complain, I think are just complainers, never satisfied. I have not found the wording to be difficult and it is quit inspiring . Imagine, being inspired in the vernacular.
 
oneGODoneCHURCH said:
I dont understand this at all. It says I am unworthy for you to enter under my roof how does that take away the unworthy part? The Mass is not changing some of the engelish words are changing. To bring it correctly to the Latin that you just said you wished they had not changed. in the 1962 missal the engelish side would have read under my roof. so it back to what you wish we had not left.
Click to expand...
Maybe the 1962 handmissal (and some of the English Bibles, for that matter) was too literal/narrow in interpreting “tectum”? The dictionary gives a wide range of meanings to the word, and saying either the current version or the new version doesn’t change the theology, in my opinion. The general idea is still the expression of faith in the Word of Christ. This was never a problem when the Mass was said in Latin.
 
ProVobis said:
Maybe the 1962 handmissal (and some of the English Bibles, for that matter) was too literal/narrow in interpreting “tectum”? The dictionary gives a wide range of meanings to the word, and saying either the current version or the new version doesn’t change the theology, in my opinion. The general idea is still the expression of faith in the Word of Christ. This was never a problem when the Mass was said in Latin.
Click to expand...
Or maybe people are looking for somthing to complain about. I agree that if the mass was still all in Latin we would not have this discussion however we would still have a trans tranlation and it would read the way it does now UNDER MY ROOF.
 
oneGODoneCHURCH said:
Or maybe people are looking for somthing to complain about. I agree that if the mass was still all in Latin we would not have this discussion however we would still have a trans tranlation and it would read the way it does now UNDER MY ROOF.
Click to expand...
There is also a school that thinks some things are better left untranslated.

Tectum - Past participle of tego, as in tego, tegere, texi, tectum - to cover

There are many things that cover, including the top of one’s mouth.
 
YoungTradCath said:
Yeah, I can. I don’t need a translation to look at. I’ve stared at the Order of Mass long enough (which isn’t very long) on my computer and I’ve thought about it long enough to comprehend it and understand it when I hear it at mass. Imagine that, someone understanding the mass in Latin. The HORROR!
Click to expand...
That’s great. I wish it was that “easy” for me.
 
ProVobis said:
There is also a school that thinks some things are better left untranslated.

Tectum - Past participle of tego, as in tego, tegere, texi, tectum - to cover

There are many things that cover, including the top of one’s mouth.
Click to expand...
ok so in the scripture verse that this prayer comes from do you think the centurian was saying that he was unworthy for Christ to come under his mouth?

That is the point here we have lost were these prayer come from. This prayer has a direct link ( as do most all) to the scripture. That is way the translation needs to reflect that. Were the prayer came from and what we are triy to convey with it was being lost in the present translation and so we now get the more clear translation. Also what school would that be that thinks things should not be translated? If there was not any translation then there would be no communication between people of different languages. or we would all speack the same language therefore makeing translation unneeded.

As it stands The word Tectum means nothing to me without it being translated to a language that I undersatnd. you giveing the roots mean nothing as I do not know Latin now when you said it means to cover then it gave meaning for me.

Oh and just on an aside, I would prefer that the Mass was still the EF and said according to the 1962 Missal. 😉
 
promethius said:
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.
Click to expand...
It’s not asinine if you have the proper meditation in mind when you say the words.

When you say “under my roof” — well, so what? The point is not that it is or is not a literal translation of the Latin. The point is, that it is the direct quotation from scripture.

so, if you remember the story where this comes from, you may, sooner or later, have the same humility that the Roman soldier had when he made the statement.
 
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...
“consubstantial” is a word that gives me a problem, too. I’m not arguing about what it means, but rather the more puzzling matter of what substance God is, in the first place.

I can understand or accept that Jesus is “consubstantial” – to a point – but I can’t imagine what substance they are referring to.
 
oneGODoneCHURCH said:
As it stands The word Tectum means nothing to me without it being translated to a language that I undersatnd.
Click to expand...
Okay, but why are you accepting “my roof” as the only translation possible where “my roof” has nothing to do with the communion which immediately follows, unless you mean “roof of my mouth”? Why has “tectum meum” even been part of the Mass for at least 400 years at all? If it’s a simile, wouldn’t “my cover” work just as well if not better in both the translated scripture as well as the English Mass? Just a suggestion; perhaps someone who has studied linguistics has a better one. But my point is that the English in the old handmissals or in the English Bibles doesn’t have to be automatically used where literal translations are called for.
 
Crumpy said:
“consubstantial” is a word that gives me a problem, too. I’m not arguing about what it means, but rather the more puzzling matter of what substance God is, in the first place.

I can understand or accept that Jesus is “consubstantial” – to a point – but I can’t imagine what substance they are referring to.
Click to expand...
It is an Arisotlean term used by Aquinas. It distinguishes what something IS (Substance) vs what it has (Accident).

For example, take an apple. It IS an apple, that is it’s SUBSTANCE. It HAS things like texture, color, taste, weight, scent, etc… The scent of an apple is not an apple, neither is the weight of an apple actually an apple. Those are accidental properties.

The Substance of God, is what God IS. Accidental properties of God exist in the Second Person. Christ has eye color, hair, mass\weight. Those are accidental properties of Christ.

But His Substance, what Christ really and truely IS, is God. Which is also true of the Father and the Spirt. All are God. Their Substance is God.

We see this concept in the Eucharist (which is why ‘Substance’ really should not be a foreign concept to Catholics). The Church speaks of Transsubstantiation. That, in the Eucharist, the Substance of Bread and Wine are replace by the Substance of Christ.

The accidental properties of color, weight, taste, chemical composition, all remain the same, but the Substance, what IS, changes.

Here is a bit more.

aquinasonline.com/Topics/substacc.html
 
Crumpy said:
I can understand or accept that Jesus is “consubstantial” – to a point – but I can’t imagine what substance they are referring to.
Click to expand...
The substance in question is the divine substance or divine essence. What is peculiar about the divine substance (i.e. divinity) is that there is only one. Thus, if Jesus is “consubstantial” with the Father – that is, if Jesus is of the same substance as the Father – then the two share the one same substance, they are both divine, they are both God. Because there is only one divine substance, Jesus and the Father are not two gods but are both one God.

The human substance, on the other hand, is multiplicitous. Just because you and I are both human does not mean we share one another’s substance. You and I are not one human, but two humans.
 
japhy said:
The substance in question is the divine substance or divine essence. What is peculiar about the divine substance (i.e. divinity) is that there is only one. Thus, if Jesus is “consubstantial” with the Father – that is, if Jesus is of the same substance as the Father – then the two share the one same substance, they are both divine, they are both God. Because there is only one divine substance, Jesus and the Father are not two gods but are both one God.

The human substance, on the other hand, is multiplicitous. Just because you and I are both human does not mean we share one another’s substance. You and I are not one human, but two humans.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Jeffrey. I needed that pithy explanation for my confirmation class next week. Especially since my rector borrowed my copies of your books and won’t’ give them back. 😛
 
Crumpy said:
“consubstantial” is a word that gives me a problem, too. I’m not arguing about what it means, but rather the more puzzling matter of what substance God is, in the first place.

I can understand or accept that Jesus is “consubstantial” – to a point – but I can’t imagine what substance they are referring to.
Click to expand...
The Council of Nicaea coined the term as a kind of shibboleth to distinguish Catholics from Arians. Or rather, they applied a Greek term of what Consubstantia is the Latin equivalent. Forget worry about “substance,” It is shorthand for the dogma that Jesus is equal to the Father. Not a subordinate being as Arius taught. Forget the etymology and look up the history. Besides, the phrase “one being with the Father” has no intrinsic meaning, but you accepted that.
 
YoungTradCath said:
I could just as easily say that you say many things that are not true, but it doesn’t really mean anything.
Click to expand...
I remember reading the explanations for the changes in the '60s and a constant theme was that, well that is NOT the way the Fathers did it, it was an addition of the Middle Ages, or of the Counterformation period, that we are just reviving the patristic custom. But that is the same sort of reasoning that Cranmer used to justify his reforms, and sometimes it was true and sometimes of only one time and place in the past. I agreed with many of there changes, but I was taken aback by the flatness of their language. It was as if they say, how can we make this sound boring.
 
Crumpy said:
“consubstantial” is a word that gives me a problem, too. I’m not arguing about what it means, but rather the more puzzling matter of what substance God is, in the first place.

I can understand or accept that Jesus is “consubstantial” – to a point – but I can’t imagine what substance they are referring to.
Click to expand...
It is saying that Jesus is consubstantial with the Father, as in, he is of the same substance as the Father. It is not saying Jesus and the Father are of the same substance, not go figure out what it is. It is simply drawing a comparison exclusively between the two Persons there.
 
ProVobis said:
Okay, but why are you accepting “my roof” as the only translation possible where “my roof” has nothing to do with the communion which immediately follows, unless you mean “roof of my mouth”? Why has “tectum meum” even been part of the Mass for at least 400 years at all? If it’s a simile, wouldn’t “my cover” work just as well if not better in both the translated scripture as well as the English Mass? Just a suggestion; perhaps someone who has studied linguistics has a better one. But my point is that the English in the old handmissals or in the English Bibles doesn’t have to be automatically used where literal translations are called for.
Click to expand...
Because the prayer comes from the bible were we read of the centurion asking Christ to heal his daughter… Christ says take me to her and the centurion say no I am not worthy for you to come under “MY ROOF” ( the only translation that really makes since in this passage) and since that is what we are to be reflecting upon at this point is that link to scripture then the translation of the word we use at this point should reflect the same as the scripture passage.

The point is not only to keep the most literal but the most true to meaning.

It is a given that we are not worthy to receive Christ in the Eucharist, but like the centurion we are not worthy for him to even enter our home. That was was lost in the the translation that we have used for the last 40 years. i am not saying that it was not correct just that it was incomplete.

There is more to the prayers of the Mass than just the base meaning of the words and we need to be sure to use words that reflect and draw out that deeper meaning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top