Does anyone *not* like the revised translation?

[mlz]

For me it was a good time to become Catholic as it was all new to me and I didn’t feel out of place

mlz

 

[ProVobis]

The Church, both East and West, has many such prayers using this type of language, and has for centuries.

Following the same line of reasoning, one could argue the tranlsation used in the St. Andrew Missal. One does not become a partaker in divinity, because one is not divine. Similarly, per Fr. Lasance, how does one obtain part of the Godhead, if one is not God? The answer is that all of these are translations of the Latin and all mean the same.

The esse consortes is used in EP2 today, and the current translation of that is along the same lines. It simply sounds to me that people are unfamiliar with this type of imagery, and are getting annoyed at the use of a more decriptive translation, one that reflects the original Latin. Perhaps they do not like prayers that cause them to have to ponder upon the grandeur of God? There does seem to be some evidence here of a few who prefer that the Almighty being brough down to human level in our prayers, rather than an elevation of humanity to a heavenly level. Again, the imagery is there in the Latin, and always has been.

I don’t think all translations mean the same or are unchanging in meaning but your other points well-taken, especially your last point.

consortes = con (with) + sors, sortis (lot, oracle(pl), share, capital, fate, destiny)

 

[LilyM]

When the new translation was introduced, I made it a point to attend the first Saturday Mass of a nearby parish. I noticed that immediately after the Creed, the couple next to me was searching for the meaning of the term consubstantial… on the Internet through their smartphone.

I did a check recently what is the first entry when you type consubstantial. It was wikipedia’s entry, which gives some insight into the meaning of the term. So not bad if you turn to the Internet for resource!

But yes, the desired catechises does not always happen. But at least now, there will be more natural platforms to talk about this.

It’s the first entry, but I for one wouldn’t bother reading it when one or two down there are complete dictionary definitions that you can see without having to click a link.

Sad but true, and I’d make a very sizeable bet that I wouldn’t be the only one who thinks like that. Why would anyone assume without being told that there is really any more to the term than those dictionary definitions?

 

[HelenRose]

Most of the new translation is fine - things like ‘through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault’ and ‘Lord I am not worthy that you should enter …’ are only return ing to what I remember from childhood.

‘Consubstantial’ is a bit unfortunate - something less clunky like ‘of one substance’ could surely be found which is equally accurate and rich in meaning but less difficult to say and understand.

Perhaps you are right there. But, consubstantial does catch one’s attention and begs to be explained.

I objected to “one in being with” because I live in a rural area where the hippies were always “one in being with the flowers”.

I realize that statement is more than a bit catty. But I do like a word to mean what it says and is not so vague as to cause an infinite variety of interpretations.

There is no way to change the word “consubstantial” into something that it isn’t.

 

[iloveangels]

It’s the first entry, but I for one wouldn’t bother reading it when one or two down there are complete dictionary definitions that you can see without having to click a link.

Sad but true, and I’d make a very sizeable bet that I wouldn’t be the only one who thinks like that. Why would anyone assume without being told that there is really any more to the term than those dictionary definitions?

You know, when I was a kid, we had this guy in the neighborhood that used to crack us up. He used to say to us really, really slowly, kinda with a drawl, “Give me an apple and I’ll eat it.”