I like it. I prefer it to what was said before. I feel it is a more accurate translation.
If I recall, the “one in being” language was ICEL-developed in the 60’s. No English was used in the liturgy until the 60’s but either “consubstantial to the Father” (Patri is in dative case) or “one in substance with” had been written in the Latin-English missals prior to that point.I was talking with my grandmother, who remembers well the so-called “golden age” of American Catholicism from the 1930’s-1950’s, and she asked me why this “consubstantal”, how is that better than “one in being with”? At least I know what that means, she said.
Yes, my dad was one of those who just kept saying the translations just weren’t right. You’re correct, people didn’t want to listen.
Its introduction here in the Philippines was delayed by a year so we are not using the new translation yet.
Because the Church moves slowly. In reality, there had been plans to revise it ever since the '70s, but other things simply took precedence over the following decade. Eventually a lot of work was done in the '90s culminating in a proposed 1998 version, but this introduced as many new problems as it eliminated of the old, and it was rejected by the Vatican. In 2001 the Vatican issued the instruction Liturgiam Authenticam on the appropriate methodology for liturgical translation, and in 2003 a (slightly) revised edition of the base Latin text of the Mass, the Missale Romanum was issued. From that point, it took around six years of proposals, consultations, and major work, followed by another year or so of revisions and the better part of another year to print the books and prepare people for it.
Given that 4 year olds are also having to try to learn it, needlessly IMHO, yes it is. We are not all great theologians or philosophers, and cannot all hope to be either.
For what it’s worth, “being of one divine nature” IMO might have been a little more accurate theologically. I’m not sold on much of the Anglican translation(s).
That depends on how it is received. On another forum, I translated bits of Polish from some video that was presented. I had listened to the video 3-4 times and I had supporting evidence for my translation but one person took exception to my translation anyway. Apparently it did not fit his position so I “revised” it somewhat for him/her through PM.
There were no revisions to the Mass. It was corrected to bring it more in line with the original Latin.
I think it was more a change in transaltion philosophy rather than a technical issue, i.e. flawed. The difference between the two is the latest translation uses formal equivalence. The original 70s translation used dynamic equivalence.
In the sense that words were changed to be more cognate (spiritus, invisibilium, etc.) with the Latin, you’re correct. But in the Polish OF there are many fewer Latin cognates; yet it is more in line with the Latin nuances, which are almost impossible to translate into English. Take for example, the controversial “consubstantialem Patri.” You have the concepts of “con” (with), “sub” (under), stantis (being), and the dative (to)." This IMO is impossible to translate into English keeping English grammatical rules intact.