Does anyone *not* like the revised translation?

[Chatter163]

Given that 4 year olds are also having to try to learn it, needlessly IMHO, yes it is.

Most of us learn words at age four that we cannot truly understand until much later. That is part of any learning process, especially in religious instruction. It has always been that way.

Our Lord used the simplest language possible, even when speaking of the great mysteries of our faith - ‘the Father and I are one’ - ‘This is My body’ - ‘what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven’ and so on. He didn’t express things in an unnecessarily difficult way.

Did someone claim that we were? Surely learning a new word or two does not constitute trying to become a great intellect?

Our Lord used the simplest language possible, even when speaking of the great mysteries of our faith - ‘the Father and I are one’ - ‘This is My body’ - ‘what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven’ and so on. He didn’t express things in an unnecessarily difficult way.

Again, I do not understand how one non-everyday word becomes “an unnecessarily difficult way.” (There seems to be a current of anti-intellectualism going on here.) As for Our Lord always speaking plainly, that certainly was not always the case. It seems that many things that He said were immediately misunderstood, often by his own disciples:

–on the Eucharist, which caused many to leave, as they could not grasp it
–baptism, which confused Nicodemus and others (how, and was it for Jews only?)
–any number of parables, to the point of where He had to be asked to explain some of them, to which in response pharisees said, “Ah, now thou speakest plainly”
–the nature of His second coming, especially how soon it would or would not be
–lovely little lines, such as “Before Abraham was, I am”

Our Catholic bibles contain many footnotes–including explanations of those red words–precisely because Our Lord’s words are easily misunderstood. Look at how Protestants misinterpret everything from Peter, to Our Lady, the end times, etc.

 

[BertBlyleven]

Its introduction here in the Philippines was delayed by a year so we are not using the new translation yet.

Do you know if it is the same translation? I remember the Mass in English in the Philippines being a bit different than in the states, especially the Our Father.

 

[Elizium23]

There were no revisions to the Mass. It was corrected to bring it more in line with the original Latin.

The Latin Roman Missal, which was revised twice to produce the Third Edition, which is the “original” with which the English version now accords.

The ICEL English Missal was based on the First Edition of the Roman Missal. So indeed there were intervening revisions, including the addition of propers for newly minted saints.

 

[arkwright]

Like the curate’s egg , it’s partly good and partly bad , just like the previous translation .

But it’s nothing to write home about .

 

[Brooklyn]

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.

I think most of the mistranslations were in English. Most other languages had it correct. That was definitely true of Spanish. I believe there were no changes made to the Spanish Mass at all. Such things as “and with you” changed to the more literal and correct “and with your spirit.” And of course the most controversial correction, changing the word of the Canon from “all” to “many.” The correct translation is “many” and that is why it was changed. I am so glad it was corrected if for no other reason than it took away one of the major arguments from many that the OF was invalid. It was really hard to overcome that one because they were correct about the wording. And now, praise God, it has been changed to the correct translation.

Why anyone would be against these corrections is beyond me.

 

[Brooklyn]

The Latin Roman Missal, which was revised twice to produce the Third Edition, which is the “original” with which the English version now accords.

The ICEL English Missal was based on the First Edition of the Roman Missal. So indeed there were intervening revisions, including the addition of propers for newly minted saints.

It’s a bit of a matter of semantics. I would call turning the altar around or having the entire Mass said in Latin to be a revision. But just correcting the Mass to be more in line with the original Latin - that’s not a revision, that’s a correction. Adding saints is most definitely a revision. However, that is not what we are discussing here. Correcting the language is a correction, not a revision.

 

[john78]

one would think that the Church just took some major insane off the deep end change with the new translation, as if armagedon is on the horizon.

I dont get the big upset over it.

it is just learning a new way to pray, which is supposed to be deeper/closer to how things were originally done from what i barely understand.

though i notice a lot of us at mass are having trouble learning, and still use the provided cards or we have as last Sunday half the congregation saying it the new way and half the old, which got a chuckle i noticed from the Priest, he must have thought we all lost our minds as he heard the split in prayer and it all meshed together to make some incomprehendable prayer till everyone just became quite and pickd up on a familar sentence .

Everyone wants to see change with in the Catholic Church, and when finally something does happen, Yikes ! I DONT LIKE CHANGE !

cant win either way.

 

[ProVobis]

I think most of the mistranslations were in English. Most other languages had it correct. That was definitely true of Spanish. I believe there were no changes made to the Spanish Mass at all. … And of course the most controversial correction, changing the word of the Canon from “all” to “many.”

The Spanish Mass still has the “por vosotros y por todos los hombres” (“for you and for all the men”) in the consecration. I know because I sometimes attend it on Saturday evenings. And one would think that since there are many more Spanish Masses celebrated than English Masses, the Spanish would be fixed first. But then there may have been other reasons for keeping it.

 

[Brooklyn]

The Spanish Mass still has the “por vosotros y por todos los hombres” (“for you and for all the men”) in the consecration. I know because I sometimes attend it on Saturday evenings. And one would think that since there are many more Spanish Masses celebrated than English Masses, the Spanish would be fixed first. But then there may have been other reasons for keeping it.

Wow, I don’t know Spanish that well, but a priest told me that there were no changes in the Spanish Mass because they weren’t needed. That would seem to be one change that should have been made, but I’m not the church, so who am I to say.

Thanks for the correction.

 

[Chatter163]

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.

The Latin-English translations in most people’s missals pre-V2 were far more accurate a translation than the pre-2011 ICEL was. But these were dumped in favor of dynamic equivalence, which deliberately sought to avoid sacral and ecclesiastical language wherever possible. It was ideologically and ecumenically driven.

 

[ProVobis]

The Latin-English translations in most people’s missals pre-V2 were far more accurate a translation than the pre-2011 ICEL was. But these were dumped in favor of dynamic equivalence, which deliberately sought to avoid sacral and ecclesiastical language wherever possible.** It was ideologically and ecumenically driven.**

Please elaborate [on the bolded.]

I’m not defending or supporting one translation over another but what’s wrong with dynamic equivalence anyway?

 

[Chatter163]

If you look at the pre-V2 translations (unofficial, of course) of prayers that did not change, such as the creed, the Roman Canon, the response Et cum spiritu tuo in people’s missals, and even the original 1965-1969 interim official translations, you will see tyhat they are similar to what we have now. You will also see where entire words and even phrases were dropped or pared back in the 1969-1973 ICEL translations. Many of these were pleasing to Protestants of that era, as it was the early days of ecumenical meetings. Protestants revised the services to appear more like the Roman Mass.

 

[ProVobis]

The Latin-English translations in most people’s missals pre-V2 were far more accurate a translation than the pre-2011 ICEL was. But these were dumped in favor of dynamic equivalence, which deliberately sought to avoid sacral and ecclesiastical language wherever possible.** It was ideologically and ecumenically driven.**

Please elaborate [on the bolded.]

I’m not defending or supporting one translation over another but what’s wrong with dynamic equivalence anyway? I can make a case where the original (Anglican) translations were at one point dynamic too. For example, “The Lord BE with you.” (There is no subjunctive in the Latin.) “Lift up your hearts” (There is no lifting in the Latin.) “Forgive us our trespasses” (What’s wrong with debts?) I mean if we are to be literal, let’s just go with the Latin.

 

[Digitonomy]

Wow, I don’t know Spanish that well, but a priest told me that there were no changes in the Spanish Mass because they weren’t needed.

I don’t think there have been changes to the Spanish translation yet. I think that process is currently under way.

 

[LilyM]

Most of us learn words at age four that we cannot truly understand until much later. That is part of any learning process, especially in religious instruction. It has always been that way.

Did someone claim that we were? Surely learning a new word or two does not constitute trying to become a great intellect?

Again, I do not understand how one non-everyday word becomes “an unnecessarily difficult way.” (There seems to be a current of anti-intellectualism going on here.) As for Our Lord always speaking plainly, that certainly was not always the case. It seems that many things that He said were immediately misunderstood, often by his own disciples:

–on the Eucharist, which caused many to leave, as they could not grasp it
–baptism, which confused Nicodemus and others (how, and was it for Jews only?)
–any number of parables, to the point of where He had to be asked to explain some of them, to which in response pharisees said, “Ah, now thou speakest plainly”
–the nature of His second coming, especially how soon it would or would not be
–lovely little lines, such as “Before Abraham was, I am”

Our Catholic bibles contain many footnotes–including explanations of those red words–precisely because Our Lord’s words are easily misunderstood. Look at how Protestants misinterpret everything from Peter, to Our Lady, the end times, etc.

Yes people misunderstood, yes people left, yes we need footnotes.

None of this means that Our Lord used, as the translation uses, a philosophic term of art that was a foot long and requiring an advanced lesson in theology and linguistics to fully grasp the meaning of. It is the mark of a great thinker when someone can render complicated concepts using everyday, or relatively common, language.

He chose simple language. Yet you can hardly accuse Him even so of either being anti intellectual or of dumbing things down for anyone. He expressed Himself well, partly because not in long or complicated words.

 

[constantconvert]

The only thing that rubs me the wrong way is the Eucharistic prayer #2. The line used to be, “make us worthy to share eternal life”. But now it’s, “that we may merit to be co-heirs to eternal life” It just smacks of Pelagianism.

 

[Chatter163]

The only thing that rubs me the wrong way is the Eucharistic prayer #2. The line used to be, “make us worthy to share eternal life”. But now it’s, “that we may merit to be co-heirs to eternal life” It just smacks of Pelagianism.

What??? How is that Pelagianism? Do you know what Pelagianism is? Why would you say that?

 

[constantconvert]

What??? How is that Pelagianism? Do you know what Pelagianism is? Why would you say that?

Why would I say it smacks of Pelagianism if I didn’t know what it was? By saying “that we may merit” the prayer seems to place on our shoulders alone, without the help of God the responsibility of being worthy.

Many Christians do not understand that initiative of grace belongs to God; no one merits the grace of forgiveness and justification. There are two problems with not realizing this. People either minimize their sin, and thus exaggerate their merit, or, on the flip-side, they think they are not worthy of being loved until they “clean up their lives.” But they ARE worthy of being loved by God, because He is the source of all their grace and worth. This kind of literal translation will feed that fear in some, and will increase pride in others who trust in their own merit.

 

[ProVobis]

You will also see where entire words and even phrases were dropped or pared back in the 1969-1973 ICEL translations. Many of these were pleasing to Protestants of that era, as it was the early days of ecumenical meetings. Protestants revised the services to appear more like the Roman Mass.

Not only to Protestants but to other liturgical languages as well. Many of them were not translated from the Latin but from ICEL language. While one can maybe claim everything’s been corrected now in the English Mass, when there are around 500 vernaculars to consider in the Roman liturgy, there is still a massive linguistical imbalance out there that awaits correction. Just saying.

 

[Chatter163]

Why would I say it smacks of Pelagianism if I didn’t know what it was?

Um, because by saying so implies that the Church approved a heretical translation?

By saying “that we may merit” the prayer seems to place on our shoulders alone, without the help of God the responsibility of being worthy.

This happens only if one reads that one clause, and ignores the rest of the text. That’s called taking something out of context, which is what you have done.

Many Christians do not understand that initiative of grace belongs to God; no one merits the grace of forgiveness and justification. There are two problems with not realizing this. People either minimize their sin, and thus exaggerate their merit, or, on the flip-side, they think they are not worthy of being loved until they “clean up their lives.” But they ARE worthy of being loved by God, because He is the source of all their grace and worth. This kind of literal translation will feed that fear in some, and will increase pride in others who trust in their own merit.

I agree about the tendencies of people to minimize or exagerrate their sinfulness. However, I disagree with the last sentence. Not only do I not believe that any will believe that because it would not make sense, according to context or Catholic theology, (“Mom, I went to Mass today, and now I believe that I am worthy to be God’s equal, because that’s what one of the prayers said! Yippee!”) The Latin expression uses the words esse consortes, which might literally be rendered “make us consorts.” Instead of consort, the committee reached back to older, pre-V2 missals, some of which used co-heirs, probably due to the connotation that *consort *has today. But it is a faithful translation, and certainly not heretical.