Does anyone *not* like the revised translation?

[constantconvert]

I’m not saying it’s heretical, I am saying that translating it differently would be more theologically accurate.

I dont believe that one line is going to make or break anyones theology, but words have meaning, and such an important prayer influences our thoughts and colors our beliefs.

I don’t believe I’m taking it out of context. How do you mean?

 

[Chatter163]

I don’t believe I’m taking it out of context. How do you mean?

By stating the following:

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.

 

[Tighty_Whitey]

I could have posted the same question. I’m struggling to accept this new translation. I will also have to admit that I’ve made progress though. I still have a lot of problems with the Creed and have to read it, which is hard to do when you have to bow your head at that one part.

I also miss saying, “Lord I am not worthy to recieve you…” The new version about “my roof” and the instant visualization of some dopey Roman soldier drives me a little crazy.

All in all I’m glad I’m making progress.

BTW, I like the part, “It is right and just.”

 

[ProVobis]

… instant visualization of some dopey Roman soldier drives me a little crazy.

Shouldn’t. That “dopey” Roman soldier could very well have been the grandfather of Western Christian civilization.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

In our parish the changes to the people’s responses have been a non-event. But the wordiness of the Eucharistic Prayers is a challenge; the ears get tired and it can be challenging to find the prayer hiding under all those syllables.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

The pre-V2 Missals didn’t have EP2. You must be thinking of the older Offertory, which did have the ejus divinitas esse consortes as part of the prayer.

rickmk.com/Mass/masstext.html

 

[constantconvert]

By stating the following:

OK, I can print the whole text of the prayer.

“Have mercy on us all, we pray, that with the blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, with the blessed Apostles, and all the Saints who have pleased you throughout the ages, we may merit to be co-heirs to eternal life, and may praise and glorify you through your Son, Jesus Christ.”

It doesn’t change my point about the prayer being pelagian-flavored.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

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.

So anything written in the Bible that isn’t in long or complicated words isn’t really the word of God?

And we have a record of EVERYTHING Jesus said? I don’t believe so.

I am not saying that Jesus, being both God and Man, did not express Himself in the best and most appropriate way.

I am saying that (pace, Ernest Hemmingway), the idea that ONLY ‘simple language’ was used by Christ, and that ONLY simple language marks the ‘great thinker’ is a mistaken idea.

Soundbyte Christianity has its place. . .but so does ‘nuanced’ and erudite Christianity.

If, for example, people in AD33 Jerusalem had attempted to pass on Christianity in ‘babytalk’ (to break it down), then we would never have had the letters of St. Paul. Remember, St. Paul’s words in the Bible are ‘the word of God’ as much as the ‘red letter words of Jesus’ are the word of God.

 

[The_Scott]

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.

Well, in one case that I can think of, Christ used a word that didn’t even exist in Greek. And it’s in the middle of the Pater Noster. The Greek word “epiousios” has only been used once, in Matthew 6:11, in all of ancient and classical literature. Therefore, we have no idea what it actually means. We translate it into English as “daily.”

“Epiousios” appears to be a combination of “epi” meaning “on, over, at” and “ousia,” meaning “substance.” Therefore, it literally means "over-substance, or “supersubstance.” Clearly, it isn’t cut-and-dry what Christ meant then.

Read more here: blog.adw.org/2012/05/a-hidden-mysterious-and-much-debated-word-in-the-our-father/

Father Pope does a great job summarizing the theories.

So I respectfully ask you: if Christ spoke in such simple language, then why is there so much controversy over one word in the most famous Christian prayer ever?

 

[nickybr38]

I like it just fine… but I miss when the priest would sing; In Him, with Him, through Him… in the unity of the Holy Spirit…

It seems the new version has more words and is harder to sing so less priests are singing it. ): I love that part. I don’t know why but it always sends shivers down my spine. Best song ever!

 

[MarkThompson]

OK, I can print the whole text of the prayer.

“Have mercy on us all, we pray, that with the blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, with the blessed Apostles, and all the Saints who have pleased you throughout the ages, we may merit to be co-heirs to eternal life, and may praise and glorify you through your Son, Jesus Christ.”

It doesn’t change my point about the prayer being pelagian-flavored.

Well, you’ll have to find a different way to think about it. The translation is accurate, and, what’s more, the Mass is and has always been chock full of prayers “that we may merit” one thing or another – salvation, eternal life, to be delivered from our sins, etc., etc. And this is equally true in the pre-Vatican II as in the post-Vatican II Mass. (We discussed this topic somewhat in this thread.) In fact, one of the notable characteristics of the new translation is how often it erroneously omits the concept of “merit” from the Latin, turning something like “ut mereamus pervenire” (“so that we may merit to come”) into “so that we may come.”

 

[Elizium23]

Well, in one case that I can think of, Christ used a word that didn’t even exist in Greek. And it’s in the middle of the Pater Noster. The Greek word “epiousios” has only been used once, in Matthew 6:11, in all of ancient and classical literature. Therefore, we have no idea what it actually means. We translate it into English as “daily.”

That is fascinating! I will never pray the Lord’s Prayer the same way again. Thanks for bringing it up.

 

[peregrinus_sg]

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.

The problem is there really is no simple language that we can use today to render that Latin/Greek phrase so clearly as to not require footnotes and interpretations. The term used in the Creed was a philosophical term, and the Fathers were also quite divided whether to adopt it or not. In the end, they adopted it, because there was no other clearer way of conveying the truth.

Being was used previously because it was perceived to be related to the Greek word essence, to be. Understood in that sense, of one Being is theologically sound, but many people seeing the word Being don’t associate the word with to be, but a person (like a human being) which clearly, is heretical.

Substance was the alternative originally proposed by ICEL. But substance is used here philosophically, so that the substance of a table is a table (not wood) and the substance of ash is ash (not carbon). Being so science educated that we are today, people hearing the word would think of it as chemical substance, which would also be incorrect.

Essence is used by the Eastern Christians. Of course, not a commonly used term in our Western theological thought, but also possibly open to misinterpretations because we commonly use the word essence to refer to the critical/important features of something.

So there is no simple ways now. Rome eventually opted for an obscure but unambiguous term that people clearly know that they know/don’t know, over some simple words that people thought they knew but actually might not know.

When this matter was brought up at a meeting in my Cathedral last year, the Priest went on and on about how opaque the new words can be. It was only after I brought out the issue that the Priest decided to explain the philosophy behind the term, and people realised that it really wasn’t a no-brainer to pick the simpler words.

 

[reconman]

Maybe it’s just because I’m still not used to it, maybe there’s a few fragments where the old one seemed to make more sense…

I hardly ever read the bible anyway, so it doesn’t matter to me.

I really like you religion tag though:

“Roman Catholic with Eastern Orthodox Sympathies.”

Me too.

 

[LilyM]

The problem is there really is no simple language that we can use today to render that Latin/Greek phrase so clearly as to not require footnotes and interpretations. The term used in the Creed was a philosophical term, and the Fathers were also quite divided whether to adopt it or not. In the end, they adopted it, because there was no other clearer way of conveying the truth.

Being was used previously because it was perceived to be related to the Greek word essence, to be. Understood in that sense, of one Being is theologically sound, but many people seeing the word Being don’t associate the word with to be, but a person (like a human being) which clearly, is heretical.

Substance was the alternative originally proposed by ICEL. But substance is used here philosophically, so that the substance of a table is a table (not wood) and the substance of ash is ash (not carbon). Being so science educated that we are today, people hearing the word would think of it as chemical substance, which would also be incorrect.

Essence is used by the Eastern Christians. Of course, not a commonly used term in our Western theological thought, but also possibly open to misinterpretations because we commonly use the word essence to refer to the critical/important features of something.

So there is no simple ways now. Rome eventually opted for an obscure but unambiguous term that people clearly know that they know/don’t know, over some simple words that people thought they knew but actually might not know.

When this matter was brought up at a meeting in my Cathedral last year, the Priest went on and on about how opaque the new words can be. It was only after I brought out the issue that the Priest decided to explain the philosophy behind the term, and people realised that it really wasn’t a no-brainer to pick the simpler words.

You make a fair point.

I’d still say that most Joe or Jane pewsitters who don’t understand the word would simply consult their dictionary rather than asking the priest or a theologian what the word means.

And that the average dictionary would simply say something like ‘of one being/essence/substance’. And so that all the wonderful subtlety of ‘consubstantial’ would remain completely lost on them.

 

[peregrinus_sg]

I’d still say that most Joe or Jane pewsitters who don’t understand the word would simply consult their dictionary rather than asking the priest or a theologian what the word means.

And that the average dictionary would simply say something like ‘of one being/essence/substance’. And so that all the wonderful subtlety of ‘consubstantial’ would remain completely lost on them.

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.

 

[ATeNumquam]

In our parish the changes to the people’s responses have been a non-event. But the wordiness of the Eucharistic Prayers is a challenge; the ears get tired and it can be challenging to find the prayer hiding under all those syllables.

I echo these sentiments.
We have all got used to the peoples’ responses because we had them long before we got the new Eucharistic prayers.
It’s the new Eucharistic prayers that I struggle with. They may be more accurate, but I find them exceedingly wordy and the sentences often convoluted, as if the translators had tried to make English sentences adopt Latin sentence structures to some extent. In any case, it seems to force English sentences into a structure that does not make for easy listening/comprehension at first.
Tarpeian Rock - yes, my ears get tired, too, and I’m digging for the essence of the prayer within the elaborate verbiage.
And no, I am not lacking a decent education.
I ask myself if the translators had, as one of their aims, the hope that making the language somewhat removed from everyday speech, it would increase a sense of mystique and reverence? That’s a worthy intention, but I personally found the previous translations dignified and prayerful in their simplicity.
But… I accept it and will no doubt get used to it. It’s early days for us, with the Eucharistic prayers, collects, etc
I like the peoples’ responses, and very much like the new chants, which we have learned by now.

 

[Chatter163]

The pre-V2 Missals didn’t have EP2. You must be thinking of the older Offertory, which did have the ejus divinitas esse consortes as part of the prayer.

rickmk.com/Mass/masstext.html

I am aware of that. It used the word in the prayer for the conmingling of the water and wine:

Deus, + qui humánæ substántiæ dignitátem mirabíliter condidísti et mirabílius reformásti: da nobis, per hujus aquæ et vini mystérium, ejus divinitátis esse consórtes, qui humanitátis nostræ fíeri dignátus est párticeps, Jesus Christus, Fílius tuus, Dóminus noster: Qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitáte Spíritus Sancti Deus: per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen.

O God, + Who in creating man didst exalt his nature very wonderfully and yet more wonderfully didst establish it anew; by the Mystery signified in the mingling of this water and wine, grant us to he co-heirs in the Divinity of Him Who hath deigned to become a partaker of our humanity, Jesus Christ, Thy Son our Lord; Who liveth and reigneth with Thee, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God. World without end. Amen

 

[ProVobis]

I am aware of that. It used the word in the prayer for the conmingling of the water and wine:

Deus, + qui humánæ substántiæ dignitátem mirabíliter condidísti et mirabílius reformásti: da nobis, per hujus aquæ et vini mystérium, ejus divinitátis esse consórtes, qui humanitátis nostræ fíeri dignátus est párticeps, Jesus Christus, Fílius tuus, Dóminus noster: Qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitáte Spíritus Sancti Deus: per ómnia sæcula sæculórum. Amen.

O God, + Who in creating man didst exalt his nature very wonderfully and yet more wonderfully didst establish it anew; by the Mystery signified in the mingling of this water and wine, grant us to he co-heirs in the Divinity of Him Who hath deigned to become a partaker of our humanity, Jesus Christ, Thy Son our Lord; Who liveth and reigneth with Thee, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God. World without end. Amen

Thanks for responding.

Co-heirs with other people or with the Deity? Deity is not an heir, does not inherit anything. “Co-” implies otherwise.

The interlinear version has this: (more literal but less grammatically correct)

Deus, qui humanæ substantiæ dignitatem
God, Who of human substance dignity

mirabiliter condidisti,
wonderfully has created,

et mirabilius reformasti:
and more wonderfully reformed:

da nobis per hujus aquæ et vini mysterium,
give to us through this of water and wine mystery,

ejus divinitatis esse consortes
His divinity to be partakers

qui humanitatis nostræ fieri dignatus est particeps,
Who in humanity our to become has granted partaker,

Jesus Christus Filius tuus Dominus noster:
Jesus Christ Son Your Lord our:

Qui tecum vivit et regnat
Who with You lives and reigns

in unitate Spiritus Sancti Deus:
in union with Spirit Holy God:

per omnia sæcula sæculorum. Amen.
for all ages of ages. Amen.

The Fr. Lasance Missal has this:

“O God, Who in creating man didst exalt his nature very wonderfully and yet more wonderfully didst establish it anew: by the mystery signified in the mingling of this water and wine, grant us to have part in the Godhead of Him Who hath vouchsafed to share our manhood, Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God; world without end. Amen.”

The St. Andrew Missal has this:

“O God, who in a wonderful manner didst create and ennoble human nature, and still more wonderfully hast renewed it; grant that, by the mystery of this water and wine, we **may be made partakers **of His divinity who vouchsafed to become partaker of our humanity, Jesus Christ Thy Son, our Lord: who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, one God, world without end. Amen.”

I guess the other point I’m trying to make here is that the old missal translations aren’t necessarily the best models for current translations and no one of them should be the standard for English translations. (Which is probably one of the reasons why the Holy Father doesn’t allow the 1962 Missal in the vernacular. Also no need to worry about copyright infringements.)

 

[Chatter163]

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.