Eucharisitc Prayer I (and Bibles)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ite_ad_Ioseph
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Ite_ad_Ioseph

Guest
This thread has two unrelated questions.
  1. The retired priest and my church, who I have been talking with about having a EF, said he never uses Euch. Prayer I in the OF because it is a “complete farce of a translation”. He did not explain further. Does anybody know more about this?
  2. When ever I look up a Bible verse on the internet, I look it up twice:
    In the Douay-Rheims and the the one on the USCCB website.
    Both have their own ups and down, I guess; which do you prefer, and why?
Gratias et pax.
 
I think by a farce of a translation he means ICEL did a terrible job of “translating it”. Tough words but take a look…

catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/Text/Index/4/SubIndex/67/ContentIndex/22/Start/9

I use a host of Bible translations. If you want your Bible to be edifying in a seriously Catholic way then the Douay-Rheims is the Bible you should use. It doesn’t mince words and the translation and commentary (Bp, Challoner’s) are explicitly Catholic. A lot of people use the RSV because its faithful and easier to read. But man when you really dive into the Douay its great. Just my opinion.
 
Do you mean translating it from the Latin, or from the Canon of the EF?

And for the other question, is it a problem to you that the Douay doesn’t really have in-depth footnotes and cross-references like the RSV? (thats the usccb’s right?) I like the Douay’s Catholicism, but it lacks things I like in the RSV.

Anyway, the Euch Prayer question came up because this priest is very traditional, and I would expect him to say the long canon, but turns out he’s not using because of its bad translation (which maybe was on purpose).
Pax
 
Ite_ad_Ioseph said:
And for the other question, is it a problem to you that the Douay doesn’t really have in-depth footnotes and cross-references like the RSV? (thats the usccb’s right?) I like the Douay’s Catholicism, but it lacks things I like in the RSV.
Click to expand...
The bible found on the USCCB Web site is not the RSV but the New American Bible (NAB), a translation the U.S. bishops sponsored.
 
Ite_ad_Ioseph said:
This thread has two unrelated questions.
  1. The retired priest and my church, who I have been talking with about having a EF, said he never uses Euch. Prayer I in the OF because it is a “complete farce of a translation”. He did not explain further. Does anybody know more about this?
Gratias et pax.
Click to expand...
Yes.

The ICEL translation of the Latin original of the Roman Canon is indeed a horribly done translation. Also the version of the Canon in the Novus Ordo is not the same as the original that we use in the TLM. Formula of consecration changed and other words changed that have shown consequences (For all and not “for many” as it should be.)

Ken
 
kleary said:
Yes.

The ICEL translation of the Latin original of the Roman Canon is indeed a horribly done translation. Also the version of the Canon in the Novus Ordo is not the same as the original that we use in the TLM. Formula of consecration changed and other words changed that have shown consequences (For all and not “for many” as it should be.)

Ken
Click to expand...
I have had numerous priests explain this, and it is crystal clear to me. His Blood WAS shed “for all” (men), as opposed to “many”

The tragedy is, that “all” do not avail themselves of the Salvation gained by his Blood.

“For All” IS actually more appropriate in the context of the sacrifice as compared to “For Many”.
 
ethelzguy said:
“For All” IS actually more appropriate in the context of the sacrifice as compared to “For Many”.
Click to expand...
While the understanding you give is correct, it remains that the Church uses pro multis intentionally and insists on the correct translation (to be implemented with the rest of the long-awaited changes).

From what I understand other languages have a usage similar to ‘for the many’ which is approved and perhaps better captures the nuance, but it is not up to individual priests and bishops to correct it (of course they can always just use the Latin;) ).
 
=ethelzguy;3796378]I have had numerous priests explain this, and it is crystal clear to me. His Blood WAS shed “for all” (men), as opposed to “many”
Click to expand...
The tragedy is, that “all” do not avail themselves of the Salvation gained by his Blood.
**
“For All” IS actually more appropriate in the context of the sacrifice as compared to “For Many”./**
Click to expand...
" For all" is more appropriate?? What did Jesus say? He said “for many” Why not use **His **words?
 
Ite_ad_Ioseph said:
  1. When ever I look up a Bible verse on the internet, I look it up twice:
    In the Douay-Rheims and the the one on the USCCB website.
    Both have their own ups and down, I guess; which do you prefer, and why?
Gratias et pax.
Click to expand...
Stay away from the NAB and the RSV. Check to see how Luke 1;28 is translated. If it says, " Rejoice most beloved daughter" or something similiar instead of " Hail Full of Grace" then it is to be avoided. Use the Douay-Rheims online.
Several years ago I heard Mother Anglica say the same thing. She said that ‘inclusive’ language had been slipped into the new translations. She recommended the Navarre Bible.
 
ethelzguy said:
You mean like the Bible Christians do? Oops, I thought we had tradition also…:confused:
Click to expand...
We do have tradition and it is equal to scripture. It is traditional teaching and biblical that Christ said “for many”. Even the Latin used in the Novus Ordo says “pro multis” which is “for many”
 
Semantics, people. Semantics. “For all” is true in one sense and “For many” true in another. Each emphasises a different theological point. It’s not up to us lay people to decide theology for the Church but the other way around.
 
Thomas Aquinas condemned using “For all” in the Eucharistic prayer in the Summa
 
ethelzguy said:
I have had numerous priests explain this, and it is crystal clear to me. His Blood WAS shed “for all” (men), as opposed to “many”

The tragedy is, that “all” do not avail themselves of the Salvation gained by his Blood.

“For All” IS actually more appropriate in the context of the sacrifice as compared to “For Many”.
Click to expand...
The issue of this thread is not to argue the theology of the Canon - “for all” vs "for many. It is to argue the accuracy of the ICEL translation of the Canon…which the op says a priest declared a horrible translation and why he never uses it.

Ken
 
JuanCarlos said:
Thomas Aquinas condemned using “For all” in the Eucharistic prayer in the Summa
Click to expand...
Which section are you referring to? I was unaware St. Thomas explicitly taught about it in the Summa apart from the formulation of this objection (III, lxxviii, 3, ad 8)
Further, as was already observed, Christ’s Passion sufficed for all; while as to its efficacy it was profitable for many. Therefore it ought to be said: “Which shall be shed for all,” or else “for many,” without adding, “for you.”
Click to expand...
 
kleary said:
The issue of this thread is not to argue the theology of the Canon - “for all” vs "for many. It is to argue the accuracy of the ICEL translation of the Canon…which the op says a priest declared a horrible translation and why he never uses it.

Ken
Click to expand...
Um, wasn’t it post #5 where YOU introduced the issue?

We’re talking opinions here, correct? So, Preist so-and-so declares it a “horrible translation”, and the OP asks if “anyone knows more about this”.

About 20 years ago, I attended a two-part lecture on the ICEL and the NO Mass by a priest that was involved in the endeavor. He basically went through the NO Mass, line-by-line, explaining what was done and why.

Thus my response to the OP and to your criticism of the wording of the NO. :cool:
 
ethelzguy said:
About 20 years ago, I attended a two-part lecture on the ICEL and the NO Mass by a priest that was involved in the endeavor. He basically went through the NO Mass, line-by-line, explaining what was done and why.
Click to expand...
I’d’ve liked to have heard such an explanation. For example… Penitential Rite form B was poorly translated, and I’m curious why.

Priest: Miserere nostri, Domine.
(ICEL) Lord, we have sinned against you: Lord, have mercy.
(Literal) Have mercy on us, Lord.

People: Quia peccavimus tibi.
(ICEL) Lord, have mercy.
(Literal) Who have sinned against you.

Priest: Ostende nobis, Domine, misericordiam tuam.
(ICEL) Lord, show us your mercy and love.
(Literal) Show us, O Lord, your mercy.

People: Et salutare tuum da nobis.
(ICEL) And grant us your salvation.
(Literal) And grant us your salvation.

These come directly from verses in the book of Baruch 3:2 and in Psalm 85:7 (85:8 in the NAB and 84:8 in the DR). At least, in the Latin, they do. The English “translation” rearranges things. When a person speaks the first response in English, they are not saying the same thing that a person speaking in Latin is saying. I’m curious if priests who use Form B follow it with the Kyrie or not, since the English version seems to incorporate it slightly enough (by repeating the “Lord, have mercy”) that a person might think the Kyrie is omitted.
 
Is there a website where I could see a literal translation of the NO?
 
JuanCarlos said:
Is there a website where I could see a literal translation of the NO?
Click to expand...
I’m working on a guide to the Ordinary Form of Mass that uses the 2002 Latin, the 1985 English, and a literal English translation from the Latin.

Here’s what I’ve compiled so far; not a lot, but it’s a start. The “Literal” is omitted when it matches the ICEL.

Sign of the Cross
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti, amen.
(ICEL) In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen.

Greeting
A. Gratia Domini nostri Iesu Christi, et caritas Dei, et communicatio Sancti Spiritus sit cum omnibus vobis.
(ICEL) The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

B. Gratia vobis et pax a Deo Patre nostro et Domini Iesu Christo.
(ICEL) The grace and peace of God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
(Literal) Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

C. Dominus vobiscum.
(ICEL) The Lord be with you.

Bishop: Pax vobis.
(ICEL) Peace be with you.

Response: Et cum spiritu tuo.
(ICEL) And also with you.
(Literal) And with your spirit.

Penitential Rite
Fratres, agnosacamus peccata nostra, ut apti simus ad sacra mysteria celebranda.
(ICEL) My brothers and sisters, to prepare ourselves to celebrate the sacred mysteries, let us call to mind our sins.
(Literal) Brethren, let us acknowledge our sins, that we may be ready to celebrate the sacred mysteries.

[Also provided in the English Missal are these two prefaces (not translations, but invented by the ICEL), although they are options A. and B., and the normative preface (translated from the Latin) is consigned to option C.]
(ICEL) As we prepare to celebrate the mystery of Christ’s love, let us acknowledge our failures and ask the Lord for pardon and strength.
(ICEL) Coming together as God’s family, with confidence let us ask the Father’s forgiveness, for he is full of gentleness and compassion.

Form A. (Confiteor)
Confiteor Deo omnipotenti et vobis, fratres, quia peccavi nimis cogitatione, verbo, opere et omissione: mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Ideo precor beatam Mariam semper Virginem, omnes Angelos et Sanctos, et vos fratres, orare pro me ad Dominum Deum nostrum.
(ICEL) I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do. And I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin, all the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.
(Literal) I confess to almighty God and to you, brethren, that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word, deed, and omission: through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault. Therefore I ask blessed Mary, ever Virgin, all the Angels and Saints, and you brethren, to pray for me to the Lord our God.

Form B.
Miserere nostri, Domine.
(ICEL) Lord, we have sinned against you: Lord, have mercy.
(Literal) Have mercy on us, Lord.

Response: Quia peccavimus tibi.
(ICEL) Lord, have mercy.
(Literal) Who have sinned against you.

Ostende nobis, Domine, misericordiam tuam.
(ICEL) Lord, show us your mercy and love.
(Literal) Show us, O Lord, your mercy.

Response: Et salutare tuum da nobis.
(ICEL) And grant us your salvation.

Form C.
Qui missus es sanare contritos corde: Kyrie, eleison.
(ICEL) You were sent to heal the contrite: Lord, have mercy.
(Literal) You who were sent to heal the contrite of heart: Lord, have mercy.

Response: Kyrie, eleison.
(ICEL) Lord, have mercy.

Qui peccatores vocare venisti: Christe, eleison.
(ICEL) You came to call sinners: Christ, have mercy.
(Literal) You who came to call sinners: Christ, have mercy.

Response: Christe, eleison.
(ICEL) Christ, have mercy.

Qui ad dexteram Patris sedes, ad interpellandum pro nobis: Kyrie, eleison.
(ICEL) You plead for us at the right hand of the Father: Lord, have mercy.
(Literal) You who are seated at the right hand of the Father, to intercede for us: Lord, have mercy.

Response: Kyrie, eleison.
(ICEL) Lord, have mercy.

Conclusion to Penitential Rite
Misereatur nostri omnipotens Deus et, dimissis peccatis nostris, perducat nos ad vitam aeternam.
(ICEL) May almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us our sins, and bring us to everlasting life.
(Literal) May almighty God have mercy on us and, our sins having been forgiven, bring us to life everlasting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top