From 2002: The sad state of the English translation of the Roman Missal

[japhy]

Check out this letter from Jorge Cardinal Medina Estevez, back in 2002, to the English-speaking Conferences of Bishops, hosted at Adoremus. It includes examples of the poor quality of the “translation” from Latin to English of the Missale Romanum, editio typica altera. Here are just a few excerpts:After the Orate, fratres, the people’s response Suscipiat Dominus sacrificium de manibus tuis . . . has been distorted, apparently for purposes of “inclusive language”: “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of God’s name, for our good, and the good of all the Church.” The insertion of the possessive God’s gives the impression that the Lord who accepts the sacrifice is different from God whose name is glorified by it. The Church is no longer his Church, and is no longer called holy – a flaw in the previous translation that one might have hoped would be corrected.

For the Church, the neuter pronoun “it” is always used, instead of “she”. So designated, the Church can appear to be a mere social aggregate, deprived of much of the mystery that has been emphasized especially in relatively recent teaching by the Magisterium. The pronoun “it” does not seem to refer properly to the reality of the Church, portrayed by Divine Revelation as our Mother and Christ’s Bride.

For patena, calix, etc., the translators avoid the use of specifically sacral terminology, and use words commonly employed in the vernacular for kitchenware. In an already secularized culture, it is difficult to see what legitimate purpose could be served by a deliberate desacralization of religious terminology. There do exist in English words for these items having sacral connotations, such as “paten” and “chalice”, but these are assiduously avoided in the translation. The Congregation views this tendency with regret, especially in conjunction with certain other tendencies enumerated in these Observations, by which the sense of the transcendent is not only inadequately conveyed, but actively obscured.

 

[Rob_in_Oregon]

The “neutering” of the prayers and songs at mass is a tremendous irritation for me. Nothing is accomplished except, as OP noted, the changing of the theological meaning of the texts.

If changes like this were a way to keep the faithful involved, the Episcopal denomination would be the word’s largest. As it is, it’s falling apart as people flee.

The more we water down the truths of the faith to make it easy on those who are struggling, the more people we will lose.

I think Pope B. is well aware of this. Unfortunately, most of the America bishops haven’t caught on yet. More unfortunately, I’ll probably be dead by the time all of the trendy dissenters have been replaced.

• Rob in Oregon

 

[Phemie]

We must remember that the translation in question was rejected. The example given doesn’t appear in the Missal that is in use today – although I hear it all around me at any given Mass. I’m happy it won’t be in the Missal we’re supposed to be getting next year – according to my bishop who’s on the translation committee.

 

[kenmay]

Check out this letter from Jorge Cardinal Medina Estevez, back in 2002, to the English-speaking Conferences of Bishops, hosted at Adoremus. It includes examples of the poor quality of the “translation” from Latin to English of the Missale Romanum, editio typica altera. Here are just a few excerpts:After the Orate, fratres, the people’s response Suscipiat Dominus sacrificium de manibus tuis . . . has been distorted, apparently for purposes of “inclusive language”: “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of God’s name, for our good, and the good of all the Church.” The insertion of the possessive God’s gives the impression that the Lord who accepts the sacrifice is different from God whose name is glorified by it. The Church is no longer his Church, and is no longer called holy – a flaw in the previous translation that one might have hoped would be corrected.

For the Church, the neuter pronoun “it” is always used, instead of “she”. So designated, the Church can appear to be a mere social aggregate, deprived of much of the mystery that has been emphasized especially in relatively recent teaching by the Magisterium. The pronoun “it” does not seem to refer properly to the reality of the Church, portrayed by Divine Revelation as our Mother and Christ’s Bride.

For patena, calix, etc., the translators avoid the use of specifically sacral terminology, and use words commonly employed in the vernacular for kitchenware. In an already secularized culture, it is difficult to see what legitimate purpose could be served by a deliberate desacralization of religious terminology. There do exist in English words for these items having sacral connotations, such as “paten” and “chalice”, but these are assiduously avoided in the translation. The Congregation views this tendency with regret, especially in conjunction with certain other tendencies enumerated in these Observations, by which the sense of the transcendent is not only inadequately conveyed, but actively obscured.

Well, a few things on that.
I’m okay with using THE Church, so long as it fits the original Latin. There is only one Church, so no problem there, but if there is a specifically masculine reflexive pronoun, then we should keep it.

Maybe someone else can help with this. I agree to keep chalice, as it fits the best, but keep in mind, I’m pretty sure that these words, in the parlance of the time, WERE the kitchenware words used. It’s only now that we do not use chalice in day-to-day vernacular, that it has taken on a specifically religious light. Seem right?

---

Catholic Web Hosting!

 

[japhy]

I’m okay with using THE Church, so long as it fits the original Latin. There is only one Church, so no problem there, but if there is a specifically masculine reflexive pronoun, then we should keep it.

There are no articles in Latin; the official text is “… totiusque Ecclesiae suae sanctae” which is “and all His holy Church”.

Maybe someone else can help with this. I agree to keep chalice, as it fits the best, but keep in mind, I’m pretty sure that these words, in the parlance of the time, WERE the kitchenware words used. It’s only now that we do not use chalice in day-to-day vernacular, that it has taken on a specifically religious light.

I couldn’t say, but that’s not the issue at hand; the authoritative Latin text of the Roman Missal uses words which have appropriate (and obvious) English translations, but the English-speaking Bishops chose words with secular connotations instead.

 

[benedictgal]

There are no articles in Latin; the official text is “… totiusque Ecclesiae suae sanctae” which is “and all His holy Church”.

I couldn’t say, but that’s not the issue at hand; the authoritative Latin text of the Roman Missal uses words which have appropriate (and obvious) English translations, but the English-speaking Bishops chose words with secular connotations instead.

Japhy, I would have to agree with you. That is why, much to the consternation of some of my pewmates, I have decided to say in sotto voce the prayers in Latin. Even though we have to live with the faulty translation, I would much rather say the correct words in Latin.

In English, the word “holy” is missing from the prayer you just quoted. It wasn’t until I started learning how to pray in Latin (self-taught) that I noticed that very telling difference.

Furthermore, the Ecce Agnus Dei version in English has its problems:

Ecce Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi…

In English, it’s

This is the Lamb of God…

Ecce, in Latin, means “behold”, like when Pontius Pilate said, “Ecce homo”, or, “Behold the man…” Furthermore, did not St. John the Baptist also say, “Ecce Agnus Dei”, or, “Behold, the Lamb of God” when he was pointing Jesus out to Andrew and John?

We really have lost sense of the beauty of language, especially, sacred language, and have traded it in for the banal and the common.

 

[kenmay]

“There are no articles in Latin; the official text is “… totiusque Ecclesiae suae sanctae” which is “and all His holy Church”.”

Uh, I never said anything about articles, but the text above is correct, and thus I agree.

“I couldn’t say, but that’s not the issue at hand; the authoritative Latin text of the Roman Missal uses words which have appropriate (and obvious) English translations, but the English-speaking Bishops chose words with secular connotations instead.”

Well, it is the issue at hand, you brought it up:
“For patena, calix, etc., the translators avoid the use of specifically sacral terminology, and use words commonly employed in the vernacular for kitchenware. In an already secularized culture, it is difficult to see what legitimate purpose could be served by a deliberate desacralization of religious terminology. There do exist in English words for these items having sacral connotations, such as “paten” and “chalice”, but these are assiduously avoided in the translation. The Congregation views this tendency with regret, especially in conjunction with certain other tendencies enumerated in these Observations, by which the sense of the transcendent is not only inadequately conveyed, but actively obscured.”

Anyway, what I’m saying is, in light of the intentions of the Bishops, this is clearly not done well. But without knowing their intentions, and their track records, the differences could be subtlties (barring the agreement I made above concerning masculine pronouns).

---

Get your own Catholic message boards!

 

[japhy]

“I couldn’t say, but that’s not the issue at hand; the authoritative Latin text of the Roman Missal uses words which have appropriate (and obvious) English translations, but the English-speaking Bishops chose words with secular connotations instead.”

Well, it is the issue at hand, you brought it up…

What I meant was the issue is not whether the words “chalice” and “paten” (or calix and patena) were once secular words that the Church appropriated. The issue is that “cup” (or “glass”) and “plate” are secular words, and such terms should be avoided when sacral terms are available.

Anyway, what I’m saying is, in light of the intentions of the Bishops, this is clearly not done well. But without knowing their intentions, and their track records, the differences could be subtltes.

I don’t pretend to know their intentions, but I can guess. Seriously, the examples in the letter point out not only a consistent failure to understand the importance of a faithful and accurate translation, but a desire to go far beyond a “translation”: altering the text, changing the order in which options are presented, creating entirely new texts, modifying the Order of the Mass, etc. It also points out that some previously poorly translated phrases still haven’t been corrected, despite requests.

 

[japhy]

Japhy, I would have to agree with you. That is why, much to the consternation of some of my pewmates, I have decided to say in sotto voce the prayers in Latin. Even though we have to live with the faulty translation, I would much rather say the correct words in Latin.

Heh, I might have to consider that. I do it with the Agnus Dei sometimes (if the (per)version being sung is particularly off); other times I will simply not sing the added words.

 

[japhy]

I’ve posted (on my blog) a commentary on the letter and the 32 examples of problems found with the 2002 translation draft. Now it’s time for lunch.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

In relation to the literal translation issue, the current form was not made a literal translation because it comes across rough and uneven. The meanings have not changed because it is not a word for word translation from Latin, but it does help get the meanings across to the people in the pews.

 

[japhy]

In relation to the literal translation issue, the current form was not made a literal translation because it comes across rough and uneven. The meanings have not changed because it is not a word for word translation from Latin, but it does help get the meanings across to the people in the pews.

I strongly disagree with you, as does the CCDDS. Did you read the letter and its examples? And the Missal was not translated so poorly in all other languages. Can, for example, French-speaking people grasp a closely-literal translation of the Latin better than English-speaking people?

 

[benedictgal]

In relation to the literal translation issue, the current form was not made a literal translation because it comes across rough and uneven. The meanings have not changed because it is not a word for word translation from Latin, but it does help get the meanings across to the people in the pews.

That is not necessarily true. I have in my possession a copy of the 1966 English-Latin Sacramentary that someone gave me as a gift. Here is how the literal translation of the Gloria reads:

Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to men of good will. We praise you. We bless you. We worship you. We glorify you. We give thanks for your great glory.

Lord, God, heavenly King, God the Father almighty. Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of the Father. You take way the sins of the world, have mercy on us. You take away the sins of the world, receive our prayer. You, who sit at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us. For you alone are holy. You alone are Lord. You alone, O Jesus Christ, are most high. With the Holy Spirit in the glory of God the Father. Amen

This is the literal translation of the Latin version and differs from what we have in place today. Hopefully, the above quoted Gloria will be restored by the ICEL. Again, here is the Suscipiat Dominus:

May the Lord receive the sacrifice from your hands to the praise and glory of his name, for our welfare and that of all his holy Church.

Again, this is the literal translatoin of the prayer from its Latin version. It would be interesting to note just how the ICEL got sidetracked from the 1966 faithful rendering of the Latin and moved towards what we have now.

 

[japhy]

That is not necessarily true. I have in my possession a copy of the 1966 English-Latin Sacramentary that someone gave me as a gift. It would be interesting to note just how the ICEL got sidetracked from the 1966 faithful rendering of the Latin and moved towards what we have now.

benedictgal makes an excellent point. The Latin-English Daily Missal that many American Catholics used contained an unofficial but literal and theologically sound translation of the Latin liturgy. My mother gave me her 1961 Daily Missal for Christmas… she was only 20 in 1961, and yet she didn’t have trouble understanding the English used in the book.

 

[AJV]

In relation to the literal translation issue, the current form was not made a literal translation because it comes across rough and uneven. The meanings have not changed because it is not a word for word translation from Latin, but it does help get the meanings across to the people in the pews.

I do feel though, that a better translation could have been achieved. If you have a UK Divine Office look at the Sunday Closing Prayers and compare them with the ICEL Collects/Opening Prayers and you can see the difference.

I have also an interim translation of the Missal than came into use before ICEL’s translation after the missal came out in 1970. It is not exactly the Latin either (e.g. Mass instead of sacred mysteries is one minor point) but you can easily see the difference. For example:

27th Sunday in Ordinary Time

Opening Prayer
Interim:

Almighty, eternal God, your goodness to us far exceeds anything we can deserve or hope for. In your great mercy forgive us the sins which burden our conscience, and grant us the blessings for which we do not dare to pray.

ICEL:

Father, your love for us surpasses all our hopes and desires. Forgive our failings, keep us in your peace and lead us in the way of salvation.

Prayer over the Gifts
Interim:

Lord, accept the sacrifice which we offer in obedience to your command. We celebrate the Mass to pay you the worship we owe you: grant that it may bring us holiness and redemption.

ICEL:

Father, receive these gifts which our Lord Jesus Christ has asked us to offer in his memory. May our obedient service bring us to the fullness of your redemption.

Prayer after Communion
Interim:

Almighty God, by this sacrament nourish us and gladden our hearts, so that we may be transformed into Christ whom we have received.

ICEL:

Almighty God, let the eucharist we share fill us with your life. May the love of Christ which we celebrate here touch our lives and lead us to you.

I think the interim translation is quite understandable while being closer to the meaning. ICEL loses much of it. My particular peeve is the Prayer over the Gifts

 

[Phemie]

I strongly disagree with you, as does the CCDDS. Did you read the letter and its examples? And the Missal was not translated so poorly in all other languages. Can, for example, French-speaking people grasp a closely-literal translation of the Latin better than English-speaking people?

Not a fair example since it’s very easy to translate almost word for word from Latin to French and not loose anything of the meaning or the beauty. Same goes for Italian & Spanish. A better example would be Latin to German or Japanese. I wonder, if we were fluent in those languages would we find that they’ve translated almost word for word or if they’ve gone for sense.

The problem with the English translation is that they have distorted the ‘sense’ , in some cases beyond all recognition. But again, the letter is not about the translation that we use today, although it does mention some things that they had hoped to see change, but it’s about the translation that was rejected, explaining why it was rejected.

 

[japhy]

Not a fair example since it’s very easy to translate almost word for word from Latin to French and not loose anything of the meaning or the beauty. Same goes for Italian & Spanish. A better example would be Latin to German or Japanese. I wonder, if we were fluent in those languages would we find that they’ve translated almost word for word or if they’ve gone for sense.

I apologize for using a Romance language in my example. Yes, use German or Japanese instead. The question is whether English contains words and phrases that make a very literal translation from Latin possible. The CCDDS believes it does. Latin-English Daily Missals from the past are evidence of this.

The problem with the English translation is that they have distorted the ‘sense’ , in some cases beyond all recognition. But again, the letter is not about the translation that we use today, although it does mention some things that they had hoped to see change, but it’s about the translation that was rejected, explaining why it was rejected.

Right, the letter is about a translation worse than what we have today, but as you pointed out, it mentions problems with the existing translation. I’d expect, upon a closer examination of the 1985 English Missal and the 1975 Latin Missal, that many of the problems with the proposed translation are still found, although perhaps to a lesser degree. Perhaps if the prior English translations had not been done hastily, we would not have the problems today.

 

[Phemie]

Right, the letter is about a translation worse than what we have today, but as you pointed out, it mentions problems with the existing translation. I’d expect, upon a closer examination of the 1985 English Missal and the 1975 Latin Missal, that many of the problems with the proposed translation are still found, although perhaps to a lesser degree. Perhaps if the prior English translations had not been done hastily, we would not have the problems today.

I recall the original translation after Vatican II being very close to the Latin. Particularly the Gloria and the Confiteor. From what I’ve read in the last year or so the translation coming down the pipe will be closer to the first translation than what we’ve got now.

 

[Phemie]

I apologize for using a Romance language in my example. Yes, use German or Japanese instead. The question is whether English contains words and phrases that make a very literal translation from Latin possible. The CCDDS believes it does. Latin-English Daily Missals from the past are evidence of this.

The French translation retains “for many” rather than “for all” but it’s my understanding that the Spanish translation doesn’t.

 

[benedictgal]

While roaming through the EWTN Q and A section, I came across some comments written by their resident liturgist Colin Donavon. These are certainly appropriate to our discussion:

The changes from the 1975 Latin Missal to the 2002 Latin Missal, which is now being translated into English, were minor, and for the most part have already been implemented (such as standing up to respond to the “Pray Brethren” at the Offertory, rather than waiting til after we responded).
The greatest influence on our next version will be from the norms regarding the translation of the liturgy from Latin to English. The translation will more closely parallel the Latin, not in a clunky way we hope, but also not in a passing way that omits the richness and history of some expressions in the Latin. Previous norms allowed a “meaning” translation, which meant that long rich phrases in Latin could be reduced to orthodox but less flowery, often banal, ones in English. Another example often used is the “Et cum spiritu tuo,” which was translated “And also with you.” This may express that yes we do desire the Lord to be with the priest, but there is history and reason behind the Latin (“and with your spirit”) that is lost in translation. A more literal, but still proclamable text, will ensure the more perfect handing on the liturgical and theological tradition of the Church.

Thus, it will be translation changes from Latin to English, not from the 1975 Latin to the 2002 Latin, that will impact the Mass when the new translation is finally promulgated, probably in 2009 or 10.

Of course, at the rate the ICEL is going, it’ll probably be 2012. And, if the Mayan prophecies hold up, we may not even be here when this happens.