Is the Liturgy/Missal changing?

[Awinita]

I was searching and searching and came across this information about the roman missal changes here, my pareish presiet mentioned them. And I got confused. So I did some reading once I found the mention of it here. And personally speaking on the matter, since this is all how I personally see it myself.

I do not see the need to change anything of the roman missal. Personaslly I found it hard enough to get used to the present edition of it. In the sample text areas of the missal for the peoples parts it is too confusing, are we really to reemmber all those words ? Three times to say “through my own fault” during the start of the mass when asking for mercy from Jesus? It seems overkill to me personally speaking.

I do not see any problem with changing the response to ‘Lord be with you’ to ‘and with your spirit’ No problem there. The Gloria, same thing.

What I do not like at all of being changed is the word ‘We’ From the Creed. “We Belive in One God, the Father Almighty” Should stay that way, Why make it “I believe in One God, the Father Almighty” ? Aren’t we a Universal church ? shouldn’t it remain as We Believe because we all do ? Making it sound like each person beleives is too confusing really, and takes out the true meaning of the Church thast God made through His Son. and calling Jesus as subconcubstanial or whatever with God, instead of ‘One in Being’ makes no sense whatsoever to me.

But another thing I dislike is the taking out of the first proclaimation of our faith during the Litergy of the Eucarist, “Christ has died, Christ has Riesn, Christ will come again” has been totally taken out of the roman missal, I do not see such a need to happen for that.

That is really all I can think of. other then fear this will make the Mass harder to understand for those wanting to join us in Celebrating the Mass.

Personally speaking the Mass is a wonderful experiance, I used to be part a parish that celebrated the Mass as if it were a major party with the Lord as a guest of respect, love and absolute adoration. They knew how to party, and to pray at the same time. Will these changes also change how some Churchs celebrate the Mass ?

 

[ProVobis]

Regarding the prayers- will even the Our Father be changed?

Eventually, I suppose.

FWIW:

Old English:
Fæder ure,
ðu ðe eart on heofenum,
si ðin nama gehalgod;
to-becume ðin rice;
geweorþe ðin willa on eorðan swa swa on heofenum.
Urne ge dæghwamlican hlaf syle us to-deag,
and forgyf us ure gyltas
swa swa we forgifaþ urum gyltendum,
ane ne gelæde ðu us on costnunge, ac alys us of yfle.
Amen.

Middle English:
Oure fadir þat art in heuenes halwid be þi name;
þi reume or kyngdom come to be.
Be þi wille don in herþe as it is doun in heuene.
yeue to us today oure eche dayes bred.
And foryeue to us oure dettis þat is oure synnys as we foryeuen to oure dettouris þat is to men þat han synned in us.
And lede us not into temptacion but delyuere us from euyl.

 

[benedictgal]

I was searching and searching and came across this information about the roman missal changes here, my pareish presiet mentioned them. And I got confused. So I did some reading once I found the mention of it here. And personally speaking on the matter, since this is all how I personally see it myself.

I do not see the need to change anything of the roman missal. Personaslly I found it hard enough to get used to the present edition of it. In the sample text areas of the missal for the peoples parts it is too confusing, are we really to reemmber all those words ? Three times to say “through my own fault” during the start of the mass when asking for mercy from Jesus? It seems overkill to me personally speaking.

What I do not like at all of being changed is the word ‘We’ From the Creed. “We Belive in One God, the Father Almighty” Should stay that way, Why make it “I believe in One God, the Father Almighty” ? Aren’t we a Universal church ? shouldn’t it remain as We Believe because we all do ? Making it sound like each person beleives is too confusing really, and takes out the true meaning of the Church thast God made through His Son. and calling Jesus as subconcubstanial or whatever with God, instead of ‘One in Being’ makes no sense whatsoever to me.

But another thing I dislike is the taking out of the first proclaimation of our faith during the Litergy of the Eucarist, “Christ has died, Christ has Riesn, Christ will come again” has been totally taken out of the roman missal, I do not see such a need to happen for that.

That is really all I can think of. other then fear this will make the Mass harder to understand for those wanting to join us in Celebrating the Mass.

Personally speaking the Mass is a wonderful experiance, I used to be part a parish that celebrated the Mass as if it were a major party with the Lord as a guest of respect, love and absolute adoration. They knew how to party, and to pray at the same time. Will these changes also change how some Churchs celebrate the Mass ?

Actually, these revisions bring us into conformity with what the rest of the world is praying. These are good and holy changes.

The triple “mea culpa” that we pray in the penitential rite is a holdover from the Confiteor that is prayed in the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (what some folks call the Traditional Latin Mass). This is not “overkill”, not in the least. We are imploring God’s mercy at the beginning of the celebration of these sacred mysteries. In Spanish, for example, we pray, “por mi culpa, por mi culpa, por mi gran culpa.”

Regarding the Creed, the other language groups use the singular “I” form. While we are professing our Faith together, this profession is also a singular act of faith. Again, in Spanish, the faithful pray “Creo”, not “Creemos”. The Latin original has always been “Credo” in the singular.

Insofar as the proclamation “Christ has died…” is concerned, this is not an acclamation. Christ is addressed in the third person; the rest are acclamations because the Lord is addressed in the second person. Furthermore, “Christ has died…” appears nowhere in any of the other language group’s translations of the Roman Missal. It is not found in the Latin original. This was an ICEL innovation that was removed.

It is not going to make the Mass harder to understand or to pray. In fact, it will bring us into a better union with the rest of the world because we will be praying almost the same words.

 

[MarkThompson]

I was searching and searching and came across this information about the roman missal changes here, my pareish presiet mentioned them. And I got confused. So I did some reading once I found the mention of it here. And personally speaking on the matter, since this is all how I personally see it myself.

I do not see the need to change anything of the roman missal. Personaslly I found it hard enough to get used to the present edition of it. In the sample text areas of the missal for the peoples parts it is too confusing, are we really to reemmber all those words ? Three times to say “through my own fault” during the start of the mass when asking for mercy from Jesus? It seems overkill to me personally speaking.

I do not see any problem with changing the response to ‘Lord be with you’ to ‘and with your spirit’ No problem there. The Gloria, same thing.

What I do not like at all of being changed is the word ‘We’ From the Creed. “We Belive in One God, the Father Almighty” Should stay that way, Why make it “I believe in One God, the Father Almighty” ? Aren’t we a Universal church ? shouldn’t it remain as We Believe because we all do ? Making it sound like each person beleives is too confusing really, and takes out the true meaning of the Church thast God made through His Son. and calling Jesus as subconcubstanial or whatever with God, instead of ‘One in Being’ makes no sense whatsoever to me.

But another thing I dislike is the taking out of the first proclaimation of our faith during the Litergy of the Eucarist, “Christ has died, Christ has Riesn, Christ will come again” has been totally taken out of the roman missal, I do not see such a need to happen for that.

That is really all I can think of. other then fear this will make the Mass harder to understand for those wanting to join us in Celebrating the Mass.

Personally speaking the Mass is a wonderful experiance, I used to be part a parish that celebrated the Mass as if it were a major party with the Lord as a guest of respect, love and absolute adoration. They knew how to party, and to pray at the same time. Will these changes also change how some Churchs celebrate the Mass ?

I understand your views, and some of the things here will take a bit of getting accustomed to. A couple of responses, though:

1. 
   *]“Through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault.” The original text in Latin (Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa) was so well-known that the phrase “mea culpa” came to serve as a synonym in general speech for admission of guilt and responsibility: “After the scandal, the politician offered a mea culpa to his constituents.” In the current English translation, though, the phrase has almost entirely been obscured in the wordy “through my own fault,” an unemphasized phrase that kind of gets lost. The triple repetition also is supposed to echo other threefold repetitions in the Mass, like “Lord have mercy / Christ have mercy / Lord have mercy” and “Holy, holy, holy Lord.”
   .
   *]I can see the value in having the Creed in the plural (we) instead of the singular (I). But the singular was good enough in Latin for 1500 years or so, and has been good enough for the last 40 years in all the other languages where the Creed has been translated with “I”, so I think we’ll survive. I also think that it is good to keep to focus on the beliefs of the individual, because when we use “we” it is very easy to have only a vague sense of how it really applies to us as individuals. A person can think of his country and say, “We stand for peace, liberty, and justice” – does it really mean the same as thinking of himself and saying “I stand for peace, liberty, and justice”? Try it on for size, see how different it feels to say each of those things. “We” statements, when you’re thinking about your country or your Church, just don’t cut quite as close to the bone as “I” statements.
   
   So I don’t know what you mean when you say that “making it sound like each person believes is too confusing really.” Where’s the confusion? Do you believe the Creed? Or has the impersonality of the “we” prevented you from connecting the doctrines that you recite to your own personal beliefs? If you find it confusing to say “I believe in one God” or “I believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church,” then you are really missing the whole point of the Creed.
   .
   *]“Christ has died,” etc., was never actually in the Roman Missal. It was suggested by the English translators as an additional option, so it doesn’t exist in other languages. Part of the process of retranslating is to promote the unity of the global Church, so a person praying the Mass in English in the U.S. or Australia is praying right alongside someone doing it in Spanish in Mexico, or Tagalog in the Philippines.
   
   Also, note that in the other three options (“Lord, by your death and resurrection,” “Dying you destroyed our death,” and so on) we are speaking directly to Jesus. The “Christ has died” which was invented in the 70s is the only one that doesn’t address Christ. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it does help explain why they judged it to be out of keeping with the spirit of the Mass.
   
   Of the three areas you mentioned that you’re concerned about, my own view is that bringing back the triple “through my fault” and changing the Creed from “we” to “I” are both very good things. I don’t particularly care about the “Christ has died,” although I think it is good from a diversity standpoint to have the texts of the Mass be similar around the world. Everybody’s entitled to their own opinion, but you should at least be aware that the people who have been revising the translation for the last ten years did not make these changes just to be annoying, they made changes for solid theological reasons.

 

[Victorious]

I do not see the need to change anything of the roman missal. Personaslly I found it hard enough to get used to the present edition of it. In the sample text areas of the missal for the peoples parts it is too confusing, are we really to reemmber all those words ? Three times to say “through my own fault” during the start of the mass when asking for mercy from Jesus? It seems overkill to me personally speaking.

It is far from overkill, especially in an age when we have completely lost all sense of sin. Besides, it is a more faithful translation of the Latin original (mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa).

What I do not like at all of being changed is the word ‘We’ From the Creed. “We Belive in One God, the Father Almighty” Should stay that way, Why make it “I believe in One God, the Father Almighty” ? Aren’t we a Universal church ? shouldn’t it remain as We Believe because we all do ? Making it sound like each person beleives is too confusing really, and takes out the true meaning of the Church thast God made through His Son. and calling Jesus as subconcubstanial or whatever with God, instead of ‘One in Being’ makes no sense whatsoever to me.

Remember that the Mass is not our individual prayer but the prayer of the Church. It is actually the plural pronoun “we” that took out the true meaning out of what is being said here. The “I” in “I believe” is not our precious individual self, but the Body of Christ, of which we are members. The pronoun in the original is singular in order to express the unity of the Body of Christ. “We” is what breaks us up into individuals and detracts from this sense of unity. Besides which, the original Latin says “I believe” (CREDO in Unum Deum).

But another thing I dislike is the taking out of the first proclaimation of our faith during the Litergy of the Eucarist, “Christ has died, Christ has Riesn, Christ will come again” has been totally taken out of the roman missal, I do not see such a need to happen for that.

There was never a need for it to go in in the first place. You can tell it is out of place by comparing it to the other acclamations. The first thing you notice is that it speaks not words of praise to Christ, like the others, but is a mere statement of fact about Christ. There are actually good grounds to hold that this whole dialogue should never have been inserted into the Mass in the first place, for the reason that it quite muddies the waters – and the response that is now being deleted does the most damage to our understanding. The “mystery of faith” is not the sentence we say after the priest invites us to proclaim the mystery of faith. The “mystery of faith” is the shedding of Christ’s blood for our redemption. Did you know this? I didn’t know it until just a few months ago. It is much more clear in the Traditional Latin Mass, where it is included in the words of consecration:

Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis Mei, novi et aeterni testamenti, mysterium fidei: qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.

This is the Chalice of My Blood of the new and eternal Testament, the Mystery of Faith; which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.

Personally speaking the Mass is a wonderful experiance, I used to be part a parish that celebrated the Mass as if it were a major party with the Lord as a guest of respect, love and absolute adoration. They knew how to party, and to pray at the same time. Will these changes also change how some Churchs celebrate the Mass ?

It is devoutly to be hoped so. The Mass is not a party. It is the Holy Sacrifice of Calvary, re-presented in an unbloody manner. We have quite lost our awareness of the fact that at Mass, we really are at the foot of the Cross, with the Mother of God and St. John and the Magdalene, every bit as much as if we had time-traveled to 33 A.D. and landed on Calvary. We should do nothing at Mass that we would have been ashamed to do in their presence in that place at that moment.

 

[MarkThompson]

I understand your views, and some of the things here will take a bit of getting accustomed to. A couple of responses, though:

1. 
   *]“Through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault.” The original text in Latin (Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa) was so well-known that the phrase “mea culpa” came to serve as a synonym in general speech for admission of guilt and responsibility: “After the scandal, the politician offered a mea culpa to his constituents.” In the current English translation, though, the phrase has almost entirely been obscured in the wordy “through my own fault,” an unemphasized phrase that kind of gets lost. The triple repetition also is supposed to echo other threefold repetitions in the Mass, like “Lord have mercy / Christ have mercy / Lord have mercy” and “Holy, holy, holy Lord.”
   .
   *]I can see the value in having the Creed in the plural (we) instead of the singular (I). But the singular was good enough in Latin for 1500 years or so, and has been good enough for the last 40 years in all the other languages where the Creed has been translated with “I”, so I think we’ll survive. I also think that it is good to keep to focus on the beliefs of the individual, because when we use “we” it is very easy to have only a vague sense of how it really applies to us as individuals. A person can think of his country and say, “We stand for peace, liberty, and justice” – does it really mean the same as thinking of himself and saying “I stand for peace, liberty, and justice”? Try it on for size, see how different it feels to say each of those things. “We” statements, when you’re thinking about your country or your Church, just don’t cut quite as close to the bone as “I” statements.
   
   So I don’t know what you mean when you say that “making it sound like each person believes is too confusing really.” Where’s the confusion? Do you believe the Creed? Or has the impersonality of the “we” prevented you from connecting the doctrines that you recite to your own personal beliefs? If you find it confusing to say “I believe in one God” or “I believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church,” then you are really missing the whole point of the Creed.
   .
   *]“Christ has died,” etc., was never actually in the Roman Missal. It was suggested by the English translators as an additional option, so it doesn’t exist in other languages. Part of the process of retranslating is to promote the unity of the global Church, so a person praying the Mass in English in the U.S. or Australia is praying right alongside someone doing it in Spanish in Mexico, or Tagalog in the Philippines.
   
   Also, note that in the other three options (“Lord, by your death and resurrection,” “Dying you destroyed our death,” and so on) we are speaking directly to Jesus. The “Christ has died” which was invented in the 70s is the only one that doesn’t address Christ. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it does help explain why they judged it to be out of keeping with the spirit of the Mass.
   
   Of the three areas you mentioned that you’re concerned about, my own view is that bringing back the triple “through my fault” and changing the Creed from “we” to “I” are both very good things. I don’t particularly care about the “Christ has died,” although I think it is good from a diversity standpoint to have the texts of the Mass be similar around the world. Everybody’s entitled to their own opinion, but you should at least be aware that the people who have been revising the translation for the last ten years did not make these changes just to be annoying, they made changes for solid theological reasons.

 

[buffalo]

I think it is more appropriate to call it more of a course correction. The wording is improving because the Latin to English has been rendered insufficiently and has theological weaknesses. The rendering takes some time to show whether it is faithful or not.

 

[Awinita]

Actually, these revisions bring us into conformity with what the rest of the world is praying. These are good and holy changes.

The triple “mea culpa” that we pray in the penitential rite is a holdover from the Confiteor that is prayed in the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (what some folks call the Traditional Latin Mass). This is not “overkill”, not in the least. We are imploring God’s mercy at the beginning of the celebration of these sacred mysteries. In Spanish, for example, we pray, “por mi culpa, por mi culpa, por mi gran culpa.”

Regarding the Creed, the other language groups use the singular “I” form. While we are professing our Faith together, this profession is also a singular act of faith. Again, in Spanish, the faithful pray “Creo”, not “Creemos”. The Latin original has always been “Credo” in the singular.

Insofar as the proclamation “Christ has died…” is concerned, this is not an acclamation. Christ is addressed in the third person; the rest are acclamations because the Lord is addressed in the second person. Furthermore, “Christ has died…” appears nowhere in any of the other language group’s translations of the Roman Missal. It is not found in the Latin original. This was an ICEL innovation that was removed.

It is not going to make the Mass harder to understand or to pray. In fact, it will bring us into a better union with the rest of the world because we will be praying almost the same words.

So these changes that are happening, they’re actually going to what they should be in the first place, right? if that is so, then hey, no problems with it I guess, just still concerned about it is all. One thing I did not know about the proclamation, is that it reffered to Jesus in the third person, and was not an ofical proclamation. I still am a little confused about the changing of We to I in the creed. But over time I think I can get used to it.

So thank you for clearing up my fears and worry about the changes. Now that I am better informed I think I can look forward to these changes.

Now it was mentioned about when on line to recive Holy Communion. I’ve noticed at many different churchs of how people recive, I see it more as a person to person basis, some kneel at the Priest’s feet when actually reciving Communion, others simply bow deeply at the front pew then recive when it is their time to say ‘Amen’. others bow then say Amen before reciving.

personally I bow my head out of respect, mostly as a total habit as I’ve forgotten when I started, I always nod my head out of respect to the proclamation ‘Body of Christ’. My pareish Priest said nothing of such changes to occur there at my church. So as far as I recall, that wont be any different.

I also noticed that the Our Father was adapted only slightly directly from the Bible itself, and the rpesent edition of it that we have is so univerasally known it’d be impossible to get everyone to know the new words if any were added

 

[MarkThompson]

Now it was mentioned about when on line to recive Holy Communion. I’ve noticed at many different churchs of how people recive, I see it more as a person to person basis, some kneel at the Priest’s feet when actually reciving Communion, others simply bow deeply at the front pew then recive when it is their time to say ‘Amen’. others bow then say Amen before reciving.

personally I bow my head out of respect, mostly as a total habit as I’ve forgotten when I started, I always nod my head out of respect to the proclamation ‘Body of Christ’. My pareish Priest said nothing of such changes to occur there at my church. So as far as I recall, that wont be any different.

The method for receiving Communion is supposed to be determined by the conference of bishops for each country. I don’t know where you are, but in the United States the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) decided that people should make a bow before receiving as a sign of reverence, receive standing, and have their choice between receiving on the tongue or in the hand. The norms for your country may be different, but it is not changing as part of the new translations. The translations themselves only concern the words of the Mass, not any other rules.

 

[Awinita]

It is devoutly to be hoped so. The Mass is not a party. It is the Holy Sacrifice of Calvary, re-presented in an unbloody manner. We have quite lost our awareness of the fact that at Mass, we really are at the foot of the Cross, with the Mother of God and St. John and the Magdalene, every bit as much as if we had time-traveled to 33 A.D. and landed on Calvary. We should do nothing at Mass that we would have been ashamed to do in their presence in that place at that moment.

Mind you that this particular parish is klnown as a Charismatic Church, a Praise and Worship church actually, I got there every Holy Saterday for Esater Vigil. It is a neat experaicne though, the mass is one of the only ways I can really learn something new about my self

All in all ,you guys are great, all my concerns have been pretty much erased.

many thanks, and may God Bless

 

[ProVobis]

Remember that the Mass is not our individual prayer but the prayer of the Church. It is actually the plural pronoun “we” that took out the true meaning out of what is being said here. The “I” in “I believe” is not our precious individual self, but the Body of Christ, of which we are members. The pronoun in the original is singular in order to express the unity of the Body of Christ. “We” is what breaks us up into individuals and detracts from this sense of unity. Besides which, the original Latin says “I believe” (CREDO in Unum Deum).

It’s also used as what they call a “royal we.” It sounds less arrogant (more humble?) when used by popes, kings, politicians and homilists. (Latin would have a -mus ending).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majestic_plural

 

[m8g8]

I would like to thank everyone again for your explanations.

Personally, I do prefer ‘we’ in stead of ‘I’. It reminds you that you’re all together for the same thing. ‘I’ makes it feel like you’re only considering yourself.

It would be nice if the Our Father was made more true to the Latin. When reading the old English which was posted earlier, it does have a slightly different meaning.

I’m glad that ‘thee’ and ‘thou’ etc are staying. It wouldn’t sound the same without it. Also, if they were removed, they may be removed from Bibles, which you need to tell when God is only talking to Moses or all the Israelites.

 

[ProVobis]

It would be nice if the Our Father was made more true to the Latin. When reading the old English which was posted earlier, it does have a slightly different meaning.

I agree but it would sound a lot more like this interlinear translation (which very few would accept because of the word order if nothing else)

Pater noster, qui es in cælis,
Father our, Who are in Heaven,

sanctificetur nomen tuum:
may be sanctified name Your:

Adveniat regnum tuum:
May come reign Your:

Fiat voluntas tua sicut in cælo,
may be done will Your just as in heaven,

et in terra. Panem nostrum quotidianum
and on earth. Bread our daily

da nobis hodie:
give to us today:

Et dimitte nobis debita nostra,
And forgive us debts our,

sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris.
just as we forgive debtors our.

Et ne nos inducas in tentationem.
And do not us lead into temptation.

Sed libera nos a malo. Amen.
But free us from evil. Amen.

 

[benedictgal]

I would like to thank everyone again for your explanations.

Personally, I do prefer ‘we’ in stead of ‘I’. It reminds you that you’re all together for the same thing. ‘I’ makes it feel like you’re only considering yourself.

However, the profession of Faith is a very personal and profound act. Furthermore, during the Easter Vigil when we renew our baptismal promises (and also re-affirm our belief in the Creed), we do not say “We do”; we say, “I do”.

 

[bmadamsberry]

However, the profession of Faith is a very personal and profound act. Furthermore, during the Easter Vigil when we renew our baptismal promises (and also re-affirm our belief in the Creed), we do not say “We do”; we say, “I do”.

Besides… it’s there in the Latin! The point of a translation is to be as true as possible to the original language while also making the text readable. “I believe” is perfectly readable, and is so blatantly there that a red flag should go up for anyone that wonders why it was originally translated into “We believe”.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

And isn’t the Apostle’s Creed in “I” anyway? That’s the one we used to say in church, long long ago…

 

[Timothy17]

No, again, there are not any new prayers in the Mass.

Is that not a bit excessive, Mark ? If the prayers require a better translation, then it stands to reason that - being better translated - the full meaning of those prayers are now able to be better understood. Granted, some who know ecclesiastical Latin may have and study the Latin originals, and thus already understand and appreciate the prayers fully, but the vast majority, hearing new words (whether added or replaced) ought to be better able to appreciate and understand them ; moreover, those who - owing to deficiencies in the old translation - were unable to grasp the meaning of the prayers, would now, theoretically, be able to better understand them ; that is, understand them anew. It appears perfectly fine to say that some prayers, being newly translated to better reflect their intended meaning, will, therefore, be new.

People will naturally say these prayers are new, for they have not heard them thus articulated before. People speak of movies, for example, being “newly remastered,” and owing to such work, are now better able to appreciate it (at least such is the goal). It would appear almost violent to demand people suppress such speech (calling them “new”) owing to a technicality.

Pax Christi,
Tim

 

[Victorious]

Is that not a bit excessive, Mark ? If the prayers require a better translation, then it stands to reason that - being better translated - the full meaning of those prayers are now able to be better understood. Granted, some who know ecclesiastical Latin may have and study the Latin originals, and thus already understand and appreciate the prayers fully, but the vast majority, hearing new words (whether added or replaced) ought to be better able to appreciate and understand them ; moreover, those who - owing to deficiencies in the old translation - were unable to grasp the meaning of the prayers, would now, theoretically, be able to better understand them ; that is, understand them anew. It appears perfectly fine to say that some prayers, being newly translated to better reflect their intended meaning, will, therefore, be new.

Actually, you could say that it was when the *current *translation – which is really more an adaptation than a translation – came out that we got new prayers. The translation was so unfaithful in many respects that what we got was not at all what we should have gotten. Consider, for example, the Collect for the 7th Sunday of Ordinary Time. The current “translation” is so different as not to be the same prayer as the original at all.

 

[Timothy17]

Besides… it’s there in the Latin! The point of a translation is to be as true as possible to the original language while also making the text readable. “I believe” is perfectly readable, and is so blatantly there that a red flag should go up for anyone that wonders why it was originally translated into “We believe”.

Looking at the USCCB website, it appears they have some explaining to do ; for we have been told that thse are the exact same prayers being translated, that is, the Latin original is not changed, only its translation. Bearing this in mind…

(Now)
Before he was given up to death, a death he freely accepted, he took bread and gave you thanks. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said:

(Revision)
At the time he was betrayed and entered willingly into his Passion, he took bread and, giving thanks, broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying:

How do you get such wildly different renditions from the same line ?

Even more obvious:

(Now)
Almighty God, we pray that your angel may take this sacrifice to your altar in heaven. Then, as we receive from this altar the sacred body and blood of your Son, let us be filled with every grace and blessing.

(Revision)
In humble prayer we ask you, almighty God:** command that these gifts be borne by the hands of your holy Angel to your altar on high in the sight of your divine majesty, so that all of us who through this participation at the altar** receive the most holy Body and Blood of your Son may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing.

It’s clear that in these cases there was a blatant suppression of the sense, profundity and gravity of the prayers by the previous translators.

Beyond a reasonable doubt there was serious abuse by the original translators. Obviously a license was taken wherein the translators believed their job was not to translate but to determine and interpret the text.

Personally, I believe heads ought role at ICEL for this… That’s just incredibly incompetent.

Pax Christi,
Tim

 

[bmadamsberry]

Looking at the USCCB website, it appears they have some explaining to do ; for we have been told that this are the exact same prayers being translated, that is, the Latin original is not changed, only its translation. Bearing this in mind…

How do you get such wildly different renditions from the same line ?

It’s clear that in these cases there was a blatant suppression of the sense, profundity and gravity of the prayers by the previous translators.

Beyond a reasonable doubt there was serious abuse by the original translators. Obviously a license was taken wherein the translators believed their job was not to translate but to determine and interpret the text.

Personally, I believe heads ought role at ICEL for this… That’s just incredibly incompetent.

Pax Christi,
Tim

I think that what you quoted perfectly shows the problems. I won’t get into a discussion of why the translations are so bad, but I don’t think someone would be unjustified in drawing… particular conclusions.