Mass - 'Lord I am not worthy for you to enter under my roof...'

[liturgyluver]

Englishredrose, the original translation using the beautiful words “under my roof” were actually in use in the Anglican church and they only moved to the then Catholic translation much later. The original words are still in use in the traditional language option.

 

[englishredrose]

I’m sorry but I don’t see by saying “Non sum dignus” or “I am not worthy” it makes you any more worthy. In Catholic theology, confession does that.

Sorry ProVobis but I clearly stated that I am anglican and therefore hopefully that will explain to you that I am not Catholic therefore and don’t know what Catholic theology teaches on it All I have done is roughly say how this sentence works for me and that is all. Not what is taught or anything just how it speaks to me but I did clearly state I am anglican and how I personally feel and we don’t do confession like you guys do. It is there available to us but on a different level so this indeed does work for me whereas confessional works for you guys. I don’t actually know what the Anglican theological teachings are on it either for that matter and for the purpose of the opening post that right now does not matter for I was simply saying how it works for me and any changes over the time. Nothing to do with any theological teachings So I am not wrong in my contribution to the thread because MirandaRivers asked what it mean for us. Nothing to do with what theological teachings therefore… I was simply explaining how God is working in my life right now in the service. Not any technically correct theological discussion

liturgylover.
It may or may not be the original anglican wording, who knows. I only carefully spelled out I am anglican because when I don’t do so a few a quick to say that is what I am. I just was trying to explain what ‘we’ say in ‘our’ church right now :-} to answer the question as best I can though we don’t say under the roof so can’t answer that bit. It sounds odd to me does that bit as anything does when not said it for 25 years

 

[corsair]

I, personally, prefer the latin words to the Mass. The problems with translations are very evident when comparing various missals. Some seem to flow while others are a bit ackward.

Which is why I like the latin.

 

[liturgyluver]

liturgylover.
It may or may not be the original anglican wording, who knows. I only carefully spelled out I am anglican because when I don’t do so a few a quick to say that is what I am. I just was trying to explain what ‘we’ say in ‘our’ church right now :-} to answer the question as best I can though we don’t say under the roof so can’t answer that bit. It sounds odd to me does that bit as anything does when not said it for 25 years

Who knows? I know as my Dad was Anglican and I have studied Eucharistic rites.

This wording is still an option in the Anglican Common Worship liturgy and used in many Anglican churches, though obviously not in yours, but the theology and wording is familiar to many Anglicans.

 

[ConstantineTG]

In the Byzantine Rite we echo instead the prayer of the thief on the cross prior to Communion,

I believe, O Lord, and confess that You are truly Christ, the Son of the living God, Who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am first. Accept me this day, O son of God, as a partaker of Your mystical Supper. I will not tell the mystery to Your enemies, nor will I give You a kiss as did Judas, but like the thief, I confess to You:

+Remember me, O Lord, when You come into Your kingdom.
+Remember me, O Master, when You come into Your kingdom,
+Remember me, O Holy One, when You come into Your kingdom.

May the partaking of Your Holy Mysteries, O Lord, be unto me not for judgment or condemnation but for the healing of the soul and body.

+God, be merciful to me a sinner.
+God, cleanse me of my sins and have mercy on me.
+I have sinned without number, forgive me, O Lord.

Both prayers show how we, as sinners, are never worthy of God. But by His own sacrifice, he himself has made us worthy. It shows us that even our own worthiness is not of our own merit but his.

 

[liturgyluver]

In the Byzantine Rite we echo instead the prayer of the thief on the cross prior to Communion,

I believe, O Lord, and confess that You are truly Christ, the Son of the living God, Who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am first. Accept me this day, O son of God, as a partaker of Your mystical Supper. I will not tell the mystery to Your enemies, nor will I give You a kiss as did Judas, but like the thief, I confess to You:

+Remember me, O Lord, when You come into Your kingdom.
+Remember me, O Master, when You come into Your kingdom,
+Remember me, O Holy One, when You come into Your kingdom.

May the partaking of Your Holy Mysteries, O Lord, be unto me not for judgment or condemnation but for the healing of the soul and body.

+God, be merciful to me a sinner.
+God, cleanse me of my sins and have mercy on me.
+I have sinned without number, forgive me, O Lord.

Both prayers show how we, as sinners, are never worthy of God. But by His own sacrifice, he himself has made us worthy. It shows us that even our own worthiness is not of our own merit but his.

These are stunningly beautiful prayers.

 

[Elizabeth_C]

When I was in RCIA, they had a retreat for us. One of the actiivities that talked about evaluating our “house” to see if it was ready for a special visitor. It was very meaningful to me at that time. And, it was one of the times that I cried. After that, one of the speakers read a passage that talked about God choosing us. And yes, I cried again… and it wasn’t the last. When I was in our small group discussions. I talked about the tears. The leader’s response was that tears are the Holy Spirit at work. Take comfort even in the sorrow you feel.

When I read about the change in wording to be “enter under my roof” and the scriptural connected, I thought about this “house” activity. That Jesus should desire to “come under my roof”, that God chose me to be His, to be part of His Church, is a great joy, and a great responsibility. We are not “worthy” on our own, but with God’s help, all things are possible!

Take the sorrow you feel. It may be grief and remorse. Let God heal your soul so you may have joy!

 

[Marie5890]

I actually prefer the words from last year -

“Lord I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.”

First of all, it just flows better. While we are engaged in group ritual prayer, I prefer more lyrical phrases. But that’s just me.

Also, the word “receive” has a broader, deeper meaning, especially in the context of the Mass. We are “receiving” Jesus, after all. But also, the word “receive” when used to describe someone visiting your residence implies hospitality and sounds much more comprehensive than having someone “come under my roof.” A Jehova’s Witness “came under my roof” the other day, but I didn’t “receive” him.

In addition, “I shall be healed” vs. “my soul shall be healed.” Yes the primary focus is spiritual, but we do have a dual nature (physical and spiritual), so both are relevant. Hence the “I” which encompasses all that. Plus physical healings have been known to happen, but that’s a side issue.

So basically during Mass I think of the deeper meaning and the lyrical sound of the old words while I mouth the new words like a good little Catholic.

I too prefer it. It’s actually closer to the scripture it is quoting. Matthew 8: 8 is about a physical healing, not that of the soul.

“The centurion said in reply,* “Lord, I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof; only say the word and my servant will be healed.”

The way it is now, limits what it is was originally all about.

 

[AthenaC]

Any translation (new or old) has difficulties.

Think of Shakespeare. How can any translation, say Chinese, possibly retain the poetry (alliteration, pentameter, meaning, affect, etc.) of the English, whose words were chosen carefully by the author?

Funny you should mention Chinese, which is actually a very lyrical language. But yes, I agree that any translation has difficulties.

There’s definitely a problem when the translated text starts to develop a life of its own. So you can argue till the cows come home which is the better translation but it seems to be a moot point if the original is so undermined.

I don’t know about “a life of its own,” but what makes a translation “good” or not depends on what you want out of a translation. If you want the most literal translation possible (with no concern for the music that language can be), then the new traslation is certainly “better.” If you want a translation that conveys the same concepts while sounding natural in the destination language, then the old translation is “better.” I prefer the old translation.

I will give you an example -
(In this dramatization, the part of the Latin Mass will be played by a Chinese phrase, the part of the new translation will be played by the first translation attempt, while the part of the old translation will be played by the second translation attempt.)

Latin Mass / Chinese: Wo ting che zai tingchechang.

New / literal translation: I stopped the car in the stop car field.

Old / conceptual translation: I parked the car in the parking lot.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

We say

“Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word, and my soul shall be healed.”

I didn’t get it at first, but now I love it.

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t know about “a life of its own,” but what makes a translation “good” or not depends on what you want out of a translation. If you want the most literal translation possible (with no concern for the music that language can be), then the new traslation is certainly “better.” If you want a translation that conveys the same concepts while sounding natural in the destination language, then the old translation is “better.” I prefer the old translation.

I will give you an example -
(In this dramatization, the part of the Latin Mass will be played by a Chinese phrase, the part of the new translation will be played by the first translation attempt, while the part of the old translation will be played by the second translation attempt.)

Latin Mass / Chinese: Wo ting che zai tingchechang.

New / literal translation: I stopped the car in the stop car field.

Old / conceptual translation: I parked the car in the parking lot.

I think I see your point.

Out of fun, I used the Google translator to translate each of the three into Polish:

1. Byłem parkowania na parkingu.
2. Zatrzymałem samochód na przystanku dziedzinie samochodów.
3. Zaparkowałem samochód na parkingu.

2 is very wierd. I wouldn’t rule 3) out but I trust 1) more, simply because it’s less removed from the original.

My concept of “having a life of its own” assumed that phrase in language A translated into phrase in language B and B becomes the basis of C, D, E, etc. In this case if B for whatever reason gets changed, then C, D, E, etc need to be changed. It would have been totally different had A been translated to B, C, D, E, etc separately.

ICEL translations, whether they were good or not, were apparently used to translate into other languages. Now all those other languages need to be retranslated. Had each of those languages been translated from the Latin, then the extent of the corrections would not have been so severe. Using your Chinese phrase, theoretically you retain more of the meaning if you translate directly into English (regardless of quality) or Polish or Spanish or Italian, rather than translating into English, then using the English translation to go to Polish, then using the Polish translation to go to Spanish and then Italian. For all we know, the Italian-speaker might end up understanding the phrase to mean that he was stopped in the parking lot because the car stopped or something like that.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

=AthenaC;9359516]I actually prefer the words from last year -

“Lord I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.”

First of all, it just flows better. While we are engaged in group ritual prayer, I prefer more lyrical phrases. But that’s just me.

Also, the word “receive” has a broader, deeper meaning, especially in the context of the Mass. We are “receiving” Jesus, after all. But also, the word “receive” when used to describe someone visiting your residence implies hospitality and sounds much more comprehensive than having someone “come under my roof.” A Jehova’s Witness “came under my roof” the other day, but I didn’t “receive” him.

But the corrected wording we use now reflects back to the scripture from which the pray comes Matthew 8:8. Also to anyone that you allow to come into your home, under your roof hospitality is the very least you can show to them if not do not let them in.

In addition, “I shall be healed” vs. “my soul shall be healed.” Yes the primary focus is spiritual, but we do have a dual nature (physical and spiritual), so both are relevant. Hence the “I” which encompasses all that. Plus physical healings have been known to happen, but that’s a side issue.

see but with the I shall be healed as basically lead people to forget the spiritual side and only look at the physical. With the word soul the physical and spiritual are again reunited.

So basically during Mass I think of the deeper meaning and the lyrical sound of the old words while I mouth the new words like a good little Catholic.

Maybe you should look more into and and pray and you will find the true deeper meaning in the corrected wording we are now using.

 

[kkollwitz]

‘Lord I am not worthy for you to enter under my roof…’

For me a big part of this passage’s appeal at this point in the Mass is: the pagan centurion’s faith is a good model for ours at this miraculous moment.

 

[MissRose73]

In the Byzantine Rite we echo instead the prayer of the thief on the cross prior to Communion,

I believe, O Lord, and confess that You are truly Christ, the Son of the living God, Who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am first. Accept me this day, O son of God, as a partaker of Your mystical Supper. I will not tell the mystery to Your enemies, nor will I give You a kiss as did Judas, but like the thief, I confess to You:

+Remember me, O Lord, when You come into Your kingdom.
+Remember me, O Master, when You come into Your kingdom,
+Remember me, O Holy One, when You come into Your kingdom.

May the partaking of Your Holy Mysteries, O Lord, be unto me not for judgment or condemnation but for the healing of the soul and body.

+God, be merciful to me a sinner.
+God, cleanse me of my sins and have mercy on me.
+I have sinned without number, forgive me, O Lord.

Both prayers show how we, as sinners, are never worthy of God. But by His own sacrifice, he himself has made us worthy. It shows us that even our own worthiness is not of our own merit but his.

I like that prayer before Communion you posted here. Are Latin Rite Catholics allowed to receive in the Byzantine Rite without issues, just wondering?

 

[arkwright]

How do you personally connect with these words in the Mass? Has the meaning changed for you over time?*

No . I will always be unworthy to receive the Lord .

 

[ProVobis]

No . I will always be unworthy to receive the Lord .

Then of what value are confession and the minimal fast?

 

[arkwright]

Then of what value are confession and the minimal fast?

What are you talking about ?

 

[ProVobis]

What are you talking about ?

Well, you said:

No . I ** will always** be unworthy to receive the Lord .

That’s not what we say nor asked to say. Care to defend your statement?

 

[arkwright]

Well, you said:

That’s not what we say nor asked to say. Care to defend your statement?

Jesus is my Lord and my God .

I am His unworthy servant and I know that there will never be a time in my life when I can say before the reception of the Eucharist : " Lord , I am worthy to receive you . "

As long as I journey on my pilgrimage through life , damaged and tainted by sin , I will always be unworthy .

The greatest of the saints always considered themselves as unworthy to receive the Lord in the Eucharist . Who am I to boast that I am worthy ?

 

[AthenaC]

I think I see your point.

Out of fun, I used the Google translator to translate each of the three into Polish:

1. Byłem parkowania na parkingu.
2. Zatrzymałem samochód na przystanku dziedzinie samochodów.
3. Zaparkowałem samochód na parkingu.

2 is very wierd. I wouldn’t rule 3) out but I trust 1) more, simply because it’s less removed from the original.

My concept of “having a life of its own” assumed that phrase in language A translated into phrase in language B and B becomes the basis of C, D, E, etc. In this case if B for whatever reason gets changed, then C, D, E, etc need to be changed. It would have been totally different had A been translated to B, C, D, E, etc separately.

ICEL translations, whether they were good or not, were apparently used to translate into other languages. Now all those other languages need to be retranslated. Had each of those languages been translated from the Latin, then the extent of the corrections would not have been so severe. Using your Chinese phrase, theoretically you retain more of the meaning if you translate directly into English (regardless of quality) or Polish or Spanish or Italian, rather than translating into English, then using the English translation to go to Polish, then using the Polish translation to go to Spanish and then Italian. For all we know, the Italian-speaker might end up understanding the phrase to mean that he was stopped in the parking lot because the car stopped or something like that.

And I think I see your point. Google translate is a bit … sketchy, though, so I’d be careful with it. There’s a limit to how good an auto-translater can be. For example, I put my English phrase back into Google translate and the Chinese just sounded … weird.

So then, whose bright idea was it to use an English translation to translate into other languages? (Not that I doubt you - am pretty sure I heard that somewhere else as well.) Seriously, that’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. So now we’re stuck with an awful literal translation because going directly from Latin to Spanish, German, Chinese, Korean, etc. was too difficult?

Screw the vernacular - if you can’t do it right, don’t do it at all. Go back to the Latin already. (And believe me, I NEVER thought I would say that!)