Milwaukee priests lament more accurate Roman Missal translation; 'salt in the wounds' [CC]

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Catholic_Press

Guest
Milwaukee priests quoted in a local newspaper article on the third edition of the Roman Missal are lamenting the revised translations, which more closely reflect the content and majesty of the original Latin.

More…
 
Yes, the Truth hurts.

let’s see what they stand for. the further you are from God, the more you want waterdown Faith.
 
The only issue I see with the new translation is as was pointed out the poor grammar and syntax. The retanslated words are just fine but some of it sounds like a third grader wrote it. Try diagraming and you will see how porrly some of it is written. It’s a shame because the wording is much more beautiful than the current translation. It’s one thing to be true to the latin and another to translate literally. Anyone who has ever studies a foreign language knows you can’t translate literally. If you do the english is cumbersome.
 
Dollars to donuts the quoted priests are all old enough that they were trained and ordained by the now retired archbishop Weakland who was one of the chief achtitects of the banalization of the mass. Just go have a look at what he did to his cathedral to get an idea of the man’s ideas on worship. At that place, one wonders just who is being worshipped anyways…
 
It really is amazing what people read into rathr simple statements. Somehow these priests and far from God or are considered “liberal.”
The article doesn’t contain anything earth shattering. Just a few priests who think the translation is too literal and thus sounds awkward in english. Another priest who feels the Church’s focus needs to be elsewhere at the moment.
Its not as if they were railing against the new translation or even being overly critical. Outside of these forums, most people just roll their eyes when told of the upcoming new translation.
 
Dale_M said:
This ought to make some CAF members happy. :o

jsonline.com/features/religion/99995394.html
Click to expand...
If you check out Father Z’s blog on this topic, you’ll find his comments here either entertaining . . .or not. As a priest himself, perhaps he will be considered to have an ‘equal authority’ with the Milwaukee priests.

I was ‘there’ when Mass changed from Latin to vernacular. . .heck, it changed from the 1967 translation (not an official one, but dang dang DANG close to the proposed new one) to the current one. .

What exactly is wrong with a more ‘literal’ translation anyway?

Shouldn’t we be trying to be as accurate and truthful in our language (especially in worship) as we can be? Isn’t there as much beauty in a ‘sacred’ language (which was written to be such) than a ‘regular’ one, (in the supposed interest of making it more ‘accessible’ or ‘user-friendly’ or ‘smooth’, making it LESS sacred or accurate?)
 
Honestly, I have always wondered what was wrong with Latin…if every RC Church aross the world said Mass in latin, than we would be speaking as in one body.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
What exactly is wrong with a more ‘literal’ translation anyway?

Shouldn’t we be trying to be as accurate and truthful in our language (especially in worship) as we can be? Isn’t there as much beauty in a ‘sacred’ language (which was written to be such) than a ‘regular’ one, (in the supposed interest of making it more ‘accessible’ or ‘user-friendly’ or ‘smooth’, making it LESS sacred or accurate?)
Click to expand...
I’m hardly an expert on this, but I recall a previous news article which discussed the changes. Apparently, there are two goals in translating any text: to remain close to the exact words of the original, and to convey the meaning of the original words. Sometimes these goals are in opposition to each other.

I think the people who are objecting to the new translation do so on the grounds that meaning is being lost. I have no way of evaluating their claim. But that has been an objection I have read a few times in recent years.

For example, here is an article written by Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, Pennsylvania.
Following these new norms, the translation of the new Missal has intentionally employed a “sacred language,” which tends to be remote from everyday speech and frequently not understandable. For example, the Preface, or opening of the Eucharistic Prayer, of the Assumption says of Mary’s delivery of Jesus: “She brought forth ineffably your incarnate Son.”
Click to expand...
When the bishops at the Second Vatican Council made the historic decision that the liturgy of the church should be in the vernacular, there was no mention of sacred language or vocabulary. The council’s intent was pastoral—to have the liturgy of the church prayed in living languages. Translated liturgical texts should be reverent, noble, inspiring, and uplifting, but that does not mean archaic, remote, or incomprehensible. While the translated texts of the new Missal must be accurate and faithful to the Latin original, they must also be intelligible, proclaimable, and grammatically correct. Regrettably the new translation fails in this regard.
Click to expand...
uscatholic.org/church/2010/06/lost-translation
Tantum_ergo said:
If you check out Father Z’s blog on this topic, you’ll find his comments here either entertaining . . .or not.
Click to expand...
Fr. Z can be delightfully snarky, even when I disagree with him. But I just visited his blog and didn’t see a recent post on the topic of the new translation of the liturgy. Would you happen to have a direct link to that post?
 
I can’t link from this computer (I had to switch with my daughter and for some reason, sometimes I can link and sometimes I can’t). . .BUT on August 5 (you might have to look on the side bar) under the heading “Division in the pews” you’ll find the story. That should do it. (there were a LOT of comments on it too!)
 
One of the people in that article said that many of the hymns currently used in Church will no longer be permitted. Is it because they are based on the old English translation? Lots of music paraphrases biblical text, no? What am I missing? Are the hymns being pulled by the Vatican?
 
Tantum_ergo said:
I can’t link from this computer (I had to switch with my daughter and for some reason, sometimes I can link and sometimes I can’t). . .BUT on August 5 (you might have to look on the side bar) under the heading “Division in the pews” you’ll find the story. That should do it. (there were a LOT of comments on it too!)
Click to expand...
Thanks! Somehow I managed to scroll right past it. 😊

Here is the link:
wdtprs.com/blog/2010/08/10787/

And to give CAF members a flavor of Fr Z’s remarks:
Fr. Z:
Milwaukee newspaper article:
The new translation introduces more formal, rarefied language into the liturgy. But Cooper and others who have studied drafts say it ignores English grammar and syntax and introduces terms – “consubstantial,” “oblation,” “ignominy,” to mention a few – unfamiliar to many American Catholics. And some worry it will sow division in the pews.
Click to expand...
Right! I can see it now. Fights will break out in the pews when the Creed is recited. People will hang their heads in shame and weep. Some will rend their garments. “Consubstantial!” But I suppose we will have the opportunity to relive the experience of the early Church, when there were riots over changes to the words of Scripture or liturgy. There were great Fathers of the Church who experienced exile over “consubstantial”. I am unaware that anyone went to the mat for something like “one in being with the Father”… whatever that means.]
Click to expand...
 
What Bishop Trauman and his disciples REALLY lament is that they no longer will be able to subtly change the meaning of the text to suit THEIR OWN opinions and agendas.

After all, that’s the problem with allowing translations to flex from the literal wording of the original to the intended meaning of the original: you are dependent on the opinion of the translator to get it right. If the translators are just scholars and perhaps individual bishops (instead of the entire college of bishops in union with the pope), you’ve just tossed out the infallibility finished product in terms of content, right?

Even if it IS kludgier (which I am not pursuaded that the new translation is), I’ll take accurate and clumsy over pretty and vague any day. Thanks.
 
For some of us it’s not salt in the wounds. Rather, it’s soothing ointment for the rash, a balm of protection against inelegant translations.
 
sojo said:
One of the people in that article said that many of the hymns currently used in Church will no longer be permitted. Is it because they are based on the old English translation? Lots of music paraphrases biblical text, no? What am I missing? Are the hymns being pulled by the Vatican?
Click to expand...
I would guess they don’t really mean the hymns but rather the musical settings to the prayers of the Mass. There was an earlier directive about cleaning up the hymns but it has nothing to do with the pending translation.
 
Thanks Corki. A bit of messy reporting combining two separate issues.

I have interest in both translation issues as well as liturgical music issues, but I hate to see everything all mucked up together.

I fully support the Holy Father in his musical recommendations/guidelines - but I guess I missed where there were anything further than guidelines. Do you have any links? I’d be so very interested!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top