P
ProVobis
Guest
cathnews.co.nz/2014/06/17/irish-priests-want-mass-translation-revised-scrapped/
There are various sources for this.
There are various sources for this.
- Status
T
Tarpeian_Rock
Guest
Every time I’m at Mass and hear the Eucharistic Prayer that includes “… like the dewfall,” I think of the Irish-American who told me that in Ireland “dewfall” is a synonym for whiskey…
P
ProVobis
Guest
Seems to me from this and other previous threads on the topic that the translation for English-speaking people isn’t vernacular enough.
I wonder what it’s like for the Spanish translation, which is much more extensive in usage.
I wonder what it’s like for the Spanish translation, which is much more extensive in usage.
P
pianistclare
Guest
When we were home (my husband’s farm in Ireland …I don’t know WHAT translation they were using, but it was not the one we use in the U.S.
The article references a 2001 edition.
There are many things in other countries that are not the same as here.
All I know is that the prayers were run through super fast, no one prayed in unison, and we were out of there in a big hurry.
Not at all like Mass here.
The Spanish translation has always been very good. Being a romance language, and all.
No need to tweak that very much.
The article references a 2001 edition.
There are many things in other countries that are not the same as here.
All I know is that the prayers were run through super fast, no one prayed in unison, and we were out of there in a big hurry.
Not at all like Mass here.
The Spanish translation has always been very good. Being a romance language, and all.
No need to tweak that very much.
P
powerofk
Guest
Actually, the English translation is more extensive in usage. The US uses the Spanish translation from Mexico, but other Spanish-speaking countries use their own translations due to slight differences in word usage. The English translation, though, is an international translation (thus ICEL - the International Committee for English in the Liturgy), and thus is technically approved for usage everywhere that English is the vernacular. It is also used as a base translation for courntries that have very few, if any, Latin scholars (which is the case in many parts of Africa, and other parts of the world).
P
phil19034
Guest
I often wonder why the US doesn’t use the translation used in Puerto Rico for Spanish Mass, since Puerto Rico is part of the US (though not part of the USCCB).
I know it really doesn’t matter, but I do find it odd.
E
eamonnroma
Guest
I can confirm that the Italian translation is beautiful, while the English translation is ponderous.
P
ProVobis
Guest
So what you’re saying is that I should have said “Spanish translationS”?
As opposed one English translation, that is.
Clare, I have never been to South America, Spain, or anywhere else where the native tongue is Spanish (or Portuguese, for that matter), so perhaps you would know.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Polish is the best as it’s also an inflective language like Latin, so it translates and flows much better. Also far fewer complaints AFAIK.
R
relstudent
Guest
If only the Church had a universal language that was used across the board. Then translation wouldn’t be an issue.
M
markomalley
Guest
Har-har-har
M
markomalley
Guest
There are a couple of minor tweaks that could be done:
“Consubstantial with the Father” → “of the same substance as the Father”
(One in being with the Father is definitely not the same meaning)
“Incarnate” → “Was made flesh”
(Incarnate =/= born)
That kind of thing to make good into better.
But what most of these groups want is a return to the old. And that is a non-starter.
And this ACP group is a dissident group anyway. They want female ordination:
THE CHURCH MUST begin ordaining women and allow priests to marry if it is to survive, the Association of Catholic Priests has warned.
The ACP has made a number of recommendations to deal with the low number of vocations within the Church that will be discussed at the Irish Catholics Bishop Conference in Maynooth this week.
Some of the leaders have been disciplined. For example:
Sources say that the Vatican began investigating Fr Tony Flannery two months ago. He has been prevented from contributing his monthly column to the “Reality” magazine. And his order, the Redemptorists, have been told to scrutinise both the Magazine and its editor, Fr Gerry Moloney’s, output.
And here:
A prominent Irish priest has announced that he will reject a directive from the Vatican and refuse to sign a statement affirming Church teachings on the nature of priestly ordination.
Father Tony Flannery had been silenced by the Vatican last year because of his statements supporting the ordination of women and questioning Church teachings on contraception and on homosexuality. At a January 20 press conference in Dublin he said that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) had ordered him to sign a statement of support for Church teaching, and threatened further disciplinary action if he refused.
“Either I sign a statement, for publication, stating that I accepted teachings that I could not accept, or I would remain permanently banned from priestly ministry, and maybe face more serious sanctions,” Father Flannery said. He claimed that his disagreements with the Vatican involved “not matters of fundamental teaching, but rather of Church governance.” Actually his published writings have questioned fundamental Catholic doctrines; he has not only opposed the ban on ordination of women but also said that he does not believe that “the priesthood as we currently have it in the Church originated with Jesus.”
So I might suggest taking anything they say with a slight grain of salt.
“Consubstantial with the Father” → “of the same substance as the Father”
(One in being with the Father is definitely not the same meaning)
“Incarnate” → “Was made flesh”
(Incarnate =/= born)
That kind of thing to make good into better.
But what most of these groups want is a return to the old. And that is a non-starter.
And this ACP group is a dissident group anyway. They want female ordination:
THE CHURCH MUST begin ordaining women and allow priests to marry if it is to survive, the Association of Catholic Priests has warned.
The ACP has made a number of recommendations to deal with the low number of vocations within the Church that will be discussed at the Irish Catholics Bishop Conference in Maynooth this week.
Some of the leaders have been disciplined. For example:
Sources say that the Vatican began investigating Fr Tony Flannery two months ago. He has been prevented from contributing his monthly column to the “Reality” magazine. And his order, the Redemptorists, have been told to scrutinise both the Magazine and its editor, Fr Gerry Moloney’s, output.
And here:
A prominent Irish priest has announced that he will reject a directive from the Vatican and refuse to sign a statement affirming Church teachings on the nature of priestly ordination.
Father Tony Flannery had been silenced by the Vatican last year because of his statements supporting the ordination of women and questioning Church teachings on contraception and on homosexuality. At a January 20 press conference in Dublin he said that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) had ordered him to sign a statement of support for Church teaching, and threatened further disciplinary action if he refused.
“Either I sign a statement, for publication, stating that I accepted teachings that I could not accept, or I would remain permanently banned from priestly ministry, and maybe face more serious sanctions,” Father Flannery said. He claimed that his disagreements with the Vatican involved “not matters of fundamental teaching, but rather of Church governance.” Actually his published writings have questioned fundamental Catholic doctrines; he has not only opposed the ban on ordination of women but also said that he does not believe that “the priesthood as we currently have it in the Church originated with Jesus.”
So I might suggest taking anything they say with a slight grain of salt.
E
Elizium23
Guest
Association of Catholic Priests is a liberal dissident organization that in no way represents the Catholic faith, the Church, or her priests.
P
ProVobis
Guest
But not TOO old, right?
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
This is just my opinion on what took place, and I’ll stand corrected if I’m wrong.
I recall watching Mother Angelica, back when the new English translation was being worked on.
She had a priests on the program who had participated in talkis with the commission developing the new translation.
From what he said, there were two camps involved with agendas of their own.
One camp, wanted inclusive language in the new translation, the other, which the priest on the program was part of, want to be sure inclusive language would not be used. I opposed the use of inclusive language so sided with much of what he said.
However, according to him, when a debate between the two camps came to an impasse, those in the board on the commission chose to use the literal translation from the Latin as the compromise.
This may sound the right approach, but the problem is what we see in the new translation, that the Latin was from a time and culture which no longer exist, especially in English speaking nations.
So, what we have now is awkward.
At Mass, I still hear people tripping over the responses using the old ones instead of the new, despite having cards in the pews which they could use. Although, I’ve noticed that some of the cards are missing and some pews which use to have two, only have one now.
Anyway, I liked to old translation, but now tolerate the new.
“Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.” I still have a problem with this which is abstract and requires explanation, which really is a stretch to justify.
“Lord I am not worthy to receive you,” is so closer to the reality taking place at Mass compared to the new translation. For me, this was contemplative in that I knew that Chirst was about to be received into my very being.
Jim
I recall watching Mother Angelica, back when the new English translation was being worked on.
She had a priests on the program who had participated in talkis with the commission developing the new translation.
From what he said, there were two camps involved with agendas of their own.
One camp, wanted inclusive language in the new translation, the other, which the priest on the program was part of, want to be sure inclusive language would not be used. I opposed the use of inclusive language so sided with much of what he said.
However, according to him, when a debate between the two camps came to an impasse, those in the board on the commission chose to use the literal translation from the Latin as the compromise.
This may sound the right approach, but the problem is what we see in the new translation, that the Latin was from a time and culture which no longer exist, especially in English speaking nations.
So, what we have now is awkward.
At Mass, I still hear people tripping over the responses using the old ones instead of the new, despite having cards in the pews which they could use. Although, I’ve noticed that some of the cards are missing and some pews which use to have two, only have one now.
Anyway, I liked to old translation, but now tolerate the new.
“Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.” I still have a problem with this which is abstract and requires explanation, which really is a stretch to justify.
“Lord I am not worthy to receive you,” is so closer to the reality taking place at Mass compared to the new translation. For me, this was contemplative in that I knew that Chirst was about to be received into my very being.
Jim
P
pianistclare
Guest
Well, I hear you , and I think your points are great. But I have to say, at my parish, no one is stumbling,…we replace the cards one they get dog-eared, and almost nobody uses them. Everything is going well.
I agree that the “under my roof” thing is awkward for English speakers, but when you consider that vast amount of people that believe that Catholics have no working knowledge of Scripture, I like that this is an opportunity to instruct. of course, I’m a DRE and am into catechesis. For everyone. Most especially cradle Catholics. So, for me, in my limited scope, I think it’s a good thing.
Literal and accurate translations, from a educational standpoint are valuable.
The poetry/prayer of the Mass can be found in the romance languages, and also has great beauty as well as profound meaning.
Having said all that…we had a very funny incident at a Convalidation the other day.
Father wanted to recite the Gloria … small group, nobody asked me to play…
and he started “Glory to God in the Highest!” and the people stared for a bit and answered “Glory to God in the Highest!” Father looked at us as if to say “WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE DOING?” He held out his hands like “What’s going on?” Was hilarious. People went scrambling for the cards. So…yeah. People might not stumble with the spoken words, but when we’re used to SINGING the words…and we’re asked to speak, we’re lost. Totally lost.
Peace to you,
pianist
R
rightofcenter77
Guest
P
pianistclare
Guest
Sure the Church does. But the people within the Church across many nations don’t.
People have a right to pray in their native tongue. I think that’s already been established.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
And what language is universal ? Latin ?
There was a reason why the Bishops of the Church sought to open the Mass to the vernacular of the people present.
Jim
T
tafan
Guest
This is really what drives me crazy. You are not taking exception to the translation, you are taking exception to the Church’s prayer. There is absolutely no way one can consider the “Lord I am not worthy to receive you” as a translation of the prayer used before communion. It is changing the prayer, not translating. And that was wrong.
The old translation did this is several places. You do not leave out entire phrases in a translation (eg Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa ). When you do that, you are not translating, you are editing.
The new translation, albeit with one or two parts of the creed being not the smoothest, is immensely better. It is an actual translation, sans all editorializing.
- Status