Most Irish priests want Mass translation revised or scrapped

[JimR-OCDS]

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.

The change of the words of the prayer reflect the reality taking place, which is what was called for in Vatican II and hence the translation we have.

The new translation, a literal translation from the Latin, makes the prayer abstract.

What are we praying ? Is it that we’re memorializing the centurion’s words to Jesus ?

If it’s our prayer, what does “under my roof,” mean ? Some say it’s under the roof of our mouth, if that’s the meaning, what poor prayer that lacks spiritual meaning.

We are in fact, receiving Jesus into our being, so the prayer “Lord I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the worlds and my soul shall be healed.” is not only correct to reality, but it has a contemplative aspect that the current translation merely serves to distract.

Jim

 

[tafan]

The change of the words of the prayer reflect the reality taking place, which is what was called for in Vatican II and hence the translation we have.

The new translation, a literal translation from the Latin, makes the prayer abstract.

What are we praying ? Is it that we’re memorializing the centurion’s words to Jesus ?

If it’s our prayer, what does “under my roof,” mean ? Some say it’s under the roof of our mouth, if that’s the meaning, what poor prayer that lacks spiritual meaning.

We are in fact, receiving Jesus into our being, so the prayer “Lord I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the worlds and my soul shall be healed.” is not only correct to reality, but it has a contemplative aspect that the current translation merely serves to distract.

Jim

If that is what Vatican II called for, why was the latin not changed when the new missal was promulgated in 1969? It may be abstract (assuming one has never read one of the most well known stories in the Gospels), but that is what the Church promulgated as the official prayer.
What you are proposing is not a translation, it is a change of the prayer’s meaning. Neither of us are good enough theologians to say which is best, but we can certainly agree on one version being a translation and the other being a different prayer.

I guess we can have the attitude: The Church got it wrong, but we English speakers are smarter than the rest of the world, so we will go our own way.

 

[ProVobis]

There was a reason why the Bishops of the Church sought to open the Mass to the vernacular of the people present.

And there was perhaps a better reason why John XXIII fought to forbid the vernacular, Vatican II commanded that Latin be preserved, and Paul VI asked that all parishes be given free copies of Jubilate Deo.

Unintended consequences of the vernacular were the translation wars that ensued and the division within multilingual parishes. Should have listened to that wisdom of the ancient church, as John XXIII stated in his Apostolic Constitution.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

If that is what Vatican II called for, why was the latin not changed when the new missal was promulgated in 1969? It may be abstract (assuming one has never read one of the most well known stories in the Gospels), but that is what the Church promulgated as the official prayer.
What you are proposing is not a translation, it is a change of the prayer’s meaning. Neither of us are good enough theologians to say which is best, but we can certainly agree on one version being a translation and the other being a different prayer.

I guess we can have the attitude: The Church got it wrong, but we English speakers are smarter than the rest of the world, so we will go our own way.

From Bishop Donald Trautman’s criticism of the new translation, prior to it’s release.

What happened to the liturgical principles of the “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy”? The council fathers of Vatican II stated: “Texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, as far as possible, should be able to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively and as it befits a community” (No. 21). Note the words “with ease.” This is the norm, the expressed wish in the constitution. This is a prerequisite that calls not just for the accuracy of translated texts but for the easy understanding of those texts.

americamagazine.org/issue/615/article/how-accessible-are-new-mass-translations

Jim

 

[ProVobis]

I guess we can have the attitude: The Church got it wrong, but we English speakers are smarter than the rest of the world, so we will go our own way.

It certainly seems so. The vernacular is one thing, understandability is another, but when a group (like the ICEL) thinks it has a right to impose its own doctrinal standards (“for you and for all men” among other things) and not only in English, then the problem becomes much greater in the long run. Not to mention harder to fix.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

And there was perhaps a better reason why John XXIII fought to forbid the vernacular, Vatican II commanded that Latin be preserved, and Paul VI asked that all parishes be given free copies of Jubilate Deo.

Unintended consequences of the vernacular were the translation wars that ensued and the division within multilingual parishes. Should have listened to that wisdom of the ancient church, as John XXIII stated in his Apostolic Constitution.

Pope John XXIII didn’t forbid the vernacular in Vatican II, but fought to preserve it in the Church, and the document you linked to, was written in February of 1962, before Vatican II open in October.

In this document, he was countering those who were attempting to cease the use of Latin in the Mass of the Latin Rite’s. The official language of the Church including the Mass will be Latin.

Vatican II, didn’t remove Latin from the Mass, but stated that it should be preserved and as Pope John XXIII stated, it was the universal language of the the Church and still is. It’s how it’s used in Rome and elsewhere when Masses are celebrated with people of various nationalities and languages attend. Using a vernacular would not be appropriate, so Latin is used.

However, as the Vatican II Document on the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy States, the vernacular is allowed.

It further goes on to state;

1. To ensure that adaptations may be made with all the circumspection which they demand, the Apostolic See will grant power to this same territorial ecclesiastical authority to permit and to direct, as the case requires, the necessary preliminary experiments over a determined period of time among certain groups suited for the purpose.

The Bishops were then allowed a time of experiment with the changes and use of the Vernacular.

This did in fact happen and the vernacular was so quickly and overwhelmingly received around the world, the Mass ended up in the vernacular to the point that Latin in most parishes is non-existent and there would be resistance if it were mandated to return at the exclusion of the vernacular.

The Bishops did not work autonomously on this, but with the Holy See.

Jim

 

[ProVobis]

I removed the post but since you insist on arguing (and I’m not sure whether you’re arguing more for the vernacular in general or for your own personal English),

Pope John XXIII didn’t forbid the vernacular

Actually two Popes effectively did.

"Latin therefore, so intimately bound up with the Church’s life, “is important not so much on cultural or literary grounds, as for religious reasons” as was pointed out by Our predecessor Pius XI who, having investigated this matter, indicated three attributes that are wonderfully consistent with the Church’s nature, namely: “in order that the Church may embrace all nations, and that it may last until the end of time, it requires a language that is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular.”

was written in February of 1962

Well, then, what about Jubilate Deo?

In April 1974 Pope Paul VI sent to every bishop in the world a booklet of some of the simplest selections of Gregorian Chant, much of it drawn from the Graduale Romanum. This booklet, called Jubilate Deo, was intended as a “minimum repertoire of Gregorian chant”. It is, in other words, an official Latin “core repertoire” for the Roman Rite. It was prepared, the Pope said, in order “to make it easier for Christians to achieve unity and spiritual harmony with their brothers and with the living tradition of the past. Hence it is that those who are trying to improve the quality of congregational singing cannot refuse Gregorian chant the place which is due to it” (Voluntati Obsequens).

Pope Paul VI gave permission for the selections in Jubilate Deo to be freely reprinted. The booklet was accompanied by a letter in which the Holy Father made this request of the bishops:

“Would you therefore, in collaboration with the competent diocesan and national agencies for the liturgy, sacred music and catechetics, decide on the best ways of teaching the faithful the Latin chants of Jubilate Deo and of having them sing them…. You will thus be performing a new service for the Church in the domain of liturgical renewal” (Voluntati Obsequens).

Jubilate Deo contains simple chant settings in Latin of the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass: Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Memorial Acclamation, Agnus Dei. It also provides musical settings for the dialogues between priest and people, such as before the Preface, and the Ite Missa est, the response to the Prayer of the Faithful, and others.

An, expanded edition of Jubilate Deo was later issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1987.

• See more at: adoremus.org/JubilateDeo.html#sthash.v1YS7Kko.dpuf

 

[JimR-OCDS]

No, I don’t want to argue about it.

But don’t hold your breath waiting for the Church to prohibit the use of the vernacular at Masses around the world.

If the Pope were to mandate that the TLM in Latin and Greek would be the ordinary, so be it.

However, that is never going to happen in my life time, and I pray it doesn’t.

Jim

 

[ProVobis]

However, that is never going to happen in my life time, and I pray it doesn’t.

So you’re okay with several hundred vernaculars, cultures, and theologies attached to them going on their merry and separate, if not corrupted, ways, just like Babel? Seems as if we’ve had enough disunity between Greek and Latin alone.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

So you’re okay with several hundred vernaculars, cultures, and theologies attached to them going on their merry and separate ways, just like Babel? Seems as if we’ve had enough disunity between Greek and Latin alone.

Just like Babel ?

Give it a break, the analogy isn’t even close.

Jim

 

[Cromwell4]

This is a group of malcontent modernist priests who have no standing in official Irish Church & even less with Irish laity. Gay, woman priests & Married priests is also part of their agenda.

Why don’t they just leave…or is the salary/lifestyle just too comfortable?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

This is a group of malcontent modernist priests who have no standing in official Irish Church & even less with Irish laity. Gay, woman priests & Married priests is also part of their agenda.

Why don’t they just leave…or is the salary/lifestyle just too comfortable?

So 4 out of 5 priests in Ireland which the article states are all modernist malcontent priests?

How’d you get that from the article ?

Jim

 

[ProVobis]

the analogy isn’t even close.

Then what about some 30,000 different Protestant denominations, each having its own translation and interpretation of scriptures and Christian doctrine?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Then what about some 30,000 different Protestant denominations, each having their own translations and interpretations of scriptures and Christian doctrine?

The Tower of Babel, and the use of vernacular in the Masses around the world have nothing in common.

Also, the 30,000 different Protestant denominations, are you going to blame that on the Vernacular translations of the Bible ?

So, Vernacular Translations of the Bible in the Catholic Church should all be banned and only what, Latin be allowed ?

Jim

 

[ChemicalBean]

I hope someone pays attention. I don’t have a problem with a literal translation so much as the literal word order, and perhaps wordiness. Latin-turned-English simply isn’t working to be intelligible on the ear.

I hope someone (ICEL? Rome? Bueller?) is listening. The Irish know their way with words. If they are saying it isn’t poetic or prayerful, it isn’t.

 

[tafan]

From Bishop Donald Trautman’s criticism of the new translation, prior to it’s release.

Jim

What of it? His criticism is in no way relevant to the specific prayer you are citing. He criticism is specifically targeted at the new English translation. You are criticizing the Roman Rite itself. Two different things.

 

[JimG]

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

Well, I spent many years reading just before communion, this prayer from the missal:

“Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum; sed tantum dic verbo, at sanabitur anima mea.”

And I always knew that the English translation was, “Lord I am not worthy that You should come under my roof, but speak only the word, and my soul shall be healed.”

A perfectly fine prayer, invoking the words of the Roman centurion who felt unworthy for Christ to enter his house.

(For me, it also evokes T.S. Eliot’s “Ash Wednesday” but that’s not a consideration.)

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Well, I spent many years reading just before communion, this prayer from the missal:

“Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum; sed tantum dic verbo, at sanabitur anima mea.”

And I always knew that the English translation was, “Lord I am not worthy that You should come under my roof, but speak only the word, and my soul shall be healed.”

A perfectly fine prayer, invoking the words of the Roman centurion who felt unworthy for Christ to enter his house.

(For me, it also evokes T.S. Eliot’s “Ash Wednesday” but that’s not a consideration.)

How wonderful for you.

However, not everyone was on your intellectual plane. ’

What about them ?

Jim

 

[JimG]

How wonderful for you.

However, not everyone was on your intellectual plane. ’

What about them ?

Jim

The current translation is a straight translation from the Latin. When the Mass was first translated into English by ICEL, that’s the translation that should have been used. No one reading the English/Latin Missal ever seemed to question the English translation, because it was exactly correct. The Mass prayers have a scriptural basis. There was a reason for using the scriptural reference to the centurion. I never knew anyone to question it until after the bad translations followed by the current correct translation. Everyone became accustomed to the bad translation.

 

[ProVobis]

No one reading the English/Latin Missal ever seemed to question the English translation, because it was exactly correct.

Actually there were differences between the various translations in the handmissals. I have several missals and I can show you. No one questioned them because they weren’t used in the Mass. Still, assemble ten translators and you will get ten different translations.As one CA priest put it, translation is more of an art than a science. I’m not defending either the old or new translation, just saying.

BTW, verbo is ablative, not accusative. So dic verbo becomes “say WITH a/the word” not “say the word.” A first-yr Latin student would probably find a lot of things in those old missals problematic.