New draft translation of Mass prayers distributed to bishops

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I like EP 2 because of the Sanctus and dislike EP 1 because of the lack of an explicit Epiclesis.

 

[threej_lc]

JKirkLVNV:

I thought I was clear. It sounds effeminate. This is a subjective opinion, and I acknowledge it to be as such.
.

I was just re-reading through my posts and realized I may have come across as angry with you. I just wanted to let you know I’m not in any way, you just totally caught me off guard and surprise. I had just gotten through thinking about how beautiful of a line I thought it was when I read your post

Just a comment: The Eucharistic prayer is the prayer of the Church. The Church is the bride of Christ. Shouldn’t her prayers sound effiminate from time to time?

Josh

 

[JKirkLVNV]

threej_lc:

I was just re-reading through my posts and realized I may have come across as angry with you. I just wanted to let you know I’m not in any way, you just totally caught me off guard and surprise. I had just gotten through thinking about how beautiful of a line I thought it was when I read your post

Just a comment: The Eucharistic prayer is the prayer of the Church. The Church is the bride of Christ. Shouldn’t her prayers sound effiminate from time to time?

Josh

Yes, She is His Bride, and no, Her prayers should never be effeminate. “Feminine?” Dunno, perhaps not. “Effeminate” is a term used to describe certain men (perhaps unkindly, but used nonetheless). It isn’t in any way shape or form a positive adjective, so I doubt that the Church’s prayers should be effeminate.

 

[Pug]

**My favourite part of the translation has to be the prayer before the presence of the Eucharist… “**Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.”

You can’t get any more humble than that beautiful prayer!!

It is strange to know the mass prayers in a language other than English (or Latin). I have always enjoyed that prayer you mention in Spanish. Some of the changes (to me) just seem like we are moving closer to how I hear things in Spanish. I especially like that the response to “the Lord be with you” is changing a bit.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

JKirkLVNV:

Translating is difficult. If this doesn’t translate well, leave it out. It doesn’t have to be there, as it isn’t an essential.

Sometimes phrases don’t translate very well directly. For lack of a more dignified example, the German Pferdapfel, which would literally mean “horse apple,” should faithfully be translated as “road apple” (the term referring of course to horse manure). Not a great example, but it is the first that came to mind. The fault you are finding, however, is not that the phrase translates poorly, but that you don’t like the phrase to begin with. This is, and I offer only my conjecture, why the ICEL translation as it stands takes such liberties. The translators took it upon themselves to improve the text, which was not their assigned task. “Et cum spiritu tuo” means “and with your spirit.” “And also with you” is an obviously different phrase. The same goes for the “Domine, non sum dignus…” It was not a better translation to omit mention of a roof and a soul, it was only the ICEL thinking that they conveyed the meaning of the original better by changing the text itself. This is simply not acceptable translation practice.

I also have to take issue with the notion that if something mandated by the Church doesn’t translate well it should be left out. The GIRM doesn’t say at many of the conflict points to use “these or similar words” because the Church puts something in the normative text that she wants to be said. It is not up to individuals, even in committee, to substitute their judgment for that of the Church. The notion that only “essentials” must be carried out faithfully is what underlies the culture of liturgical abuse in this country. I know you probably have reasonable limits in mind for dropping clumsy phrases, but I just don’t see it as ever being acceptable.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Andreas Hofer:

Sometimes phrases don’t translate very well directly. For lack of a more dignified example, the German Pferdapfel, which would literally mean “horse apple,” should faithfully be translated as “road apple” (the term referring of course to horse manure). Not a great example, but it is the first that came to mind. The fault you are finding, however, is not that the phrase translates poorly, but that you don’t like the phrase to begin with. This is, and I offer only my conjecture, why the ICEL translation as it stands takes such liberties. The translators took it upon themselves to improve the text, which was not their assigned task. “Et cum spiritu tuo” means “and with your spirit.” “And also with you” is an obviously different phrase. The same goes for the “Domine, non sum dignus…” It was not a better translation to omit mention of a roof and a soul, it was only the ICEL thinking that they conveyed the meaning of the original better by changing the text itself. This is simply not acceptable translation practice.

I also have to take issue with the notion that if something mandated by the Church doesn’t translate well it should be left out. The GIRM doesn’t say at many of the conflict points to use “these or similar words” because the Church puts something in the normative text that she wants to be said. It is not up to individuals, even in committee, to substitute their judgment for that of the Church. The notion that only “essentials” must be carried out faithfully is what underlies the culture of liturgical abuse in this country. I know you probably have reasonable limits in mind for dropping clumsy phrases, but I just don’t see it as ever being acceptable.

I’m offering an opinion of the use of a non-essential. If that’s what I’m going to hear at Mass henceforth, I’m not going to boo or blow a raspberry. I also disagree fundamentally with the following assertion:

“The notion that only “essentials” must be carried out faithfully is what underlies the culture of liturgical abuse in this country.”

I think it’s about ego, about wanting to put the stamp of one’s ego on the Mass, that has resulted in liturgical abuse, not the notion that we only HAVE to do the essentials. I mentioned the essentials to seperate them from the non-essentials (non-essentials having the potential to be profoundly good). I’m not positing the argument that clergy have the right to ignore rubrics as long as they observe essentials, I’m saying that if a non-essential doesn’t translate terribly well, it can be modified, with the Holy See’s approval.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

JKirkLVNV:

I’m offering an opinion of the use of a non-essential. If that’s what I’m going to hear at Mass henceforth, I’m not going to boo or blow a raspberry. I also disagree fundamentally with the following assertion:

“The notion that only “essentials” must be carried out faithfully is what underlies the culture of liturgical abuse in this country.”

I think it’s about ego, about wanting to put the stamp of one’s ego on the Mass, that has resulted in liturgical abuse, not the notion that we only HAVE to do the essentials. I mentioned the essentials to seperate them from the non-essentials (non-essentials having the potential to be profoundly good). I’m not positing the argument that clergy have the right to ignore rubrics as long as they observe essentials, I’m saying that if a non-essential doesn’t translate terribly well, it can be modified, with the Holy See’s approval.

I’ll give you the ego trip reasoning for liturgical abuse. But in talking with a priest who essentially celebrates the Mass of Fr. X, I found that he is still conscientiously careful that he doesn’t affect the essentials of consecration. Those essentials are the only part that he will not alter in the interests of being “pastoral.” Since this is only two short phrases out of an hour-long Mass, this doesn’t keep him from finding lots of wiggle room. I think there would be less abuse if our priests were convinced that more parts of the Mass should be left inviolate as essentials.

 

[RobNY]

I like this part:

For example, the third eucharistic prayer currently in use says: “From age to age you gather a people to yourself, so that from East to West a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your name.”

The 2004 version had said: “… you never cease to gather a people to yourself, so that from the rising of the sun to its setting a pure oblation may be offered to your name.”

In the latest draft, the word “oblation” is replaced with “sacrifice.”

I like the explicit Malachi reference in this one. And the change of oblation to sacrifice will much help the understanding for most people, I suppose. Although oblation, perhaps, is a superior word.

The new translation should be interesting.

 

[tee_eff_em]

RobNY:

The new translation should be interesting.

If ever one is approved. :ehh:

tee
(who passed out long ago from holding his breath waiting)

 

[msproule]

I just read this article that was linked from www.spiritdaily.com.

It appears to report that at the current Bishops’ meeting in Washington D.C. there is much debate over the proposed changes to the Engligh translation of the Liturgy, which are intended to more closely conform to the Latin text.

According to the article, a survey conducted by Bishop Donald Trautman, chairman of the USCCB Committee on th Litugy, found the following:

12% of Bishops believe the proposed translation is “excellent”
40% rate it as “good”
40% rate it as “fair”
7% rate it as “poor”
(1% must be “undecided”!)

Personally, I think these changes are long overdue. I wish I knew how my Bishop voted , although I bet I could make a good guess .

 

[MrS]

msproule:

I just read this article that was linked from www.spiritdaily.com.

It appears to report that at the current Bishops’ meeting in Washington D.C. there is much debate over the proposed changes to the Engligh translation of the Liturgy, which are intended to more closely conform to the Latin text.

According to the article, a survey conducted by Bishop Donald Trautman, chairman of the USCCB Committee on th Litugy, found the following:

12% of Bishops believe the proposed translation is “excellent”
40% rate it as “good”
40% rate it as “fair”
7% rate it as “poor”
(1% must be “undecided”!)

Personally, I think these changes are long overdue. I wish I knew how my Bishop voted , although I bet I could make a good guess .

12% of your(my) bishop voted it was excellant, so that is a small start in the right direction,

 

[msproule]

12% of your(my) bishop voted it was excellant, so that is a small start in the right direction,

Ahh! I should have asked you before I assumed anything! How about our close neighbors to the east? Any insight there?

This brings up an interesting question: How useful (or problematic) would it be to have feedback on such matters…to know how one’s Bishop voted on a particular issue? This sort of information can often be extracted piecemeal from some of the meeting transcripts offered on the Adoremus Bulletin website. However, I doubt we will ever see a full report like we see in congressional voting, for example. I suppose one explanation for this is that we do not vote for our Bishops.

What I thought troubling in the article I posted were the major reasons cited for not wanting to alter the translation, or to make minor changes only: (1) It would be uncomfortable for the faithful and clergy during the transition period. (2) Additionally, the Bishops dissenting from the proposals did not want to further erode the respect for their office by their priests in the wake of the abuse scandal. (3) Lastly, it would require new musical compositions for the Gloria .

 

[mgy100]

Properly translating the Latin to English is a service that is due to the people…
And David, EP 1… remember the Latin church didn’t have an “epiclesis” until after the new missal… right? Tell me if I am wrong.

 

[tee_eff_em]

msproule:

I just read this article that was linked from www.spiritdaily.com.

It appears to report that at the current Bishops’ meeting in Washington D.C. there is much debate over the proposed changes to the Engligh translation of the Liturgy, which are intended to more closely conform to the Latin text.

According to the article, a survey conducted by Bishop Donald Trautman, chairman of the USCCB Committee on th Litugy, found the following:

12% of Bishops believe the proposed translation is “excellent”
40% rate it as “good”
40% rate it as “fair”
7% rate it as “poor”
(1% must be “undecided”!)

Personally, I think these changes are long overdue. I wish I knew how my Bishop voted , although I bet I could make a good guess .

From the article:

“We are a divided body on this translation issue. At this time we do not have a two-thirds vote necessary for canonical approval,” he [Trautman] said.

That would depend on how the “fair” bishops vote, wouldn’t it? :ehh: If “excellent” and “good” would vote for it, only about 1 out of 3 “fair”'s would be needed…

I wonder what the breakdown would look like if they were asked to rate the current translation? :ehh:

tee

 

[msproule]

tee_eff_em:

That would depend on how the “fair” bishops vote, wouldn’t it? :ehh: If “excellent” and “good” would vote for it, only about 1 out of 3 “fair”'s would be needed…

Very true, tee. Anyway, I find it interesting how that survey was worded. Maybe the author of the article took some liberty to simplify it. But, how can one call an objectionably more accurate translation “poor”?

I wonder what the breakdown would look like if they were asked to rate the current translation?

If the newly-proposed translation can honestly be called “poor”, then the current one must be “bankrupt”.

As with everything else, if the faithful and clergy are properly catechised as to why the changes are necessary, there should be little trouble moving forward. But, judging by the pace and manner by which the revised GIRM is being implemented in many places, I have my own doubts as to how well received a change in translated text will be. It is truly sad.

 

[johnnykins]

I vote for One Canon only - it’s unnecessary to have - what 6-7 now!! My wife is non-catholic and complains regularly that Mass is too complicated to follow. (She’s now given up trying - and I believe now that all the options, etc., are at least a small impediment to her entry into the Church). As for the epiclesis - add one to the Roman Canon. It wouldn’t hurt and would be seen as an ecumenical gesture to the East. Also - let’s put the Creed back in daily Mass. Why was it ever removed???

 

[MrS]

msproule:

What I thought troubling in the article I posted were the major reasons cited for not wanting to alter the translation, or to make minor changes only: (1) It would be uncomfortable for the faithful and clergy during the transition period. (2) Additionally, the Bishops dissenting from the proposals did not want to **further erode the respect for their office **by their priests in the wake of the abuse scandal. (3) Lastly, it would require new musical compositions for the Gloria .

1] Uncomfortable??? Guess that means that they would only implement, and then not bother to instruct.

2] I don’t think they need worry about further erosion of respect. Opinions are 1/3 he is fine, 1/3 he is awful, 1/3 don’t care ---- no matter what a priest or bishop does.

3] Is there a possibility the Gloria could be sung to “Gather Us In”?
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_13_18.gif

 

[Illini]

msproule:

According to the article, a survey conducted by Bishop Donald Trautman, chairman of the USCCB Committee on th Litugy, found the following:

12% of Bishops believe the proposed translation is “excellent”
40% rate it as “good”
40% rate it as “fair”
7% rate it as “poor”
(1% must be “undecided”!)

Maybe this is why Vox Clara told the Pope that it would be 23 months before the new translation would be complete. He needs time to retire the “poor” ones and replace them with “good” and “excellent.” I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that a solid majority of those deeming this translation “fair” or “poor” are part of the old guard who became bishops in the 1970’s and early 1980’s and are now nearing retirement, but who currently hold many leadership posts due to seniority. So maybe the delay is really a good thing, to prevent the “progressives” from watering down the text.

-Illini

 

[Jakub]

The time frame from the committee is ridiculous…guess it’s not a priority to them…

james

 

[thistle]

There are 9 Eucharistic Prayers in total.
Does the translation only cover four Eucharistic Prayers? What about the three EP’s for children and the two for Reconciliation?