New English Translation of Mass: Gloria more judgemental?

[Love_Divine]

Is it “sing!”? This version has two “mistakes:” “Sing” and “…God’s people on earth.”
Which one were you talking about?

God, but sing does it to. The inclusive language trumps the added word.

 

[Jim_Roberts]

In our weekly bullitin at Mass, some of the coming changes to it were written to give everyone an idea as to what in particular will change. When my wife looked at the changes, one of the translations stood out in particular: the changing of the Gloria from:

“peace to his people on earth”

to

“peace on earth to people of good will”

Our pastor handed out a sheet telling what words were changed… To me it is a time and waste of money!!! The Catholic Church could use their money for better things.
In some churches of the Creed they leave out the word man.

 

[Seatuck]

There is no better use for church money than for improving the greatest prayer we have which is the Mass.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Jim, you might not realize that when the Latin was first rendered in the vernacular English (between 1965 and 1970 in many places), this ‘new translation’ (a more literal translation of the Latin) was used. Between 1965 and 1970 I learned that translation, then had to relearn the ‘current’ translation from 1970 on.

I lived.

Now I’m going to have to learn (or actually re-learn) again.

I’ll still live. In fact, I’ll enjoy it because I thought the ‘first’ translation sounded better and conveyed the actual original meaning ‘better’ than the 1970 version.

Sorry you think it a waste of time and money. I personally think it’s long overdue. Time will tell.

 

[ProVobis]

There is no better use for church money than for improving the greatest prayer we have which is the Mass.

True, but there is such a thing as over-hyping it. It’s just a translation. It’s only an improvement if it increases understanding of the Mass. If people are going to get hung up on “consubstantial” and other Latinizations, even though I or you may “like” them more, what improvement is it?

 

[Love_Divine]

Our pastor handed out a sheet telling what words were changed… To me it is a time and waste of money!!! The Catholic Church could use their money for better things.

I agree! Let’s just scrap the whole new translation and vernacular Mass and just use Latin.

 

[Love_Divine]

True, but there is such a thing as over-hyping it. It’s just a translation. It’s only an improvement if it increases understanding of the Mass. If people are going to get hung up on “consubstantial” and other Latinizations, even though I or you may “like” them more, what improvement is it?

The new translation is better. Wait until you hear the improved translations of the propers. Also, I think one of the revisions is quite important.

What was once “Happy are those who are called to His supper” will be, “Blessed are those who are called to the supper of the lamb.”

 

[TheMc]

God, but sing does it to. The inclusive language trumps the added word.

The inclusive language is most definitively a bigger deal, but either way, sing shouldn’t have been added either.

 

[TheMc]

Jim Roberts;8162919:

Our pastor handed out a sheet telling what words were changed… To me it is a time and waste of money!!! The Catholic Church could use their money for better things.
In some churches of the Creed they leave out the word man.

I agree! Let’s just scrap the whole new translation and vernacular Mass and just use Latin.

Indeed. Such a waste. If everyone used latin, then there would be no waste paying the ICEL staff, as well as the equivilent group for each other language. There would also be a lot of money saved from having to typeset and market all these different missals in different languages.

It would be much more efficient and cost effective to use latin.

 

[Corki]

It’s not more judgmental.

Here’s a rendition that I absolutely abhor because of one GLARING word at the beginning. See if you can pick it up.
WARNING: Terrible trumpet playing.that assaults the ears.
youtu.be/OUzonXOIoZQ

Yuck! And according to the comments, the setting actually uses “His people” correctly but the parish changed it.

 

[ibo]

No verb in the Greek either? (i.e. not “Glory BE to God in the highest.”)

I say that because Dominus vobiscum contains no verb. Yet the English supplies a subjunctive (“The Lord BE with you,” unintentionally perhaps(?) when the Lord is already with you) there and leaves the Gloria as written.

In english and eve other language, the verb sometimes if suppressed for it is understood.

 

[LilyM]

We in Australia are already using the new translation. The musical settings are the same old same old, only minor changes required to accommodate the new wording.

 

[Phemie]

With regards specifically to the Gloria, what about the slight variations in wording that exist between different sung versions of the Gloria? For example, the sung version commonly in use in my own Diocese renders the line discussed above as ‘peace to his people, peace on Earth’. This is a departure from the usual spoken version of ‘peace to his people on Earth’. Will the new Mass translation have any affect on this?

The rule already exists that we are not supposed to change the text of the Gloria, so many of us are using Glorias we shouldn’t be – in my parish that’s the occasional use of Carey Landry’s Gloria from the Young People’s Mass.

Once the text changes we will not be allowed to use the old Glorias, again because the rule is that we cannot change the text of prayers just because they are set to music.

 

[ProVobis]

The new translation is better.

Please explain why. I guess I’m not getting it. A linguistics expert could tell you that using cognates (e.g. spirit for spiritus, etc.) isn’t necessarily better.

Since I attend mostly Latin and Polish Masses (and hopefully Arabic soon), I probably won’t get too much exposure to the new translations. I guess I was never a fan of any English translations, even in the old Latin-English missals. But that said, the only thing that bothered me was the “for you and for all” part of the English Mass. Yet, if the bishops said it was valid, then it was valid.

 

[ProVobis]

In english and eve other language, the verb sometimes if suppressed for it is understood.

So you agree that “The Lord with you” would have been better and understood as “The Lord (IS) with you” which seems to be more theologically correct than the artificial “The Lord BE with you”?

 

[Digitonomy]

That is the literal translation of the Greek (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_in_excelsis_Deo) :

Δόξα Σοι τῷ δείξαντι τὸ φῶς.

Glory to Thee who has shown us the light.
Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις Θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία.
Glory in the highest to God and on Earth peace to people of goodwill (literally)
Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace, goodwill to all people.

Now my literal translation differs. εὐδοκία= goodwill; ἐν ἀνθρώποις = to men, so the translation as you see it is not easy. what did the author intended to transmit?..

I’m confused - you have 2 lines of Greek, and 3 lines of English translation. The 4th line seems to come from the Wikipedia article, so where is the 5th line from?

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

I appreciate everyone’s replies thus far. Mostly everyone has been helpful. Quite frankly, I never noticed the suble differences between what Scripture renders compared to the Gloria itself.

Regarding the use of the term “judgemental” in my OP: I mentioned the change to the Gloria to someone at work and the concerns that the new translation seems…well…less welcoming (translation from “his people” to “people of good will”), and the response I got was that it could appear to be more judgemental to someone coming in to observe the Mass for the first time. It coulds be perceived as a turn off that peace is offered to some (those of good will) and not to others.

 

[lizaanne]

… it could appear to be more judgemental to someone coming in to observe the Mass for the first time. It coulds be perceived as a turn off that peace is offered to some (those of good will) and not to others.

Well then, those others need to get with the program, and get right with God, so they too can be worthy of His peace!

The truth is not easy for some folks to hear, but it is what it is. Watering down the liturgy so everyone gets a warm fuzzy is not what Truth is about.

~Liza

 

[Elizium23]

I’m not sure why it’s seen as wrong to limit God’s peace to those of good will. Are those who have bad intentions so concerned about God in the first place? Should we invite evil spirits to dwell among us without rebuking them soundly? If we should be more welcoming, then shouldn’t we throw open the gates of Heaven too? What’s wrong with bad people going there? It’s not “inclusive” to send people to Hell just because they committed a mortal sin. Let’s welcome everyone to the beatific vision instead!

 

[Love_Divine]

I’m not sure why it’s seen as wrong to limit God’s peace to those of good will. Are those who have bad intentions so concerned about God in the first place? Should we invite evil spirits to dwell among us without rebuking them soundly? If we should be more welcoming, then shouldn’t we throw open the gates of Heaven too? What’s wrong with bad people going there? It’s not “inclusive” to send people to Hell just because they committed a mortal sin. Let’s welcome everyone to the beatific vision instead!

I think we should just take a moment right now and sing Kumbaya.