New Mass Translation Given Rome's Approval

[japhy]

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments is to issue its formal approval of the new English translation of the complete Roman Missal later today.

The recognitio comes after nearly ten years of study and sometimes difficult consultation over the new translation of prayers for the Mass.

Today’s development will therefore mark a key step, although when the new Missal will be made available in parishes remains unclear.
(source: Edward Pentin reporting for the National Catholic Register)

 

[puzzleannie]

what also remains unclear is how well Catholics will be catechized on the changes, our pastor has already begun, and we have already begun in catechetical programs, but across the board I am skeptical, since this has not been handled well in the past, and because the acrimonious debate over certain translated words has been highly publicized. I think the changes make sense when compared to the Latin, but when compared to the average level of English comprehension and vocabulary of the average person, not so much.

 

[Adeodatus]

If people can learn about the Holy Trinity, they can learn the definition of a word here or there. I don’t see a problem. If someone is having difficulty understanding, then they can pray to God and surely receive whatever portion of understanding is necessary.

Also, you don’t have to be a scholar to be holy. You don’t even have to understand everything to be holy. But the prayers should be correct.

 

[recondelta]

With all the time they spent on this new translation, they should have taken a few more weeks to let a high school or college English teacher point out the dangling participles, split infinitives, and “sentences” without verbs. I am firmly convinced that the final form was modified somewhere along the line by someone for whom English is a second language.

 

[JaMc]

Here would have been the easiest solution: Get a Latin-English Missal, photocopy every second page, re-arrange it to fit the Ordinary Form Mass, and voila!

Another solution: Use the traditional “high church” Anglican Use liturgy in place of the current Ordinary Form.

Is the new translation perfect? Probably not. But it is 110% better than what we have now, which is more or less a dumbed-down rough paraphrase. Where they got “for all” from pro multis, “and also with you” from et cum spiritu tuo, and “we believe” from credo, is beyond me…

 

[choy]

With all the time they spent on this new translation, they should have taken a few more weeks to let a high school or college English teacher point out the dangling participles, split infinitives, and “sentences” without verbs. I am firmly convinced that the final form was modified somewhere along the line by someone for whom English is a second language.

the issue here is in the modern use of english, its different from every place english is spoken. english in the US is different from english in the UK, Canada, Australia, etc.

i mean, it is still understandable. but given that the meaning of words spoken in mass will be dissected, there will be different levels of appreciation depending on the use of the language in a particular area

 

[Druidmaide_Jean]

I don’t watch, read or listen to much news – too upsetting. But since it seems I must post something somewhere before I can post elsewhere, here goes –
I would like to see a SIMPLIFIED Missal that would allow me to follow the daily Mass, without all the “go to this page, go back to that page, use one of the following”
I’d even appreciate it online so I could print it out and take it with me! And I wish the Priest din’t have so many options as to which prayer on what day – so it would be truly universal in whatever Church I attend (I travel a lot).
For what it’s worth – that’s my feeling on the new Misssal
Jean

<<Today’s development will therefore mark a key step, although when the new Missal will be made available in parishes remains unclear>>

 

[DianeGee]

I’m not worried. Don’t understand some of the hand-wringing.

 

[dgj23112]

Begging forgiveness for my audacity in commenting, but, speaking as a “fallen away” Anglo-Catholic, I cannot help but agree with the fellow who suggested that all that was needed was to photocopy every other page of a Latin-English missal, and, voila!..one has an English translation. In fact those translations have been 'round since at least
the late 1800’s. And even better yet, the sense of mystery, majesty, and holiness…(translation: reverence) is preserved. I’ve continuously found it staggering, mind-boggling, quaint, and idiotic (all at the same time, I must add), that there was a general assumption of overnight descent into dumbness on the part of the churchmen by the majority of those in clerical orders, which could only be solved by creating the garbage liturgies found across the board, whether in the realm of the RCC, the Anglicans, or wherever. If I err in my thinking, why the (meteoric?) rise in the return to the Latin Rite, whether OF or EF?? The faithful are not nearly as dumb as many have thought, and, quite correctly, long for the reverence that can only be found in worship that seeks to elevate one from temporal time into spiritual time…“time without beginning or end”…a reverence that is a natural by-product of an earnest attempt to duplicate, as best we fallen sinners can, that which is given the Almighty on His throne on high. And, as long as I’m leading this pep-rally for the new missal, those who find fault in its “stilted” or, “archaic” or, “too formal” language, might well consider that it’s far more likely to achieve the desired outcome than assuming that everyone will either a.) learn enough Latin to understand perfectly well all that’s being said/prayed/etc, or b.) just accept that they shouldn’t be bothered with wanting to truly “pray the mass”, preferring, rather, to just wait for the bells to signal their next Pavlovian response.

 

[rlg94086]

what also remains unclear is how well Catholics will be catechized on the changes, our pastor has already begun, and we have already begun in catechetical programs, but across the board I am skeptical, since this has not been handled well in the past, and because the acrimonious debate over certain translated words has been highly publicized. I think the changes make sense when compared to the Latin, but when compared to the average level of English comprehension and vocabulary of the average person, not so much.

Our Archdiocese has already scheduled training on the changes and how to implement them for the clergy and catechists for this summer. I was going to teach about it in Adult Faith Formation this year, but decided I would wait until after the sessions and closer promulgation (2012, I believe).

 

[mlund]

All I really hope for is that someone, somewhere gave serious consideration to allowing an expert on English Grammar make significant editorial (name removed by moderator)ut on the text. The last thing I want to have to deal with is decades of mangled English because someone in charge of translating from English to Latin had a better grasp of Italian grammar than English grammar.

• Marty Lund

 

[Sapphire]

Is there a copy of the translation available? I’ve been reading comments people have posted on various websites claiming it is a step backwards while others say it is a better translation.

 

[japhy]

Is there a copy of the translation available? I’ve been reading comments people have posted on various websites claiming it is a step backwards while others say it is a better translation.

See usccb.org/romanmissal/ for the text of the Ordinary (that is, the parts of the Mass that don’t change from day to day and week to week). The Propers have not been released to the public yet.

 

[dgj23112]

Our Archdiocese has already scheduled training on the changes and how to implement them for the clergy and catechists for this summer. I was going to teach about it in Adult Faith Formation this year, but decided I would wait until after the sessions and closer promulgation (2012, I believe).

So it’s 2012 then?? Thought it was set for next year…surely the changes can’t be so great, other than language, that it’d take a year to prepare??

 

[rlg94086]

So it’s 2012 then?? Thought it was set for next year…surely the changes can’t be so great, other than language, that it’d take a year to prepare??

Not 100% sure, but I think that is what our priest mentioned in conversation…could have been an estimate or Church-year (i.e. Advent 2011).

 

[Phemie]

So it’s 2012 then?? Thought it was set for next year…surely the changes can’t be so great, other than language, that it’d take a year to prepare??

Our bishop, who was on the translation team, has been saying Advent 2011 (November 2011).

Consider the Holy Father’s words: *“The change will need to be introduced with due sensitivity, and the opportunity for catechesis that it presents will need to be firmly grasped. I pray that in this way any risk of confusion or bewilderment will be averted, and the change will serve instead as a springboard for a renewal and a deepening of Eucharistic devotion all over the English-speaking world.” *

I can see why they will take it slowly. Give it ample preparation. I don’t know how it is in your parishes but few people in mine are aware that this process has been under way and for many the little note I included in this weekend’s bulletin will be the first they’ve heard of either the 3rd edition or the translation work.

Also, looking back at Canada’s experience with the implementation of the new Lectionary I can see why they are setting the date later rather than sooner.

Our Lectionary received Rome’s approval in August 2007 and, with no catechesis necessary, was scheduled for implementation with the start of the new liturgical year in November 2008. Our missalettes were printed with the new translation but glitches in the printing process saw the implementation of the new Lectionary having to be postponed until Pentecost, May 2009. It necessitated a “no the Readers don’t need glasses and are not changing the readings of their own accord” note in the bulletin for those who noticed discrepancies between what they saw in their missalettes and what they heard proclaimed.

 

[Sapphire]

Thanks for the link! The more I read the new translation the more I look forward to its implementation.

 

[OriginalJS]

Translation is an art extremely difficult to master. It is the meaning that has to be translated, which is often difficult. Too often attempts at translating have resulted in stilted, awkward sentences employing archiac 18 century vocabulary ( e.g.“vouchsafe”) that fail to convey true meaning in contemporary language.

 

[GIR]

With all the time they spent on this new translation, they should have taken a few more weeks to let a high school or college English teacher point out the dangling participles, split infinitives, and “sentences” without verbs. I am firmly convinced that the final form was modified somewhere along the line by someone for whom English is a second language.

proscriptive grammar is dead. I think you’re trying to find fault for the sake of finding fault.

 

[jenkiedad]

I don’t have that much beef with the new translations, except for the new translaion of the Nicene Creed.

From what I understand, an ecumenical translation has been in effect sine the mid 1970’s that was shared with several Protestant faiths. I am disappointed that the new translation will now provide a departure from this ecumenical commonality.

So, I guess we’ll have to live with “consubstantial” instead of “one in being with” from the current version. The word “consubstantial” is not really a word with common everyday usage. In fact, my trusty old Merrian-Webster Collegiate Dictionary doesn’t even list it!