New Mass Translation Given Rome's Approval

[japhy]

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.

The ecumenical translation has some issues with it. And it’s not even 40 years old.

There’s no reason other Christians can’t adopt the new English translation, the one which translates Credo as “I believe” (instead of as “We believe”, which would be Credimus), which translates incarnatus est as “incarnate” (instead of “born”, which would be natus est), and which uses the word “consubtantial” which is theologically accurate (as opposed to “one in being” which is a bit vague and open to fallacious interpretation).

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

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??

Most are aiming for Advent in 2011. From what I’ve read not everything in the sacramentary is finished being retranslated. Apparently they are still working on the proper of the saints and the liturgical seasons.

 

[japhy]

From what I’ve read not everything in the sacramentary is finished being retranslated. Apparently they are still working on the proper of the saints and the liturgical seasons.

The translation of the propers was what was voted on back in November. It was receiving its last going-over by the CDWDS and Vox Clara over the past few months. The Roman Missal was presented to the Holy Father recently. As far as I have seen from reports, there is no more translation happening.

 

[OriginalJS]

The ecumenical translation has some issues with it. And it’s not even 40 years old.

There’s no reason other Christians can’t adopt the new English translation, the one which translates Credo as “I believe” (instead of as “We believe”, which would be Credimus), which translates incarnatus est as “incarnate” (instead of “born”, which would be natus est), and which uses the word “consubtantial” which is theologically accurate (as opposed to “one in being” which is a bit vague and open to fallacious interpretation).

These observations confirm my earlier post about the difficulties of translation. The goal is to arrive at meaning, not to be sure that the translation reflects the grammar and usage of the original. “Credo” means “I believe,” but in the context of the Nicene Creed perhaps the true meaning expressed in English is “we believe.” The statement “I am not worthy to receive you” may convey more meaning than “I am not worthy that you should come under my roof.” (That’s what the Centurion really said.) “Consubstantial” seems like an anglicized Latin adjective, whereas “one in being with” is straightforward, plain English, but if the translators see the need, then so be it.

 

[japhy]

The goal is to arrive at meaning, not to be sure that the translation reflects the grammar and usage of the original.

“The goal is to arrive at meaning” sounds more like interpretation than translation to me. That’s what got us “I am not worthy to receive you” instead of the words of the centurion. While the meaning is important, there is meaning even in a very direct translation, and sometimes catechesis is the proper avenue for providing meaning. A translation that interprets too much (to provide meaning) can sometimes restrict the meaning too much and omit the possibility of other meanings to be derived from the text.

“Credo” means “I believe,” but in the context of the Nicene Creed perhaps the true meaning expressed in English is “we believe.”

Well, perhaps. But according to the Catechism, “I believe” is “the Church, our mother, responding to God by faith.” (CCC 167) And the magisterial document governing the new translation, Liturgiam Authenticam, addresses this change specifically:
65. … The Creed is to be translated according to the precise wording that the tradition of the Latin Church has bestowed upon it, including the use of the first person singular, by which is clearly made manifest that “the confession of faith is handed down in the Creed, as it were, as coming from the person of the whole Church, united by means of the Faith.” (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, IIaIIae, I, 9)

The statement “I am not worthy to receive you” may convey more meaning than “I am not worthy that you should come under my roof.”

Perhaps you’d like to read my explanation of these words?

“Consubstantial” seems like an anglicized Latin adjective, whereas “one in being with” is straightforward, plain English, but if the translators see the need, then so be it.

Should we also omit words like “pastor” from our English liturgy, since those are straight out of the Latin? The word consubstantial is essentially an anglicized Latin word, but that’s not in itself a reason to disqualify it. Some dictionaries do have that word in them, by the way.

 

[recondelta]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

GIR replied

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

My reply:
As I recall, you’ve got proscriptive grammar, prescriptive grammar, and descriptive grammar. I do not see where the life or death of any or all of these has anything to do with the price of beans. What I do know is that the proposed translation is bad English. If that’s what the translators feel English speaking members of our Church deserve, then who am I to disagree.

 

[japhy]

What I do know is that the proposed translation is bad English.

Would you mind providing specific examples for us to discuss?

The text of the Mass is not an essay. It is more akin to poetry.

 

[mdzialo]

The prior translation is a dud. Let’s get back to where we once belonged. The sooner, the better. I believe. Three cheers for consubstantial.

 

[OriginalJS]

"
Perhaps you’d like to read my explanation of these words?

Should we also omit words like “pastor” from our English liturgy, since those are straight out of the Latin? The word consubstantial is essentially an anglicized Latin word, but that’s not in itself a reason to disqualify it. Some dictionaries do have that word in them, by the way.

I have read your explanation which consists of explanation of the scripture and a theological interpretation of it. The scripture considered in context is clear; not sure about the rest. I’ve always wondered, though, about using this language because I have never read anywhere that the apostles said any such thing at the Last Supper. But this is getting way off the thread and I am getting into deep water.

Obviously, we can’t omit Latin words from English vocabulary, since Latin derivatives, like French, are extremely widespread and commonly used. It seems preferable to use common English words that everyone understands.

 

[japhy]

I’ve always wondered, though, about using this language because I have never read anywhere that the apostles said any such thing at the Last Supper.

That’s not really the point, though.

 

[Digitonomy]

"recondelta:

What I do know is that the proposed translation is bad English.

Would you mind providing specific examples for us to discuss?

The text of the Mass is not an essay. It is more akin to poetry.

I’ve thought about this for several days. It was revealing to consider the poetic aspects during mass yesterday. However, the particular part of mass most often cited in discussions of this issue is the Creed. This does not read like poetry, it reads like a run-on sentence. Or several run-on sentences often without clear subjects and verbs, perhaps run-on independent clauses and dependent clauses. I don’t think the new translation is any improvement in this area.

To be fair, it’s not unlike some other statements of belief, such as the Pledge of Allegiance or baptismal vows. However, that doesn’t absolve it from being a run-on sentence, nor does that make it poetry.