New Missal Translation

[benedictgal]

I think this is one case where “dynamic equivalency” may be beneficial; however, as you pointed out since we are participants of the Latin Rite - we need a more literal translation of the Mass to demonstrate consistency within all who participate in that rite. I think that is only logical; and that is why I submit to the authority of the Church - I don’t have to like everything – my point is that if I have an understanding of the reasons for the changes it will help me more easily, or even agree with, the changes and my submission to them. However, for me to say “my fault, my fault, my own grievous fault” will have a feeling of being “hokey”.

MonFrere

It does not sound hokey. In Spanish, we say:

por mi culpa, por mi culpa, por mi gran culpa

The problem is that we have lost a grasp for the immense damage that sin causes. Sin, unfortunately, is also a corporate act. Not only does our personal sin cause damage to our friendship with God, but, it also causes damage to the Church.

Funny how it took a non-native English speaker like Jorge Cardinal Medina (when he was CDWDS back in 2001) to find all of the holes in the current translation and call for a new translation.

 

[Rolltide]

Has anyone mentioned up to this point that this new translation will be a UNIVERSAL translation for all English speaking countries? Currently, each English speaking nation has its own translation, so this will also provide a lot more consistency and save on printing costs.

The more accurate nature of the translation is the other major reason this is being undertaken.

 

[Brendan]

i but looking at one definition of ‘being’ from dictionary.com. “absolute existence in a complete or perfect state, lacking no essential characteristic; essence” and then looking at nature’s definition [hard to choose anappropriate one from the 13 listed], i fail to see how nature is really any better, and looking at 'consubstantial" the definition is “of one and the same substance, essence, or nature”, does it describe Jesus any better, or is it just a bigger word?

Philosophically, and theologicially, (and even liguistically) “being” is a derivitive of the verb “to be”, it implies only existance.

Nature, Substance and Essence are all qualities that are distinct from existance.

and so far as the universal Church, what of other translations? i realize chinese Cathoics are a minority, but the language is widely used. i know the great schism between east and west rose from disputes about Spirit and the Nicene Creed, however the words they use for Jesus in the Creed–i’ve read 2 versions–are “of one essence with the Father” and “being of one substance with the Father”

thank you for letting me vent!

peace of Christ!

That is correct, the Eastern Churches use “Of one essence” with Father. Again, dealing with the Divine, essence and substance are near identical terms.

So we could correctly use

1. Consubstantial
2. Of one Substance
3. Conessential
4. Of one Essence.

Consubstantial is one of the shortest of the correct options, and, for Latin Catholics, also carries with it the similarity to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation.

If someone gets “Transsubstantiation” (which everyone who regularly recieves Communion should understand), “Consubstantial” would be easier to understand.

 

[MonFrere]

It does not sound hokey.

The problem is that we have lost a grasp for the immense damage that sin causes. Sin, unfortunately, is also a corporate act. Not only does our personal sin cause damage to our friendship with God, but, it also causes damage to the Church.

I do not disagree with your quote about living in a society that has lost their sense of sin. That’s perfectly correct. But I do not think that my personal opinion on the matter has any cause and effect relationship to my personal attitude toward sin. I maintain that the new translation sounds “hokey” because it’s not the way anyone speaks these days. I live is Pittsburgh and thus live is Steeler country. The fans are fanatical and express a degree of fervor is ridiculous (to me). However, they NEVER say – I love the Steelers, I love the Steelers, O how I love the Steelers. The threefold manner of speech is just not part of the way we express deeply felt emotions in our time. If anyone would speak in this manner, regardless of the topic, it would come across as “hokey”.

So, please … do not mix up apples and oranges here by an implied connection between my not liking a particular translation and my personal (implied) lack of a sense of sin. Each issue is a separate one.

MonFrere

 

[Brendan]

For example: In all honesty I don’t like the new Confiteor where we will say “my fault, my fault, my own grievous fault”. IMO - this evokes a usage of language that we just don’t use any more. It is the language of someone beating up on themselves; which really isn’t reflective of my understanding of a genuine repentance (in the language of our day).re

Actually, beating ourselves up over it is exactly what we SHOULD be doing ( hence why we are supposed to strike our chests while saying it)

We have sinned. We have sinned greatly. We have offended an infinite Divine Majesty. Its our fault (nobody elses) and we need to own up to it.

That is exactly what we should be thinking, and that is exactly what the text implies.

How the heck could genine repentance be anything different?

If its NOT language that we don’t use anymore, the Church is telling us that it is language that we should use more often. To admit that we screwed up big time; that we did it ourselves and not blame others, and that we really, really need the prayers of our Churchmates to get better.

 

[GwenL]

Brendan and Benedictgal, thanks for your explanations. I’m hearing a lot of grumbling and complaining from people, and it’s the usual negative “change is bad” kind of whining. It’s good to have solid reasons to show why the new translation is so important.

You too, Japhy, and I bought your book!

 

[MonFrere]

If its NOT language that we don’t use anymore, the Church is telling us that it is language that we should use more often.

No, the Church is not translating this telling us it is the language we should use – they are translating the Latin in a literal way for the sake of consistency in translation that is accurate with the original Latin. Let’s not read more into this beyond that of what is really going on. This is an exercise in translation. This translation isn’t going to evoke genuine repentance in people any more than the old translation. When we recite the Confiteor I do my best to quiet myself and to quickly reflect in my own culpability in sin and evoke the communion of saints (the Church triumphant) to come to my aid. The Mass can remove venial sin, but not mortal sin. Confession is necessary for that. The repentance of mortal sin is a better model for the words - my fault, my fault, my own grievous fault IMO.

Like I said I will certainly very willingly accept the new translation. But my opinion is not a bellyache because I’m against any change. It’s an honest question as to the use of language that IMO is reflective of a different time and doesn’t “fit” into our contemporary patterns of speech. For me not to be able to mention this is to deny my own personal honesty as to the way words effect me. I will not let this go beyond this point; but I also will not allow people to put words in my mouth that I personally would not put there. Words that do not AT ALL reflect the way I am viewing this issue.

MonFrere

 

[benedictgal]

Like I said I will certainly very willingly accept the new translation. But my opinion is not a bellyache because I’m against any change. It’s an honest question as to the use of language that IMO is reflective of a different time and doesn’t “fit” into our contemporary patterns of speech. For me not to be able to mention this is to deny my own personal honesty as to the way words effect me. I will not let this go beyond this point; but I also will not allow people to put words in my mouth that I personally would not put there. Words that do not AT ALL reflect the way I am viewing this issue.

MonFrere

MonFrere, but, it is not about our personal preferences. It is about authenticity in the liturgy, specifically in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, something that is sorely missing in the new translation. The Holy See made it a priority, beginning eight years ago, to correct those words that are “put in our mouths” so to speak. These words have to authentically reflect what the Church says. Remember, we pray as we believe.

Maybe this statement from Liturgiam Authenticam can help:

1. Even if expressions should be avoided which hinder comprehension because of their excessively unusual or awkward nature, the liturgical texts should be considered as the voice of the Church at prayer, rather than of only particular congregations or individuals; thus, they should be free of an overly servile adherence to prevailing modes of expression. If indeed, in the liturgical texts, words or expressions are sometimes employed which differ somewhat from usual and everyday speech, it is often enough by virtue of this very fact that the texts become truly memorable and capable of expressing heavenly realities. Indeed, it will be seen that the observance of the principles set forth in this Instruction will contribute to the gradual development, in each vernacular, of a sacred style that will come to be recognized as proper to liturgical language. Thus it may happen that a certain manner of speech which has come to be considered somewhat obsolete in daily usage may continue to be maintained in the liturgical context. In translating biblical passages where seemingly inelegant words or expressions are used, a hasty tendency to sanitize this characteristic is likewise to be avoided. These principles, in fact, should free the Liturgy from the necessity of frequent revisions when modes of expression may have passed out of popular usage.

Dynamic equivalence did no one any favors. In fact, it further confused things.

 

[MonFrere]

MonFrere, but, it is not about our personal preferences. It is about authenticity in the liturgy, specifically in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, something that is sorely missing in the new translation. The Holy See made it a priority, beginning eight years ago, to correct those words that are “put in our mouths” so to speak. These words have to authentically reflect what the Church says. Remember, we pray as we believe.

I certainly do not disagree. My preference is for an accurate translation of the Mass above my personal preference of a phrase here or there that may more accurately reflect the same thought for our day and age.

Having said that, sometimes that may require a footnote here and there, or at least some catechisis as to what these phrases actually mean. For example – in the creed we say that Jesus “descended into hell”. The words “descended into hell” needs to be correctly understood considering the way language has changed through the centuries.

Dynamic equivalence did no one any favors.

I don’t disagree. What we are going to have will be much better. But I would say this – don’t sit on your duff, either – because the wooden literalist can also project their own style of errors. This has been the mindset of the SSPX and for some who think in “black and white” only there is a brand new set of problems presented.

All I’m saying, in a nutshell, is that all decisions have consequences. I think the literal translation from the Latin has many pluses. Mainly, the language will safeguard the truth that almost always requires very precise and often technical terms. But also, for what we gain in accuracy, sometimes we lose is expressing thoughts that seem to be phrased in a language that’s from another time.

As far as Bible translations go, one can purchase different translations to get both literal and dynamic equivalencies – and one can weigh the value of each. This is a good thing. But for the Mass – one decision had to be made. As St. Augustine is famous for saying - Rome has spoken. The matter is finished.

MonFrere

 

[mhazell]

I maintain that the new translation sounds “hokey” because it’s not the way anyone speaks these days. I live is Pittsburgh and thus live is Steeler country. The fans are fanatical and express a degree of fervor is ridiculous (to me). However, they NEVER say – I love the Steelers, I love the Steelers, O how I love the Steelers. The threefold manner of speech is just not part of the way we express deeply felt emotions in our time. If anyone would speak in this manner, regardless of the topic, it would come across as “hokey”.

Firstly, what you express here is the desire that the English we use in the Mass should be the same sort of English we use in other contexts. I would argue that the opposite is needed. We need a properly liturgical use of English in the translation of the Missale Romanum. Why should the sort of English we use in the liturgy be the same sort of English we use in everyday life? Shouldn’t the liturgy lift our minds to higher things? Therefore (as a consequence), shouldn’t liturgical English be markedly different from everyday English?

We have (an attempt at) everyday English in the liturgy now, and it’s banal, lifeless and horrible compared to the Latin. The closer the (liturgical) English is to the (liturgical) Latin, the better for all concerned.

Secondly, if you look at the English language closely, you’d realise that threefold idiom occurs surprisingly often. All sorts of literature use threefold devices–jokes, poetry, oratory, etc. Most of the best homilies I’ve easily remembered have had three basic points to them, often starting with the same letter (yes, sometimes it can be a cheesy device, but it often works!). And it’s not just the English language that this applies to, either. If poets can use it, why not liturgists?

Thirdly (!), something sounding “hokey” is an opinion. My opinion is that “through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault” sounds a lot better than “through my own fault”. More important than our opinions, though, is how close the English is to the Latin–Latin is still the official language of the Latin Rite, after all!–and the new is certainly far superior to the old in that respect.

 

[MonFrere]

Firstly, what you express here is the desire that the English we use in the Mass should be the same sort of English we use in other contexts. I would argue that the opposite is needed.

Actually, I’m not “arguing” anything. I’m just pointing out that going literal in the case of this ONE translation makes for a translation that is archaic and IMO stilted (if you don’t like the word “hokey” try “stilted”.) If you don’t agree; that’s perfectly fine. I’m sure I’ll get used to it; though it won’t have a “natural” feel about it.

I don’t think disagreeing with this one little minor minor point somehow makes me a some “rebel”. I think some of the points of the new translation are going to be an improvement. Others - I think are going to be a wash (not better, not worse) just more literal.

In the Creed I think there are good arguments for both translations – I believe and We believe. Sometimes, I question the “expectation” of some people who thing this one change is going to make a real substantial difference among Catholics in the U.S. (Please - if you’re going to comment on this paragraph speak to EXPECTATION and not to your opinion as to why one translation is superior to another.) My opinion is that the net effect on Catholic on saying I believe instead of We believe is going to be NADA.

My major hope in the new translation is IMO the necessity of a more exalted use of the English language instead of the very pedestrian language that’s present in many of the prayers. The English language is capable of great soaring prose and what we have now doesn’t present to us the “noble simplicity” that supposed to be the hallmark of the Novus Ordo.

Just my honest thoughts. Of which everyone is free to reject. However, it would be nice if at least someone would say I have a point.

MonFrere

 

[Phemie]

In the Creed I think there are good arguments for both translations – I believe and We believe. Sometimes, I question the “expectation” of some people who thing this one change is going to make a real substantial difference among Catholics in the U.S. (Please - if you’re going to comment on this paragraph speak to EXPECTATION and not to your opinion as to why one translation is superior to another.) My opinion is that the net effect on Catholic on saying I believe instead of We believe is going to be NADA.

MonFrere

I think you do have a point. I think what we are likely to see in reaction to the entire translation (not just the Creed) is

25% will grumble because they have to learn new words (change is never easy)

10% will be over the moon because they had a real problem with “for all”

80% will never give a thought to what is now being said compared to what was said before

A very small percentage will take the trouble to look up the new words they’re not familiar and reflect on the changes.

 

[japhy]

In the Creed I think there are good arguments for both translations – I believe and We believe.

Have you heard the Church’s explanation for why it should be “I believe” in the liturgy? And I don’t mean, “because the Latin is credo not credimus,” but rather addressing the issue of why it’s in the first person “I” to begin with.

As for expectation, I’m sure some people are going to think it’s anti-community to use “I” instead of “we”, and a change for change’s sake, but they’re wrong on this matter and they haven’t sought an answer from the Church.

the necessity of a more exalted use of the English language instead of the very pedestrian language that’s present in many of the prayers.

Yes, I agree with you here.

 

[agapewolf]

Here’s the latest on the timeline, fresh from our diocesan newspaper.

stlouisreview.com/article/2010-02-04/vatican-making-final-

You can’t get the article without a subscription, but the headline says the date. The relevant paragraph:

Most English-speaking bishops’ conferences are preparing materials to introduce and explain the new translation with the hope people will begin using it in parishes at the beginning of Advent 2011.

 

[Phemie]

Here’s the latest on the timeline, fresh from our diocesan newspaper.

stlouisreview.com/article/2010-02-04/vatican-making-final-

You can’t get the article without a subscription, but the headline says the date. The relevant paragraph:

That’s the date that was in our diocesan newsletter a few weeks ago. It makes sense, Rome wants to implement everywhere at one time and the start of the liturgical year only makes sense. Ten months is not enough time to allow it to start this coming Advent so they will take their time, examine all the proofs and, I hope, make sure that the Missal doesn’t have to be reprinted due to printing errors.

 

[benedictgal]

That’s the date that was in our diocesan newsletter a few weeks ago. It makes sense, Rome wants to implement everywhere at one time and the start of the liturgical year only makes sense. Ten months is not enough time to allow it to start this coming Advent so they will take their time, examine all the proofs and, I hope, make sure that the Missal doesn’t have to be reprinted due to printing errors.

This is not good news. I wish they would just move on this quicker. In this digital era, mistakes should not be a common occurance. If only the USCCB hadn’t been so slow in its work, things would have moved a lot faster. This is very frustrating.

 

[Phemie]

This is not good news. I wish they would just move on this quicker. In this digital era, mistakes should not be a common occurance. If only the USCCB hadn’t been so slow in its work, things would have moved a lot faster. This is very frustrating.

There’s an article on this here. It gives a general idea of the work that remains. Then it’s up to each conference to have it printed and bound. Our Lectionary took 9 months to go from final approval to being in my hands and another 4 or 5 months to be implemented.

 

[benedictgal]

There’s an article on this here. It gives a general idea of the work that remains. Then it’s up to each conference to have it printed and bound. Our Lectionary took 9 months to go from final approval to being in my hands and another 4 or 5 months to be implemented.

Although, there is a small glimmer of hope:

Father Ward said the congregation would finish its work long before that, although he could not give a precise date for when the Vatican will approve the entire Roman Missal in English. Individual bishops’ conferences would then make arrangements for printing, binding and distributing the missal and setting a date for its introduction.

I am just afraid that somehow, opponents of the new translation will use this last sentence as a means of stalling things even more. OCP sent out an email blast stating that they are preparing for the new translations. To quote what Prince Charles said when asked if he was “in love with Diana”: “Whatever that means.”

 

[ProVobis]

It makes sense, Rome wants to implement everywhere at one time and the start of the liturgical year only makes sense.

But wouldn’t Advent 2010 being the start of Cycle A Weekday Year 1 made more sense?

 

[Rolltide]

But wouldn’t Advent 2010 being the start of Cycle A Weekday Year 1 made more sense?

No, because it’s going to take time to get everything published and to create new Mass settings. From what I’ve heard lately, everything’s on track. It’s the publishing companies that will slow things down now.