F
FrDavid96
Guest
At this point, it’s a done deal. They’ve been “postponing” a proper translation since 1973. We’ve waited long enough.
- Status
A
Aggiornamento
Guest
There was a translation in 1998 that was acceptable. However, what we have now is ten times better than the illogical, overly literal translation. Are we supposed to gather as community to break open the word and break the bread, or are we there to put on a performance that belongs in the opera house? There is nothing wrong with a translation in the COMMON LANGUAGE.
B
bmadamsberry
Guest
The issue is in what you just said. “Overly literal translation”. A good translation keeps, as closely as possible, to the literal words of the text being translated. Would you prefer a Bible that just kind of summed things up for ya, or one that was closer to a word for word translation?
Furthermore, the new translation isn’t illogical. What is illogical is leaving out entire words AND PHRASES that were in the Mass… which is what the previous translation was.
J
japhy
Guest
This is my 5000th post. Do I get a gold watch or something?
I disagree. While parts of the 1998 translation were acceptable, other parts were not. There were also additional texts which which invented rather than translated from the Latin text of the Missal. There were also changes introduced to the structure of the Mass which were not found in the Latin Missal and were complete novelties to the Roman Rite.
Those two extremes don’t mention God at all. This discussion can be a lot more fruitful if we all avoid cliches and extremism, and address the actual language used.
B
benedictgal
Guest
The translation that you are referring to was that for the Lectionary, not the Roman Missal. However, even the translation for the Lectionary is flawed. The language is not at all beautiful.
We are supposed to gather as a community to be at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The way you describe the Mass seems more akin, with all due respect, to something the Protestants do. Do you not realize that at the Mass we are just as present at the Sacrifice on Calvary as were the Blessed Mother and Sts. Mary Magdalene and John?
Furthermore, the Mass takes us out of the ordinary. Thus, what we do at the Mass, how we pray, what we sing, needs to take on an altogether different dimension. At Mass, the veil between time and space and heaven and earth is lifted and we stand before the very majesty of God. The language needs to reflect that.
Furthermore, the current translation is seriously flawed. It is not word-for-word what is in the Latin Roman Missal. It is based on paraphrases that are more along the lines of what the translators thought it should say (dyanmic equivalence) instead of what the text needs to say.
B
bmadamsberry
Guest
Also, there are new prayers for new occasions that are getting the okay, like Mass specifically for Pro-Life.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Yes! You get two tickets to the Pope’s Mass in New Orleans!
M
MarkThompson
Guest
LOL!
J
Joannm
Guest
There was another ICEL translation of the MIssal being worked on in the late 90’s. It never got to Rome because Liturgiam Authenticam came out so negated that translation since it was done with dynamic equivalence rather than formal. It was much better than the '73 translation however. In the course I took on the Eucharist we had to compare several collect translations to the Latin and for grammar and syntax (there was another one put forth by a group but I can’t remember who and my notes are at work).
A
Aggiornamento
Guest
When we have overly literal translations, the real meaning is lost. Even in high school language classes, you never do purely literal translation, because they are clunky in the other language.
A
Aggiornamento
Guest
This is what I was referring to. Thank you.
A
Aggiornamento
Guest
I had not heard this before, but if true, I wonder if the right will complain about these as much as they do the prayers for reconciliation, justice, and for those suffering oppression.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
I’m going to take issue with that, because I am one of those opposed to what we see in these so-called-prayers for reconciliation, justice and those suffering opression because they are in reality merely political statements to advance a socialist agenda. I remember when we used to pray “for those suffering behind the iron curtain” instead of prayers asking that our country adopt a socialist agenda.
Should we pray for justice? Yes. Absolutely. But prayers should be for justice–true justice, and not for the injustices being imposed upon us by leftist radicals.
Praying that one form of opression be replaced by another form of opression (a left-wing dictatorship) is not what we should be doing at Mass.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
If a high school student did the type of “translation” that ICEL gave us in the 1970’s the student would receive a solid “F” on the test.
No one is asking for a purely literal translation, and Rome is certainly not. But the reality is that what we have now is not even a translation. It is a text composed by ICEL very loosely based on the original. Let’s be honest about it: to apply the word “translation” to what we have now from ICEL is absurd.
B
Brendan
Guest
But since that is clearly not the case with the new Missal, your point is moot.
B
Brendan
Guest
B
bmadamsberry
Guest
And this translation is not a purely literal translation, nor is it clunky. I tell this story often, but I’ll repeat it again: my high school latin teacher would use the current translation of the Mass to show how NOT to translate Latin (he was not a Christian).
Furthermore, you don’t cut out complete phrases when you translate. Phrases such as “and with your spirit” and “I am not worthy to receive you into my house”.
A
Aggiornamento
Guest
In our contemporary culture, “roof” refers to the top of a house, not our bodies. “I am not worthy to receive you” therefore holds much more meaning in modern society than “…not worthy that you should enter under my roof.”
M
MarkThompson
Guest
“Roof” in that quotation does not mean “mouth.” It means the top of a house.
A
Aggiornamento
Guest
Yes, as in our bodies are temples of the Spirit. However, in the liturgy we are gathering as a community to celebrate, not as a performance with vague illusions. Save that for literature class.
Vatican II called for a liturgy in the common language of the people.
- Status