F
FAB
Guest
They have been recognized as such, with the explanation of such passages being part of the high language of the liturgy.
- Status
J
japhy
Guest
I’m not talking about length of sentences or level of vocabulary. I’m talking about pronouns not connecting intuitively with their antecedents. The prime example is sadly one which we will hear on the first day of the new translation’s use!
First Sunday of Advent - Post-Communion
May these mysteries, O Lord,
in which we have participated, profit us, we pray,
for even now, as we walk amid passing things,
you teach us by them to love the things of heaven
and hold fast to what endures.
What is the “them” referring to? It’s so far away from “mysteries”, and much closer to “passing things” (which it immediately follows) that the average reader – or, more to the point, listener – will connect “them” with “passing things”.
That’s not what the Latin prayer says!
Prosint nobis, quaesumus, Dómine,
frequentáta mystéria, quibus nos, inter praetereúntia ambulántes,
iam nunc instítuis amáre caeléstia et inhaerére mansúris.
In the Latin, there is no confusion: “quibus” (by which) is in the ablative, and immediately follows the ablative expression “frequentata mysteria”. The phrase “praetereúntia ambulántes” is in the accusative, as required by the preposition “inter”.
Here’s a rough literal translation, with the word order as it is in the Latin:
May [they] be of benefit to us, we pray, Lord,
[these] frequented mysteries, by which us, while walking amid passing [things],
even now you teach to love heavenly things and cling to abiding [things].
The “by which us … you teach” is rendered like that simply to match the Latin word order, but it is really “by which you teach us”. Here’s a cleaner translation:
O Lord, may these mysteries we frequent profit us, we pray,
for you teach us by them, even now as we walk amid that which passes away,
to love heavenly things and hold fast to that which endures.
The previous revision of this prayer, from 2008, was more clear than the 2010:
May these mysteries in which we have participated
profit us, we pray, O Lord,
for even now, as we journey through this passing world,
you teach us by them
to love the things of heaven
and hold fast to what will endure.
It was clear that “them” refers to the “mysteries”, despite the distance between “mysteries” and “them”, because there was no other plural noun to confuse “them” with. Sure, the plural expression “praetereúntia ambulántes” was made into a singular (but collective/encompassing) noun “this passing world”, but that sort of adjustment is not forbidden, and it is done elsewhere even in the 2010 translation!
So this is not a matter of matching the Latin syntax or of high language. This is a bad editorial decision.
T
TheMc
Guest
All I gotta say: Japhy, you are one smart dude.
You should get a ribbon or something for that.
You should get a ribbon or something for that.
J
japhy
Guest
I didn’t figure that out on my own; it was brought to my attention by others.All I gotta say: Japhy, you are one smart dude.
You should get a ribbon or something for that.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Neverthess you did a good job of explaining it. It would make for good sermons if they left it in the Latin.
F
FAB
Guest
So, Is is just one more thing to complain about?
The previous translation wasn’t good because it wasn’t true enough to the original Latin, the new translation isn’t good enough because there is awkwaed phrasing, which the church has recongized as such and basically said so what? live with it.
Since only a few passges have been released, it might be better to judge on the whole instead of a few complaints from individuals who will never be satified.
J
japhy
Guest
It’s something that could have been done better – in fact, it was done better in the 2008 text, and then it was revised.
I like Liturgiam Authenticam. I haven’t read the Ratio Translationis yet, but I have it printed out and I look forward to reading it at some point. I liked the 2008 translation (what I saw of it) for the most part, although I would have revised a couple things here and there. I like much of the 2010 translation, although I have seen multiple places where it fails, where the 2008 translation succeeded.
It’s worth investigating, it’s worth knowing why things that were better phrased and more clear in the 2008 text were revised to an inferior quality of phrasing and clarity. There, I said it: parts of the 2010 text are inferior to the 2008 text. It’s a perfectly legitimate opinion to have. It doesn’t make me a dissenter, just someone who thinks the coming translation could stand some improvement. As my signature implies, I’m writing catechetical books about the new translation. I wouldn’t be doing that if I were actively (or passively, for that matter) working against its implementation.
And I’m not saying “the translation isn’t as good as it could be, so let’s not use it.” I’m saying that the translation isn’t as good as it was previously drafted, and that’s a shame!
You can find pretty much the whole Missal online, at wikispooks.com.
Here’s another example of a questionable translation (where the 2008 text is guilty too)…
Here’s a section from the current English translation of Eucharistic Prayer II:
In memory of his death and resurrection, we offer you, Father, this life-giving bread, this saving cup. We thank you for counting us worthy to stand in your presence and serve you. May all of us who share in the body and blood of Christ be brought together in unity by the Holy Spirit.
Here it is in the Latin:
Mémores ígitur mortis et resurrectiónis eius, tibi, Dómine, panem vitae et cálicem salútis offérimus, grátias agéntes quia nos dignos habuísti astáre coram te et tibi ministráre. Et súpplices deprecámur ut Córporis et Sánguinis Christi partícipes a Spíritu Sancto congregémur in unum.
Here it is in the 2008 and the 2010 translations (the same):
Therefore, as we celebrate the memorial of his Death and Resurrection, we offer you, Lord, the Bread of life and the Chalice of salvation, giving thanks that you have held us worthy to be in your presence and minister to you.
The Latin verb astare is not a generic “to be”, it means “to stand at/on/by; to assist; to stand up/upright/waiting/still, to stand on one’s feet.” Why was it translated vaguely as “to be”? Perhaps to avoid giving the impression that the laity should be standing for the Eucharistic Prayer?
In the Ordinary Form, kneeling for the Eucharistic Prayer is only universally required during the consecration. (In the Extraordinary Form, you kneel for the whole Roman Canon.) So standing is not an illicit posture at this point in E.P. II. Now, it may be customary (as in the US) to kneel for the whole E.P., but I don’t think that justifies modifying the translation.
Furthermore, I think the context of this E.P. (from the Apostolic Tradition attributed to Hippolytus of Rome) implies that these words (grátias agéntes quia nos dignos habuísti astáre coram te et tibi ministráre) refer to the newly-ordained bishop with his brother bishops and presbyterate. I could be wrong there, though.
F
FAB
Guest
Like I said, anotherthing to complain about by some.
Having sat through a couple of siminars on the translation, I am not going to critique a process that involved bishops councils from all english speaking counties as well as numerous translators and scholars with the Vatican having the final word.
With your knowledge, perhaps you should have given your assistance to the process, but it’s to late now.
Only a handful will even be aware of the miswording you point out it becomes a mute point. but raant on!
J
japhy
Guest
If you want to dismiss my (and other) commentary on the quality of the final translation (compared to previous efforts) as mere “complaining”, that is your prerogative. But the liturgy is very important, and a good translation is very important.
It’s a bit vague to say “the Vatican”. In particular, it was the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, and specifically the Vox Clara committee.
This isn’t my own knowledge. I’m rehashing (and building only slightly upon) what others have told me. One of the people who made me aware of these flaws in the final revision was part of the process, and a second was very close to the process. Two priests who made comments about the decreasing quality from 2008 to 2010 were removed from the process because of their comments.
If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around, does it make a sound? Typos, mistranslations, and awkward phrases are important even if only a few people notice them. The Post-Communion for the First Sunday of Advent is probably one which most people will understand incorrectly. I would recommend a simple survey.
Again, if you wish to dismiss my commentary – which I thought was rather cool and collected – as a “raant”, go right ahead.
F
FAB
Guest
I believe this is most telling.
Many of the priest who first commented on the translation have withdrawn their objections.
I have heard and the church officials have heard the same comments and they have been dismised. The final translation, as you know is after years of work and years of revision. An effort to make clear the prayers in a language (English) which gives different meanings to words not only foprm country to country, but from region to region. (i.e. the English call it a boot, we call it a trunk, speaking about car parts)
Most of the critiques on the translation have come from those who seem to favor a more dinamic translation, which we have now.
Since the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, and specifically the Vox Clara committee, has final word (I do know the office, it’s just easier to type Vativcan) and has given final approval, then we are bound to accept and use this translation.
J
japhy
Guest
Do you know who, in particular?
Have the comments been addressed or just dimissed?
Yes, I am aware.
Yes, some of the critics would favor a more dynamic translation. Others are favors of the 2008 translation and not of the 2010 revisions to it. But I am not in favor of “dynamic translation”; I prefer a more formal approach. I’d like also like a translation that captures the beauty and poetry of the Latin texts.
I will accept and use it, yes, but that doesn’t mean I cannot question the process, scrutinize its quality, voice my concern (or even displeasure) about certain parts of it, and bring certain things to people’s attention.
After all, Catholics have been doing that about our current translation for quite some time now!
P
ProVobis
Guest
We will be bound only not to use the existing English translation after November. We are always free to use the Latin or (at least for now) another approved (French, Vietnamese, etc.) translation.
T
TheMc
Guest
At least for now?
P
ProVobis
Guest
I understand some of the other vernaculars are being re-translated as we speak. As meanings in other languages change as well, is this a surprise?
T
TheMc
Guest
As you might have seen in the way I quoted you in my post, I thought you meant that latin was able to be used, for now. My mistake. You were referring to the other translations.
Mea culpa.
F
FAB
Guest
F
FAB
Guest
All translations are being revised and you wouldn’t use a different language unless that population is part of you parish. Latin is also difficult to use since most priest are not fluent in it.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Latin has always been allowed. It’s the truth. No translation problems there. Res ipsa loquitur. (Goes without saying.)
J
japhy
Guest
That’s quite a shame. If we are always to have a reason for the hope that is in us, one would imagine we might also have a reason for other decisions we make!
There was a 2008 translation: it was the state of the translation in 2008. In fact, the Order of Mass in 2008 was publicly released as a “study text” and given a recognito by the CDWDS.
This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is pleased to enclose the decree by which is [sic] has granted recognitio for the territory of your Conference of Bishops for the new English-language translation of significant parts of the Ordo Missae as found in the Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia, including most of those texts used in every celebration of Holy Mass.
This Dicastery has no little satisfaction in arriving at this juncture. Nevertheless, the Congregation does not intend that these texts should be put into liturgical use immediately. Instead, the granting now of the recognitio to this crucial segment of the Roman Missal will provide time for the pastoral preparation of priests, deacons and for appropriate catechesis of the lay faithful. It will likewise facilitate the devising of musical settings for the parts of the Mass, bearing in mind the criteria set forth in the Instruction Liturgiam Authenticam, n. 60, which requires that the musical settings of liturgical texts use only the actual approved texts and never be paraphrased.
As regards the text enclosed, this Dicastery wishes to draw attention to the following points:
- The attached text is to be considered binding. For its part, this Congregation is confident that the universal use of these texts will greatly contribute to the building up of the Faith throughout the broad and diverse English-speaking world.
- It is to be borne in mind that use of this text is restricted by copyright. Therefore, all pertinent copyright legislation in civil law is to be observed in accordance with the statutes which this Congregation approved for the Mixed Commission known as the International Commission on English in the Liturgy.
- Although the Mixed Commission took the initiative of distributing, along with these Parts of the Order of Mass, an adapted text of Eucharistic Prayer IV, Higher Authority has determined that as regards to either modification of the typical edition or the manner of translating it: non expedire.
- Likewise, the Holy Father has decided that, in response to a recommendation of the Eleventh Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (October 2-23, 2005), a selection of additional formulae of dismissal for the faithful should be introduced in n. 144 of the Missale Romanum and consequently these are included in the attached text.
I question it because, despite the reviewal, approval, and editing, there are issues which could have been better resolved, and I don’t think ignorance is bliss about these things.
- Status