New translation of Mass question

[ProVobis]

I prefer to move forward, recongize that that there are some problems, but since I don’t read Latin, and the vast majority of people don’t, and will never campare the two, it only makes a difference to a very small group.

I beg to differ. It certainly will make a difference to those who commit translations to memory. And it’s not a matter of Latin, it’s the nature of translations, most of which are very subjective. And don’t forget to take copyrights into consideration. Ask ten scholars to translate a given complex sentence, whether Latin or Polish or Chinese, you will get ten different translations. Notice that no one has questioned or attacked the original texts. Disputes amongst translations come with the territory. Japhy gave a reasonable, if not very good, explanation (which was doctrinally ordered by Trent, by the way) for his translation and in my opinion doesn’t deserve the accusations you have levelled against him.

 

[Geremia]

Feb 22, 1962 - Pope John XXIII issued Veterum Sapientia, which effectively banned vernacular in the liturgy

Not to mention the Council of Trent anathematized anyone who would promote any exclusively vernacular liturgy: Session 22, Chapter 9, Canon 9:

CANON IX.–If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.

This is fully consistent with the Vatican II document Sacrosanctum Concilium.

 

[cothrige]

What I see happen over and over on CA is that someone doesn’t like something about the Church in this case the revised translation of the Roman Missal. They will read something that says it’s not a good translation, latch onto it and carry it as some type of banner to point out inadiquacies in the Church.

I have seen none of this here, from anyone, so I don’t know what you mean. There is one person doing a lot of complaining about other people, and making accusations about motives, and criticizing them, and discussing what they see as their inadequacies, but it hasn’t been anyone voicing questions about translation choices in the new Missal.

 

[ProVobis]

Not to mention the Council of Trent anathematized anyone who would promote any exclusively vernacular liturgy: Session 22, Chapter 9, Canon 9:This is fully consistent with the Vatican II document Sacrosanctum Concilium.

Absolutely.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Not to mention the Council of Trent anathematized anyone who would promote any exclusively vernacular liturgy: Session 22, Chapter 9, Canon 9:This is fully consistent with the Vatican II document Sacrosanctum Concilium.

I don’t think that the Church has interpreted Trent in the same way that you have on this. I think She understands Trent to have here meant those that argue that the Mass HAD to be celebrated ONLY in the vernacular, not those who might desire it to be celebrated in the vernacular (and the Church permits the all-vernacular Mass) and that Trent was not condemning the validity/licity of Masses said in the vernacular by liscense of the proper authority (the Holy See). It’s like Communion in Both Species. It is not heresy or anathema to say that the faithful may recieve in Both, but it is to say that they MUST recieve in Both. The exclusively vernacular Mass exists by permission of the Holy See, the lawful authority. I doubt that the Holy See would agree that those who might “promote any exclusively vernacular liturgy” are anathema unless they alledged that any other type of Mass (ie, one offered in Latin or Greek or whatever) was ineffectual and failed to do what the Church purports that the Mass does.

 

[japhy]

by your own admission, the comments you are sharing are not your own but from other sources. you seemed to have picked them up to do what, compliment the fathers on the revised translation? no to give it a negative critique … stiring up trouble were there should be none

1. I did acquire this knowledge from other sources. The information I have provided (about the translation of the Post-Communion for Advent I) is completely accurate, regardless of the source. It would be as objectively true had I discovered it on my own, or if the Pope had discovered it on his own.
2. The point of this particular criticism of mine is obviously not to “compliment the fathers (?) on the revised translation.” I compliment their work elsewhere. Here, though, I am addressing flaws in their work. I am allowed to do this.
3. Why should there be no trouble here? This is a work of major importance. This is a world-wide English translation of the most important liturgy of the Roman Rite! Flaws in this translation are a big deal. Again, people have had no qualms “stirring up trouble” and giving “negative critiques” of our present translation. They’ve been doing that for more than thirty years… and I think that establishes it as “custom”.

The final decision on the missal has been made. … the document is being printed as we speak, the time for any more changes is over.

As I said before, there are still minor changes being submitted to the printers: errata have been provided, correcting small issues like typos, punctuation, capitalization, etc. That means there are people looking over the text carefully.

The fact that you wrote these books doesn’t take away the feeling that you are complaining about the final version, for what ever reason.

Yes, I am complaining about the final version, for a good reason. It has defects which will make the transition to using it difficult. Should these defects be simply ignored until the prayers are read and heard for the first time in liturgical context?

Two engineers may disagree on how to span the same river. I am certain the same is true with language. Trying to satify everyone just won’t happen.

I’m not arguing that this translation or that translation will satisfy everyone. I’m arguing that there are objective flaws in the 2010 text that can and should be fixed. And I’m not talking about complex phrases or elevated language, I’m talking about grammatical errors, like pronouns not referring to the proper antecedents!

Not knowing your reasons, I will assume that you are disapointed in what you see how the final revsion ended up.

What do you mean, “not knowing your reasons”? Why not ask instead of assume? And what more do I need to say for you to know my reasons?

Yes, I prefer the 2008 translation to the 2010 translation, for the most part.

For example, the 2008 translation has “May Almighty God have mercy on us and lead us, with our sins forgiven, to eternal life” at the end of the Penitential Act. That’s a very accurate translation of the Latin. The 2010 translation reverts to our current wording: “May Almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us our sins, and bring us to everlasting life.” I prefer 2008 here.

The 2008 Creed has the phrase “And one holy, catholic, apostolic Church”, whereas the 2010 Creed has the phrase “I believe in one holy, catholic, apostolic Church.” The Latin does not have the word “in” there, unlike for “in one God”, “in Jesus Christ”, and “in the Holy Spirit.” The reason the Latin doesn’t have the word “in” there is because, as the Catechism of Trent explained, we don’t believe in the Church like we believe in God; instead, we believe the Church, that is, we believe her testimony and teachings; but we believe in God, and only in God.

There are some places where the 2010 translation improves upon the 2008 translation. There are also many places where they are the same (for better or for worse).

But it is not my preference for the 2008 text over the 2010 text that is why I am point out the flaws in the 2010 text. It’s because the 2010 text appears to be set in stone, despite these errors which can and should be corrected!

since I don’t read Latin, and the vast majority of people don’t, and will never campare the two, it only makes a difference to a very small group.

That is probably the same attitude that a lot of people have about the current translation: they don’t know the Latin, so they don’t see why it’s worth all the fuss of coming up with a new translation.

 

[Digitonomy]

The 2008 Creed has the phrase “And one holy, catholic, apostolic Church”, whereas the 2010 Creed has the phrase “I believe in one holy, catholic, apostolic Church.” The Latin does not have the word “in” there, unlike for “in one God”, “in Jesus Christ”, and “in the Holy Spirit.” The reason the Latin doesn’t have the word “in” there is because, as the Catechism of Trent explained, we don’t believe in the Church like we believe in God; instead, we believe the Church, that is, we believe her testimony and teachings; but we believe in God, and only in God.

Don’t we also believe in the communion of saints, forgiveness of sins, resurrection of the body, and everlasting life?

 

[japhy]

Don’t we also believe in the communion of saints, forgiveness of sins, resurrection of the body, and everlasting life?

Hmm, good point. Maybe it’s a matter of technicality. We don’t believe in the Church as an entity, the only entity/being we believe in is God. We believe the Church.

But, as a matter of doctrine, we do believe in “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church” just as we believe in other doctrines. So we can say we believe in doctrines (which are statements, not entities), but we should not say we believe in any entity other than God.

 

[FAB]

1. I did acquire this knowledge from other sources. The information I have provided (about the translation of the Post-Communion for Advent I) is completely accurate, regardless of the source. It would be as objectively true had I discovered it on my own, or if the Pope had discovered it on his own.

 

[Digitonomy]

Hmm, good point. Maybe it’s a matter of technicality. We don’t believe in the Church as an entity, the only entity/being we believe in is God. We believe the Church.

The Apostles’ Creed, both the old and new in English, as well as the Latin and Greek, lump the Church in with the other doctrines after the Holy Spirit as things we believe in.

To be fair, you could claim that “in” only applies to the first item in the list, and not to any of the rest. I’m not a grammatical scholar, but such a claim seems strained. And for that matter, it looks like the Greek didn’t have the “in” for “And in Jesus Christ…”

BTW, does the Latin “Creatorem coeli et terrae” indicate an object of a preposition, or an explanatory clause, or just a noun in a run-on list?

 

[japhy]

I know the importance of this document, I am certain that the Church fathers heard the objections, they proceeded anyway. I see no fruit from continual critiques of the work.

Your use of “Church fathers” to refer to today’s bishops is a bit confusing to me.

My bishop recongized, as do most that the text often does not flow easily, His advice is to slow down, which he sees as a good thing. The Church fathers as I said are away of these “flaws” and have either choosed to accept them or ignor them.

I agree that where the text seems a bit clunky, slowing down and praying the words very deliberately will help. The new translation contains longer sentences with more dependent clauses, etc., and it will take practice and effort to pronounce them well.

That doesn’t address the issue of mistranslations, though.

My understanding is gramatical errors in English were acceptable so to be able to expess the intent of the original text.

Surely the English language is better than that!

there is a differnt conentation to being lead and being brought. Also in this case forgiving our sins, is clearer that with sins forgiven. The revsion at 2008 runs all this together , the 2010 makes each more definite.

The Latin of that prayer, with a straight-forward English translation, is:
Misereátur nostri omnípotens Deus
et, dimissís peccátis nostris,
perdúcat nos ad vitam aetérnam.

May almighty God have mercy on us
and lead us, with our sins forgiven,
to eternal life.

The Latin could have said “forgive us our sins” (dimittatur peccáta nostra), but it doesn’t. I think the Latin (and a literal/accurate English translation) speaks to the fact that our sins must be forgiven if we are to be lead to eternal life. It’s not a matter of a checklist: have mercy on us, check! forgive us our sins, check! lead us to eternal life, check! On the contrary, the state of being forgiven of our sins is something which must be present if we are to enter into eternal life.

The verb perducere can mean “to bring”, but it means more precisely “to lead; to guide”. I consider “lead us to eternal life” a better choice than “bring us…”, because being lead requires that we follow, whereas being brought puts us in a much more passive role.

In the Current Nicene and Apostals creed this section begins with either, “we” or “I” believe in then list each one these. Seems to be no change.

Right, regarding the “in” there is no change from the current translation to the 2010. There was a change in the 2008 text, but that change has been dropped.

I am always curious why Trent is always heald up by some as the standard. It happened over 400 years ago and certainly we know that the Catichism of the Church has been updated since that time.

What’s wrong with Trent?! Why shouldn’t it be a standard, an active standard today, even alongside the new Catechism? The Catechism quotes Trent quite a bit, mind you. And the Tridentine Catechism provides very good explanations for certain aspects of the liturgy, such as the Nicene Creed and the words of consecration, such as why the words pro multis (“for many”) are used over the Chalice, instead of pro omnibus (“for all”).

Personal I am excited about the revised translation. I believe it will bring back a level of sacredness to the liturgy.

I am also excited about the new translation. I do not think it, on its own, will resolve the issues we have today regarding the level of reverence and sacredness in our liturgies, but it is one important element among many.

 

[japhy]

And for that matter, it looks like the Greek didn’t have the “in” for “And in Jesus Christ…”

I can’t speak to the original Greek text. I’m basing myself on what the Latin tradition uses.

BTW, does the Latin “Creatorem coeli et terrae” indicate an object of a preposition, or an explanatory clause, or just a noun in a run-on list?

I’m not sure I understand your question. The Creed begins
Credo in unum Deum,
Patrem omnipoténtem,
Factórem cæli et terræ, visibílium ómnium et invisibílium.

I believe in one God,
the Father all-powerful,
Maker of heaven and of earth, of all that is visible and invisible.
What exactly are you asking?

 

[Digitonomy]

I’m not sure I understand your question.
What exactly are you asking?

In some cases the form of the Latin word indicates gender, or possession, or some other grammatical feature not evident in English. I thought if this were true here, it might shed light on how the phrase should be viewed, and we might extend that to other parts of the creed.

 

[ProVobis]

Don’t we also believe in the communion of saints, forgiveness of sins, resurrection of the body, and everlasting life?

Maybe but that’s not what quite what the Latin texts say.

Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum.
Et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum. Et (expecto) vitam venturi saeculi.

Japhy was right. It is Credo…unam, sanctam, catholicam, et apostolicam Ecclesiam.

To be fair, you could claim that “in” only applies to the first item in the list, and not to any of the rest.

You have to look at the pattern.

*Credo IN unum Deum…Et IN unum Dominum Jesum Christum…Et ex Patri natum…Et incarnatus est… *

If IN were intended before the unam, then it stands to reason it would have explicitly stated it.

 

[japhy]

Maybe but that’s not what quite what the Latin texts say.

Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum.
Et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum. Et (expecto) vitam venturi saeculi.

Japhy was right. It is Credo…unam, sanctam, catholicam, et apostolicam Ecclesiam.

But in the Apostles’ Creed (which was not the Creed being discussed until Digitonomy’s comment), we say:
Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, Creatorem caeli et terrae,
et in Iesum Christum, Filium Eius unicum, Dominum nostrum,
qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine,
passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus,
descendit ad ínferos, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis,
ascendit ad caelos, sedet ad dexteram Patris omnipotentis,
inde venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos.
Credo in Spiritum Sanctum,
sanctam Ecclesiam catholicam, sanctorum communionem,
remissionem peccatorum,
carnis resurrectionem,
vitam aeternam.
The Apostles’ Creed states that we (I) “believe in God … and in Jesus Christ”, and then later that we (I) “believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, life eternal.” I note that there is not an “et” (and) in the list at the end of the Creed, for what it’s worth…

Grammar-wise, and this comes from the Wiktionary:
Crēdō often uses dative case with persons believed in, but accusative case with things or concepts believed in. Accusative usage may be accompanied by a preposition: crēdimus in Deum = “we believe in God”.
I do not know if this rule is applicable to the style of Latin used in the Creed; the dative tense is not used at all, only the accusative.

Finally, here is what the Tridentine Catechism has to say about the words of the Nicene Creed concerning the Church:
Finally, with regard to the Church, the pastor should teach how to believe the Church can constitute an Article of faith. Although reason and the senses are able to ascertain the existence of the Church, that is, of a society of men on earth devoted and consecrated to Jesus Christ, and although faith does not seem necessary in order to understand a truth which even Jews and Turks do not doubt; nevertheless it is from the light of faith only, not from the deductions of reason, that the mind can grasp those mysteries contained in the Church of God which have been partly made known above and will again be treated under the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

Since, therefore, this Article, no less than the others, is placed above the reach, and defies the strength of the human understanding, most justly do we confess that we know not from human reason, but contemplate with the eyes of faith the origin, offices and dignity of the Church.

This Church was founded not by man, but by the immortal God Himself, who built her upon a most solid rock. The Highest himself, says the Prophet, hath founded her. Hence, she is called the inheritance of God, the people of God. The power which she possesses is not from man but from God.

Since this power, therefore, cannot be of human origin, divine faith can alone enable us to understand that the keys of the. kingdom of heaven are deposited with the Church, that to her has been confided the power of remitting sins," of denouncing excommunication, and of consecrating the real body of Christ; and t}tat her children have not here a permanent dwelling, but look for one above.

We are, therefore, bound to believe that there is one Holy Catholic Church. With regard to the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, we not only believe them, but also believe in them. But here we make use of a different form of expression, professing to believe the holy, not in the holy Catholic Church. By this difference of expression we distinguish God, the author of all things, from His works, and acknowledge that all the exalted benefits bestowed on the Church are due to God’s bounty.

 

[japhy]

If IN were intended before the unam, then it stands to reason it would have explicitly stated it.

I have heard a theory that the Creed originally said that we believe “in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life … who has spoken through the prophets and the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.” I do not know the veracity of that claim.

 

[japhy]

In some cases the form of the Latin word indicates gender, or possession, or some other grammatical feature not evident in English. I thought if this were true here, it might shed light on how the phrase should be viewed, and we might extend that to other parts of the creed.

Ah, I think I see what you’re getting at.

In the Nicene Creed…

The words Deum, Patrem, and Factorem are all in the accusative, because they are all the object of the in of Credo in…. The Latin does not say, “I believe in one God, who is the Father almighty, who is the maker of heaven and earth.” Instead, it says “I believe in one God, [in] the Father almighty, [in] the maker of heaven and earth…”

When speaking of Jesus, it continues to employ the accusative, although using the word “in” only once: “Et in unum Dóminum Iesum Christum, Fílium (accusative) Dei Unigénitum…” and so on.

The word “in”, with the accusative, is used for the Holy Spirit as well.

The accusative, without the word in, is used for the Church.

In the Apostles’ Creed…

The accusative is continually used. Again, there are "in"s for God, Jesus Christ, and Holy Spirit. I’ve already written (in a previous post) about the lack of "in"s for the remainder of the phrases at the end of the Apostles’ Creed, and also the lack of an “et” or other word of conjunction (also absent in the Greek!).

The origin of the Apostles’ Creed is less concrete than that of the Nicene Creed.

 

[japhy]

Wikipedia has this to say of the Nicene Creed:
“Credo”, which in classical Latin is used with the accusative case of the thing held to be true (and with the dative of the person to whom credence is given), is here used three times with the preposition “in”, a literal translation of the Greek “εἰς” (in unum Deum …, in unum Dominum …, in Spiritum Sanctum …), and once in the classical preposition-less construction (unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam).
Now, the Greek does have the word εἰς (“in”) preceding “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church”, and it does not have the word Καὶ (“and”) with the word εἰς. The Latin, on the other hand, has the word et (“and”) but not the word in (“in”). So the Greek literally says “in one, holy…” and the Latin literally says “and one, holy…”

I take it, from the Wikipedia quote, that the Latin of the Creed uses a “literal translation of the Greek” (contrary to the rules of classical Latin) when it translates “εἰς ἕνα Θεόν … Καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον … Καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον” (“in one God … and in one Lord … and in the Holy Spirit”) but opted against a literal translation and in adherence to classical Latin rules when it translates “Εἰς μίαν, Ἁγίαν, Καθολικὴν καὶ Ἀποστολικὴν Ἐκκλησίαν” (“in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church”).

But I am neither a Latinist nor a Grecist (?), so this is a lot of speculation from me!

 

[Digitonomy]

Thanks for that lengthy and detailed reply, unfortunately I’ll have to return in the next couple days when I have more time to digest it.

 

[MarkThompson]

Ah, I think I see what you’re getting at.

In the Nicene Creed…

The words Deum, Patrem, and Factorem are all in the accusative, because they are all the object of the in of Credo in…. The Latin does not say, “I believe in one God, who is the Father almighty, who is the maker of heaven and earth.” Instead, it says “I believe in one God, [in] the Father almighty, [in] the maker of heaven and earth…”

I don’t think this is right. Patrem, Factorem, etc. are Predicate Accusatives, and the sentence should be read just as we have it in English. Latin would never have “Credo in unum Deum, Pater omnipotens.”

By the way, if you read the Maryrology (in Latin), you’ll notice that all the names and so on are in the genitive, on the conceit that the entries should be read “[The feast] Of the holy Abbott Joe,” or “[The birthday into heaven] Of Steve, bishop and confessor.” So, for instance, one of today’s entries is “Eodem die sancti Venantii, Episcopi et Martyris.” Episcopi and Marytris are Predicate Genitives, and the line should be read “On the same day, [of] holy Venantius, Bishop and Martyr,” not “On the same day, of holy Venantius, of a Bishop and of a Martyr.” The subsequent predicate nouns simply take the case of the principal noun for the sake of agreement.

Note that pronouns introducing a subclause do not follow this rule, and will go into the nominative (or other case appropriate to the usage). So another entry from today’s Martyrology reads,
Constantinopoli sancti Macarii Confessoris, qui, sub Leone Imperatore, pro assertione sanctarum Imaginum, in exsilio vitam finivit.

At Constantinople, [of] holy Macarius, Confessor, who, under Emperor Leo, for [his] assertion of holy Images, finished [his] life in exile.
Qui is the nominative pronoun here, but you would also see, for instance, the accusative in things like “Sancti Marci, quem beatus Pius Papa Nonus in fastis adscripsit…”: “Holy Marcus, whom blessed Pope Pius IX added to the rolls …”

Sorry to run on. That’s a long way of saying that additional "in"s should not be read into Patrem etc.