New translation of Mass question

[ProVobis]

1. 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.

A good and important point. There are many translators of the Bible and liturgical texts, including those in the older handmissals, and their rights have to be protected as well.

 

[FAB]

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.

It was sent to the printers on December 31, 2010, The issue is pretty much settled.

 

[japhy]

It was sent to the printers on December 31, 2010, The issue is pretty much settled.

And errata have been being sent to the printers since then.

Just because it’s set in a printing press doesn’t mean it’s set in stone.

Please realize I’m not advocating disobedience or dissent. I’m simply saying that we need to be prepared for this translation, both the good and the bad. It’s one thing to deal with an unfamiliar word (like consubstantial): that can be understood through catechesis. It’s another thing to deal with curious grammar: that can be understood by closer analysis and study. But it’s another thing to deal with erroneous translations (like the Advent I prayer that seems to say that God teaches us through the passing things of this world, rather than through the sacred mysteries in which we frequently participate): that has to be explained away!

 

[FAB]

And errata have been being sent to the printers since then.

Just because it’s set in a printing press doesn’t mean it’s set in stone.

Please realize I’m not advocating disobedience or dissent. I’m simply saying that we need to be prepared for this translation, both the good and the bad. It’s one thing to deal with an unfamiliar word (like consubstantial): that can be understood through catechesis. It’s another thing to deal with curious grammar: that can be understood by closer analysis and study. But it’s another thing to deal with erroneous translations (like the Advent I prayer that seems to say that God teaches us through the passing things of this world, rather than through the sacred mysteries in which we frequently participate): that has to be explained away!

My diocese and I’m certain all are in the process of a massive education program. My parish is in preparation now, we have linked to the USCCB site on the missal, we have chosen new mass settings, but our main education push won’t start until September.

 

[ProVobis]

My diocese and I’m certain all are in the process of a massive education program.

Sort of defeats the purpose of having the Mass in vernacular, isn’t it? Translations are supposed to be self-explanatory, or so I thought.

 

[FAB]

Sort of defeats the purpose of having the Mass in vernacular, isn’t it? Translations are supposed to be self-explanatory, or so I thought.

The education program is more than just to explain the changes, the changes in the people’s part is minimal. It is a chance to give catechism about the mass, it’s development, changes over the centuries, the reasons for the vernacular instead of Latin, an emphasis of why the mass is central to out Catholic life.

 

[Joannm]

I just finished 4 sessions on the new translation to different groups in the parish and while I do go over the texts, it was more to show them the process and principles of translation, the development of texts and missals throughout the centuries, and to explore the scriptural references in the revised texts. People did find it interesting and now they know why we are saying certain things that we didn’t say before, or why what seem like senseless changes are being made.

 

[ProVobis]

Frankly, they did a terrible job. The average high school student who has studied latin for a year or two could do a better job on the Gloria then this team of “scholars” did.

I found some historical information that may be of some interest here.

adoremus.org/0796TranslationICEL.html

Keep these dates in mind:

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

Oct 11, 1962 - Pope John XXIII convened the Council

Jun 3, 1963 - Pope John XXIII died, not having signed a single Vatican II document

Dec 4, 1963 - Sacrosanctum Concilium was promulgated.

 

[dmorgan]

I found some historical information that may be of some interest here.

adoremus.org/0796TranslationICEL.html

Keep these dates in mind:

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

Oct 11, 1962 - Pope John XXIII convened the Council

Jun 3, 1963 - Pope John XXIII died, not having signed a single Vatican II document

Dec 4, 1963 - Sacrosanctum Concilium was promulgated.

Thank you for that link. So now we have another document showing that the original icel translations were designed to re-invent the Mass. No organic development here, move along! How long i wonder will the healing of this damage require?
It is becoming painfully obvious that the new translation, while much better than the original, is still an attempt to put a band-aid on a bleeding artery. There is a utility on all of our computers that if a major catastrophe occurs you can return to a safe restore point and start over. I offer that Holy Mother Church is at that point.

 

[FAB]

Thank you for that link. So now we have another document showing that the original icel translations were designed to re-invent the Mass. No organic development here, move along! How long i wonder will the healing of this damage require?
It is becoming painfully obvious that the new translation, while much better than the original, is still an attempt to put a band-aid on a bleeding artery. There is a utility on all of our computers that if a major catastrophe occurs you can return to a safe restore point and start over. I offer that Holy Mother Church is at that point.

Instead of CA this site should be called CC; Catholic Complainers. It seems that no matter what the Holy Mother Church does under the guidance of the Holy Spirit is it ever good enough.

It is widley agreeded that the translation is not perfect, but only God is perfect and the work of men will never rise to Level. I am often at a lost of why so many on this site seem to relish in finding fault with some kind of self satifising satifaction.

The translation is a work of real beauty in many ways. It calls us back into the scriptures, and back to the early church, since muchn of it comes directly form those sources. The overall good certainly outways the negative critiques.

For those Latin purist, it will never satified, but you must realize, that the revised translation just does not happen for the English language, it will happen for all languages, any battle to bring Latin back as the only language for the mass is over.

 

[laszlo]

I found some historical information that may be of some interest here.

Keep these dates in mind:

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

Oct 11, 1962 - Pope John XXIII convened the Council

Jun 3, 1963 - Pope John XXIII died, not having signed a single Vatican II document

Dec 4, 1963 - Sacrosanctum Concilium was promulgated.

The Veterum Sapientia only recommends the preservation of Latin primarily for the Sacred Studies, and secondarily for the Liturgy:

The word Liturgy occurs only in two sentences:

1. … writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the Liturgy,

1. … and not only these, but also the original texts of Sacred Scripture, the Liturgy, and the sacred Fathers.

papalencyclicals.net/John23/j23veterum.htm

Our pope interpreted the fact that the Sacrosanctum Concilium was the first approved document on that way that there was no disagreement related to the principles and text.

 

[ProVobis]

The Veterum Sapientia only …
The word Liturgy occurs only in two sentences:

Only? That really undermines the importance of the encyclical, which uses the term “non-vernacular” twice, being either “required” or “should be”.

Our pope interpreted the fact that the Sacrosanctum Concilium was the first approved document on that way that there was no disagreement related to the principles and text.

So you’re saying the Pope approved all-vernacular all-the-time? Then why did the same Pope issue Jubilate Deo, a minimum (Latin) chant repertoire for every parish, and which he put into the public domain (means could be used FREELY, unlike some of the translations) by anyone?

 

[japhy]

I am often at a lost of why so many on this site seem to relish in finding fault with some kind of self satifising satifaction.

You’re guessing at motives.

I have explained why I am distressed over the imperfections in the 2010 translation: because many of these imperfections did not exist in the 2008 translation. These imperfections go against the prescriptions of Liturgiam Authenticam and the Ratio Translationis. I’m not lamenting that the translation isn’t perfect because I expected God Himself to reach down from Heaven and pen the Missal and its translations on His own. I’m lamenting that we had something so much better two years ago, and now it’s been superseded by a demonstrably inferior product.

 

[cothrige]

Instead of CA this site should be called CC; Catholic Complainers. It seems that no matter what the Holy Mother Church does under the guidance of the Holy Spirit is it ever good enough.

Pardon me for intruding on this thread, but I am struck by this comment. Who is complaining here? Is it really improper for a Catholic to have an informed opinion about the relative merits of two different translations of a liturgical text? It certainly seems to me that japhy, who posted what I found to be an extremely informative and objective discussion of the various facts, is not the person doing the criticizing or complaining here. But, that is just my take on it.

Personally, I don’t like the use of the word “complainer” in this context. It is personal and critical, not to mention misleading. For years people have desired better translations. Were they “complainers?” Maybe, from a point of view, but only because they wanted to offer the best for God. And somebody rather important thought we needed better too, and so we are getting it. Were they complaining too? We are commanded to be perfect, as our heavenly Father is perfect, and that seems rather hard to do without being willing to look at defects so that they can be corrected. Intentional ignorance is not a virtue.

 

[FAB]

Pardon me for intruding on this thread, but I am struck by this comment. Who is complaining here? Is it really improper for a Catholic to have an informed opinion about the relative merits of two different translations of a liturgical text? It certainly seems to me that japhy, who posted what I found to be an extremely informative and objective discussion of the various facts, is not the person doing the criticizing or complaining here. But, that is just my take on it.

Personally, I don’t like the use of the word “complainer” in this context. It is personal and critical, not to mention misleading. For years people have desired better translations. Were they “complainers?” Maybe, from a point of view, but only because they wanted to offer the best for God. And somebody rather important thought we needed better too, and so we are getting it. Were they complaining too? We are commanded to be perfect, as our heavenly Father is perfect, and that seems rather hard to do without being willing to look at defects so that they can be corrected. Intentional ignorance is not a virtue.

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.
Yes there are many opinions in the Church, but we as Catholic are to called to follow our Bishops. To start “critiquing” a document even before it has fully been published or even implamented is not some kind of call for change it just causes decent and divisions.
Since I am in charge in my parish to make this a smooth transition, I have attended a couple of siminars on the process and the reason for the way the final work is being released. Hundrends of eyes have read it and reveiwed it. Officials recongize that there may be difficulties in the translation as the effort was to be as true to the original text and meaning of that text as possible. All the English Speaking bishops conferences around the world reviewed it, Latin experts edited it, but instead of trying to recongize an enourmous effort to product a text thast brings out scripture, history and reverence, instead the first thing that happens are “critiques” (complaints).

 

[japhy]

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.

That’s not what I’m doing, though. Can you engage me, or will you just include me among a group of complainers that you can ignore as fomenting dissent and division?

we as Catholic are to called to follow our Bishops.

Can we not, in humility, offer suggestions or even advice or our bishops?

To start “critiquing” a document even before it has fully been published or even implamented is not some kind of call for change it just causes decent and divisions.

How else is a document going to be revised and corrected if there’s no critiquing of it before it’s implemented?! I am calling for change. I am not seeking to create dissent or division. Trust me on this, please! I’ve seen enough of the latter.

… but instead of trying to recongize an enourmous effort to product a text thast brings out scripture, history and reverence, instead the first thing that happens are “critiques” (complaints).

Maybe some people bring up critiques and complaints first, but not me. I’ve been supporting and promoting this new translation since late 2008, when the USCCB made the translation of the Order of the Mass available on their web site. I started researching the translation, the Scriptures, the Church Fathers, old and new catechisms, and other reliable books on the liturgy. I wrote a book about the Mass from the perspective of the congregation, as seen in my signature below; it came out in September of 2009. I wrote a second book on the Mass from the perspective of the priest, published at the beginning of this year. Both deal with the new translation in a very positive light, drawing out the scripture, history, and reverence.

NOW I am letting my voice be heard (to the dozen or so people who care to listen to me) about certain deficiencies in the translation. Some of these deficiencies didn’t exist in the translation I was using back in 2009.

That’s where I’m coming from, FAB. Now, do you care to engage me and my statements as an individual (whose background you are now a bit more familiar with), or will you just lump me together with dissenters, dividers, and complainers?

 

[mark_avery]

what do you think,so then what does it matter!love your father!!!

 

[FAB]

T

hat’s not what I’m

 

[JKirkLVNV]

My diocese and I’m certain all are in the process of a massive education program. My parish is in preparation now, we have linked to the USCCB site on the missal, we have chosen new mass settings, but our main education push won’t start until September.

Nope. Haven’t heard one word about it. There was supposed to be a seminar on it at another parish, but it was canceled and hasn’t been rescheduled.

 

[Geremia]

The Church lost so much, I think, for refusing to let Newman translate the Vulgate .

Considering he didn’t translate inebria me in the *Anima Christi *as"inebriate me," he probably would’ve done a horrible Vulgate translation. What’s wrong with the Douay-Rheims, anyways?