C
ctb95
Guest
From America Magazine:
americamagazine.org/faith/2017/01/26/pope-francis-has-ordered-review-new-mass-translation
- Status
A
ARSpade
Guest
How was it controversial?
The previous translation was seemingly done by somebody who failed Freshman Latin. When compared to what other countries got it was flat out embarrassing.
The “Glory Be” prayer is still awful. “World without end”? Seriously?
The previous translation was seemingly done by somebody who failed Freshman Latin. When compared to what other countries got it was flat out embarrassing.
The “Glory Be” prayer is still awful. “World without end”? Seriously?
E
esieffe
Guest
What? WWE is wrong? We have been saying it all wrong all these years?
Hardly controversial. It’s only controversial for the likes of America Magazine. For the rest of the Catholic world, meh.
Besides, it’s only a review of Liturgiam Authenticam, not of the already completed translation. That’s going to stick around for another 40 years or so.
And “world without end” is not the previous translation’s fault. The “official” and current Gloria Patri is “Glory to the Father…will be forever.” It’s not “Glory be” and the ending is"will be forever."
A
ARSpade
Guest
Look at the latin.
“Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum.”
Beginning, now, always, and “ages and ages”.
Nothing about the world without end, which is also theologically bad since the world will, in fact, end.
A
ARSpade
Guest
I’m just complaining that the English speaking world got the shaft when it comes to translations from Latin for some reason.
But we got the benefit of Liturgiam Authenticam for the Mass. We’re good. If LA is scrapped, then it will likely scuttle the ongoing translation of the Liturgy of the Hours. But it won’t affect the Mass for another generation.
And if “world without end” is an issue for you (it shouldn’t), it’s not ICEL’s fault. As I said, ICEL adopted the ICET translation, which doesn’t use “world without end.” For that, you can thank the Anglican Book of Common Prayer.
P
Pulvis
Guest
“Second, some bishops’ conferences are unhappy with the translation of the Roman Missal required by “Liturgiam Authenticam.” They consider it too rigid and do not accept that there is such a thing as “sacral language.” They charge that “Liturgiam” seeks an almost literal translation of the Latin liturgical texts into the vernacular or local language of the different countries, often with unsatisfactory results. The Japanese, for example, had a long-running battle with the congregation over who should decide what is an acceptable Japanese translation of these texts. They and several other bishops’ conferences, are clearly unhappy with the directives of “Liturgiam” and the level of centralization involved in it.”
americamagazine.org/faith/2017/01/26/pope-francis-has-ordered-review-new-mass-translation
americamagazine.org/faith/2017/01/26/pope-francis-has-ordered-review-new-mass-translation
U
Usige
Guest
Reading some of the other stuff it looks like some want to go back to dynamic equivalence instead of LA’s formal equivalence. The problem is we then get into some “squishy theology”. Rather than teaching people what a theological concept means based on a precise word, we end up mapping modern (often secular) phrases on it. In an increasingly secular world that is dangerous since there is little correction to Christianize the language, but can muddy the theology. It can dilute rather than uplift. Moving to “consubstantial” lead many cradle Catholics to actually learn what the Church believes instead of just kinda guessing what “one in being ment”.
C
ctb95
Guest
Yeah, I’ve read articles by authors in America and National Catholic Reporter that were absolutely heartbroken by the changes. Talk about petty.
Some people who comment on NCR say how wonderful it would have been to use a certain rejected missal translation from 1998… After reading it, I can say I’m thankful that it was rejected.
R
Reepicheep
Guest
‘World without end. Amen’ is how I was taught to end the ‘Glory Be’ as a child. About sixty years ago. Why do you consider it awful?
R
Reepicheep
Guest
…What?
P
ProVobis
Guest
Acccording to Collin’s A Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin, “The use of the genitive of a word to limit another case of itself is a Hebraic idiom which intensifies its meaning.”
I suppose the intensification argument can be extended to the “Per IPSUM” which is different from “Per Eum” but translated the same way (Through Him) as there is no way to properly translate the intensive IPSUM into English.
G
graciew
Guest
I was missing your lessons…
It would be as you say " por los siglos de los siglos"
Roughly as when you say " forever and ever" . You do not say " for the centuries of the centuries." .
T
Thomas_White
Guest
“…as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end” refers to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and not to the temporal world of change, the world that will end.
P
ProVobis
Guest
In Polish it translates as “through all ages of ages” if I remember correctly.
It seems the redundancy here is intentional.
G
graciew
Guest
It looks so,yes…
R
RCinMT
Guest
Agree. I cancelled my subscription to America after it’s editor–a priest–said he’s “mostly” opposed to abortion and then ran an article advocating that Catholic schools be turned into charter schools but retain their Catholic character by offering an optional after-school Catholic group.
I like the way it’s said in the eastern churches:
Glory be to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. Now and ever and forever. Amen.
T
Trying2overcome
Guest
When I was a little boy I thought “world without end” meant the physical planet Earth never ending, so I would pray it whenever there was a horrible thunderstorm outside because I didn’t want the world end hahaha. Now I just pray it in latin or say “…is now and always, forever and ever. Amen.”
- Status