Response to the new English translation

[japhy]

The reason why we have not seen the true texts is that Rome gave the USCCB specific instructions not to unveil them. That is what the USCCB told me back in November.

That’s reassuring.

What the Midwest Theological Forum has published are selected texts used for study.

And I’d be willing to bet that those selected texts match the leaked texts.

 

[japhy]

Where are you finding the entire text of the new version of the Missal? Other than the Order of the Mass on the USCCB site, I have yet to see an official version released.

A supposedly final version has been leaked here.

I acknowledge that a Pope will(and should) consult with the Bishops as successors to the Apostles on issues that affect the Church, but what Fr. Ruff states is somewhat different: “how little consultation was done with priests or laity” Do you really feel that the laity should have (name removed by moderator)ut as to the content and translation of the Mass from the Latin? If the Laity and many recently ordained Priests had a working knowledge of Liturgical Latin this entire issue would be mute.

Surely you meant “moot”.

We could just use Latin as a Universal language and NO translations would be required. One Universal Church, One Universal Language.

Vatican II encouraged the use of the vernacular for the benefit of the faithful, so let’s accept that and move on.

Fr. Ruff also states “But my involvement in that process, as well as my observation of the Holy See’s handling of scandal, has gradually opened my eyes to the deep problems in the structures of authority of our church.”

This statement leaves me wondering what the Fathers opinion on the Magesterium as a whole is.

If you think that the hierarchy of the Church is kept immune from abuse of power, you are sorely and gravely mistaken. I do not think Fr. Ruff is opposed to the hierarchical government of the Church, but that he is aware that certain members of that hierarchy are using their position and authority to the detriment of the whole body of the faithful.

Again, I’d like to avoid speculation as much as possible in this thread. I could assume all sorts of things about you, about Fr. Ruff, about anyone else, but that’s not entirely helpful.

I will not be surprised if some inside of ICEL have not attempted to change the translations in an attempt to water down the literal interpretations…

It’s not ICEL, though! It’s Vox Clara and/or the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments who are responsible for the final version of the text.

 

[benedictgal]

That’s reassuring.

And I’d be willing to bet that those selected texts match the leaked texts.

Japhy, we live in a day and age when we want something and we want it yesterday. CNN spoiled us with instant news and instant this and that. If Rome asked that the USCCB not release the text until it’s time has come, it’s because they have a reason, and, I can assure you that it’s not some dark and sinister one.

The folks at the SCL did not seem overly concerned about the issue. Mind you, these folks are all renowned individuals. This is not to say that Fr. Ruff is not well-studied, after all, he was a part of the ICEL chant process. However, the fact that the SCL did not start spewing out doom and gloom (and, one of the members of that society is none other than Archbishop DiNoa, the CDWDS secretary), leads me to believe that perhaps there is more to the objections raised by Fr. Ruff than meets the eye.

 

[ProVobis]

Vatican II encouraged the use of the vernacular for the benefit of the faithful, so let’s accept that and move on.

There are legitimate options to those who question or won’t accept any English translation in the liturgy. The U.S. holds only about 6% of the world’s Catholic population and English is spoken in only 10% of the world.

 

[ProVobis]

I acknowledge that a Pope will(and should) consult with the Bishops as successors to the Apostles on issues that affect the Church, but what Fr. Ruff states is somewhat different: “how little consultation was done with priests or laity” Do you really feel that the laity should have (name removed by moderator)ut as to the content and translation of the Mass from the Latin? If the Laity and many recently ordained Priests had a working knowledge of Liturgical Latin this entire issue would be mute. We could just use Latin as a Universal language and NO translations would be required. One Universal Church, One Universal Language.

Good points.

Also consider in pre-Vatican II, people already had Latin-vernacular readings. No one seemed to question the translations then, probably because it was understood that they were never official nor set in stone. There were no such things as mistranslations in the Mass.

 

[Pug]

…
Here is an example of the 2010 translation of Preface VIII of Sundays in Ordinary Time:For when your children were scattered afar by sin,
through the Blood of your Son and the power of the Spirit,
you gathered them again to yourself,
that a people, formed as one by the unity of the Trinity,
made the body of Christ and the temple of the Holy Spirit,
might, to the praise of your manifold wisdom,
be manifest as the Church.Here is how this passage was translated in the 2008 text:For, when sin had scattered your children afar,
you chose to gather them again to yourself
through the Blood of your Son and the power of the Spirit,
so that a people made one from the unity of the Trinity
might be revealed as your Church,
the Body of Christ and the Temple of the Spirit,
to the praise of your manifold wisdom.Which seems clearer to you?..

Perhaps it is the difference between being read out loud and being read silently. If I declaim the thing labeled 2010 well, with the right pause structure, it is much more understandable than if I try to read it to myself silently.

 

[JimG]

Also consider in pre-Vatican II, people already had Latin-vernacular readings. No one seemed to question the translations then, probably because it was understood that they were never official nor set in stone. There were no such things as mistranslations in the Mass.

Yes, and while the English translation of the Latin missal back then was not ‘official,’ it seemed to me an accurate and reverent translation of the official Latin. When the ICEL English translation came out, it was as though the Mass had been rewritten for middle-school.

 

[FrDavid96]

I agree that the new translation is more faithful to the the Latin and to the biblical sources. I think Fr. Ruff would agree too. But it is not as faithful as the 2008 text was. (The 1998 text was good too, when it was translating the Latin – but that 1998 text also had a lot of new compositions… but now I’m getting off track.)

Fr. Ruff has not said that he is opposed to a translation that is faithful to the Latin and the biblical sources. The Order of Mass is, by and large, very faithful to the Latin and the biblical sources. The propers are where things get iffy.

Here is an example of the 2010 translation of Preface VIII of Sundays in Ordinary Time:
For when your children were scattered afar by sin,
through the Blood of your Son and the power of the Spirit,
you gathered them again to yourself,
that a people, formed as one by the unity of the Trinity,
made the body of Christ and the temple of the Holy Spirit,
might, to the praise of your manifold wisdom,
be manifest as the Church.
Here is how this passage was translated in the 2008 text:
For, when sin had scattered your children afar,
you chose to gather them again to yourself
through the Blood of your Son and the power of the Spirit,
so that a people made one from the unity of the Trinity
might be revealed as your Church,
the Body of Christ and the Temple of the Spirit,
to the praise of your manifold wisdom.
Which seems clearer to you? At first glance, doesn’t the 2010 text appear to say that God’s “children were scattered afar by sin through the Blood of [His] Son and the power of the Spirit”? The 2008 text is much clearer, because it puts the verb phrase “you chose to gather them again to yourself” before the prepositional phrase “through the Blood of your Son and the power of the Spirit.”

This sort of obfuscation and confusion of meaning is one of the things Fr. Ruff cannot, in good conscience, promote.

I’ve been looking at these for a while. What I still see though are ICEL interpretations and changes in the text, although not as glaring as we had before.

2010 first line and 2008 second line

For when your children were scattered afar by sin,
For, when sin had scattered your children afar,

through the Blood of your Son and the power of the Spirit,
through the Blood of your Son and the power of the Spirit,

you gathered them again to yourself,
you chose to gather them again to yourself

that a people, formed as one by the unity of the Trinity,
so that a people made one from the unity of the Trinity

made the body of Christ and the temple of the Holy Spirit,
the Body of Christ and the Temple of the Spirit,

might, to the praise of your manifold wisdom,
to the praise of your manifold wisdom.

be manifest as the Church
might be revealed as your Church,

There are differences. Saying that the people are “revealed as” the Church is different than to “be manifest as” the Church. The difference is that if they are “revealed” then they have to be that way to begin-with, and they are later “revealed”, but to be “manifest as” means to be formed-into. The time is different.

The 08 version doesn’t talk about being “made into” the Body of Christ, but instead being revealed as such. In other words, Christ doesn’t make us the Body of Christ, He only reveals what we already are. Problem with that? Well, yes.

Also “you gathered them” is different from “you chose to gather them” Is the verb “choose” there in the Latin? I don’t know, but if it isn’t it’s something the 2008 translators added. Perhaps the 2010 translation neglected to do so? Less likely.

Let’s look at the first line.
For, when sin had scattered your children afar, (08). That’s too passive. The subject of that sentence is “sin”

For when your children were scattered afar by sin, (10). The subject of that sentence is “children” (albeit still passive voice).

Not much difference, but when we compare the 2 sentences, the 08 version puts more emphasis on the act done by sin, rather than on the people who sin. The 10 version is the better one.

The more I look at these translations, the more I appreciate the new versions.

Just for reference, here’s the current version

When Your children sinned and wandered far from Your friendship,
You reunited them with Yourself through the blood of Your Son
and the power of the Holy SPirit.
You gather them into Your church,
to be one as You, Father,
are one with Your Son and the Holy Spirit.
You call them to be Your people,
to praise Your wisdom in all Your works.
You make them the body of Christ
and the dwelling-place of the Holy Spirit.

 

[AJV]

Fr. Anthony Ruff, a Benedictine priest who, until recently, headed up ICEL’s music committee developing the chants of the forthcoming English missal, has an open letter to the bishops of the United States in America Magazine. You can read it here.

I think his perspective on the matter is worthy of our serious attention and discussion. Anyone care to chime in?

Let’s keep the discussion civil, charitable, and on-topic.

I have followed the Pray Tell postings and sympathize a lot with certain points. The last minute revisions and re-redaction for one after the bishops approved a certain text.

However, I sincerely doubt the new translation is about translation for a lot of people- at least those commenting. It is for some, but for a good number not. The question is larger and it comes down to structures of authority and larger debates. Do people feel the laity are excluded? What is an included laity? Should there be more power in the hands of Rome or more to the bishops. Etc. Etc.

It seems to me that a good number of people opposing the translation do so because it is viewed as archaic, or they have a different conception of worship and what liturgy ought to be, or they resent the fact that decision making is largely concentrated in the hands of the hierarchy and that the current winds favor those who are more ‘conservative’ in their outlook, if you wish. As I said, it is not that everyone who disagrees with the imposition, or the silly ham-handedness of the past few months believes so - I don’t, and I’m pretty sure you don’t japhy. I am not enthusiastic about some of the word choice sand sentence structures. But at the end of the day, the ‘conservatives’ may find some things wrong but will shrug, and the ‘liberals’ wouldn’t be happy unless it was done with the reversal of LA, (name removed by moderator)ut of Rome, etc., etc…

And reading Fr. Ruff’s letter I can definitely sympathize with some of his points but not with others. Yes, people are leaving the Church and from his past posts I get an idea of what he’s referring to. With some I can sympathize because I have seen my share of pastorally insensitive priests, whether orthodox or not. I resent the Church’s response to many of the scandals. But with some I cannot. I do not, for example, believe that because of it, the Church should bow toward homosexual unions, as deserving of respect and kindhearted as the people may be. Neither do I believe that the Church should reexamine its position on the OoW although I think, especially in the West where the issue is a hot-button one, the message is needlessly obstructed in some areas by the insistence on non-inclusive horizontal language. For me, if people leave the Church that is sad, but I do not believe that these are little subjective social theory matters but things divinely revealed. Which I suspect many who disagree don’t see it as. For me, people are not leaving because of the missal. They are leaving because of larger issues that they see the missal as being part of, and really,correcting a missal would just be papering over a hole in the wall instead of actually filling the gap

Having experienced the Church outside the US, I sometimes doubt that the issue will be as polarized as it is here in the States, or in the Western Anglophone countries. I have often felt that at least in the areas where I have been, there are different notions of equality within the Church and what it means, that those notions colour these debates.

I ought not to, given the importance of the liturgy, but cynically and quite frankly I wonder whether anyone, ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ can speak for the person in the pew. And equally frankly I wonder if the person in the pew listens , or even cares about the words of the variable parts of the Mass.

 

[CharlesG]

Dear Mr. Pinyan,

Fr. Ruff is not Herr “Xavier Rindfleisch”, who really does believe in the 2008 ICEL text approved by the bishops and the principles of Liturgiam Authenticam. I believe Fr. Ruff said on Pray Tell that he doesn’t really like either the2008 or 2010 texts, so I believe he is probably more in the Trautmann camp. I think his main problem with the 2010 changes is not less fidelity to the Latin than 2008 or the poor quality of some of the changes, but rather the idea that the Holy See changed what the bishops approved. It is more an objection to the process. The fact that some of the changes seem a little infelicitous just adds ammunition to his overall structural critique of the Church and the Vatican as regards liturgical translation. The 2010 text is the result of the work of both the bishops and the Holy See. That is consistent with Sacrosanctum Concilium and subsequent documents, which foresees a role for both in liturgical translations. The translation is still at base an ICEL document, and thus a document of the bishops, with a certain amount of changes by the Holy See. To imply that the translation was simply imposed on the bishops is overstating things. I personally think it not necessarily a bad idea for someone qualified to have gone through 2008, which was a very literal Latin translation, and here and there make some of the more awkward Latinisms read a bit better in colloquial English. I just wish that the changes had been more sparing and considered, had been done by someone with a better ear for good English style, and had been done with more consultation with the experts at ICEL would were responsible for the 2008 texts. I think there might be some justifiable criticism of the process on this practical point. I believe though that Fr. Ruff goes too far in making this into a “mean old evil oppressive Vatican” issue. And having gone through the Wikispooks missal, I didn’t have a great deal of trouble with most of the propers. It was just here and there I found some rather jarring infelicities, e.g., I would have preferred “overflowing” rather than “overcome” in the Easter prefaces. But for the most part, the translation is fine and certainly better than the current one. Finally, just as there were some emendations to the third edition of the Latin missal in 2005 or 2006, perhaps there will be a few changes of some of the infelicities of the new English text a few years after it has been in use.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

As a non-Catholic maybe I’m missing something here, but it seems to me that even a first year Latin student would know that Dominus vobiscum does not equal “The Lord BE with you.” (Cf. the better: Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum; nice use of the subjunctive!)

It makes me think the Catholic bishops perhaps did not do so well in Latin class.

 

[japhy]

And here’s the Latin:

Quia fílios, quos longe peccáti crimen abstúlerat,
per sánguinem Fílii tui Spiritúsque virtúte,
in unum ad te dénuo congregáre voluísti:
ut plebs, de unitáte Trinitátis adunáta,
in tuae laudem sapiéntiae multifórmis
Christi corpus templúmque Spíritus noscerétur Ecclésia.

 

[japhy]

Fr. Ruff is not Herr “Xavier Rindfleisch”, who really does believe in the 2008 ICEL text approved by the bishops and the principles of Liturgiam Authenticam.

I know that. I hope I haven’t led people to think that.

It is more an objection to the process.

Yes, he definitely does not like the process.

I personally think it not necessarily a bad idea for someone qualified to have gone through 2008, which was a very literal Latin translation, and here and there make some of the more awkward Latinisms read a bit better in colloquial English.

I don’t think all of the changes made necessarily fit that description.

I just wish that the changes had been more sparing and considered, had been done by someone with a better ear for good English style, and had been done with more consultation with the experts at ICEL would were responsible for the 2008 texts. I think there might be some justifiable criticism of the process on this practical point.

Definitely.

 

[ProVobis]

Yes, and while the English translation of the Latin missal back then was not ‘official,’ it seemed to me an accurate and reverent translation of the official Latin.

As I was taking Latin in high school at the time, I questioned those translations even back then. As was mentioned who put the subjunctive in “Dominus Vobiscum” or who put the “lift” in sursum corda? The Polish translation doesn’t lift the hearts, merely turns them upwards. What about the strong “in saecula seculorum” being interpreted as a weak “world without end.” I could go on. And moreover, those translations differed a little from one missal to another.

True, they had imprimaturs but that only means they had no theological errors, not that they necessarily were good. Don’t forget they were mostly Cranmer’s translations and Cranmer was burned for being a heretic.

 

[ProVobis]

As a non-Catholic maybe I’m missing something here, but it seems to me that even a first year Latin student would know that Dominus vobiscum does not equal “The Lord BE with you.” (Cf. the better: Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum; nice use of the subjunctive!)

It makes me think the Catholic bishops perhaps did not do so well in Latin class.

Exactly. The Lord IS with you. You don’t will Him to be with you like you do with peace, but it’s so ingrained that this will probably never change.

There are more problems here.

wikispooks.com/w/images/4/45/Areas_of_Difficulty.pdf

 

[Dave_Noonan]

As I was taking Latin in high school at the time, I questioned those translations even back then. As was mentioned who put the subjunctive in “Dominus Vobiscum” or who put the “lift” in sursum corda? The Polish translation doesn’t lift the hearts, merely turns them upwards. What about the strong “in saecula seculorum” being interpreted as a weak “world without end.” I could go on.

Exactly–as a non-Catholic this truly confuses me, so maybe someone here can help me out…

Since the bishops are going to all this work and expense, why not at least correct the most obvious errors?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Exactly. The Lord IS with you. You don’t will Him to be with you like you do with peace, but it’s so ingrained that this will probably never change.

But couldn’t you just as easily argue that the other parts of the Mass are ingrained too? I guess I don’t get the process of wanting to correct some things and not others.

 

[ProVobis]

Exactly–as a non-Catholic this truly confuses me, so maybe someone here can help me out…

Since the bishops are going to all this work and expense, why not at least correct the most obvious errors?

Job security for the ICEL? Where can we sign up?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Job security for the ICEL?

LOL, or the publisher.

A few years down the road someone can say “Oh, we found some more errors so we need to do another revision.”

 

[ProVobis]

LOL, or the publisher.

A few years down the road someone can say “Oh, we found some more errors so we need to do another revision.”

We wouldn’t expect anything less. It’s only been going on for over 400 years. And how many English revisions of the Bible have we had? Everytime a word changes meaning (a good example: “gay”) a new Bible must be written.