Roman MIssal Third Edition

[ProVobis]

Both translations are “faithful” but the 3rd edition of the Missal will be more literal to the Latin text of the past few centuries.

I don’t think we can say that with the current and new translation of “Sursum corda/Habemus ad Dominum” which adds some lifting action to the anglicized version. And, apparently, it seems as if this “lifting” could probably be traced all the way back to Cranmer. “Lift up your hearts, we lift them up to the Lord.” is not in the Polish translation, by the way.

 

[ProVobis]

So my question remains, if they are really unfaithful (and not merely non-literal) translations, what does that mean? Given the approval authority for the translations?

When the end product of two different vernaculars conveys two different meanings, such as Polish and English, something is definitely wrong. Even with the new English translation, I see differences between the two (Polish and English) and I’m sure there’ll be differences among the other translations as well. But I wouldn’t go so far as to say they were unfaithful, given that they were forced to produce a version that would be accepted by a particular culture. In many cases, it was like trying to fit square pegs into round holes. I’m giving the benefit of the doubt to the ICEL, they did what they were asked to do at the time, but the real authority still should rest with the council (and various Vatican documents) which insisted, not suggested, that the Mass stay in Latin. This could have avoided the very costly process and frustrations of producing official translations.

 

[MarkThompson]

The above called to mind an old [thread=330994]thread[/thread] in the L&S forum here where this very issue was discussed at some length. If you haven’t already seen the thread, there are several interesting posts there, including [post=5120549]this one[/post].

That was interesting (except for the 90% of the thread made up of the typical bickering). However, as early as 1963, which well predated ICEL’s work and the Pauline Missal itself, the Demonstration English Mass had “The Lord be with you / And with you too,” so these ideas were definitely floating around.

 

[Rolltide]

A popular urban legend. (The rest of your post is right on, though. )

Fascinating! As a professor, I’m always pleased to know when something has been exaggerated into fact so that I can correct it in the future.

 

[malphono]

That was interesting (except for the 90% of the thread made up of the typical bickering). However, as early as 1963, which well predated ICEL’s work and the Pauline Missal itself, the Demonstration English Mass had “The Lord be with you / And with you too,” so these ideas were definitely floating around.

Oh yeah, the principle of so-called “dynamic equivalence” (or whatever one wants to call the ICEL’s output) has been around for quite a while. The ICEL just took it and ran with to the goal post. Nice to see that the supposed “goal” has now been fouled.

But anyway, I rather liked FrDavid’s narrative about the ICEL. It goes hand-in-hand with my personal recollection and what I’ve been told by those more closely involved. Very telling (at least to me.)

 

[Vince1022]

Then why isn’t more actual Latin being pushed into the Mass, per Vatican II? Why are we simply reinforcing the all-vernacular all-the-time which was prohibited by the Council of Trent?

Vatican II did not require more actual Latin being pushed into the Mass.

What Trent taught needs to be interpreted in light of subsequent Church teaching, e.g. Vatican I and Vatican II as well as all other Magisterial teachings.

 

[Vince1022]

I
We’re all entitled to make our evaluations, I suppose, though in the end, obviously, it’s the Church’s judgment that is of practical effect.

I agree completely. Which is why I think every MIssal promulgated by the Church is faithful, regardless of how literally it translates on given previous version.

 

[Vince1022]

It means we’ve been using things that, in many cases, are not translations of the Latin, but more akin to new compositions.

Translations of the Latin are of course in their own way “new compositions” given that Latin was not the original language of Christians, and has never been the language of most Catholic Rites.

 

[Vince1022]

I don’t know enough about the history of ICEL (called ICET at the time, right?)

No, ICEL and ICET are two distinct entities.

ICEL: icelweb.org/

ICET: (part of the entry in the New Catholic Encyclopedia): Established in 1969, ICET was an independent, ecumenical organization distinct from the Roman Catholic body, international commission on english in the liturgy (icel) which sought to produce common liturgical texts for ecumenical use.

Hope this helps!

 

[Vince1022]

, but the real authority still should rest with the council (and various Vatican documents) which insisted, not suggested, that the Mass stay in Latin.

What are you referring to here? Vatican II did not insist the Mass stay in Latin. Thanks for any clarification.

 

[laszlo]

Again, I think there’s a significant difference between “faithful” and “literal”. You seem to be conflating the two. Sorry if I misunderstand your points.

The point is, who determines what a “faithful translation” is?

The Church?

For the Bible the Church accepted the Douay Rheims, the NAB the NRSV and the Jerusalem Bible all mostly literal translations as it is opposed to the interpretative translations, like the NIV.

The New Transaltion (whatever is available officially) is literal.

The Church expects the literal translation, even if this is obscure, and making the interpretation by the magisterium, the living teaching authority. .

 

[malphono]

For the Bible the Church accepted the Douay Rheims, the NAB the NRSV and the Jerusalem Bible all mostly literal translations as it is opposed to the interpretative translations, like the NIV.

Both the NAB and the Jerusalem Bible mainly employ “dynamic equivalence” to one or another degree. To call either a “faithful translation” is quite a stretch.

 

[mangy_dog]

I don’t know if this has been discussed elsewhere and I can not find it, but does anyone know a easily communicable reason why the Roman Missal has been revised again? I’ve already explained it’s a more accurate translation of the Latin to my wife, but I get a response basically expressing that the Church seems to be changing too much since Vatican 2 so they must be doing something incorrect.

Your’s is a loaded question,

Vatican II had all the good intentions but all the wrong influence and outcomes. It was usurped by agents of the evil one so that it would have the “trojan horse” effects that we see today…depending on who you ask.

This third edition is a correcting of the things that should’ve come from V-II and didn’t. The church (this is only my mangy dog estimation) is repairing and re-focusing the original intent of V-II.

May God grant long life and health to Pope Benedict XVI to carry out this mission.

 

[Vince1022]

For the Bible the Church accepted the Douay Rheims, the NAB the NRSV and the Jerusalem Bible all mostly literal translations as it is opposed to the interpretative translations, like the NIV.

The New Transaltion (whatever is available officially) is literal.

The Church expects the literal translation, even if this is obscure, and making the interpretation by the magisterium, the living teaching authority. .

All the Bibles you note are examples of different translators, and so different translation methods. All, as you note, are accepted by the Catholic Church, and so–faithful. Regardless of how “literal” the interpretation is.

Thanks.

 

[ProVobis]

All the Bibles you note are examples of different translators, and so different translation methods. All, as you note, are accepted by the Catholic Church, and so–faithful.

How does one arrive at this conclusion? The Church removed the Index of Forbidden Books. It also has not condemned any modern version of the Bible, to my knowledge. Tolerated maybe but to say they’re all “faithful” books now? This presupposes quite a turn in philosophy and sentiment. I believe the Church is now allowing us to form our own judgements on these for our spiritual benefit. Big difference.

 

[Vince1022]

How does one arrive at this conclusion? The Church removed the Index of Forbidden Books. It also has not condemned any modern version of the Bible, to my knowledge. Tolerated maybe but to say they’re all “faithful” books now? This presupposes quite a turn in philosophy and sentiment. I believe the Church is now allowing us to form our own judgements on these for our spiritual benefit. Big difference.

I agree the Church has not condemned any modern version of the Bible (though I can’t say for sure).

The Church has not given an imprimatur to every modern version, though, so some versions are more “tolerated” than others. For example, the authorized translations used at liturgy.

Anyway, I think we’re getting a bit off track on this thread.