So, how did the new translation go down at your parish?

  • Thread starter Thread starter YoungTradCath
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Just want to say since the idea of generation gaps has been brought up, I’m in my 20s and love the new translation. I’d think if anything it would be most difficult for the older generations who remember the last round of changes and feel like this is a step backwards, since the language has certain similarities to how the 1962 missal was translated into English. For us young people we can see that this is indeed a step forward, an improvement of the liturgy for the 21st Century.
 
I’m one of those post-Vatican II Catholics, and I never ever heard the words before the 1970 ICEL translation. I was reading Father Z’s blog, and he gave an awesome explanation of why we need a new translation. The original Latin stated, “accipens et hunc praeclarum calicem in sanctas ac venerabiles manus suas”, the old ICEL stated, “he took the cup”, and the new ICEL says, “He took this precious chalice in his holy and venerable hands.”

I really love the new translation. It makes the Mass seem more reverent and ancient in wording. We really needed this.
 
I hope this question does not derail too much. Here goes . . .

Why is it so difficult to simply accept the fact that the English translation did not way what the Church meant and therefore, had to be edited or redone?

I can’t help feeling that some people are dancing around this point. The translation did not work the way that the translators hoped it would. It did not convey, in English, what is conveyed in the other languages. It’s not just a matter of what sounded good to me, but a matter of shared meaning.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
I hope this question does not derail too much. Here goes . . .

Why is it so difficult to simply accept the fact that the English translation did not way what the Church meant and therefore, had to be edited or redone?

I can’t help feeling that some people are dancing around this point. The translation did not work the way that the translators hoped it would. It did not convey, in English, what is conveyed in the other languages. It’s not just a matter of what sounded good to me, but a matter of shared meaning.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
Fine, but they could have done it to make sense not to sound like we can’t talk proper English
 
Brother

I think that it is as you have suggested before on other threads. It is this American thing about disobedience. Also they just want what they have known all their lives. I can’t remember who said it but someone once said “You can’t argue someone out of something that they didn’t argue themselves into.”
 
JReducation said:
I hope this question does not derail too much. Here goes . . .

Why is it so difficult to simply accept the fact that the English translation did not way what the Church meant and therefore, had to be edited or redone?

I can’t help feeling that some people are dancing around this point. The translation did not work the way that the translators hoped it would. It did not convey, in English, what is conveyed in the other languages. It’s not just a matter of what sounded good to me, but a matter of shared meaning.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
I think it might be worth it to note that it sounds like some people now have an exaggerated sense of the old translation now being seen as “bad.” I think it might help to point out that the old translation was by no means sacrilegious or heretical or unholy or anything like that. In an EWTN interview Cardinal Wuerl said that the old translation was a good translation and the new one is a better translation. Even if that’s not strictly true from a scholarly translator’s perspective it is true from the perspective of someone in the pew. I think that might be something to remind people of if they feel like the words they had come to know and love and had seen as holy have seemingly become “wrong” overnight.
 
Aelred_Minor said:
I think it might be worth it to note that it sounds like some people now have an exaggerated sense of the old translation now being seen as “bad.” I think it might help to point out that the old translation was by no means sacrilegious or heretical or unholy or anything like that. In an EWTN interview Cardinal Wuerl said that the old translation was a good translation and the new one is a better translation. Even if that’s not strictly true from a scholarly translator’s perspective it is true from the perspective of someone in the pew. I think that might be something to remind people of if they feel like the words they had come to know and love and had seen as holy have seemingly become “wrong” overnight.
Click to expand...
I think I said this in post 247. We’re not righting a wrong. We’re fixing something that did not work the way that the translators hoped it would work.

I guess that’s my consternation. If someone says to me, “You know, you’re not doing it the way I meant for you to do it.” My immediate reaction would be to ask, “How should I be doing it?”

That’s just what happened here.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
LinuxUser said:
Fine, but they could have done it to make sense not to sound like we can’t talk proper English
Click to expand...
Read Shakespeare and tell me that’s not proper English. It is, but it is also Elizibethan English. There are many different ways to speak English, which can all be correct. I don’t mean to say that speaking in slang counts, no, but there are different dialects, and we speak differently to different people. We should speak in an elevated manner to the God of the entire Universe.
 
YoungTradCath said:
Read Shakespeare and tell me that’s not proper English. It is, but it is also Elizibethan English. There are many different ways to speak English, which can all be correct. I don’t mean to say that speaking in slang counts, no, but there are different dialects, and we speak differently to different people. We should speak in an elevated manner to the God of the entire Universe.
Click to expand...
Someone who may be familiar to many people here says, and I think he’s right, that when speaking to God it is appropriate alter our language in a way that acknowledges the specialness of the one we are speaking to, either by using more formal, elevated language or more informal, intimate language. Either can work in individual prayer, but in group worship especially with prewritten prayers like in the liturgy the more informal, intimate kind of language tends not to work. The answer then is the use of elevated language to express our devotion to God.

We already had some of that in the old translation (we don’t generally go around saying “peace be with you” to people on the street), but the new translation brings that out much more. A half century ago perhaps and certainly a full century ago we would have been inclined to break out the thees and thous to express our devotion, but the bishops made a decision not to go that far, with the exception of continuing the use of the old-fashioned Lord’s Prayer. Can you imagine the reaction if they had decided otherwise?
 
AndyP2010 said:
Can you give an example of what you don’t consider proper english in the new translation?

Ooops
Click to expand...
With your Spirit. Honestly I want to give peace to the person, makes it sound gnostic like the person is trash but not the spirit 👍
 
YoungTradCath said:
Read Shakespeare and tell me that’s not proper English. It is, but it is also Elizibethan English. There are many different ways to speak English, which can all be correct. I don’t mean to say that speaking in slang counts, no, but there are different dialects, and we speak differently to different people. We should speak in an elevated manner to the God of the entire Universe.
Click to expand...
It is not today’s English, I don’t give a fig about back then. As a Trad I know it’s hard to grasp that normal people don’t talk like you want them too.
 
LinuxUser said:
With your Spirit. Honestly I want to give peace to the person, makes it sound gnostic like the person is trash but not the spirit 👍
Click to expand...
How is the phrase, “And with your spirit,” not proper English? It seems you’re arguing something else here.
LinuxUser said:
It is not today’s English, I don’t give a fig about back then. As a Trad I know it’s hard to grasp that normal people don’t talk like you want them too.
Click to expand...
“Today’s English.” Haha. Catholicism isn’t “today’s religion” either, but I don’t care. The Church has a long standing practice of doing what it knows is right (either in truth or correctness) regardless of the popular opinion, with a small, currently-waning blip on the record.

I have no idea what is truly meant by your snappy invective, as the mass has nothing to do with how “normal people” talk. It’s kind of a straw man, really. How does the wording of mass equate to how we carry conversation? 🤷
 
YoungTradCath said:
How is the phrase, “And with your spirit,” not proper English? It seems you’re arguing something else here.

“Today’s English.” Haha. Catholicism isn’t “today’s religion” either, but I don’t care. The Church has a long standing practice of doing what it knows is right (either in truth or correctness) regardless of the popular opinion, with a small, currently-waning blip on the record.

I have no idea what is truly meant by your snappy invective, as the mass has nothing to do with how “normal people” talk. It’s kind of a straw man, really. How does the wording of mass equate to how we carry conversation? 🤷
Click to expand...
As I said you are not able to understand
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top