The new translation is horrible

[Don9of11]

Some of us who have been taught one way for the last 40 years may find the new translations difficult to adjust too. I think you will find many parishes will not accept the new changes or there will be variants from one parish to another just as there are variations and liturgical abuses today. Bishops and pastors as well as liturgical committees have become to permissive in their attitude toward a correctly celebrated mass. We can only pray that these changes will bring us closer together.

My hope is that the new translations carry over into the music of the liturgy because IMHO, many of the “hymns” today do little to praise the the Blessed Sacrament or God. Removing the “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again” may be a good thing as some of these more charismatic songs may hit the round file as well. Of course, music in the liturgy is a whole other subject for discussion.

 

[SimonDodd]

Some of us who have been taught one way for the last 40 years may find the new translations difficult to adjust too. I think you will find many parishes will not accept the new changes or there will be variants from one parish to another just as there are variations and liturgical abuses today. Bishops and pastors as well as liturgical committees have become to permissive in their attitude toward a correctly celebrated mass. We can only pray that these changes will bring us closer together.

And to the extent that is true for these relatively small changes, just imagine how much more difficult the change to the novus ordo must have been!

My hope is that the new translations carry over into the music of the liturgy because IMHO, many of the “hymns” today do little to praise the the Blessed Sacrament or God.

 

[ASD]

I’m sorry, but I’m just stating facts.

Wow.

Presumably that statement reflects what some Priests, and other persons who should know what they’re talking about, are saying.

Wow.

ASD​

Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Then again, the whole clause about the Holy Spirit is basically just a single sentence:

Greek: And in the Holy Spirit (literal: “the Spirit - the Holy”), the Lord, the Lifegiver, who from the Father proceeds, who together with [the] Father and [the] Son is co-worshiped (συμπροσκυνούμενον) and conglorified (συνδοξαζόμενον), who spoke through the prophets.

Latin: And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and the Lifegiver, who from the Father and the Son proceeds, who with the Father and the Son is together worshiped and conglorified, who spoke through the prophets.

Absolutely. So now you have me curious. Which does the new translation use: “he” (as in the old translation) or the relative (who/whom)?

 

[MarkThompson]

Absolutely. So now you have me curious. Which does the new translation use: “he” (as in the old translation) or the relative (who/whom)?

“Who”.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Well, If you want to write what you would have preferred, I suppose we could see if it makes sense. However, since the whole sentence starts out with “the man whom…”, I simply do not see how you can take the use of “whom” in the next two phrases to be referring to any (thing, person) except the originally stated “man”. To not use “whom” in the next two phrases requires a lot more wordage. It is simply good use of English, and I think you are a bit overly sensitive to inclusive language, for the simple reason that I would never see it as referring to any (thing, person) other than the “man” in the first phrase.

Anyhow, if you want to re-write it, see if you can do so in a way that is not “inclusive” and does not create chaos in the sentence.

In other words, yes, elsewhere those who want inclusive language may have taken out a non-inclusive (or allegedly non-inclusive) word and replaced it with “who” or “whom”. But that does not at all appear to be the case here. It is simply a sentence with three phrases, the last two which refer to the first, which says “man”. In short, simply good English, with no reference whatsoever to inclusivety.

I guess what I am saying is that while those who want inclusive language may use “who” or 'whom" to replace words seen as not inclusive, the use of those does not necessarily automatically equate with inclusive language. They were a normal part of language before the issue of inclusive language made its way into translations.

See post 82 for my first thoughts on the translation. But since the verse we are discussing starts mid sentence (as did my translation in post #82) I’ll give you what I think is a reasonable translation of how the whole thing should go, IF the objective is a more literal translation:

94:12; Blessed is the man whom you instruct, O LORD, teaching him your law,
(13) calming him in the days of evil—until a pit is dug for the wicked.

And you’re absolutely right, changing two instances of “he” in the Hebrew text to “whom” in English in and of itself doesn’t constitute inclusive language. We’d have to find additional “he’s” going to “who/whom” to detect a broader pattern. And since as far a I know, no one has released any additional texts, so there’s no way of knowing for sure.

I was just very surprised to see this since: 1) I understood the entire project as a return to more literal translations and 2) given past sensitivity about inclusive language in the Psalter. But, as I already said above, maybe I’m wrong about what the re-translation is trying to achieve.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

“Who”.

Great! I’m all for better translations.

 

[Luger]

I like the new translation and find it long over-due. The current version was done too fast and was known to be flawed when it came out. Here is an article by Cardinal DiNardo.

diogh.org/BishopPastorals/bishops_dinardo_recent.asp

 

[Spirithound]

Ok, good point on the first paragraph–except I’d say that if one is forced to translate: “the Lord be with you” I’m not even sure who is being addressed–is it the priest or God?

It’s the people. The priest addresses the people with this utterance.

Still, the expression of wishes and desires of this manner is expressed in Latin via the subjunctive. Even in the context of a greeting, I still can’t see how it could reasonably be anything else but “the Lord is with you” as an observation of fact versus “the Lord be with you” as a hope or wish–for which Latin has a perfectly good means of expression at its disposal, but it isn’t being used here. Maybe what you’re saying is that the INTENT is the “wish/hope”? Then I’d probably respond that the Latin seems poorly utilized to express that.

BUT I’m still certainly very open to any Latin examples of a copula (a verbless sentence) where the context requires anything other than “is”.

I think you’ve got a point here.

I’ve just checked out the text for the Sign of Peace, which in English has a similar sound, and the priest says

“Pax Dòmini sit semper vobìscum.”

“sit” is the 3rd person subjunctive, which is reflected in the English translation “be”.

On the other hand, at the beginning of the Mass, a bishop gives the greeting

“Pax vobis”

no prepositions, no explicit verb.

 

[PattiDay]

I guess there aren’t many people here who remember the flap when the language was changed after Vatican II. Pope John Paul II and his successor Benedict desire that we return to a more faithful translation from the Latin. Changes were rushed through after Vat II and we have been all this time trying to get back what was lost. Try to keep an open mind so that you may hear and understand why these changes are being made. And while we’re at it, I hope we may return to some of the beautiful sacred music that was lost at the same time.

 

[m134e5]

I’m sorry, but I’m just stating facts.

This applies only to Catholics in the United States, by the way.

I mean come on. “And with your spirit”? That makes no sense in the context we say it in. “Lord I am not worthy that you be under my roof”? Taken from the Gospels, but makes no sense in the context that it’s said in during Mass. And no more “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again”? That’s a pretty important thing to say and believe.

The Mass wasn’t too conversational. People should be able to talk to God easily and in language they understand. Now it just sounds too stiff, formal, and makes no sense.

The Mass isn’t an informal chat with God. We all should know God personally, and be close to Him- but we aren’t equal to God. He’s our truest friend, but He’s also God. It’s always good to keep that in mind. The Mass is the supreme act of worship- it’s the continuation of the temple sacrifice of the old testament (with Christ being offered- as the perfect sacrifice). It’s a **formal **action of the Church- and deserves reverence greater than our most formal of secular occasions. Outside the military, we’ve largely lost a sense of formality in this country- other than when the public gets a good look at it (such as in a televised state funeral, or a parade, for example). We see it a bit in weddings, but that generally seems to be because traditional things are romantic- not because a wedding is a formal occasion that demands reverence.

“Lord I am not worthy…” is said because it quotes the bible- and it certainly applies to us, because in a sense, we are that centurion- we have come to believe in Christ, and we are ask that He enter into us and heal our sinful souls.

“Christ has died…” is important to say and believe, but we already say it somewhere else (in the creed)- and it was never supposed to be part of the liturgy. This response was not part of the original Latin text of the currant ordinary form of the Liturgy (written in the 1960’s), and it isn’t used in the non-English-speaking world. The Catholic Church isn’t just an English-speaking Church. It has many followers of many languages- if the Church’s liturgies are to be celebrated in all those languages, great care must be taken to ensure that they say the same things. There are many important prayers of the Church that aren’t generally said at Mass (the Te Deum, and Gloria Patri, just to name a few…though the Gloria Patri is said frequently at the Traditional Latin Mass).

We are all called to be close to God. In Him, we find our strongest and most brave protector, our truest friend, and our wisest counselor. That closeness can be deeply personal too. We aren’t at that yet though- we have to remember that. We are still sinners in need of healing and reconciliation with God. Through confession, personal prayer, practice of the spiritual and corporal works of mercy, and perseverance, we grow closer to God- but we won’t be in perfect union

Wasn’t Jesus enough? Yes! His sacrifice was so powerful that it is re-presented at every Mass through the priests. That doesn’t mean he is crucified over and over again- this is a great mystery of our Faith- Christ’s sacrifice transcends time, and when we go to Mass, we are present with all of heaven as Christ intercedes to the Father for us- and we are present at Calvary when Christ gave His life for us.

 

[otjm]

See post 82 for my first thoughts on the translation. But since the verse we are discussing starts mid sentence (as did my translation in post #82) I’ll give you what I think is a reasonable translation of how the whole thing should go, IF the objective is a more literal translation:

94:12; Blessed is the man whom you instruct, O LORD, teaching him your law,
(13) calming him in the days of evil—until a pit is dug for the wicked.

And you’re absolutely right, changing two instances of “he” in the Hebrew text to “whom” in English in and of itself doesn’t constitute inclusive language. We’d have to find additional “he’s” going to “who/whom” to detect a broader pattern. And since as far a I know, no one has released any additional texts, so there’s no way of knowing for sure.

I was just very surprised to see this since: 1) I understood the entire project as a return to more literal translations and 2) given past sensitivity about inclusive language in the Psalter. But, as I already said above, maybe I’m wrong about what the re-translation is trying to achieve.

Well, your translation works.

I never took Hebrew, and have forgotten almost all the Latin and Greek I did learn. Again, I don’t know that the new translation is trying to be a literal, word for word go at it, and the sentence is simply good English. Remember, it is for all English speaking countries, not just the US. That will impact any translation somewhat.

 

[patrick457]

Absolutely. So now you have me curious. Which does the new translation use: “he” (as in the old translation) or the relative (who/whom)?

The new translation is more closer to the original texts here:

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

Of course, it’s not totally literal (for example, putting “I believe” where kai/et “and” is in the original, perhaps for grammatical reasons), but it does preserve the clause’s being only one sentence.

 

[Chatter163]

I’m sorry, but I’m just stating facts.

This applies only to Catholics in the United States, by the way.

I mean come on. “And with your spirit”? That makes no sense in the context we say it in. “Lord I am not worthy that you be under my roof”? Taken from the Gospels, but makes no sense in the context that it’s said in during Mass. And no more “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again”? That’s a pretty important thing to say and believe.

The Mass wasn’t too conversational. People should be able to talk to God easily and in language they understand. Now it just sounds too stiff, formal, and makes no sense.

The translation makes perfect sense. You just don’t understand it. Big difference.

 

[Damase]

I’m sorry, but I’m just stating facts.

This applies only to Catholics in the United States, by the way.

I mean come on. “And with your spirit”? That makes no sense in the context we say it in. “Lord I am not worthy that you be under my roof”? Taken from the Gospels, but makes no sense in the context that it’s said in during Mass. And no more “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again”? That’s a pretty important thing to say and believe.

The Mass wasn’t too conversational. People should be able to talk to God easily and in language they understand. Now it just sounds too stiff, formal, and makes no sense.

I guess there’s only one solution to this problem—say it all in Latin.

 

[pnewton]

I guess there’s only one solution to this problem—say it all in Latin.

That is scarcely a solution to providing a vernacular translation of the Mass. Some people have a learning curve to understanding, so we make it more difficult to understand? That doesn’t seem logical.

 

[SimonDodd]

That is scarcely a solution to providing a vernacular translation of the Mass. Some people have a learning curve to understanding, so we make it more difficult to understand? That doesn’t seem logical.

Before you can learn, you have to realize that you don’t understand. One problem with the old translation is that because the individual words are familiar, there’s a subconscious tendency to aggregate, jumping from “I know what these words mean” to “I know what this statement means.” We can easily parse “one in being with the father”; any competent English speaker knows each of those words. But do we really understand what the statement means? If the unfamiliarity of consubstantiálem / consubstantial gets people to pause and contemplate the reality signified by the term, that’s a positive, not a negative.

 

[pnewton]

Before you can learn, you have to realize that you don’t understand. One problem with the old translation is that because the individual words are familiar, there’s a subconscious tendency to aggregate, jumping from “I know what these words mean” to “I know what this statement means.” We can easily parse “one in being with the father”; any competent English speaker knows each of those words. But do we really understand what the statement means? If the unfamiliarity of consubstantiálem / consubstantial gets people to pause and contemplate the reality signified by the term, that’s a positive, not a negative.

That is why the new literal translation, though somewhat awkward, is such a good opportunity for catechisis.

 

[Damase]

That is scarcely a solution to providing a vernacular translation of the Mass. Some people have a learning curve to understanding, so we make it more difficult to understand? That doesn’t seem logical.

Although I think that most if not all of the regular parts the New Mass (i.e., not necessarily the propers) really ought to be said in Latin, my comment was more facetious than anything else.

 

[SimonDodd]

Although I think that most if not all of the regular parts the New Mass (i.e., not necessarily the propers) really ought to be said in Latin, my comment was more facetious than anything else.

I’m inclined to think that every parish ought to be doing just this, at least once a month. Vatican II was extremely clear about this: not only is the use of Latin to be preserved, notwithstanding the use of the vernacular in suitable places, but “steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.” If one happens to be against using latin periodically in the Mass, just how do you suppose the council’s mandate that the laity be able to say and sing their parts will be carried out? If the Council is the touchstone, as liberals insist, then adhere to the Council, not the Consilium, still less some imagined “spirit of the council”—a fond thing vainly invented in the image of the inventor.

At Easter, my parish sings the agnus dei in latin. It’s quite beautiful, and really makes me wish that we did it year-round. At any rate, it was apparent this year that less than half the congregation knew what is by any reckoning the simplest and briefest latin chant in the Mass! But how can they be blamed if they are never presented with any situations in which to practice, or even a demand that they do so privately? We shall be told that it isn’t “pastoral” to use latin, but that’s nonsense. I’ve said it here before, and it bears repeating: “pastoral” is the most abused word in the Catholic vocabulary. Somewhere along the line, it has been wrenched from its moorings, twisted beyond recognition, and improbably sharpened into a weapon to be wielded against priests and bishops who do not buy into—what? Not the council itself, but the mythic Vatican II that never existed, the one that might have happened had every bishop been a Richard McBrien or a Hans Kung. “Pastoral,” however, does not mean “do nothing that disturbs your flock”; it does not mean be diplomatic to the point of requiring nothing of anybody. A pastor is a shepherd; a shepherd’s job is not to let his sheep wander wherever they like. The council taught that the laity must be able to use latin; the correct pastoral response is to help them do so.