The new translation is horrible

[steve_b]

Dominus Vobiscum = “[May] the Lord be with you [all].”
Et cum spiritu tuo = “And with thy spirit”

In addition,

Jn 6:63
63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.

So when we say and with your spirit, as it was always said in Latin, we are speaking more precisely.

 

[LittleSoldier]

No, I mean that even in English “The Lord be with you” is not a grammatical imperative. It’s just not. Imperatives would be “Have the Lord with you!” (directed at the other person) or “Lord, be with him!” (directed at the Lord). A statement directed at one person expressing a hoped-for action on the part of a different person isn’t an imperative.

As far as the translation goes, the goal is to translate the sense of the Latin Dominus vobiscum into something that makes sense in English. I suspect that a breezy “Lord withya!” would come closest, as it has no verb at all but is clearly a greeting expressing a hope (rather than a statement of fact), like “Good morning!” or “Good luck!” The problem is that breeziness is not acceptable for a liturgical translation, and a more formal “The Lord with you” does not really read as a complete English thought. So if a verb is to be added to produce a usable liturgical translation, one must figure out from the context how the phrase is used, and add the right one.

I’ve been lurking and have read some of the posts regarding “Dominus vobiscum.” I just want to say that I like “Lord withya!” There’s just something about it that appeals to me. It also covers all the possible translations such as “The Lord be with you,” "The Lord is with you,
etc. And it is truly English though maybe American style-English.

I like it.

 

[otjm]

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

Given the world-wide popularity of vernacular, that hardly seems to address the question. Just because something is not simple, we abandon any attempt?

 

[otjm]

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 might be true if people were analytical,or critical, thinkers. Most are not.

Further, for thsoe not educated in philosophy, the answer to “What does consubstantial mean?” is most likely going to be answered with “one in being with”.

Which gets us right back to where we were.

 

[otjm]

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.

and there we go, ignoring the Greek again!

 

[otjm]

Why, does God only listen to prayers said in Latin?

Jim

Well, there is a rumor going 'round that He speaks Hebrew…

 

[pnewton]

Well, there is a rumor going 'round that He speaks Hebrew…

Aramaic. That is the one language we *know *he speaks.

Edit- Oh. You were right. Mene mene tekel upharsin. God can write Hebrew.

 

[otjm]

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.

Good post. No, excellent post. However, given both the ennui of the general populace and the antipathy towards change, I won’t be holding my breath.

Oh - and by the way - part of the reason you had so few singing the Agnus Dei was probably due in part to the CE’s - the folks who go Christmas and Easter and don’t dzrken the doors pretty much any other time - it is no wonder they don’t know how tosing it; they are not sure even about when to sit or stand, or what comes next…

 

[otjm]

Learn what the prayer means, and/or Read Fr. Zuhlsdorf’s blog.

In the Catholic Church, the individual believer is not abandoned to his own devices, left to pray only in the ways of which he can conceive with his own mind.

That’s true, the first few times. Here’s a question, though. If you’ve been a Catholic for a while, you know the novus ordo Mass pretty well, right? You might not be able to recite it along with the priest without looking down at the text, but you know the structure, and the prayers do not land on you unanticipated. Now suppose you go overseas on business, and attend (as you should, if you stay for a Sunday) a novus ordo Mass in a language you don’t know. Are you entirely lost? Or do you know exactly where you are? After the sign of peace, the congregation repeats something, and you may not know the words they’re saying, but you know where you are, so you can take a pretty good guess that this is the agnus dei. Then the priest holds up the chalice and a piece of the host, and says: “Seht das Lamm Gottes, das hinwegnimmt die Sünde der Welt. Selig die zum Mahl des Lammes geladen sind.” Without speaking a word of German, you know what he’s saying, because you may not know German, but you know the Mass. It’s no different with the Extraordinary Form, or the Ordinary Form said in latin, for that matter. You learn the Mass.

That something may be abused does not mean that it lacks legitimate use. That people do good things badly does not mean that they cannot or should not be done well.

While I agree with your prior post concerning using Latin on occasion in certain parts of the Mass, I suspect from this post that you were born either after Vatican 2, or shortly before it.

There is a vast difference between hearing a prayer that we all say (e.g. your example, the Agnus Dei) in English and reciting it upon occasion in Latin, and hearing the whole Mass in another language.

Like JimR, I grew up before Vatican 1 was finished, so I ahve plenty of experience using a missal with the translation. And like him, I can attest that using a missal and trying to track a foreign language with one ear, watch for visual cues, and read in English is distracting.

and I find it even more distracting to hear the Mass in a foreign language and not have a missal at hand. About a year ago I was attending Mass in Utah, and it happened to be a Spanish Mass. No missals available. Note: I took two years of high school Latin and two years of college Latin ( which was not long after Mount Hood was no longer a hole in the groudn - or so it seems), and I could catch a word or phrase on the fly. Frankly, I don’t want to go back there either. Nor do I want to make a constant habit of attending Mass in another language, whether it is Latin, French, Spanish, German, Vietnamese, or whatever.

That most certainly does not mean that I object to some of the Mass being said in Latin (or Greek!) from time to time.

My mother is 93, and for sure no liberal. One day I asked her what she liked or disliked about the changes to the Mass. Her answer was immediate, and it was that it was in the vernacular. and I have met and asked many people older than myself the same question, and the response to a person has been the same - the vernacular.

 

[pnewton]

Oh - and by the way - part of the reason you had so few singing the Agnus Dei was probably due in part to the CE’s - the folks who go Christmas and Easter and don’t dzrken the doors pretty much any other time

We have started chanting the Latin responses during Lent for penance…
… I mean to mark the pennitential season.

 

[otjm]

Aramaic. That is the one language we *know *he speaks.

Edit- Oh. You were right. Mene mene tekel upharsin. God can write Hebrew.

Um, we know His Son can speak Aramaic…

 

[otjm]

SimonDodd

I am thinking that you and Simon may, to a certain extent, be talking about two somewhat different things.

Simon earlier had suggested that saying some of the prayers we recite, in Latin, on occasion, is a good thing.

You seem to be responding to having the entire Mass in Latin.

Would you agree with Simon’s earlier comment, that saying, for example, the Sanctus and the Agnus Dei in Latin, on occasion, could be a good thing for the people in the pews?

 

[Damase]

And the people of God’s Church should be able understand the words of that Liturgy.

The Mass shouldn’t be something abstract which in Latin, it becomes for those who are not fluent in the language.

So, it makes perfectly good sense to have the Mass in the vernacular.

I’ve attended many Masses with Latin in the parts of the Mass. It doesn’t add anything, but in fact becomes a distraction.

I suppose this depends on whether you see the Mass as being a) primarily people-centered, or b) primarily God-centered.

If you see the Mass as something that is primarily for the people, I can imagine why having an only-vernacular Mass would make sense. “The Mass, after all, is about us—we are the people of God, etc. etc.” This mentality leads to abuses of the liturgy, such as hosts of EMHCs (“all the better to foster our ‘active participation’”), impositions of the priest’s personality onto the Mass (“Mass, after all, ought to be entertaining; so why shouldn’t Father dress up like a clown? It makes the children laugh”), and non-liturgical music (“I want Somewhere Over the Rainbow played at my funeral because it’s my favorite song”).

But if you see Mass as being primarily God-centered, then you realize that it not, first and foremost, about you. The Church prays in Latin because she wants to be certain that her praise to God is exactly what she means it to be. Moreover, it sends two messages: first of all, that of continuity, both of expression and of visible form, with the Church’s history, and second, that the Mass does not, in fact, depend on your understanding. Even in English, the Mass is a mystery. The problem with the vernacular is that people believe that when a thing is immediately comprehensible them them, that they’ve got it “under their belt”. That is not the case with Holy Mass, and people ought to be reminded of that.

I’m not saying here that the considerations of the people are completely irrelevant to the way Mass should be celebrated, but rather, that a certain hierarchy of goods must be respected.

 

[pnewton]

Um, we know His Son can speak Aramaic…

Bingo. He is God. Ergo, God speaks Aramaic, writes Hebrew and listen to Latin. I have a suspicion he is also fluent in English, though, being God and all.

 

[StTommyMore]

I suppose this depends on whether you see the Mass as being a) primarily people-centered, or b) primarily God-centered.

If you see the Mass as something that is primarily for the people, I can imagine why having an only-vernacular Mass would make sense. “The Mass, after all, is about us—we are the people of God, etc. etc.” This mentality leads to abuses of the liturgy, such as hosts of EMHCs (“all the better to foster our ‘active participation’”), impositions of the priest’s personality onto the Mass (“Mass, after all, ought to be entertaining; so why shouldn’t Father dress up like a clown? It makes the children laugh”), and non-liturgical music (“I want Somewhere Over the Rainbow played at my funeral because it’s my favorite song”).

But if you see Mass as being primarily God-centered, then you realize that it not, first and foremost, about you. The Church prays in Latin because she wants to be certain that her praise to God is exactly what she means it to be. Moreover, it sends two messages: first of all, that of continuity, both of expression and of visible form, with the Church’s history, and second, that the Mass does not, in fact, depend on your understanding. Even in English, the Mass is a mystery. The problem with the vernacular is that people believe that when a thing is immediately comprehensible them them, that they’ve got it “under their belt”. That is not the case with Holy Mass, and people ought to be reminded of that.

I’m not saying here that the considerations of the people are completely irrelevant to the way Mass should be celebrated, but rather, that a certain hierarchy of goods must be respected.

This is a fine line to walk. The Mass is not one dimensional. It is not either vertical (God-centered) or horizontal (people centered). It has both dimensions at the same time. Since this is true, we must take care to not ignore God or the faithful.

 

[pnewton]

I suppose this depends on whether you see the Mass as being a) primarily people-centered, or b) primarily God-centered.

What this have to do with the new translation? I see the Mass as primarily God-centered and people-purposed. After all, we receive the Holy Sacrament for our grace. God does not receive us. Therefore, I like the new English translation. I know that is a non-sequitor, but such is life when threads get hijacked.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I am thinking that you and Simon may, to a certain extent, be talking about two somewhat different things.

Simon earlier had suggested that saying some of the prayers we recite, in Latin, on occasion, is a good thing.

You seem to be responding to having the entire Mass in Latin.

Would you agree with Simon’s earlier comment, that saying, for example, the Sanctus and the Agnus Dei in Latin, on occasion, could be a good thing for the people in the pews?

If I may add to the discussion. I wouldn’t mind having the priest’s parts in Latin, like the consecration. Whereas people’s responses or prayers should be in the vernacular. It after all is offered up by the people, it should be something the common man can understand. Otherwise it doesn’t become a prayer, but rather a bunch of foreign words recited off a piece of paper.

 

[otjm]

I suppose this depends on whether you see the Mass as being a) primarily people-centered, or b) primarily God-centered.

That is a false dichotomy. The Church (not the Roman rite) has used the vernacular since its inception. for historical reasons, Latin became the primary language of the Roman rite, at a time where latin was widely known and spoken. As time went on, Latin was less and less known by the people and less and less widely spoken by the people, but the Mass in the Roman rite continued on in Latin. If you want to take the people/God centered argument to its logical conclusion, we should still be saying it in Aramaic, the original language. But I think the only rite that is still using Aramaic is the Maronite rite (although there may be a couple of others - I am not familiar with the Coptic rite).

If you see the Mass as something that is primarily for the people, I can imagine why having an only-vernacular Mass would make sense. “The Mass, after all, is about us—we are the people of God, etc. etc.” This mentality leads to abuses of the liturgy

I I will stop your quote there, since it shows a lack of knowledge of the Church (as opposed to the Roman rite), and the use of the vernacular throughout the last 2000 years. Again, your presumption of people/God orientation misses the whole of the history of the Church.

But if you see Mass as being primarily God-centered, then you realize that it not, first and foremost, about you. The Church prays in Latin because she wants to be certain that her praise to God is exactly what she means it to be.

Again, false premise. The Church does not pray in Latin; it prays in a multiple of languages and has done so for every single year of the last 2000. Furthermore, it is open to question as to when, exactly, the Roman rite was established - when Peter moved to Rome? At his death? It was several centuries before Latin became the only langugage that those who might be considered under or part of the Roman rite used.

Moreover, it sends two messages: first of all, that of continuity, both of expression and of visible form, with the Church’s history, and second, that the Mass does not, in fact, depend on your understanding. Even in English, the Mass is a mystery.

There is a vast difference between understanding the words of a prayer as they are recited, and understanding the mysteries of the Mass. Another false dichotomy, and not one that anyone here has even hinted at.

The problem with the vernacular is that people believe that when a thing is immediately comprehensible them them, that they’ve got it “under their belt”. That is not the case with Holy Mass, and people ought to be reminded of that.

That, however, is an issue of catechesis, and not of language selection.

 

[otjm]

Bingo. He is God. Ergo, God speaks Aramaic, writes Hebrew and listen to Latin. I have a suspicion he is also fluent in English, though, being God and all.

Ya think???

How unique…

 

[Dave_Noonan]

So, an honest question from a non-Catholic. Why doesn’t the Catholic Church simply teach its children and young people Latin? (Sort of along the lines of the way Jews expend a great deal of energy teaching their children Hebrew.) The ancillary benefits would be enormous and such a program would probably pay for itself in eliminating angst and the re-publication of translations.