The new translation is horrible

[StTommyMore]

Yes it is; the Sacred Scriptures. Thus we have an example of the Sacred being in the common language.

Where in Sacred Scripture do we see that the Mass or any other ceremony should be in a higher language, or a special language. I read where Jesus instituted the Holy Eucharist in simple, common sentences, but I do not read where Jesus should be an exception and His Church should use more special language.

since when does all we do need to be in th Scriptures?

 

[pnewton]

since when does all we do need to be in th Scriptures?

I didn’t say it did. However, *Sacred *Scripture is our oldest tradition and the only acknowledged public revelation. Since we have the example of Jesus (and St. Paul) in the Bible using common language, I would think that for any writing to carry more weight we would need something equal in importance.

We could take the road that this common speech used then was a disciplinary matter that best addressed the newly-born Church. If we do that, then we need to understand then that the latest discipline is the valid one and stop complaining about the new vernacular, or the Latin, not being snooty enough for our tastes.

 

[StTommyMore]

I didn’t say it did. However, *Sacred *Scripture is our oldest tradition and the only acknowledged public revelation. Since we have the example of Jesus (and St. Paul) in the Bible using common language, I would think that for any writing to carry more weight we would need something equal in importance.

We could take the road that this common speech used then was a disciplinary matter that best addressed the newly-born Church. If we do that, then we need to understand then that the latest discipline is the valid one and stop complaining about the new vernacular, or the Latin, not being snooty enough for our tastes.

I am less concerned about “snooty” (I wish I had your eloquence) and more concerned with “accurate”

 

[SimonDodd]

I guess they chose potus spiritualis as the parallel term.

I doubt that. I think they chose it precisely in order to portray the consecration in the softest focus possible. Emphasizing or even acknowledging the real presence would violate Bugnini’s stated intent to “strip from our liturgy everything that can be the shadow of a stumbling block for [protestants]….” Quoted in, e.g., Francisco & Dominic Radecki, Tumultuous Times 396 (2004).

So we know what Bugnini wanted to do, and we can see that what he did accomplishes that design. It’s possible to cry coincidence, but not very convincing. It is far more plausible that the appeal of potus spiritualis was, as Card. Ottaviani noted at the time, that it “might mean anything,” and strongly hints at a spiritual rather than substantial presence. (Hence the afore-mentioned heretical overtones; you don’t expect such a thing to announce itself openly, do you? The idea is to be vague enough to be able to deny with the right hand what the left hand is giving away. Heresy “is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. Rather, it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as, by its outwardform, to make it appear to the inexperienced … more true than the truth itself.” St. Irenæus, preface to Against Heresies.)

Some of Card. Ottaviani’s concerns about the novus ordo have proved overheated, and his and Bugnini’s notion that the changes would attract Protestants dubious at best; but on this point, I think he called correctly.

 

[pnewton]

I am less concerned about “snooty” (I wish I had your eloquence) and more concerned with “accurate”

As am I, which is why I like this new translation. This train of thought had nothing to do with accuracy. It addresses the issue of:

Mass is a solemn experience. We should not be using everyday language.

I agree with the first sentence. I do not think the second follows. It may seem like conventional wisdom, but the most solemn events in the history of the world occured in a Nazareth hovel, a Bethlehem manger and an executioner’s hill. Even today, it is not the finest of foods that the Lord makes His body, but the simplest of breads.

This is just food for thought as to the balance that we must have between the Sacred and the Simple. We give God our best, but we acknowledge that he demands obedience, not sacrifice. It is God who chooses the base things of the world to show his glory.

 

[Digitonomy]

While it’s got nothing to do with English, it’s interesting to note that the French translation is also ‘receive’ because in French ‘recevoir quelqu’un’ (to receive someone) is to welcome them into your home, under your roof, so to speak.

That is intriguing. That is also the case in English, although it’s a secondary definition (see #3). I suspect that the English translators compared the translations, and were influenced by the French (and perhaps other) translation. Although it had never occurred to me to apply the secondary definition of receive to that sentence, it’s a more accurate translation than is usually claimed. Nonetheless, I prefer the more poetic if more awkward new translation in this case.

 

[DeaconsSon87]

OP, you are right that it’s a nice prayer and important to say what we believe. It just doesn’t belong in that place of the Mass. The other three options express the Mysterium Fidei better. My own preference is “Lord, by your cross and resurection, you have set us free. You are the Savior of the world.”

Which, in the new translation becomes (again, closer to the Latin):

“Save us, Savior of the world, for by Your cross and resurrection, You have set us free.”

 

[StTommyMore]

As am I, which is why I like this new translation. This train of thought had nothing to do with accuracy. It addresses the issue of:

Mass is a solemn experience. We should not be using everyday language.

I agree with the first sentence. I do not think the second follows. It may seem like conventional wisdom, but the most solemn events in the history of the world occured in a Nazareth hovel, a Bethlehem manger and an executioner’s hill. Even today, it is not the finest of foods that the Lord makes His body, but the simplest of breads.

This is just food for thought as to the balance that we must have between the Sacred and the Simple. We give God our best, but we acknowledge that he demands obedience, not sacrifice. It is God who chooses the base things of the world to show his glory.

Let me explain. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the intersection of heaven and earth. We are actually participating in the heavenly liturgy. Everything about the Mass: our conduct, our dress, and yes, our manner of speech needs to reflect the absolute sanctity of the event.

 

[Alexander_Smith]

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.

People have always been able to do that. The Mass is not a personal prayer. The Mass should be at a higher level than common prayer, just as much as people should not be making up their own Rosary mysteries. The Mass should be more rigid and more formal. It is the lack of formality that has enabled so many priests to make up their own words for Mass. I’m sick of hearing different wording every time I go to a different church for Mass.

I didn’t say it did. However, *Sacred *Scripture is our oldest tradition and the only acknowledged public revelation. Since we have the example of Jesus (and St. Paul) in the Bible using common language, I would think that for any writing to carry more weight we would need something equal in importance.

We could take the road that this common speech used then was a disciplinary matter that best addressed the newly-born Church. If we do that, then we need to understand then that the latest discipline is the valid one and stop complaining about the new vernacular, or the Latin, not being snooty enough for our tastes.

You know, this post reminds me of the people who say that joviality dies when a suit appears. Society is so casual today, that people see any rigidity, any proper form, any constraint, as a threat to that casual attitude and way of life. There is nothing “snooty” about the Latin Mass, and while both the Latin rite and the Novus Ordo rite are both valid Masses, this does not mean they are both as pleasing to God.

Let me explain. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the intersection of heaven and earth. We are actually participating in the heavenly liturgy. Everything about the Mass: our conduct, our dress, and yes, our manner of speech needs to reflect the absolute sanctity of the event.

Well put! This is why I wear a suit to Sunday Mass, and this is also why I prefer the center of attention being what is happening on the alter and the sacrifice itself, rather than the center of attention being the priest and his charisma.

 

[MarkThompson]

I doubt that. I think they chose it precisely in order to portray the consecration in the softest focus possible.

But the Offertory is not part of the Consecration. And once you get into the Eucharistic Prayers, we have “that they may become the body and blood of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ,” “grant that we, who are nourished by his body and blood,” “May all of us who share in the body and blood of Christ be brought together,” and so on.

Emphasizing or even acknowledging the real presence would violate Bugnini’s stated intent to “strip from our liturgy everything that can be the shadow of a stumbling block for [protestants]….” Quoted in, e.g., Francisco & Dominic Radecki, Tumultuous Times 396 (2004).

You’ll be pleased to know that this, oh, about 95% a fraudulent invention (of Archbishop Lefebvre, if I’m not mistaken). Check out my post here, forum member Japhy’s post here. All the business about “we need to change our Mass to attract the Protestants” has absolutely no basis in anything Abp. Bugnini ever legitimately wrote.

 

[stormy99]

**Our parish priests are at a convocation going over everything in the new mass…comments so far…after a Sunday Mass, today a week day Mass was it is much more chanty…which would indicate formal…and interesting…those were his reflections on what they are seeing and learning…

I do know we will have cheat sheets so we are responding correctly…thank goodness.

As our priest said, change is never easy especially if you have most of your life with the present mass. I haven’t so maybe it won’t be as a profound change.

Anyway it may not be advent 2011 if it doesn’t go to press by the end of this year which is still in doubt. Not all the kinks have been worked out yet.

Whether people want it or not…it’s coming…probably the best we can do whether we like it or not is to learn and accept what will be…this will not shake our faith…it might make it stronger…praying about it…like I hope I learn it quickly will help a lot.**

stormy

 

[SimonDodd]

You’ll be pleased to know that this, oh, about 95% a fraudulent invention (of Archbishop Lefebvre, if I’m not mistaken). Check out my post here, forum member Japhy’s post here. All the business about “we need to change our Mass to attract the Protestants” has absolutely no basis in anything Abp. Bugnini ever legitimately wrote.

On the assumption that the Italian you found is the original, I agree that the rendering I posted above (“the mythical quote”) significantly warps the tone of the original. I do not agree, however, that the mythical quote is “not remotely close”; in substance it says the same thing. Let’s look at them side-by-side (or as close as we can get with the formatting tools available here):
Jeff's WDTPRS rendering:

Love for souls and the desire to facilitate in every way the road to union with our separated brothers, by removing anything that could possibly constitute an impediment or make them feel ill at ease, has induced the Church to make even these painful sacrifices

Your CAF rendering:

And still the love of souls and the desire to facilitate the path of union for separated brothers, removing a stone that could constitute while far-away an obstacle or motive of discomfort, have led the Church also to these painful sacrifices.

The mythical quote::

We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.

All three of these say the same thing in somewhat different words and tone. I don’t have the audacity to sit here, in a thread about inaccurate translations, and defend what appears to be a distortion of tone by mistranslation, other than to note that the mythical quote is a more faithful translation of the Italian than most of the IEL’s 1970 work. Accordingly, I happily substitute your and Jeff’s translations into my previous comment. But notice that I can do so without reducing the force of the argument! In all three version, Bugnini’s point is that the consilium’s desire to remove obstacles to reunion with protestants has led it to sacrifice certain “obstacles,” “impediments,” or “stumbling blocks.” The mythical quote simply amps up the tone and interpolates a verbal statement of the original context (changes to the liturgy). You’ve shown loose translation, maybe even unfair translation, but far from absolving Bugnini’s intentions, you’ve actually underscored them with better evidence.

 

[MarkThompson]

All three of these say the same thing in somewhat different words and tone. I don’t have the audacity to sit here, in a thread about inaccurate translations, and defend what appears to be a distortion of tone by mistranslation, other than to note that the mythical quote is a more faithful translation of the Italian than most of the IEL’s 1970 work. Accordingly, I happily substitute your and Jeff’s translations into my previous comment. But notice that I can do so without reducing the force of the argument! In all three version, Bugnini’s point is that the consilium’s desire to remove obstacles to reunion with protestants has led it to sacrifice certain “obstacles,” “impediments,” or “stumbling blocks.” The mythical quote simply amps up the tone and interpolates a verbal statement of the original context (changes to the liturgy). You’ve shown loose translation, maybe even unfair translation, but far from absolving Bugnini’s intentions, you’ve actually underscored them with better evidence.

Please note that this quotation appeared in an article in L’Osservatore Romano on March 19, 1965, more than four full years before the Mass of Paul VI was promulgated. The Archbishop was not writing in a general way about “changing the Mass,” he was explaining certain changes to the Good Friday prayers which had just been decreed twelve days earlier on March 7. These changes did away with “schismatic” and “heretic” language; Abp. Bugnini’s point was that even these relatively minor alterations were “painful sacrifices,” but desirable because railing against Protestants as heretics is an unnecessary “obstacle or motive of discomfort.” See Marini et al., A Challenging Reform: Realizing the Vision of the Liturgical Renewal, 1963-1975, at 111 (2007).

 

[pnewton]

You know, this post reminds me of the people who say that joviality dies when a suit appears. Society is so casual today, that people see any rigidity, any proper form, any constraint, as a threat to that casual attitude and way of life.

I did not say that. You are applying what I said about language to dress. Then you mention proper form. As I always dress my best for Mass and desire proper form, you are mistaken in your effort to read more into my post.

 

[pnewton]

All three of these say the same thing in somewhat different words and tone… But notice that I can do so without reducing the force of the argument! In all three version, Bugnini’s point is that the consilium’s desire to remove obstacles to reunion with protestants has led it to sacrifice certain “obstacles,” “impediments,” or “stumbling blocks.” The mythical quote simply amps up the tone and interpolates a verbal statement of the original context (changes to the liturgy)…

If they are all the same, the why the need to “amp up the tone”? I have said it many time, Truth needs no exaggeration.

 

[otjm]

Please note that this quotation appeared in an article in L’Osservatore Romano on March 19, 1965, more than four full years before the Mass of Paul VI was promulgated. The Archbishop was not writing in a general way about “changing the Mass,” he was explaining certain changes to the Good Friday prayers which had just been decreed twelve days earlier on March 7. These changes did away with “schismatic” and “heretic” language; Abp. Bugnini’s point was that even these relatively minor alterations were “painful sacrifices,” but desirable because railing against Protestants as heretics is an unnecessary “obstacle or motive of discomfort.” See Marini et al., A Challenging Reform: Realizing the Vision of the Liturgical Renewal, 1963-1975, at 111 (2007).

Ah, but urban legends are so much more fun!

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

“Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again”? That’s a pretty important thing to say and believe.

Added in the 1960’s IIRC. It is certainly a good synopsis, but I’m a bit of a traditionalist and like usig the ones that have been used for ages.

(my apologies if this has already been addressed).

With regards to your other objections, the new translation seems to be pretty close to how the Mass is said in Italian (as an example)

 

[MarkThompson]

Ah, but urban legends are so much more fun!

Exactly! And arguing that the Consilium’s changes to the Mass made it more Protestant is so much more boring and time-consuming than saying, “Bugnini said, quote, I will make the Mass Protestant.”

As I said above, based on what I’ve been able to find, I think this urban legend originates with Archbishop Lefebvre. And that’s not to say that he deliberately decided to misquote Abp. Bugnini to fool people – for all I know, it was a calculated parody of Bugnini’s way of thinking which Lefebvre expected to be understood as such by his audience, a la “Ford to City: Drop Dead.” If so, though, Lefebvre didn’t know much about his audience, nor about the way fraudulent misquotes that prove what people want to believe can take on a life of their own.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Dave -
Dominus Vobiscum = The Lord be with you
Et cum Spiritu Tuom = And with thy Spirit

Since we no longer use the 2nd person singular, they decided to use “your spirit”. “And with your spirit,” is supposed to teach an eternal reality, that we aren’t just a body, that we are are Spirit as well, and that what gives us life is the Spirit. That’s why Jesus told the Samaritan woman, “Those who worship the Father would worship Him in Spirit and in Truth.”

I think it’s fair to ask that you not compare this latest Translation of the Latin Mass with a “Perfect Translation” of a “Perfect Latin Mass” (because such a thing doesn’t exist except in Heaven), but to compare this “New” Translation to the present Translation (of the Latin Mass) which most Americans have been using since 1973. I believe that, if you do that, you’ll find this Translation to be dramatically superior both as a Translation and as an instrument for worship and Catachesis (Teaching).

I believe you’ll find this Translation to be more Christ centered than the old Translation and to enable worship of the Lord in His House more readily than the old Translation. I believe you’ll find it does a better job of teaching the eternal truths of the Catholic Faith and of preparing the Catholic worshiper to receive those truths than the former Translation did.

When I was an Anglican, I lived with a Liturgy that taught the eternal truths of the Catholic Faith, while preparing those who worshiped the Lord to Worship Him in Spirit and in Truth. I’ve worshiped with the Maronites who use an 1800 year old Arabic Liturgy that I can’t begin to understand, and yet I’ve felt impelled to the Altar for the Offertory and the Sacrifice, and I’ve felt the Pain of the Blessed Virgin during Good Friday Mary Song…

You don’t need to worship in “Street lingo” for your Spirit to pray in “Groans and sighs understood only by the Holy Spirit and God the Father”.

In Christ, Michael

Hi Michael,

I agree that “and with your Spirit” is a good translation of the Latin text.

However, it’s the “be” in “The Lord BE with you” that’s incorrect for the reasons that I explained above, so I’d have to disagree with your translation of that phrase. The correct translation of “Dominus Vobiscum” is: “The Lord IS with you,” which is a statement of fact, not an “entreaty,” neither here nor in the ostensible biblical quote. This problem also affects the meaning and understanding of the people’s response, it seems to me.

I suppose Catholics could say that this is just a minor problem that should be overlooked in light of other improvements. But it seems to me that it’s generally distasteful to be using the imperative in any prayer addressed to God–we are not here to order God around and to do our bidding (which is why I put entreaty in quotes)–especially in a prayer that is repeated so often. Since the translation is incorrect anyway, this seems to only add insult to injury.

So my general observation (again, just as an outsider responding to the original post) was that if there are obvious problems translating something SO simple, that there are probably problems in other areas as well. If someone is going to go to all this trouble of completely revising something because of problems in translation, then fix it, I say!!

…but we will have to withhold judgment until the final text is released (as I also noted in my post above).

Incidentally, there also seems to be some unwarranted use of inclusive language in the upcoming re-translation of the Psalms-- adoremus.org/1208USCCB.html which really surprised me. Again, my understanding of the project was to get back to a more literal translation: “he” has gone to the generic “whom” in Ps 98:13, apparently. But again, this is only a snippet and we will have to wait and see what the whole text looks like on balance. Or maybe I’m misunderstanding the project here.

You’re absolutely right Michael–there’s no such thing as a perfect translation. You’re right, I don’t know that “it’s horrible.” But some of these things don’t bode very well for the new translation…and I’m just mystified that something so obvious wouldn’t be corrected. Thanks for your response.

 

[otjm]

Incidentally, there also seems to be some unwarranted use of inclusive language in the upcoming re-translation of the Psalms-- adoremus.org/1208USCCB.html which really surprised me. Again, my understanding of the project was to get back to a more literal translation: “he” has gone to the generic “whom” in Ps 98:13, apparently. But again, this is only a snippet and we will have to wait and see what the whole text looks like on balance. Or maybe I’m misunderstanding the project here.

?? I am not seeing the inclusive language (but then, I didn’t look at the currecnt LOTH). What are you referring to?