The next several months should be very interesting

[MarkThompson]

Anything more in line with the Latin is better, because the Latin text is the normative text.

That theorem, of course, requires that one first prove the lemma that being closer to the normative text is automatically better. Although I agree with it, it is certainly not a self-proving statement.

 

[Will_S]

That theorem, of course, requires that one first prove the lemma that being closer to the normative text is automatically better. Although I agree with it, it is certainly not a self-proving statement.

I shall declare it an axiom and move on…

 

[Ter1]

That theorem, of course, requires that one first prove the lemma that being closer to the normative text is automatically better. Although I agree with it, it is certainly not a self-proving statement.

Surely, when something is meant to be a translation of the Roman Missal then the text that gives us what the Missal says, or is closer to it than heretofore, (i.e. closer to the Latin normative text) is better. English was never meant to have it’s own Mass Rite (leaving out lines in the Confiteor and Gloria, changing “for many” & “and with your spirit” etc.). Although, to hear some of the objections you would think that the “Roman Rite” was the existing English text and we are now ‘taking away the changes introduced by Vatican II’.

By the way, they are particular about re-inserting “and with your spirit” in the English because that is the greeting used by St. Paul in his letters and in other Early Christian writings. It is something new that appeared with Christianity.

 

[MarkThompson]

Surely, when something is meant to be a translation of the Roman Missal then the text that gives us what the Missal says, or is closer to it than heretofore, (i.e. closer to the Latin normative text) is better.

I suppose it depends on your goals, your assumptions, and your definition of what is better. Although, as I say, I ultimately agree with the point of view you’re espousing, it’s not at all as clear-cut as some like to think. Let’s take, for example, the well-known line in Eucharistic Prayer I (the Roman Canon) that goes as follows:
Memento, Domine, famulorum famularumque tuarum N. et N. et omnium circumstantium, quorum tibi fides cognita est et nota devotio, pro quibus tibi offerimus: vel qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium laudis, pro se, suisque omnibus:
The new, corrected translation renders it like so:
Remember, Lord, your servants N. and *N.*and all gathered here, whose faith and devotion are known to you. For them, we offer you this sacrifice of praise or they offer it for themselves and all who are dear to them:
Now, what’s this bizarre line about “we offer you this sacrifice of praise or they offer it for themselves”? As far as I know, scholars think that, centuries ago, the “or” was a rubric and the priest was to select one option or the other depending on who was offering the Mass. Eventually the rubric got subsumed into the spoken text. I know there have been attempts to explain what this line could possibly mean if it were not a historical accident, but many people find them unconvincing post-hoc rationalizations. Thus the 1973 translation read:
Remember, Lord, your people, especially those for whom we now pray, N. and N. Remember all of us gathered here before you. . . . We offer you this sacrifice of praise for ourselves and those who are dear to us.
The belief at the time was this was “better,” inasmuch as it was not confusing and avoided replicating the little curiosity in the original text. And that’s an argument that should at least be confronted on its own terms, rather than with the hand-waving reply that amounts to “the original text is under all circumstances absolutely ideal, therefore any departure from it, by definition, can only make things worse.”

The argument extends, of course, to questions or replicating Latin syntax, imagery that would have made sense to a medieval Roman but perhaps not to a modern Australian or South African, and so on. To merely say “What part of it is a translation don’t you understand” misses the point – that we ought never to forget that it is a Mass we are translating.

 

[EasterJoy]

That theorem, of course, requires that one first prove the lemma that being closer to the normative text is automatically better. Although I agree with it, it is certainly not a self-proving statement.

I think the consensus among those with a vote was that the alternative was tried and found sorely wanting. I guess we’ll try this for 40 years, and see how it works out.

 

[SanAgustin]

It’s interesting, the changes just made me realize how what we’ve been saying in Spanish Mass is so much closer to the Latin and how the English translation sounded so alien to different to me. It wasn’t the English words and phrases, but the translation missing the mark

 

[Phemie]

It’s interesting, the changes just made me realize how what we’ve been saying in Spanish Mass is so much closer to the Latin and how the English translation sounded so alien to different to me. It wasn’t the English words and phrases, but the translation missing the mark

It’s the same with French. “And with your spirit”? We’ve been saying that all along “Et avec votre esprit”. The Gloria? We never lost 'we bless you, we adore you, we glorify you". So like you, the English Mass will now be closer to what I was used to before I moved to an area where Mass is only celebrated in English.

Of course it should be acknowledged that translating from one Romance language to another is much easier than translating to English. When I was trying to learn Spanish many years ago, I was being taught from English to Spanish. I had to quickly translate to French in my head before I could go to Spanish.

 

[PaulinVA]

The biggest thing I took away from the new translation is that it puts we humans back in our place( in the priests prayers). The present translation is very brusque and short with God. Do this. Bless that. The newer translation is much more reverent and “flowery” if that’s the right word. “Oh, Lord, with humble and contrite hearts we ask you…”

 

[Newbie2]

Most Catholics probably don’t even know that the current translation isn’t very faithful to the Latin, as most Catholics aren’t on forums like this one. Your fellow parishioner is an example. Therefore, a lot will probably not understand why they’re having to learn new responses. There will be the ones who reject the new, more correct edition with hisses and sneers (read: ultra-liberals). ** But, I venture to say that the majority of Catholics will just go along with it and won’t even care**.

I agree. Methinks there will be a couple months of adjustment, and then it will become routine.

I think priests should repeat, until they are blue in the face, that this is the case of an improved translation, because** the one used since the 1970s was simply not correct. **Maybe people will listen and accept that explanation eventually, rather than make up silly excuses because they are too lazy to figure out why the changes are needed.

I would rather see them put it in the positive i.e. that this is a more accurate translation, in order not to concern some people that past masses might be somehow “less valid”. But yes, I agree that a straightforward explanation would be best.

I’m kind of scratching my head on this. Is “visible or invisible” better than “seen or unseen”? Or my favorite-“consubstational” (probably misspelled) over “one being”. Everyone stopped and mumbled over that word.

“And also with you” vs. “And also with your spirit”.

And what is with the beating against our chests?

Maybe these changes are more in line with the Latin, but that doesn’t mean it’s better.

How about “consubstantial”?

I’m guessing maybe 99% of Joe Catholics will say “Huh?? What does THAT mean???”, and I’d bet that many priests won’t do a “teaching mass” to explain its meaning, and that even if they did, very few parishioners would attend.

There was a presentation given by our diocese about a year ago for clergy and involved lay people to introduce the changes. I found it interesting that some people who attended seemed to be overly anxious that Joe Catholics would “get the full meaning” of the new language changes.



And I mean on two levels:

First, the anxiety was over the top. Yes, we should do what we can to make the changes as easy and seamless as possible, but expecting Joe Catholic to wring every bit of meaning, hanging on each and every word of the liturgy is an exercise in futility. I’m not saying don’t try, but Joe Catholic isn’t hanging on every word now…he or she IMHO isn’t going to get a whole lot more out of “consubstantial”.

Second, and most important, I felt the vibe of “WE” have to somehow impart the wonderfulness of these words to Joe and Jane Catholic. To me, this was a big Wow. WE do nothing; it’s the Holy Spirit who gives people what they need during mass. WE make the changes; it’s not in our power to change people’s attitudes toward the language used in mass.

Sure, how we introduce the changes is important. However, at the same time we should not be anxious oabout the results; that’s above our pay grade.

 

[MarkThompson]

I think the consensus among those with a vote was that the alternative was tried and found sorely wanting.

Oh, I agree. But the alternative was not wrong just because “It is so obviously wrong” or “It’s a translation, duh.”

And that approach – of thinking that we can have things that are “better” in the English-language liturgy despite their not being faithful translations of the original – hasn’t been entirely rejected, either. I’m thinking of the three versicles after the Old Testament reading, Epistle, and Gospel, respectively. In Latin, they are “Verbum Domini,” “Verbum Domini,” and “Verbum Domini.” In English, including in the new translation, they are “The word of the Lord,” “The word of the Lord,” “The Gospel of the Lord.” Oops, “Verbum” doesn’t mean “Gospel,” now does it! Clearly somebody decided that doing something different after the Gospel was “better,” presumably because it highlights and reverences the Gospel in a unique way, and also because the change serves as a practical signal that the response too is changing, to “Glory to you, O Lord” instead of “Thanks be to God” as after the first two readings.

Personally, I can’t say I disagree that this is a better system, although inasmuch as it may be better it is better qua liturgy and not qua translation. Either way, the Roman authorities have approved it and it is here to stay.

 

[ProVobis]

Of course it should be acknowledged that translating from one Romance language to another is much easier than translating to English.

In theory, this is true. And Polish, hardly a Romance language, seems to capture the nuances of the Latin pretty well too. For example, you can say “Pan z wami” (“Lord IS with you”) without its seeming weird. In English, however, it would seem weird because we’re so used to hearing or reading “The Lord BE with you” yet we have no problem saying “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord IS with you.” Such inconsistencies because of 400 years worth of so many different English translations (and theology) in the Bible and liturgy are beginning to pay their heavy tolls, IMO.

 

[ProVobis]

Or my favorite-“consubstational” (probably misspelled) over “one being”. Everyone stopped and mumbled over that word.

That’s because they haven’t seen it enough. Consubstantialem Patri was actually translated “consubstantial to the Father” in a 1867 Missal, later (and earlier) rendered as “one in substance with the Father” and “one in being with the Father.” My theory is that since about 400 out of the 500 most used words in Anglosphere are monosyllable, the average Anglophone has difficulty with understanding anything over three, or even two, syllables. Just a theory, though.

 

[whipp711]

Apparently the group impacted the most are the priests. At least our parish priest said that his brethren are facing substantial changes. I’ve only seen the changes for the congregation.

I must say I like the new translations better. Wonder why they didn’t get it right the first go around.

And of course, our music minister slapped Dan Schutte melodies on everything. grumble grumble