US priests dislike Mass translation, survey finds [CNAU]

[jwinch2]

The survey reported in this article used entirely inappropriate methodology for what they were trying to do. In addition, by not reporting the actual raw data, to include that of participants, the supposed “study”’ is pretty much meaningless.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/survey-on-priests-dislike-of-missal-may-be-inaccurate/

This article highlights some of the issues, but even that is incomplete. In particular, in some instances when doing survey work, or in other study designs, it may be appropriate to use targeted sampling to ensure that the proper numbers of specific demographics are represented, particularly when attempting to analyze based upon those demographics. For example, if looking to find out what certain age groups of priests think about the Mass translation, one would desire to target a percentage of respondents which is reflective of the numbers in the actual population being studied, in this case the priesthood.

The fact that only certain diocese (approximately 16% of them) even participated, and from there respondents were allowed to self-select into the study, indicates a high probability of bias and poor validity.

The only two options I can come up with explain this are: 1) someone who knows nothing about research design who meant no harm; or 2) someone with an agenda trying to spin the conversation in a direction of their preference. I have no idea which one it is, but those are the only two plausible options from where I stand.

 

[Brendan]

Maybe nobody had problems with the Spanish changes because Spanish is a direct descendant from Latin anyway, so maybe it was already closer to the original? English is further removed from Latin, so maybe the changes had a bigger impact?

Iffy, I go to Tanzania each year for some mission work. As part of that, I spend a LOT of time with the local bishop ( to the extent that I stay at his residence)

We had a conversation about the new English translation.

Tanzania is a Swahili speaking country. But being a former UK colony, English is prevalent and heavily taught in the schools.

The Bishop was very much looking forward to the new Translation, as he was quite tired of trying to explain to students why what was being said in the Mass in English didn’t match up to what was said in Swahili.

The Swahili translation was a lot closer to the Latin and now matches closely to new English translation as well.

It wasn’t that there were few changes in Spanish because it was so close to Latin. Swahili is not only not in the same linguistic ballpark, it’s different sport entirely But it too had very few changes to account for the 2002 Missal.

The English translation was just way screwed up in the first place, so it had to change the most.

 

[ProVobis]

And the document that called for more accurate translations was Liturgiam Authenticam in 2001, two pontificates ago.

Yes, but many words in the English language have changed in meanings, some subtly, some like “gay” less so. Is there any guarantee 40 years from now there will not have been still another translation?

 

[Mike30]

I believe the “for all men” wording was inserted in 1967, along with other changes, when English became more extensively used. Other languages followed with this change as well.** Pope Benedict recently insisted all languages replace the “for all” in their consecration.**

I would be inclined to believe that based on everything I have seen and heard since the election of Pope Francis that the translation will be changed back to for all.

 

[jwinch2]

I would be inclined to believe that based on everything I have seen and heard since the election of Pope Francis that the translation will be changed back to for all.

Not unless he changes the Latin. The issue was a poor translation of the English, not a theological problem with the Latin.

 

[ProVobis]

Not unless he changes the Latin. The issue was a poor translation of the English, not a theological problem with the Latin.

That would be my understanding as well. The English actually had the entire sentence reworded (there is a subjunctive in there somewhere) but other languages merely replaced the “for all” with a translation of “pro multis.”

 

[jwinch2]

That would be my understanding as well. The English actually had the entire sentence reworded (there is a subjunctive in there somewhere) but other languages merely replaced the “for all” with a translation of “pro multis.”

Thanks.

 

[jwinch2]

80% of Catholics who attend Mass on a weekly basis prefer the most recent translation of the Roman Missal.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/catholics-strongly-support-new-mass-translation-after-first-year/

 

[Mike30]

Not unless he changes the Latin. The issue was a poor translation of the English, not a theological problem with the Latin.

Unfortunately for those who cling to that idea, it is pretty certain that the change was done along theological lines instead of a simple mistranslation. In fact, I really fail to see how it even could have been mistranslated.

No there was a theological move there.

I don’t doubt that for a second.

Besides, if it were a simple mistranslation, why did it take so long to correct? Just about everyone was fine with it.

 

[ProVobis]

Besides, if it were a simple mistranslation, why did it take so long to correct? Just about everyone was fine with it.

Again, it wasn’t a simple “multis” to “all.” Examine the entire clause:

Latin:

Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes: hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi et æterni testamenti, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.

1973 translation

Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.

2011 translation

Take this, all of you, and drink from it: for this is the chalice of my Blood, the Blood of the new and eternal covenant, which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.

In 1973 sins of all “may” be forgiven. In 2011 the sins of many “will” be forgiven.

While there is a theological difference, there doesn’t appear to be an error, just curious wording in the 1973 version. Also an introduction of a subjunctive which isn’t there in the Latin.

 

[Vico]

I believe the “for all men” wording was inserted in 1967, along with other changes, when English became more extensively used. Other languages followed with this change as well. Pope Benedict recently insisted all languages replace the “for all” in their consecration.

I think the progression was:

1965 …for this is the chalice of my Blood of the new and eternal covenant: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH: which SHALL be SHED for you and for many UNTO the forgiveness of sins.

1970 …this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.

2010 …for this is the chalice of my Blood, the Blood of the new and eternal covenant, which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.

 

[Kevin12]

Unfortunately for those who cling to that idea, it is pretty certain that the change was done along theological lines instead of a simple mistranslation. In fact, I really fail to see how it even could have been mistranslated.

No there was a theological move there.

I don’t doubt that for a second.

Besides, if it were a simple mistranslation, why did it take so long to correct? Just about everyone was fine with it.

Think about one of the claims that the Jansenists wanted to put forth: that it is Semipelagian to say that Christ died for all. As Jansenism is a heresy (and in fact one that is very much alive and well in certain sections of the Church) it ought to go back to “for all”, lest their be any confusion; those who believe the idea that Christ died for all, not just those who go the the EF Mass is a shocking statement of loathsome ecumenism- they may be scandalized, but it is, shockingly, traditional Church doctrine.

Here’s a better question: why not just go back to the earliest available Greek Mass (which certainly predates the Latin) and translate that into English, rather than translating the Latin, which is itself a translation of the Greek?

 

[ProVobis]

I think the progression was:

1965 …for this is the chalice of my Blood of the new and eternal covenant: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH: which SHALL be SHED for you and for many UNTO the forgiveness of sins.

1970 …this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.

2010 …for this is the chalice of my Blood, the Blood of the new and eternal covenant, which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Sounds about right. I think the 1970 version was “for all MEN” but for PC reasons the “MEN” was removed.

 

[ProVobis]

Here’s a better question: why not just go back to the earliest available Greek Mass

Why not Aramaic (or possibly Syriac)?

 

[Kevin12]

Why not Aramaic (or possibly Syriac)?

I think the issue there is that manuscripts don’t exist - or at least they aren’t complete. At the very least, I think it is by all means desirous for us to, even if we must use the Latin, not ignore the fact it too is a translation.

 

[jwinch2]

Unfortunately for those who cling to that idea, it is pretty certain that the change was done along theological lines instead of a simple mistranslation. In fact, I really fail to see how it even could have been mistranslated.

No there was a theological move there.

I don’t doubt that for a second.

Besides, if it were a simple mistranslation, why did it take so long to correct? Just about everyone was fine with it.

That is not the same thing as saying that the language will be changed due to a new Pope being elected, which is what you suggested earlier.

There could have been a theological intent at the manner in which it was translated in 1970, that is possible. If so, that would have to be an English language thing by and large since the rest of the world has had a better translation than the English for quite some time. I am quite happy that our translation is more closely linked to the normative text, which is the Latin.

 

[ProVobis]

I think the issue there is that manuscripts don’t exist - or at least they aren’t complete. At the very least, I think it is by all means desirous for us to, even if we must use the Latin, not ignore the fact it too is a translation.

But that’s the point. The Greek is a translation too and we don’t have the originals on that. Besides, the four gospels vary in the wording slightly and who knows what language St. Paul said Mass for the Romans if he did. We go by what the Church says, even if the translators don’t agree with it. Latin AFAIK is still the authoritative.

 

[curlycool89]

But that’s the point. The Greek is a translation too and we don’t have the originals on that. Besides, the four gospels vary in the wording slightly and who knows what language St. Paul said Mass for the Romans if he did. We go by what the Church says, even if the translators don’t agree with it. Latin AFAIK is still the authoritative.

My guess would be that St. Paul said Mass in Latin for the Romans (assuming he knew Latin) and in Greek for most of the rest of them (since they were in Greek-speaking lands).

I’m basing that on the idea that Paul was reaching out to these communities but not trying to imperialize them (ie - not imposing Jewish norms on them and stuff), so it probably wasn’t in Aramaic or Hebrew (espeically since those languages would not have been known well in Greek and Roman lands). Paul also characterized himself as the apostle to the Gentiles and not to the Jews, so it would make sense that he would be reaching out to them in their language (of Greek, possibly Latin if he knew it).

If it makes a difference, the Didache seems to have been written in Greek originally and translated into Latin (or so a quick Google search tells me).

 

[Kevin12]

But that’s the point. The Greek is a translation too and we don’t have the originals on that. Besides, the four gospels vary in the wording slightly and who knows what language St. Paul said Mass for the Romans if he did. We go by what the Church says, even if the translators don’t agree with it. Latin AFAIK is still the authoritative.

Then what was authoritative before the Latin existed.

And although I cannot say for sure, I would strongly believe the Mass of the early Church was in Greek as the Lingua Franca of the eastern Mediterranean. The fact also remains that the original Bible - the inspired texts - are all in Greek, not Latin. Paul wrote in Greek. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, whoever they were, they wrote in Greek.

 

[Kevin12]

My guess would be that St. Paul said Mass in Latin for the Romans (assuming he knew Latin) and in Greek for most of the rest of them (since they were in Greek-speaking lands).

I’m basing that on the idea that Paul was reaching out to these communities but not trying to imperialize them (ie - not imposing Jewish norms on them and stuff), so it probably wasn’t in Aramaic or Hebrew (espeically since those languages would not have been known well in Greek and Roman lands). Paul also characterized himself as the apostle to the Gentiles and not to the Jews, so it would make sense that he would be reaching out to them in their language (of Greek, possibly Latin if he knew it).

If it makes a difference, the Didache seems to have been written in Greek originally and translated into Latin (or so a quick Google search tells me).

Whether Paul even know Latin is unknown - in any case, all his letters, including to the Romans, were in Greek.