US Roman Missal Translation Advances [2009-07-20] [Zenit]

[Catholic_Press]

**Bishops Offer Teaching Material About Changes
**
WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 20, 2009 (Zenit.org).- The adaptation of a new English translation of the Roman Missal for use in the United States is advancing, the bishops’ conference reported.

In a press release Friday, the conference reported the approval of four liturgical item actions that were up for a vote at the June biannual meeting of the bishops.

Though the votes were inconclusive at that time, as ballots were still being collected through July 16, the approval has now been confirmed.

More…

 

[Cetil]

The new translation has been tried out in South Africa where it caused “controversy”. Some people think “it’s hard to understand” .
Jesuit Thomas Reese promises a “major embarrassment” for the Vatican when the translation is implemented. I think this is laughable really. People are doing to have to learn “consubstantial” again, so what? Other than that the changes simply reflect a better rendering of the Latin text.
See: wwrn.org/article.php?idd=30501&sec=4&con=61

C.

 

[andrewagill]

I know at least one person who will not be pleased with this.

He points out that the creed has ``I believe’’ in only three places, before the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and then goes on to describe each person. The changes to the creed will not go over well.

 

[diggerdomer]

People are doing to have to learn “consubstantial” again, so what?

Say that out loud?

 

[JReducation]

I really like it. It’s very theological. Much of the wording is comes right out of our theology books in school. It is very strong in Christology. It describes who Jesus is over and over again and clearly reflects Jesus’ relationship to the Father, both spiritually and metaphysically. It brings out the sacrifice and the theology of the passion very clearly. The Creed explains the divine persona of each of the trinitarian persons and the one divine nature. The words of consecration are an accurate translation of the Latin. The translation of the Gloria is very consistent brings together the homousios and the hypostatic union by bringing together the wording from Nicea and Chalcedon. I also noticed that it takes some of the wording from the Eastern Churches, wording which is more vertical: sublime, divine, on high, eternal and other such language.

The only part that I find too wordy is the dismissal. There is one wording that is awkward.

Just my 2 cents.

Br. JR, OSF

 

[m134e5]

With all the criticisms of the new translation that I have read in the wwm article cetil posted, I feel pretty comfortable about the new translation.

“I am resistant to change and I think the older community in my parish will feel the same,” he said. “I can accept change when there is a good reason but I cannot see one.”

His daughter-in-law, Anne Armstrong agrees: “We are all familiar with the liturgy we have used since we were children. Why is there the need to say Mass differently?”

They sure didn’t have problems making changes (much more drastic than this, too) in the 60’s & 70’s- they can learn to put up with it now.

“Why is there the need to say Mass differently”? Simple- the current translation’s over-simplified, and innacurate in some places.

 

[andrewagill]

It’s going to take some getting used to, but I suspect that I’ll have problems remembering and with your spirit'' for years to come. Also, the current melodies for the sung versions will no longer work. Otherwise, I either like it (born of the Father before all ages’’ is probably a little easier to understand and less likely to simply have people mouthing uncomprehendingly) or am fairly indifferent to it (``In a similar way, when supper was ended’’).

 

[Feanor2]

I just wish they would get this thing on the road. I mean come on guys! Maybe the bishops should be locked up like a conclave untill they get this thing out. . .

I’m only 32 and I’m thinking I’ll be dead before this things put out. . .

 

[BobCatholic]

I can’t wait to see the new translation in the missals.

There is NO excuse for the Spanish, and Polish to have a properly translated confiteor while the English do not.

And if they’re complaining that this translation is too sudden, where were they in 1970?

 

[JReducation]

Before everyone goes off half-cocked shooting at our bishops, remember one thing. The English translation is for the entire English speaking world. It must pass the approval of all the bishops’ conferences in the following (excuse me if I miss some)

USA
UK
Ireland
Canada
Virgina Islands
Carribean Islands
India
New Zealand
New Guinea
Australia
South Africa
Liberia
Nigeria
Puerto Rico

After the process is completed by all of the above, then it has to be approved by the Vatican Liturgical Commission and sent back to these conferences. It was the rushing that caused the problem the first time around. Let’s get it as close to right as possible this time.

The Spanish language missal does not have this problem, because there are only three espicopal conferences involved in the translation: Spain, Colombia and Mexico. The other Spanish speaking episcopal conferences agreed to let the CELAM decide for them. CELAM is a continent wide organization of 24 episcopal conferences repersented proportionately.

We don’t have such an organization for the English speaking Catholics of the world. Every English speaking country has to to its own work, if they can afford it, or wait for another country to do it and then approve it for use in their own country. It would be good is we had an international English Speaking Episcopal Conference as do the Latin Americans who have CELAM, besides their national conferences. I was a missionary there for seven years and I saw how much more quickly things move than in the English speaking world. It has to do with the smaller number of people involved in doing the work and making the decisions. The same applies to Poland. How many other countries in the world speak Polish?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[BobCatholic]

Before everyone goes off half-cocked shooting at our bishops, remember one thing. The English translation is for the entire English speaking world. It must pass the approval of all the bishops’ conferences in the following (excuse me if I miss some)

USA
UK
Ireland
Canada
Virgina Islands
Carribean Islands
India
New Zealand
New Guinea
Australia
South Africa
Liberia
Nigeria
Puerto Rico

I would have thought Puerto Rico was covered under the USA Bishop’s conference.

 

[JReducation]

I would have thought Puerto Rico was covered under the USA Bishop’s conference.

Puerto Rico is in a queer situation. The Church places it under the USCCB, but has allowed them to have their own Bishops’ Conference and also to be part of the Latin American Conference. I’m not sure why that is.

If I were to guess, I would say it is because of the fact that they are bilingual and bicultural. But that’s just my guess.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[irenaeus1]

I know at least one person who will not be pleased with this.

He points out that the creed has ``I believe’’ in only three places, before the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and then goes on to describe each person. The changes to the creed will not go over well.

It’s suppose to be “I believe.” The Latin word “Credo” is used - first person singular. So what’s wrong with that? This is the way it was before the ICEL mistranslated the text following Vatican II. Even today, when we renew our baptismal promises during the Easter liturgy, we respond to our acceptance of the faith with the words “I do,” not “We do.” Yes, we our professing our faith communally, but we are each responsible as individuals for accepting the faith, much as we are indiviually responsible for acknowledging and repenting of our own personal sins when we say “I confess to Almighty God” rather than "We confess… " Anybody who complains about this change certainly needs some catechetical instruction.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[JReducation]

It’s suppose to be “I believe.” The Latin word “Credo” is used - first person singular. So what’s wrong with that? This is the way it was before the ICEL mistranslated the text following Vatican II. Even today, when we renew our baptismal promises during the Easter liturgy, we respond to our acceptance of the faith with the words “I do,” not “We do.” Yes, we our professing our faith communally, but we are each responsible as individuals for accepting the faith, much as we are indiviually responsible for acknowledging and repenting of our own personal sins when we say “I confess to Almighty God” rather than "We confess… " Anybody who complains about this change certainly needs some catechetical instruction.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

The initial English translation has small erros, but there are so many that they are no longer small. I speak Spanish, Protuguese and Italian. Those translations are very consistent with the Latin. We even have the word “consubstantial with the Father.”

There is no doubt, the English translators messed up. I don’t believe it was maliciously done. I really believe that they thought that it sounded better or that people would understand it better. But if you change one word, you can live with it. But too many, is not acceptable.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[andrewagill]

It’s suppose to be “I believe.” The Latin word “Credo” is used - first person singular. So what’s wrong with that? This is the way it was before the ICEL mistranslated the text following Vatican II. Even today, when we renew our baptismal promises during the Easter liturgy, we respond to our acceptance of the faith with the words “I do,” not “We do.” Yes, we our professing our faith communally, but we are each responsible as individuals for accepting the faith, much as we are indiviually responsible for acknowledging and repenting of our own personal sins when we say “I confess to Almighty God” rather than "We confess… " Anybody who complains about this change certainly needs some catechetical instruction.

It’s not a change from We believe'' to I believe,’’ but rather the changes from We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,'' and We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,’’ to And in one Lord Jesus Christ,'' and And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,’’ removing the notional credo before each of those statements, despite the fact that it’s not in the Latin.

 

[RobbyS]

With all the criticisms of the new translation that I have read in the wwm article cetil posted, I feel pretty comfortable about the new translation.

They sure didn’t have problems making changes (much more drastic than this, too) in the 60’s & 70’s- they can learn to put up with it now.

“Why is there the need to say Mass differently”? Simple- the current translation’s over-simplified, and innacurate in some places.

The current translation is also vague to the point of being unmemorable.

 

[RobbyS]

I can’t wait to see the new translation in the missals.

There is NO excuse for the Spanish, and Polish to have a properly translated confiteor while the English do not.

And if they’re complaining that this translation is too sudden, where were they in 1970?

A lot of what was doing in 1970 reminds me of the Obama way and lightning fast reform. This is typical of topdown reforms. Many older Catholics were so resentful of having change shoved down their throats that they stopped going to mass, or started going to other parishes.

 

[JReducation]

A lot of what was doing in 1970 reminds me of the Obama way and lightning fast reform. This is typical of topdown reforms. Many older Catholics were so resentful of having change shoved down their throats that they stopped going to mass, or started going to other parishes.

I’m confused by your closing statement. If they went to other parishes, didn’t they go to mass there?

As far as the topdown reforms, I’m not to clear what you mean by that either.

Finally, the problem was not the reform of the liturgy, but the English translators. For whatever reason, which is not really important now, they did not do an accurate translation. Granted, it is easier to translate from Latin to the other Latin languages: Spanish, Italian, French, Rumanian and Portuguese. But the English translation is one of the poorest ones. What is often a question in my mind is that the English speakin countries are probably among the wealthiest nations of earth. You would think that they could afford the best experts in linguistics, literature and drama.

I mention these disciplines, because these were the teams that they used in Spain and Latin America. I’m more familiar with them, having been a missionary in South America. They actually had experts in literature and drama working on the translations. They wanted to preserve the orignal meaning from the Latin, but word it in such a way that it also sounded beautiful (hence the literary experts) and it sounded powerful (hence the drama experts). They came up with a translation that is very good.

For example, there is no word for consubstantial in Spanish and Italian. So they translated consubstantial as “of the same nature as the Father”. In English we say, “one in being with the Father.” I prefer the Spanish and Italian translation because it describes the the divine union within the Trinity very clearly. “One in being with the Father” is awkward, because you have to explain what it means. The Spanish and Italian translation speak for themselves.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[irenaeus1]

Finally, the problem was not the reform of the liturgy, but the English translators. For whatever reason, which is not really important now, they did not do an accurate translation. Granted, it is easier to translate from Latin to the other Latin languages: Spanish, Italian, French, Rumanian and Portuguese. But the English translation is one of the poorest ones. What is often a question in my mind is that the English speakin countries are probably among the wealthiest nations of earth. You would think that they could afford the best experts in linguistics, literature and drama.

Yes, we should have been able to put people on the commission that could do a good job of translating; however, I do believe there was an attempt, by some at least, to dumb down the translation. I mean come on, I don’t even know Latin, but I have at least a dozen prayer books from my grandparents with Latin in one column and English in the other. And guess what?.. the new translation of the Roman Missal looks suspiciously a lot like what is written in those prayer books. So my question to the bishop’s conference is, “What’s taking so long?” I could have translated the Roman Missal (Ordo Missae I) myself in a ingle weekend by merely referring to these prayer books.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

 

[JReducation]

So my question to the bishop’s conference is, “What’s taking so long?” I could have translated the Roman Missal (Ordo Missae I) myself in a ingle weekend by merely referring to these prayer books.

In Christ,
Irenaeus

The bishops’ conference has very little authority over ICEL. ICEL responds to bishops’ conferences of all the English speaking countries around the world. They all have to agree with the proposed trasnlation produced by ICEL. Then the Vatican has to approve of it. Finally, the Holy Father has to approve of it. There are many steps between the deliberations at the local bishops’ conference and the papal approval. That can take years. The Holy Father does not put this on the top of his lists of priorities. His greatest priority right now is the Muslim world and the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Muslims. It can take months before the Congregation on Worship gets an appointment with the Holy Father.

There was a wonderful article on this in one of the Catholic periodicals that comes from the Vatican. Pope Benedict XVI has a very rigid schedule. He meets with the secretaries of the Sacred Congregations by appointment only and only several times a year. His business day is very short, about four hours. The rest of his day is dedicated to study and writing theology. When he is not doing business, studying or writing, he is at prayer.

We often forget that the pope has a schedule and that the number of issues happening at the Vatican are in the thousands. Often, what a pope does is to delegate to a Congregation to deal with an issue and to solve it. It’s like deputizing. He may do that with the English translation in the liturgy. But I can’t say that he will.

I hope this helps create some understanding.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF