In this, thou hast answered rightly.
which has always been translated, even in our modern Missal, as
But I noticed that the new translation is as follows:
Is this really a valid translation of dimissis peccatis nostris?
I’m not Br. JR, but that looks like an ablative absolute. This works by having two words (or in this case, two words and an adjective) both in the ablative case, one a past participle of a verb, and the other a noun.
These things having been done, the sentence continued.'' (where these things having been done’’ would be the ablative absolute)with' is not in the Latin in this sentence (and I somehow missed the et’ in a previous revision).Literally, it means with our sins having been dismissed. That sounds very awkward at mass. The prayers of the mass must also have some beauty to them. Which means that they must be poetic. With our sins forgiven, sounds better than with our sins dismissed.
Sorry I just read your comment. As the Holy Father has said, the reforms of the '60s marked a break in continuity, or at least they were often presented as though the Tridentine liturgy was a kind of corruption, and that the pious practices in many churches, served to observe the true nature of Catholic worship. Suddenly, the forms that people had grown up with and which they regarded as sacred and “enternaL,” were just thrown out. Tabernacles were removed from the altars, altar rails were removed,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
ICEL is almost done with its first draft. The process is complicated. The translation has to go back to the Vatican, to the Congregation for Worship and Sacraments. If they approve it, then it goes to the Holy See to be approved by the Holy Father’s delegates. Once they approve it, the Holy Father signs the approval. From there it goes back to Conferences of Bishops of the English speaking nations who will then authorize its publication and set the calendar for the implementation.Even though I’ve never been to a mass said in Latin (I was born in the 90s and only two parishes in my diosese far away actually have them), I am pretty glad for this. My only curiosity now is when these changes are finally implemented.
You will not get a denial from me that there were experiments at the local levels and that some of them were horrible. Why my post refers to is to the constants that were introduced with the permission of Pope Paul VI.
Wow from what I heard in my parish I thought it would take a lot longer than just a year… I’m still somewhat impatient thoughICEL is almost done with its first draft. The process is complicated. The translation has to go back to the Vatican, to the Congregation for Worship and Sacraments. If they approve it, then it goes to the Holy See to be approved by the Holy Father’s delegates. Once they approve it, the Holy Father signs the approval. From there it goes back to Conferences of Bishops of the English speaking nations who will then authorize its publication and set the calendar for the implementation.
I’m only guessing here, but I believe that this process will take another year at the least. It may take longer in some countries. All indicators suggest that the English translation of the mass is not a priority in the Vatican or in the Holy Father’s office right now. The focus right now seems to be on the following: priesthood, Islam and Catholic relations, liturgy as a whole, religious life, social justice, life issues, Church unity, not necessarily in that order. My guess is based on the writings and activities that are taking place at the Vatican and at the Holy See. Some people whom I know who work in the Vatican have shared that the Holy Father has reduced his office hours to finish his theological writings. It makes sense that he is in a hurry to finish this, given his age. He book on Jesus Christ is not finished. I hope that God gives him enough time to finish it, because the first half is an excellent work of theology and philosophy. I for own am dying to see how he wraps up his thesis at the end.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
. It is amazing how in order to change a few words in the mass so many steps are needed.I said at least a year. It may be longer. A lot depends on how fast the Vatican moves on this, getting it through the Congregation on Worship and over to the Holy See and back to the Conferences of Bishops in the different English speaking countries. We all know that the a Vatican day is a “biblical day.”Wow from what I heard in my parish I thought it would take a lot longer than just a year… I’m still somewhat impatient though
(I agree with you on the Pope’s writings as well. To me, Pope Benedict has a way writing that is beautifully profound, yet ultimately simple, and though presenting what is in essense Catholic teaching based on scripture and tradition, he does so in a way that I find quite new and refreshing. God bless him.)
Even though French does have “consubstanciel” in its vocabulary, the Nicene Creed for Mass was still translated as “de même nature que le Père” as it was in Spanish and Italian. That translation was probably more easily understood by the average person in the pew.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
It’s far from ‘a few words’. The entire Mass is being retranslated including the Prefaces, the Eucharistic Prayers,etc and they are doing it in, IIRC, 8 or 9 sections. Each section is being done individually then being submitted to each Bishops’ Conference for approval.Wow from what I heard in my parish I thought it would take a lot longer than just a year… I’m still somewhat impatient though
And I predict that the pro-Latin people will still be unhappy, and still complain about the translations not being right. And the Catholic in the pew will be pushed around in this political game, more confused, more troubled.
Actually, the new wording is going to be “consubstantial with the Father.” in English. Becaues the Latin says “Of the same nature as the Father”, but the theologians felt that the literal translation is not helpful since the word nature in English does not mean the same as it does in the Latin languages. In the Latin languages the word nature is used to refer to substance and subsistance. In English it does not have that meaning. So they went for an even more literal translation of the actual theology, rather than the Latin words.
One concern I’ve heard – so if anyone can confirm/deny this please let me know, I don’t know the original languages – is that in the original usage of the times, saying “for the many” would have meant the same that I assume we English speakers would intend if we said “for all.” If that’s true, “for all” would be a better translation for meaning, as many (most?) of us could interpret “for the many” as meaning for a lot of people but not for all/everyone. Two very different theological meanings possibly conveyed by two close but perhaps significantly different translations.
Whew, am I comforted by that!
In the Greek, “for the many” means that Christ’s sacrifice is for all of humanity. Your translation of the meaning is correct. What the Church wants though, is to preseve the ancient Greek wording in the Latin rite. In the Byzantine rites, some use other a narrative type of wording, which has been approved by the Holy See. Some of the Eastern Churches do not use the literal words from the scripture, but they use a poetic narrative that tells the mystery of transubstantiation. That’s very typical of ancient eastern cultures to focus more on mystery than on the literal words.
The reason for the word “consubstantial” is because this was the term that was used at Nicea. Jesus Christ is of the same substance as the Father. The theology of the Holy Spirit was worded differently, but means the same. He proceeds from the Father and the Son. Therefore, if he proceeds from Father and Son, he is of the same substance, because the Father and Son share a common essence and the Holy Spirit is not subordinate to the Father and Son, but equal to: in divinity and in eternity.Whew, am I comforted by that!
Consubstantial: Of the same substance, nature, or essence.
So I look at my American Heritage definition and think, oh, Jesus is made of the same stuff as God the Father. Two of them. Wonder how many more there can be. Didn’t say anything about the Holy Spirit, so He must not be the same stuff.
Now my mom, would never look in the dictionary, I have no idea what strange translation she’s going to make in her head. But it’ll be a doozy. Hmm, “con” sort of means criminal, or maybe “no” and substantial means of important stuff, must mean he’s got no important stuff like the father.
And if you consider all the kids who can’t read well (over 50%), but have been taught to read by breaking the word into smaller words, I don’t know what they’ll make of it. They might get that “con” means “with”. Will they get “substantial”. Then they might mean he’s a substantial part with the Father? Or will they think “sub” means “under”, but don’t know what “stantial” means, so “with under something” ah, Jesus is a little less than the Father.
Maybe they’ll do that other technique and just skip it. Which means the purpose of the creed, to reinforce what we believe, will be lost to the average Catholic. At best, lost to the less educated Catholic.
And if you look at “for the all” then I can decide that I don’t have to repent or be good, because Jesus died for me already. If we change it to “for the many” then I think I still don’t need to be good because I’m predestined one way and so it doesn’t matter what I do.
I don’t think I’m even exagerating a little. Everyone complains about the public school and how dumb our kids are becoming, but then they turn around and act like everyone’s okay.
I guess it’s good that all this time and energy is getting the English translations closer to Latin. But I can’t help but think that we’re suffereing so much from lack of catechetics that it’s mainly a waste, and probably harmful. The intellectuals will be happy. They weren’t the problem.