O
- Status
V
VetA
Guest
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
when is this going into effect?
M
MarkThompson
Guest
Probably Advent (i.e.November 27) of 2011, though there has been no decision.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
who makes the final decision?
M
MarkThompson
Guest
Individual bishops’ conferences, I think.
R
Redbaron998
Guest
I don’t know, I’m not a fan of this. I wouldn’t place my own mind above the Bishops and have no doubt these are better translations but that doesn’t mean they sound proper.
For Instance the very first: And with your Spirit instead of And also with you.
It just doesn’t flow well.
But I can get over it, where I have a bigger problem is in the Creed, Currently basically every church uses the same English creed. Changing the wording of the Creed is going to cause more division instead of being a point of similarity between the different churches.
Im not saying any of it is wrong, but some of it seems unneeded and some potentially harmful.
In addition the legwork of needing all new missals, new Catechism since the creed wording is being changed. New mass and prayer guide books…this just seems a bit silly.
But then ive always been a change one thing at a time and change gradually instead of changing a bunch of stuff at once.
For Instance the very first: And with your Spirit instead of And also with you.
It just doesn’t flow well.
But I can get over it, where I have a bigger problem is in the Creed, Currently basically every church uses the same English creed. Changing the wording of the Creed is going to cause more division instead of being a point of similarity between the different churches.
Im not saying any of it is wrong, but some of it seems unneeded and some potentially harmful.
In addition the legwork of needing all new missals, new Catechism since the creed wording is being changed. New mass and prayer guide books…this just seems a bit silly.
But then ive always been a change one thing at a time and change gradually instead of changing a bunch of stuff at once.
B
benedictgal
Guest
Actually, “and with your Spirit” carries some direct reference to Sacred Scripture, especially the Pauline epistles. The translations are not about placating the Protestant ecclesial communities. It is about using the proper and authentic words, about using a true and correct translation of the Latin as opposed to someone’s idea of what it should say.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
I like it much better. It’s the original text. In Latin: “Et cum spiritu tuo” - means “and with your spirit”. I just wish they’d hurry up and make it official!!
R
Redbaron998
Guest
Like I said, the And with your Spirit thing isnt a big deal. Doesnt roll of the tongue as well but im sure thats because ive been saying And also with you since ive been in the Church.
Its some of the other things, espically the Creeds, that worry me more. Again not because they arent right, but that everyone uses the same creed, its really one of the few things of practice (daily things in common) with everyone else.
A part of me just know that I am gonna see it brought up again and again by others. The “You changed the Creed!” is going to be right up there with “You changed the 10 commandments” both charges are wrong since its abuot translation not about content, but its just gonna be more leg work for apologists.
The point is moot anyways, when the time comes ill do it, and the bishops have already decided so it really doesnt matter what i think.
Its some of the other things, espically the Creeds, that worry me more. Again not because they arent right, but that everyone uses the same creed, its really one of the few things of practice (daily things in common) with everyone else.
A part of me just know that I am gonna see it brought up again and again by others. The “You changed the Creed!” is going to be right up there with “You changed the 10 commandments” both charges are wrong since its abuot translation not about content, but its just gonna be more leg work for apologists.
The point is moot anyways, when the time comes ill do it, and the bishops have already decided so it really doesnt matter what i think.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
There will be a learning curve for sure, because we are so used to reciting things the same way, but I think it’s a vast improvement in the long run.
R
Redbaron998
Guest
Yea, I’m sure. Yall have been Catholic much longer than I. There was mentioned there will be an education push when the change comes so we understand it well. I plan to enroll in one and im sure ill feel much better about it then. Im sure a year into it I wont even notice it.There will be a learning curve for sure, because we are so used to reciting things the same way, but I think it’s a vast improvement in the long run.
Like I said im just not a fan of change, but I trust the Church.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
But that’s not really the right way of thinking about it. The great majority of churches don’t even use the Creed in English to begin with!
B
benedictgal
Guest
You might want to read japhy’s book, Praying the Mass. Japhy, one of our forum members, wrote an excellent book called Praying the Mass. If he responds to this thread, you will be able to click on to the link in his signature line.
The problem with the current text is that it was not translated accurately, word-for-word from the Latin original. The translators used something called dynamic equivalence, which pretty much paraphrased the prayers and, sadly, wound up stripping some of them of their real meaning and noble language.
The Creed has not changed. It is taken from the Latin and the new version is faithful to the original text and uses the proper terms.
C
CDNowak
Guest
And that is the important attitude, regardless of personal opinion!
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
I have very mixed feelings about the new missal.
There are parts of it I like better and there are parts that make me cringe when I hear them.
My question is why is “word-for-word” better?
You would not want to read any of the Greek dramas or epics or Dante’s “Divine Comedy”, in a word-for-word translation, they wold not make sense in English.
I will admidt that a “dynamic translation” has the potential for being used to push a specific agenda, but I think that maybe the Church is going far in looking at accuarcy of words over something that flows more naturally in English.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Not exactly “word-for-word.” For example, “sursum corda” translates literally as “Upwards, hearts.” Instead we say “Lift up your hearts” which doesn’t seem to be as concise and strong. However this has to somehow flow into “Habemus ad Dominum”, which literally translates to “We have to the Lord” but it doesn’t make sense in itself, especially since it’s in the present tense. It’s complete in Latin but it has to be translated to “We lift them up to the Lord” in order to complete the idea of raising or “upping” our hearts in the English.My question is why is “word-for-word” better?
Mark, japhy, is there a better way of stating this?
No translation is perfect as something is almost always lost in the translation, especially the precision and poetic beauty. But do you want to at least get a feel for the original thought or just accept anything that sounds good to you?
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
ProVobis says
No translation is perfect as something is almost always lost in the translation, especially the precision and poetic beauty. But do you want to at least get a feel for the original thought or just accept anything that sounds good to you?
I agree with the first part of your statement.
And yes I believe that we should be as close as to the original as possible,
however, I also believe that we can go too far, which I think we may have done in this case.
If it were up to me, I would start over, and combine some of what we already have with alot of what is new.
But, alas, it is not up to me.
The change is coming, I will adjust,
and I will do my part to help others do the same.
No translation is perfect as something is almost always lost in the translation, especially the precision and poetic beauty. But do you want to at least get a feel for the original thought or just accept anything that sounds good to you?
I agree with the first part of your statement.
And yes I believe that we should be as close as to the original as possible,
however, I also believe that we can go too far, which I think we may have done in this case.
If it were up to me, I would start over, and combine some of what we already have with alot of what is new.
But, alas, it is not up to me.
The change is coming, I will adjust,
and I will do my part to help others do the same.
E
ErichK
Guest
If the Church had just stuck with Latin like it had been using for 1,960 years, then we wouldn’t have worry about issues with “translations” and verbage. Does the ordinary Mass even go by the codified Latin versions of these prayers, like the Crede, Gloria, and the Lamb of God anymore? Good grief-the last thing we need is another schism because of someone pulling something like the “Filioque” card again.
Although I will admit that it’s nice to see that the Vatican II dumbing-downs are having a little more vernacular added to them.
Although I will admit that it’s nice to see that the Vatican II dumbing-downs are having a little more vernacular added to them.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
Ah, right, because Christ handed down the Mass in Latin from 10 A.D.
46 After three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, listening to them and -]asking them questions/-] celebrating a pontifical High Mass,
47 and all who heard him were astounded at his understanding and his -]answers/-] fiddleback.
- Status