Why did we not have accurate translations to begin with?

[FrDavid96]

The current information from the USCCB Committee on Divine Worship is that “Once the last sections are approved, the final approval of the complete text will be granted by the Holy See, which is anticipated in early 2010.” Source: usccb.org/romanmissal/faqs.shtml

I know we’ve been hearing that Fall 2010 would be the date for the new translation to be implemented, and it appears that based on that webpage, we may still be on track. Remember that the bulk of the translations have already been approved, and Rome has been (more or less) clear that no further changes to these texts are anticipated.

The good people at the Vatican know full well that we now have the capability to print books rather quickly–gone are the days of typesetting when each letter had to be placed by hand. I don’t think they’ll allow the implementation to be delayed any longer than absolutely necessary.

From my point of view, I actually see very little in the way of a need to prepare. Get the book, read through it, and when the time comes, turn the pages and say the words. It’s rather simple. Most priests have committed most of the ordinary of the Mass to memory, but keep in mind that most of the actual text is the propers, and these are generally not memorized–in other words, even though the Sacramentary is a 1100 pages, very little will have to be re-learned. Sure, we’ll have to actually look at the text, so there’ll be much more page-turning, but it won’t be such a monumental problem.

By no means should we simply pass around some papers before Mass on the first Sunday of Advent 2010 (or whenever) and announce that from now on, these will be the prayers. However we do need to be realistic in that there won’t be much difference in terms of the quantity of words we will have to re-learn. Sure, it’ll be a bit difficult at first because we’ve been saying the same words for so long, we’ll have to put some effort into learning the new ones, but I do sincerely feel that the transition won’t be as difficult as many people seem to think (whether they approve or not).

 

[Joannm]

The current information from the USCCB Committee on Divine Worship is that “Once the last sections are approved, the final approval of the complete text will be granted by the Holy See, which is anticipated in early 2010.” Source: usccb.org/romanmissal/faqs.shtml

I know we’ve been hearing that Fall 2010 would be the date for the new translation to be implemented, and it appears that based on that webpage, we may still be on track. Remember that the bulk of the translations have already been approved, and Rome has been (more or less) clear that no further changes to these texts are anticipated.

The good people at the Vatican know full well that we now have the capability to print books rather quickly–gone are the days of typesetting when each letter had to be placed by hand. I don’t think they’ll allow the implementation to be delayed any longer than absolutely necessary.

From my point of view, I actually see very little in the way of a need to prepare. Get the book, read through it, and when the time comes, turn the pages and say the words. It’s rather simple. Most priests have committed most of the ordinary of the Mass to memory, but keep in mind that most of the actual text is the propers, and these are generally not memorized–in other words, even though the Sacramentary is a 1100 pages, very little will have to be re-learned. Sure, we’ll have to actually look at the text, so there’ll be much more page-turning, but it won’t be such a monumental problem.

By no means should we simply pass around some papers before Mass on the first Sunday of Advent 2010 (or whenever) and announce that from now on, these will be the prayers. However we do need to be realistic in that there won’t be much difference in terms of the quantity of words we will have to re-learn. Sure, it’ll be a bit difficult at first because we’ve been saying the same words for so long, we’ll have to put some effort into learning the new ones, but I do sincerely feel that the transition won’t be as difficult as many people seem to think (whether they approve or not).

The committee for Divine Worship has also stated that they want one year plus from the date of the recignito. This was even stated at the Bishops meeting this week. The Committee has a plan and a timetable in mind and that is to insure a smooth transition. It is more than just looking at a new text. The text is much more difficult to proclaim since the syntax is so much different than what is in the present text and doesn’t follow proper English form. My pastor has been rehearsing just EP II for several months now and still has difficulty with it. he is happy that he doesn’t have to use it soon. Ohter priests have voiced similar concerns. The propers will come with their own set of difficulties in proclamation. Some sentances are over 50 words long. That is why there will be CDs and MP3 downloads available for priests to practice with. The workshops that will be given by the Executive secretariate of the BCDW will help in this matter and to help parishes prepare the people, which won’t be as hard as preparing the priests.

 

[FrDavid96]

The committee for Divine Worship has also stated that they want one year plus from the date of the recignito. This was even stated at the Bishops meeting this week. The Committee has a plan and a timetable in mind and that is to insure a smooth transition. It is more than just looking at a new text. The text is much more difficult to proclaim since the syntax is so much different than what is in the present text and doesn’t follow proper English form. My pastor has been rehearsing just EP II for several months now and still has difficulty with it. he is happy that he doesn’t have to use it soon. Ohter priests have voiced similar concerns. The propers will come with their own set of difficulties in proclamation. Some sentances are over 50 words long. That is why there will be CDs and MP3 downloads available for priests to practice with. The workshops that will be given by the Executive secretariate of the BCDW will help in this matter and to help parishes prepare the people, which won’t be as hard as preparing the priests.

By no means am I trying to belittle the effort people will have to put into it, but I do think we need to be realistic about it as well. After all, the text is right there in front of us. All we have to do is read the words and pronounce them. We do this sort of thing all the time. I just don’t see how it’s such a big deal. It’s not like we have to learn a new language or a new alphabet. We use unfamiliar prefaces all the time (this coming Sunday, for example, we will use a preface for Christ the King which we haven’t looked at in a full 12 months). We certainly don’t have the opening prayers memorized, and these change every Sunday–yet we don’t have serious problems with them either.

Right now, I’ve just read through the new EP II aloud. No big deal. Yes, a bit of stumbling at an unexpected word but it was my first time trying it aloud.

I just don’t see it. I believe what you’re saying, and I believe you when you’re saying that your priest is having some difficulties with it. But at the same time, I can’t understand it.

 

[ProVobis]

By no means am I trying to belittle the effort people will have to put into it, but I do think we need to be realistic about it as well. After all, the text is right there in front of us.

Even though missalettes are made available, there seems to be fewer and fewer people reading anything these days. They’ve been taught to listen more, though many speakers are barely discernible. “And with your spirit” may seem easy but when you’re conditioned to “And also with you” all your life it’ll be a tough one to let go. And this goes beyond the Mass.

 

[benedictgal]

By no means am I trying to belittle the effort people will have to put into it, but I do think we need to be realistic about it as well. After all, the text is right there in front of us. All we have to do is read the words and pronounce them. We do this sort of thing all the time. I just don’t see how it’s such a big deal. It’s not like we have to learn a new language or a new alphabet. We use unfamiliar prefaces all the time (this coming Sunday, for example, we will use a preface for Christ the King which we haven’t looked at in a full 12 months). We certainly don’t have the opening prayers memorized, and these change every Sunday–yet we don’t have serious problems with them either.

Right now, I’ve just read through the new EP II aloud. No big deal. Yes, a bit of stumbling at an unexpected word but it was my first time trying it aloud.

I just don’t see it. I believe what you’re saying, and I believe you when you’re saying that your priest is having some difficulties with it. But at the same time, I can’t understand it.

One of my priest friends down here shares your sentiments. He, for one, is anxious to get the whole thing moving. He is excited about the new prayers and says that they are not that difficult. It’s not as though you were learning a new language. In fact, the beauty of these prayers will help all of us think about what we are saying and listening to, rather than just let them fly by us.

 

[Brendan]

The committee for Divine Worship has also stated that they want one year plus from the date of the recignito. This was even stated at the Bishops meeting this week. .

All the major parts that a priest or the congregation will have to learn already have the recognito, so materials on those should already have been printed up and distributed ( hint read Japhy’s book )

So the commitee already has their year for all of that.

 

[Joannm]

All the major parts that a priest or the congregation will have to learn already have the recognito, so materials on those should already have been printed up and distributed ( hint read Japhy’s book )

So the commitee already has their year for all of that.

While the Ordinary has been approved for awhile, there are still adaptations that our bishops have requested that have not yet been accepted by Rome. That is up to Vox Clara. The publishers are also waiting for the entire Missal to be promulgated so that they can print one book instead of installments. The publishers have to wait until April it seems before going ahead with any publications. In other words, they don’t have permission to print until the entire Missal project is complete.

 

[benedictgal]

All the major parts that a priest or the congregation will have to learn already have the recognito, so materials on those should already have been printed up and distributed ( hint read Japhy’s book )

So the commitee already has their year for all of that.

In fact, it has already been a year. Thus, we have had the time to look at them. What the USCCB should have done was to begin the catechesis as soon as the Ordinary of the Mass was released.

 

[japhy]

God forbid that priests spend time reading the prayers of the Mass over and over again, practicing to say them properly and in a way that the faithful (if they’re listening…) will understand them!

Yes, let God allow them to continue to bother not to read the prayers ahead of time and change words at will.

 

[japhy]

God forbid that priests spend time reading the prayers of the Mass over and over again, practicing to say them properly and in a way that the faithful (if they’re listening…) will understand them!

In fact, tell you what… I’ll record a few MP3s of me, a 28-year-old layman with no seminary training or religious scholarship whatsoever, speaking the Ordinary prayers of the priest. I’ll put them up on www.prayingthemass.com when I’ve completed them.

 

[Joannm]

In fact, it has already been a year. Thus, we have had the time to look at them. What the USCCB should have done was to begin the catechesis as soon as the Ordinary of the Mass was released.

Some people have had time to look at them. There are many others who have no clue, including priests. I was at a meeting where a priest got up and asked “when did all this happen?” He had no clue anything was going on with the translations…and this was only last month. Granted he is probably in the minority, but still… The USCCB has a reason, they set up a timetable that they believe is best for catechesis and implementation, and who are we to second guess. They wanted to present it as a complete package and did not want to introduce it piece meal, there fore they want to wait for the entire Missal to receive the recognitio before immediate catechesis. Bishop Sarratelli stated that this is a time for remote preparation, suggesting that catechesis focus on the Mass itself right now, not on the texts which we won’t be praying for a year or more. If we focus on what we are doing at Mass, then when immediate preparation for the new texts begins, there will be a good basis for catechizing on the texts. In our diocese, we are focusing on catechizing about the Mass, our disposition, on restoring reverence and silence, on preparing ourselves to celebrate the Mysteries, and on getting the priests to “clean up their act” so to speak. I am part of a group that will be working with parish liturgy committees focusing on the liturgy documents. Later next year, we will be ready to work with the texts having all this background work done and it will be closer to implementation.

 

[benedictgal]

While the Ordinary has been approved for awhile, there are still adaptations that our bishops have requested that have not yet been accepted by Rome. That is up to Vox Clara. The publishers are also waiting for the entire Missal to be promulgated so that they can print one book instead of installments. The publishers have to wait until April it seems before going ahead with any publications. In other words, they don’t have permission to print until the entire Missal project is complete.

The only adaptation, to my knowledge, is the request from the USCCB to retain “Christ has died…”, something that I hope Rome will not approve. It was an ICEL innovation that needs to go away, since it is not in the original Latin. Wasn’t the original intent of LA to have the translations faithful to what is in the original Latin version of the Roman Missal?

 

[japhy]

The Council of Trent anathematized an all-vernacular Mass…

That’s simply not true.
SESSION XXII, CHAPTER VIII.

On not celebrating the Mass every where in the vulgar tongue …]

Although the mass contains great instruction for the faithful people, nevertheless, it has not seemed expedient to the Fathers, that it should be every where celebrated in the vulgar tongue. …]

CANON IX. If any one saith …] that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only …] let him be anathema.
Trent anathematized those who say that Mass ought to be celebrated only in the vernacular to the exclusion of Latin. That still holds today. The modern GIRM says (well, expects) that “no Catholic would now deny the lawfulness and efficacy of a sacred rite celebrated in Latin.” (GIRM 12)

Maybe the better question would be is why we even bother with any translations at all.

For the reason that the Second Vatican Council put forth:
36.2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
This does not contradict Trent XXII, c. VIII; instead, it simply means that in the 1500’s, the Council Fathers did not think it expedient to employ the vernacular in the Mass, and in the 1900’s, the Council Fathers did think it expedient:
Although the mass contains great instruction for the faithful people, nevertheless, it has not seemed expedient to the Fathers, that it should be every where celebrated in the vulgar tongue. (Trent XXII, c. VIII)

But since the use of the mother tongue …] in the Mass …] frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants…] (Sacrosanctum Concilium 36.2)

That the faithful may approach the sacraments with greater reverence and devotion of mind, the holy council commands all bishops that not only when they are themselves about to administer them to the people, they shall first, in a manner adapted to the mental ability of those who receive them, explain their efficacy and use, but also they shall see to it that the same is done piously and prudently by every parish priest, and in the vernacular tongue …] (Trent XXIV [On Reform], c. VII)

Because of the use of the mother tongue in the administration of the sacraments and sacramentals can often be of considerable help to the people, this use is to be extended according to the following norms. (Sacrosanctum Concilium 63)

 

[ProVobis]

Where does it say either in the Trent documents or Vatican II documents that we should have an all-vernacular, all-the-time Mass?

 

[japhy]

Where does it say either in the Trent documents or Vatican II documents that we should have an all-vernacular, all-the-time Mass?

Neither of them say that, and I don’t see anyone here suggesting that’s the case.

However, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy can allow a lot of vernacular in the Mass… and, if a bishops’ conference so chooses, and the Holy See approves it, the whole Mass could be in the vernacular:
36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

1. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
2. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.
3. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.
4. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and “the common prayer,” but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to the norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.

And wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Art. 40 of this Constitution is to be observed.

 

[Bluegoat]

With regard to the OP:

If you look at liturgies that came out in other churches around the same time, which were not translations of any Catholic liturgy, you will see they often have exactally the same phrases and wording as the suoopsed translation. “It is right to give him thanks and praise” and “and also with you” also appear in the newer Anglican liturgies, and I believe also some Lutheran ones and the United Church of Canada, for example.

It seems suspect to me that the same phrase would arise indepenently in all three groups, and that in one case it would be as a particular translation from Latin.

Rather, I suspect that all of these liturgies came from a common school of liturgical thought that was popular at the time, and didn’t have much to do with the original Latin Catholic liturgy at all.

Certainly within Anglicanism, the new liturgy reflected an entirely different method of liturgical development and also a different theological understanding of Christianity. And it looks a lot like the NO.

 

[OnceLostSoul]

Dear Phemie,

With reference to the following:

Originally Posted by OnceLostSoul
*When might we reasonably expect the new English translation of the Roman Missal to be released? 2010? 2011? 2012? …

Will this new English translation include the lectionary? If so, where will the scripture readings be drawn from- NAB? Jerusalem Bible? Or newly translated from Latin?*

Originally Posted by Phemie
*No, Lectionaries are not included.

Each national conference, with Rome’s approval, chooses its preferred translation for the Lectionary. In the US that’s the NAB; I think the UK uses the New Jerusalem and Canada has just issued a new Sunday Lectionary, a modified NSRV. Some of the inclusive language was removed, bad grammar was allowed (the plural ‘their’ to avoid use of ‘his/her’) and some words were retranslated. *

The Lectionary in the UK (and some Commonwealth counries like Australia, New Zealand and Singapore) is based on the non-gender inclusive **Jerusalem Bible **RSV-Catholic Edition which is also non-gender inclusive and repackaged as the Ignatius Bible in the USA.

Can someone kindly correct me if I am wrong?

God bless!
OnceLostSoul

 

[SMHW]

With regard to the OP:

If you look at liturgies that came out in other churches around the same time, which were not translations of any Catholic liturgy, you will see they often have exactally the same phrases and wording as the suoopsed translation. “It is right to give him thanks and praise” and “and also with you” also appear in the newer Anglican liturgies, and I believe also some Lutheran ones and the United Church of Canada, for example.

It seems suspect to me that the same phrase would arise indepenently in all three groups, and that in one case it would be as a particular translation from Latin.

Rather, I suspect that all of these liturgies came from a common school of liturgical thought that was popular at the time, and didn’t have much to do with the original Latin Catholic liturgy at all.

Certainly within Anglicanism, the new liturgy reflected an entirely different method of liturgical development and also a different theological understanding of Christianity. And it looks a lot like the NO.

In this case the Anglicans and Lutherans followed the lead of the Catholic-lead ICEL translations. The Catholic Church was using the ICEL translation several years before the Protestant ecclesial communities.

 

[ProVobis]

Neither of them say that, and I don’t see anyone here suggesting that’s the case.

However, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy

Basically the CSL appears to be just like any other rule that has exceptions. Given enough time, it loses all its meaning. We can put a whole lot of laws into this category.

But we still should have some boundaries. Baseball wouldn’t be the same without foul lines.

 

[JimG]

The discussions about translating are informative, yet the real problem was that the ICEL tranlators decided not to translate, but instead to use the Latin text as a basis, and to essentially compose their own texts in English. In a certain sense, they gave us what they thought the Latin text should have said, rather than attempting to provide an English version of what the Latin did say.

The example you gave is typical. It’s not at all a translation. Granted, different translators might render a phrase differently from one language to another–they might even vary greatly. Yet, what we have from ICEL is not a translation at all. The responses at the Memorial Acclamation, and the introduction to the Our Father are even worse examples.

Quite frankly, it’s an insult to translators to even use the word “translation” to what ICEL did to the texts.

That’s exactly right. At the time of the change, perfectly good English translations already existed in the many Latin-English missals which were being used by the faithful. Most of us were quite surprised to find that the words of the ICEL ‘translation’ didn’t match what was in the Latin, and which had been in the missals for decades.