Why did we not have accurate translations to begin with?

[ProVobis]

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.

These translations were not official, though they were given an imprimatur by a bishop. And the Propers varied from missal to missal, even now the English readings in the EF don’t match what’s in the missal. The Latin, however, did not vary from missal to missal, nor was it changed since 1570.

 

[JimG]

These translations were not official, though they were given an imprimatur by a bishop. And the Propers varied from missal to missal, even now the English readings in the EF don’t match what’s in the missal. The Latin, however, did not vary from missal to missal, nor was it changed since 1570.

Yes, I realize they were not official; yet their accuracy and language was better than what we got from ICEL.

 

[grandfather]

Does anyone remember when the latest official Catechism of the Catholic Church was published some years back? At the time Cardinal Levada was the archbishop in Portland, OR. The American bishops had the translation and my local bishop showed a print out to me and explained it would soon go into print. It was a big deal and he would encourage all Catohlics to get a copy and study it. Levada realized that the translation was grossly inaccurate and ran off to Rome to have ther release halted. It took at least another couple of years to get the Catechism done right. ICEL screamed. They said that they used the same translation for the CCC that they used for the Mass, so how could there be a problem with the CCC? I thought, uh-oh, we must have a terrible translation of the Mass and started looking into it. I met priests who were from other countries serving here, from India, Italy, South America, Africa. They all confirmed that the English translation was a disaster, but in their countries the problem did not exist. So how can it be so difficult to get a good English translation, when there is no problem in Hindi?

 

[Phemie]

OnceLostSoul:

Dear Phemie,

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
You’re probably right about the Jerusalem Bible, that’s what Canada used before they went with the NRSV in 1992. But this new Lectionary is not the RSV-CE. If it were it would have been simple and not taken the years it did. No, as I understand, the translation we have now is independent of any official (Jerusalem, RSV-CE, NAB) text and exists nowhere but the Canadian Lectionary for Sundays and Solemnities (so far the only one that’s been published; we’re still using the NRSV translation for the weekday Lectionaries).

 

[puzzleannie]

personal opinion of someone with experience in technical and business writing, but not in translation, was that whoever they hired to translate the missal was the same team working on the NAB and their day job had been techinical and business writing. They where going for concise and trite, not precise and poetic

 

[benedictgal]

Somewhere in heaven, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus is interceding for us to have a better translation of the Lectionary. That was one of his big rallying cries. I am sure that once the final vote was taken on the new translation of the Roman Missal, he was probably singing a Te Deum, belting it out with gusto.

 

[OnceLostSoul]

Well, to an extent it does show me why the translation was done as it was. I know there are difficulties in translating any language to another - I know Latin is different in structure and in the fact that often it would take several words in English to convey an accurate meaning of a single Latin word.

However, several things stuck out at me when reading this document. It says, for example that the language used should be that which is in common usage (I hope the translators haven’t taken that too seriously this time round) - it mentions that the word “temptation” (as in the Pater Noster) “is inaccurate and can only be misleading to people who are not biblical scholars.” It also refers, in the same paragraph (15) about “scandal” being an inaccurate translation of “scandalum”. As we know “temptation” is still the word used in the Pater Noster, and we often use the word “scandal” in the context of “giving scandal”.
…

So how is the the Lord’s Prayer (Pater Noster) translated in the new missal?

 

[bpbasilphx]

So how is the the Lord’s Prayer (Pater Noster) translated in the new missal?

In the English version it’s left in the traditional received English form.

I might mention that the Latin liturgical text of the Pater is NOT how it reads in the Vulgate.

But as I’ve said elsewhere, Scriptural quotes in the Liturgy are usually given in a liturgical form (that is, frequently paraphrased) rather than in the exact words of a given translation.