Will the latest Catholic Mass translation get another overhaul?

[CHRISTINE77]

CHRISTINE77;11900733:

Then why not just keep it the way it was, Lord I am not worthy to receive you. ?

No need to explain that the roof is the roof of our mouths, which is a stretch in trying to justify using this wording, in my opinion.

Jim

Actually, I agree. I don’t think most people have a clue about what this means. That’s why it is mumbled a lot in Mass.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Of course if they are debating to revise this new translation, then don’t hold your breath waiting for the new translation of the English version of the Liturgy of the Hours.

I would think that this would stop the work of the new LOTH’s, if it has started, in it’s tracks.

Jim

 

[ProVobis]

I never know how to feel about this thought process. Isn’t the most important thing about the Mass is the fact that Jesus is really there? …

… attentive towards Jesus instead of externalities of the Mass.

Too bad they didn’t think of this before they started meddling with the liturgy in the first place. And I’m not just talking about the last 60 years. Just sayin…

 

[Corki]

CHRISTINE77;11900733:

Then why not just keep it the way it was, Lord I am not worthy to receive you. ?

No need to explain that the roof is the roof of our mouths, which is a stretch in trying to justify using this wording, in my opinion.

Jim

Because that doesn’t match Scripturally nor does it match what is said in other languages. It’s one thing to want a better translation that is easier to say and understand. But it can’t say something completely different than the original and a prayer can’t mean different things depending on what language it is said in.

 

[chefmomster2]

JimR-OCDS;11900758:

Because that doesn’t match Scripturally nor does it match what is said in other languages. It’s one thing to want a better translation that is easier to say and understand. But it can’t say something completely different than the original and a prayer can’t mean different things depending on what language it is said in.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

JimR-OCDS;11900758:

Because that doesn’t match Scripturally nor does it match what is said in other languages. It’s one thing to want a better translation that is easier to say and understand. But it can’t say something completely different than the original and a prayer can’t mean different things depending on what language it is said in.

Oh but it does match Scripturally, from a spiritual perspective rather than a literal perspective.

We are about to receive Our Lord Jesus Christ into our very being and we recall the prayer of the Centurion in the deeper meaning of what he said in that WE are not worthy to receive Him, not under the abstract( the roof of our mouth), but into our very being, body and soul.

The former words are in fact closer to the reality of what is taking place at Mass.

Jim

 

[ProVobis]

Oh but it does match Scripturally, from a spiritual perspective rather than a literal perspective.

We are about to receive Our Lord Jesus Christ into our very being and we recall the prayer of the Centurion in the deeper meaning of what he said in that WE are not worthy to receive Him, not under the abstract( the roof of our mouth), but into our very being, body and soul.

The former words are in fact closer to the reality of what is taking place at Mass.

Jim

Jim, in that context, it would only apply to those who are actually receiving. Many, especially in non-English Masses, don’t receive, at least not sacramentally. Perhaps Christine77 had a point and the Latin should have reflected exactly the Vulgate, which is based on the faith of the centurion, which seems more to the point in this part of the Mass.

.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

JimR-OCDS;11903393:

Jim, in that context, it would only apply to those who are actually receiving. Many, especially in non-English Masses, don’t receive, at least not sacramentally. Perhaps Christine77 had a point and the Latin should have reflected exactly the Vulgate, which is based on the faith

of the centurion, which seems more to the point in this part of the Mass.

But even for those who are not receiving, they are receiving Jesus into their heart.

I believe the prayer for those not receiving reflects this.

We are not just mimicking the words of the Centurion. We are in fact, receiving Jesus.

Mass is not merely the reflection of Scripture spoken in literal form, but a living sacrifice, a spiritual event in real-time so to speak.

Jim

 

[ProVobis]

But even for those who are not receiving, they are receiving Jesus into their heart.

I believe the prayer for those not receiving reflects this.

We are not just mimicking the words of the Centurion. We are in fact, receiving Jesus.

Jim

Yes, that is true also for those who are receiving by way of spiritual communion.

.

 

[Mulligan2]

But couldn’t the same be said of the “old” text? There were a lot of odd translations there - more than in the newer translation, IMHO.

Several examples:

1. the change from ‘one in being’ to ‘consubstantial’
2. the change from ‘I am not worthy to receive you’ to ‘enter under my roof’

There are others, but these are the ones that immediately come to mind. The changes sounded awkward when they were first made, and they are still awkward to me now. Perhaps the changes are a more literal interpretation. My comments are strictly related to how I perceive them.

 

[ProVobis]

You gotta love the English language.

Half say “less than,” half say “fewer than.”

Half say “between you and I.” and half say “between you and me.”

Half sing “I don’t care if I NEVER get back,” other half “I don’t care if I EVER get back” and emphasize the word they have selected, almost out of spite for the other.

And on and on.

And who’s there to correct them?

 

[Corki]

Several examples:

1. the change from ‘one in being’ to ‘consubstantial’
2. the change from ‘I am not worthy to receive you’ to ‘enter under my roof’

There are others, but these are the ones that immediately come to mind. The changes sounded awkward when they were first made, and they are still awkward to me now. Perhaps the changes are a more literal interpretation. My comments are strictly related to how I perceive them.

1. “one in being” isn’t any more simple to understand the “consubstantial” It’s just unfamiliar.
2. the former didn’t match what was being prayed in any other language. How would you keep the sense of “enter under my roof” and make it less awkward?

counter with

1. “and also with you” which besides not matching the prayer in other languages, makes no sense in the context of the Mass.
2. using “we” in the Creed instead of “I” changed the entire focus of the prayer and its place in the Mass. It’s not any more awkward to say “I” and it matches how the prayer is said in other languages.

To me the most important criteria is that the Mass, as the universal prayer of the Church, has to mean the same thing no matter what language is used. For 40 years, the English prayers didn’t mean the same thing as the prayers in Latin or most of the other approved vernaculars. The “old” English translation was supposed to be a “dynamic” rather than literal translation but it failed since the whole reason to use a dynamic translation is to preserve the meaning.

 

[ProVobis]

I attended a bi-lingual (Spanish and English) Mass last night. When he came to the “Peace be with you” part, a loud “And also with you” resounded. So apparently the message didn’t get through to a lot of people.

 

[ringil]

I really don’t see the Church looking at another translation as this one was just released.

There were certainly problems with the first vernacular translation and look at how long we had that one.

Again- I like the new translation.

 

[ProVobis]

There were certainly problems with the first vernacular translation and look at how long we had that one.

To be fair, though, there will be problems with any translation. There is no exact translation; it’s removed from its original. That’s why it’s always tempting to keep retranslating. And we’re talking about more than one line of code here. You get 20 translators and you will get 20 different translations. Ask them 20 years later you will get a different 20 translations. Look at the hundreds of English Bibles out there.

 

[ringil]

To be fair, though, there will be problems with any translation. That’s why it’s always tempting to keep retranslating. And we’re talking about more than one line of code here. You get 20 translators and you will get 20 different translations. Ask them 20 years later you will get a different 20 translations. Look at the hundreds of English Bibles out there.

Oh, I’m with you.

I’m not to big on the “it is right and just”, but it’s OK.

 

[whipp711]

I’m from Texas. Being a middle class, caucasian type, I still find English to be my hardest foreign language.

JUST KIDDING! Seriously, it does point out to what extent you go truly vernacular. My German cousin married a Chinese national, and their daughter grew up with German but learned English “proper Oxford English” (in her words). I find it hard to nail down a language that changes rapidly in this day and time (thank you internet, twitter, et. al.).

I appreciate the work on trying to connect ancient languages, but maybe it’s better to stick with Latin, with the missal showing an English translation (as best as they can get it). Guess that would mean this “Hick” (me), who was raised Presbyterian, converted to the Catholic faith at 22, would have to learn a new language to go with my Texanese.

 

[Futurepriest21]

My first comment is to those that have said they agree the language of the Roman Missal 3rd Edition is “distracting”. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is extremely sacred, so should we be using the same, everyday language for it as we would use to order food at a restaurant or talk casually to a friend? The language is meant to be distinct and set-apart of course because the new translation is much more faithful to the original Latin, the language of the Church, but also to make us THINK about what we are saying and what we are doing. If we keep repeating the same responses at Mass without thinking about them we begin to loose our focus on the sacred Liturgy. So these big words such as consubstantial, are not a bad thing at all.

In my opinion if we ever re-translate the Roman Missal, we should return to the actual, ORIGINAL translation, which was the 1965 Missal, not the Mass of Paul VI. It was basically a literal translation of the Latin Missal with very few major changes, and it also retained the use of Latin for some parts. It is in my opinion a very beautiful Missal.

You can read the Order of the Mass here:

coreyzelinski.8m.com/1965_Mass/

ccwatershed.org/blog/2013/nov/15/1965-missale-romanum-online/

 

[JimR-OCDS]

This was from Bishop Trautman’s criticism of the new translation before it was released.

“The vast majority of God’s people in the assembly are not familiar with words of the new missal like ‘ineffable,’ ‘consubstantial,’ ‘incarnate,’ ‘inviolate,’ ‘oblation,’ ‘ignominy,’ ‘precursor,’ ‘suffused’ and ‘unvanquished.’ The vocabulary is not readily understandable by the average Catholic,” Bishop Trautman said.

“The (Second Vatican Council’s) Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy stipulated vernacular language, not sacred language,” he added. “Did Jesus ever speak to the people of his day in words beyond their comprehension? Did Jesus ever use terms or expressions beyond his hearer’s understanding?”

And

“Bishop Trautman quoted the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, which said rites and texts “should radiate a noble simplicity. They should be short, clear, free from useless repetition. They should be within the people’s powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.”

• See more at: catholicreview.org/article/faith/bishop-criticizes-slavishly-literal-english-translation-of-missal#sthash.dwFchoR9.dpuf

At Mass, we’re not just playing Church, we’re actively involved in the spiritual aspects of what is taking place, Christ becoming the Body and Blood in the Eucharist, which we are about to receive.

The language should reflect what is taking place, which the previous translation in fact did.

Those who couldn’t see it in the former translation, are less likely to see it in the new translation.

Jim

 

[GangGreen]

IMO there are two options

1. Go back to Latin → No more translation issues.
2. Actually TEACH the people about the Mass. This includes priests. If people don’t understand the biblical and theological significance of what is being said in Mass then they should be taught. I don’t find the current language to be awkward at all.