Will the latest Catholic Mass translation get another overhaul?

[Caldera599]

It’s fine the way it is. The Mass is not “everyday” speech, and it should not reflect everyday speech. The text of the Mass should use profound, high-sounding language because it’s not just a prayer service, but a re-enactment of Calvary. If you ask me, they should just go back to saying the entire Mass in Latin, but if we’re going to use the vernacular, no common speech.

 

[Brendan]

I wouldn’t mind if they changed the “Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof…” People still really stumble on that response in my church. Otherwise, I think it’s just fine the way it is.

Why change that? Those are the words used in the Gospel.

 

[ProVobis]

I wouldn’t mind if they changed the “Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof…” People still really stumble on that response in my church.

FWIW, they overlooked one little detail in the rest of that clause. It’s “say WITH the word” not “say the word” as verbo is ablative not accusative.

Of course we could scrap the English altogether and go back to saying the Mass only in the Latin. It would be a lot cheaper in the long run. Not to mention fewer translation wars which have been around since the 60’s.

 

[ProVobis]

It’s fine the way it is. The Mass is not “everyday” speech, and it should not reflect everyday speech.

It’s still English. If they wanted to make it not everyday, then maybe Chaucerian English would be more appropriate. As well as less likely to change. That’s my opinion.

 

[carlos19]

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? Consequently, while I can understand frustration with the current Mass form, it’s still infinitely better than the alternatives. If anything, we should make an effort to attend valid, licit masses that we don’t like. This way we can train ourselves to be attentive towards Jesus instead of externalities of the Mass.

Thus is exactly my wife’s argument whenever I bring it up

I am trying

 

[ringil]

I kind of like the new translation.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

FWIW, they overlooked one little detail in the rest of that clause. It’s “say WITH the word” not “say the word” as verbo is ablative not accusative.

.

How does the ablative vs. accusative change the meaning?

I know these are the centurion’s words in Matthew 8:8, and they were translated into English in most Bibles as:. “but only say the word, and my servant will be healed.”

By the way, when did “soul” get substituted for “servant”?

Actuallly I like this translation of the NLT:

But the officer said, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come into my home. Just say the word from where you are, and my servant will be healed.

 

[ProVobis]

How does the ablative vs. accusative change the meaning?

Any Latin student recognizes the difference. Here is a suggested answer.

The ablative is the place where, or the place from where.
The accusative is called the accusative of motion or movement toward. The accusative is a very elastic case, whereas the ablative is punctual.

Imagine a line: ----------------------------------------…

You see this arrow, that is the accusative. That is why it can be also the receiver (at the point of the arrow) of the action.

Now here is another line: --------------------------’-------------…

You see the dot, or point, there is your ablative, punctual.
And from that point is also ablative (ex, ab, OUT OF, OUTSIDE OF)

As for the dative it is only and I repeat ONLY for attribution.

Imagine a third line if you will:

-------------------------------> acc.-------------------------------> dative

I give ---------------------> a flower---------------------> to my friend.

You see that to my friend is at the end of the action of giving a flower. A flower to whom? TO WHOM? DATIVE!

ad casam: towards the house. Romam: to Rome.

answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090405204306AAFfNoK

---

I know these are the centurion’s words in Matthew 8:8, and they were translated into English in most Bibles as:. “but only say the word, and my servant will be healed.”

By the way, when did “soul” get substituted for “servant”?

Because it’s not quite Matthew 8:8

Vulgate: Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum: sed tantum dic verbo, et sanabitur puer meus.

vs

Mass: Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum: sed tantum dic verbo, et sanabitur anima mea.

Puer can be boy, son, etc. Anima is soul, etc.

Here is the Greek if you need it.

8 καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ ἑκατόνταρχος ἔφη, κύριε, οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς ἵνα μου ὑπὸ τὴν στέγην εἰσέλθῃς: ἀλλὰ μόνον εἰπὲ λόγῳ, καὶ ἰαθήσεται ὁ παῖς μου.

Here it means “son”

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Why change that? Those are the words used in the Gospel.

Because of what we’re about to do, i.e. receive Jesus into our being, not our house, and not just mimicking the words of the centurion in the Gospel.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Personally, I never liked the new translation from the time it was introduced.

My parish, the people are still tripping over the words.

I wouldn’t mind if they just go back to the original translation into English, the Missal of Pope Paul V.

Jim

 

[chefmomster2]

Nope. Too much time, effort and energy went into this newest version. It isn’t something that can happen that quickly. Besides, one pope is not about to “overturn” the decision of another so easily. This version was given vatican approval after at least one revision due to inclusive kanguage.

Although I do find the language a little awkward at times, the more I use this version the better I like it. Change is always tough.

 

[ProVobis]

Personally, I never liked the new translation from the time it was introduced.

My parish, the people are still tripping over the words.

I wouldn’t mind if they just go back to the original translation into English, the Missal of Pope Paul V.

Jim

I think you mean Paul VI. But it was more the work of the ICEL, who gave the appearances that they wanted to set new doctrinal standards for all languages, such as “for all” instead of “for many.” I don’t know if the bishops want to come back to that.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I think you mean Paul VI. But it was more the work of the ICEL, who gave the appearances that they wanted to set new doctrinal standards for all languages, such as “for all” instead of “for many.” I don’t know if the bishops want to come back to that.

Yes, Paul VI, thanks

Jim

 

[chefmomster2]

FWIW, they overlooked one little detail in the rest of that clause. It’s “say WITH the word” not “say the word” as verbo is ablative not accusative.

Of course we could scrap the English altogether and go back to saying the Mass only in the Latin. It would be a lot cheaper in the long run. Not to mention fewer translation wars which have been around since the 60’s.

It was not intended to be a 100% literal translation. It never can be.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Any Latin student recognizes the difference. Here is a suggested answer.

answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090405204306AAFfNoK

---

Because it’s not quite Matthew 8:8

vs

Puer can be boy, son, etc. Anima is soul, etc.

Here is the Greek if you need it.

Here it means “son”

Okay how did “son” get changed to “soul”?

 

[ProVobis]

Okay how did “son” get changed to “soul”?

You mean how did puer get changed to anima? Or why didn’t they change* tectum* (roof) to os (mouth), for that matter?

That, I don’t know.

It was not intended to be a 100% literal translation. It never can be.

Nor immortal. They know that English changes, almost on its own.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

You mean how did puer get changed to anima? Or why didn’t they change* tectum* (roof) to os (mouth), for that matter?

That, I don’t know.

=QUOTE]

I found this explanation, although not when it was changed for the Mass.

Apparently we are “asking the Lord to heal not our servant, but our very soul. We are acknowledging that we’re about to receive Him under the “roof of our mouths” and thus to welcome Him into our physical abode; into our bodies, the dwelling place of the soul.”

( I never knew this, but it does make sense now.)

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1407

 

[JimR-OCDS]

ProVobis;11900586:

You mean how did puer

get changed to anima? Or why didn’t they change* tectum* (roof) to os (mouth), for that matter?

That, I don’t know.

=QUOTE]

I found this explanation, although not when it was changed for the Mass.

Apparently we are “asking the Lord to heal not our servant, but our very soul. We are acknowledging that we’re about to receive Him under the “roof of our mouths” and thus to welcome Him into our physical abode; into our bodies, the dwelling place of the soul.”

( I never knew this, but it does make sense now.)

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1407

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

 

[ProVobis]

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

Interestingly enough, the other day a poster (pnewton) brought up a hymn which I believe is still applicable.

1. O Lord, I am not worthy
   That Thou should’st come to me,
   But speak the words of comfort,
   My spirit healed shall be.

It seems to be okay theologically, liturgically, and musically. But that’s my opinion.

I bring this up as a lot of music was obsoleted by the new translation, so it’s very much a part of the liturgy, for better or for worse.

 

[Corki]

From the article, "75 percent of clergy and lay leaders say “some of the language of the new text is awkward and distracting.” I would include myself in that 75%.

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.