To help Jesuits throughout the U.S. to prepare for the new translation of the Roman Missal, Jesuit Father John Baldovin, Professor of Historical & Liturgical Theology at Boston College’s School of Theology and Ministry, was asked to give a presentation explaining the historical background of the Roman Missal, with a brief overview of the changes in this translation along with some ideas for faithful ministers of the church to engage this new translation responsibly and use it as well as possible. His video presentation, The New Roman Missal: Challenge & Opportunity, appears in five parts on Jesuit.org. The first part appears below.
Video Series Offers Historical Insights and Changes in the New Translation of the Roman Missal
Comments
66 responses to “Video Series Offers Historical Insights and Changes in the New Translation of the Roman Missal”
-
Part IIb presents the Preface of the Transfiguration, and is an excellent example of the textual gobbledygook that awaits us. Meanwhile more and more bishops and national and local speakers are proclaiming this translation to be a great gift to the Church. It will be an enormous challenge to regard a translation with so much awkward sentence structure as a gift and not a burden. I think I will hold on to my thank you notes.
-
I find it incredible that after 46 comments (as I write this) not one person has commented on the last video, Part III. They all are caught up in re-staging a lost argument. So most of the commentors probably just read the other comments.
Part III, entitled “Examination of Conscience”, 12 minutes long, is a direct challenge to every bishop, priest and seminarian, all of whom should be required to watch it every time they go to Confession and to confess those sins discussed by Father Baldovin:
1. Have I prepared liturgically?
2. Have I prepared spiritually? Prayers before celebrating the Mass.
3. Have I considered the necessity of balancing the horizontal and the vertical elements of the liturgy?
4. In what ways do I make myself the center of the liturgy?
5. How well do I know the Roman Missal. When was the last time that I looked at the General Instruction on the Roman Missal.In my opinion, these five points cover every liturgical abuse ever committed (except those committed by the laity who don’t go to Communion in the state of grace).
-
Well said and thus, this translation addresses a symptom; not the disease. We will continue with poor and inadequate sermons masquerading as homilies; inarticulate eucharistic paryers because of the reading speed; presider not understanding the parts of the eucharistic prayer and who it is addressed to; presiders who are unable to proclaim using tone, pace, silences, etc.
The beat goes on!
-
-
-
A refreshingly humble and sober presentation. Well done, Fr. Baldovin!
-
“I’m not here as a salesman … or as a critic either … but to help us engage this new translation responsibly and to use it as well as possible” … “An opportunity to relearn the liturgy… to renew ourselves in the celebration of the liturgy, the ars celebrandi”.
The trouble is that the catechetical and renewal opportunities offered by the new translation are equally available with the current translations, and would have been freshly available if something like the 1998 translation had been accepted. It is strange indeed that the Church is suddenly making a catechetical burst and calling for renewal of the ars celebrandi in connection with texts that are acutally anti-catechetical (because murky) and anti-celebratory.
-
This is an excellent point.
The subtext of the “great opportunity for catechesis” meme is: “When life gives you lemons, make lemonade.”
The trouble is, it’s not life giving us lemons, it’s Vox Clara. Treating Vatican committees as if they were a force of nature seems wrong somehow–if only because we have real forces of nature to contend with.
If catechesis were the priority the apologists say it is, we could have done it with a better text. No one, but no one, banged the drum for such catechesis prior to facing the problem of “selling” a muddy, hard to comprehend product to the faithful. We are now trying to rescue their prayer life from what is sure to be a depressive episode.
-
-
Yikes – someone should tell them that Kavanagh surely meant it was a “pidgin” translation, not a “pigeon” translation, unless he meant it was, literally, for the birds. 😉
-
The portrait of Benedictine Aidan Kavanagh that appears with the “wet potato chip” quote … that is surely the jaunty cuculla of some experimental priory circa 1972 … is that a pencil or a cigarette he’s holding? And to think he was AGAINST the then-new translation!
-
Fr. Kavanagh did indeed smoke cigarettes in a holder, but I think the photo shows him holding a pen.
“Pidgin” is no doubt what Fr. Kavanagh said and meant. I have two observations: first, any literature put forth today to promote the new translation is going to have errors in it; the loyalty demanded will not put to sleep the subconscious. Second, were Fr. Kavanagh alive today, I have no doubt he would be among the new translation’s severest critics. He used language so well himself that he would surely have perceived the desperate stylistic quandry we’ve landed in here.
-
Rory – as you know, down here in Texas, they mean the same.
-
-
Watched this presentation with my boyfriend, and we both agreed….it was not WHAT the good father said…it was that PAINFUL look on his face as he’s saying it. It was like they were holding a gun to his head off camera! I almost spit out my popcorn!
Take it from Janet….keep o’l faithful at the ready…you gonna need it. Advent 1, everybody shows, look at each other and say “this had better change”, Advent II, 10% drop off, Advent III, even the dusty rose cannot save the horror and another 10-15% drop off in attendance as they begin to realize that this is not an experiment (or a joke for that matter) and that this ill phrased, archaic, ridiculous translation is not going anywhere and half the congregation stays home and the sacred milk of Catholicism: the collection goes into full plummet, so on Advent IV, we break out o’l faithful, telling the people that this was just a failed experiment, a joke with a poor punchline if you will, and SAVE the Christmas collection as the people return to what they have known for 40 years!
O’l faithful to the rescue..as the unsinkable liturgy goes down by the bow taking with it great loss of life….and cash!
I’ll bet that poor Jesuit had to go to confession after putting forth this fraud (that is, if he still believes in confession).
-
Dream on, Janet.
-
I detect a strong note of desperation. I’ve never seen such a flurry of activity from Rome to Mumbai in an effort to sell this lemon of a missal to the Catholic public. It may partially explain the pope’s appearance with Matt Lauer, Al Roker and the archbishop of New York this morning.
So does Benedict XVI head to Oprah Winfrey with
cardinals Burke and Pell in hand? If it were still on the air, I’m sure they’d be thinking of a round or two of Hollywood Squares?-
Cardinal Burke is now making regular appearances on PT.
-
-
Janet’s vision is basically right, until the “o’l faithful at the ready” part. By Advent IV, the dozen people left in the pews will have memorized this accurate English translation; in other words, they will all know the precise meaning of the Latin original. Then, with no one to object, the stage will be set to restore the Latin Traditional text, Latin being the language of patrimony and conquest par excellence.
-
-
Father Baldovin is a friend of many years and an extraordinary teacher. He is also a very faithful Jesuit and priest. His sense of humor is also something to experience – both in and out of the classroom.
I therefore marvel – though I’m not surprised – at how well he was able to maintain his professorial composure while saying, “This is the translation the Church is proposing for our use, is asking us to use beginning in Advent.”
When, surely, he was thinking IMPOSING rather then PROPOSING, ORDERING rather than ASKING!
I must admit, though, the image of Janet sitting with her boyfriend and sharing a bowl of popcorn during these videos …. well ….
And, finally, Father mentioned Vox Clara and Monsignor Moroney: I notice from this morning’s news that the Massachusetts tornados spared Worcester, thus insuring that the Vox Clara archives remain intact! Imagine what the conspiracy theorists on this blog would have made of the alternative scenario ….
-
Good point, Michael. The difference between propose and impose is immense!
-
Sorry Rita, not quite: the difference between propose and impose is the immensity of his majesty!
And Michael, my reaction to Janet’s popcorn thing was very similar to yours (coffee everywhere) and, as you know, my prayers about that twister and the immensity of the Worcester cathedral rectory went unanswered.
-
-
-
Can anyone here post a sample comparison of the current translation with the new translation and explain why they think the current translation is preferable? I have not yet seen an example in the new translation when compared in this way which does not show the new translation to be more in keeping with the praise and worship of God which is the essential purpose of liturgy.
-
Mark,
There are a variety of opinions expressed on this blog, but I think you’ll find that there are few enthusiasts for the current translation, even though many people are critical of the forthcoming translation.
As to comparisons, here is a comparison of a number of different English translations.
-
Could we not make a distinction between the collects of 1973 and the Eucharistic Prayers, prefaces, solemn blessings, and the texts for the Triduum?
-
-
-
Thanks, Joe! Well done on the line-by-line analysis, critique and repudiation. You are perfectly right. ‘Abuse’ and ‘scandal’ will find new referents when this text becomes more publicly known.
-
-
-
Watching both this presentation and the Maroney version now being aired by EWTN I just can’t think of anything else other than the pastoral and evangelical disaster this is. I’m not against elevated language – done well and meaning-full in content. The new text and the catechesis I’ve seen is all insider church talk. Its all heavily coded language that is only decipherable to intra-institutional churchy folk. Moms and Dads, the non and underemployed, those suffering from natural disasters, i.e., all those who live in the life-world don’t have time. The short – further ALIENATION .
-
Sorry, JT. I’m a Dad, have been un- and under- employed, have a busy family life, etc, and I am most assuredly looking forward to November 27 and the new, corrected translation. Indeed, I have been looking forward to it since, oh, 1973.
-
That’s 38 years or so. Any evidence of your complaints (or anyone else’s, for that matter) for the first, say 30 of those years?
-
Corrected? The Chalice of my Blood-not iny any Gospel
Corrected The Nicene Creed-original language Greek-translates We Believe-now I Believe? CCC I Believe for Baptismal Liturgy
I dont’ think so.
-
-
So to read what I actually wrote, and not what respondents wanted to read, no where did I say that anyone was not intelligent enough to understand catechesis – although I am clearly questioning the cognitive accessibility and quality of the translation and the catechesis. Yes, there is a real and valid distinction between the two. One protestation to the contrary, I am questioning whether there is or will continue to be an “audience” to whom to direct any catechesis or to engage in worship. As statistics on religious practice in the west show there is already a statistical atrophying of churches, especially catholics. I doubt given cultural dynamics that those in the life-world will generally experience our new language as life giving or relevant (and yes, I believe liturgical language at a basic level should be immediately relevant and intelligible, and no I’m not against biblical and patristic allusions). I think for the general catholic population (and I know the holier than thou crowd don’t want a general catholic population) the new translation will only add to a general malaise and alienation which many experience in institutional structures. I am just as concerned about attempts at evangelization, homiletics, and theological writing that miss the target audience because of the obscurity, obtuseness, or lack of writing prowess on the part of an author. I am concerned overall that the faith is heard as credible and eagerly received and today that requires in large part understanding the conversation partner (the foundation of classical rhetoric). Thus I am suggesting that the faith be articulated in more transparent language. Words do mean and not mean. Words can more clearly or less clearly convey meaning.
-
J, you have hit on an important point. Liturgiam authenticam has stated the goal of creating a sacral language in the vernacular. The “insider” thing you rightly notice is actually embedded in this goal. The people who produced the translation are banking on sacral language “working” and not being alienating, but will it alienate? I think there is a very good chance that it will. That is one of the reasons why I believe the instruction LA should be revisited and changed, and not only the translation itself.
-
-
” Moms and Dads, the non and underemployed, those suffering from natural disasters, i.e., all those who live in the life-world don’t have time. The short – further ALIENATION .”
So, those you mention are too stupid to understand the new translation? It seems that claims that the current translation was “dumbed down” are true after all. Perhaps the most effective response to this criticism of the new translation is to point out how few of today’s Mass-goers can, for example, recall the opening prayer of that day’s Mass when they get into their cars in the parking lot. In other words, it’s not as if the current translation is giving these people some sort of active participation that will be lost this Advent.
The new translation seems to be the golden mean between inaccessible Latin and a childish vernacular which condescends to the faithful.
But it seems most of the negative comments here are reaction to the means by which the new translation is being implemented, rather than the translation itself. Am I correct?
-
Mark, I take it you are fairly new here? The regulars lamented the 2008 version, and really kicked into high protest gear when the supposed 10,000 changes were imposed by Rome to produce the 2011 version we will enjoy come Advent. (And, retrospectively, they now LOVE 2008!)
Above you asked for a comparison. Dig through the archives of this blog and you’ll find plenty, none of which, by the way, convinced me we aren’t 1000% better off with this new translation
-
To suggest that the present translation is expressed in “childish vernacular which condescends to the faithful” is beyond the pale. I have been a priest for nearly 40 years and am quite articulate in the proper use of English. The present translation clearly expresses the faith of the church in a manner that makes it audibly accessible to those who participate in Mass on a regular basis. How it comes across to “orthodox” Catholics or to those who are skilled in the use of Latin, I have no idea. The most important question to ask is does the translation we have been using faithfully transmit what the Church believes. Of that I have no doubt.
An incredibly broad collaboration was conducted over ten or more years to produce a revised text back in 1998. It won the enthusiastic approval of the English speaking bishops all over the world in a tremendous exercise of collegiality. Tragically, the principle of subsidiarity and the practice of collegiality was laid aside by officials at the highest levels of the Church so that a more Latin like translation could be undertaken. If the outcome was a clear improvement over the present text, I would be among those rejoicing.
I will do my level best to assist the people I serve to make the adjustment to the texts of the new missal. I will provide a comprehensive catechesis of the Liturgy as the context for that preparation. But I will have to pray mightily for the grace to be intellectually honest in the process.
-
Mark, welcome. John Drake is one of the “at least it’s better than . . . ” cheerleaders for Vox Clara’s Pell-Moroney-Ward Missal, not to be confused with the new ICEL Missal which, in 2008, the world’s English-speaking bishops’ conferences approved and sent to Rome for confirmation. Before being “confirmed,” however, that 2008 Missal was hacked up by an anonymous group of “experts” under the supervision of Msgr. James Moroney, who has now famously said, “Well, with 7,000 experts (scholars of the English language, mind you) involved, you’re bound to end up with some mistakes.”
In fact, in the Pell-Moroney-Ward Missal there are 1) mistranslations of the Latin; 2) violations of the translation norms set forth by the Holy See itself in both Liturgiam authenticam and the Ratio translationis; and, last but not least (at least when read/heard) 3) errors in English grammar and syntax.
You can find comparisons in the articles that are archived in the Missal Translation Directory.
For the sake of simplification, I suppose, John Drake lumps everyone who is unhappy with the new translation into one category. However, there are some of us here who are and have been fully supportive of a new translation, but who were hoping that the new translation would be both an accurate and literary translation. And it largely was, until Drake’s heroes took charge of it – or hatchet and pick-axe to it.
But check the archived articles.
The old spiritual father once said that the difference between saints and the rest of us was that saints say “if only” while the rest of us settle for “at least.” None of us here is a saint, to be sure, but some of us had been hoping for something not only better than the old translation but something better than what’s coming.
-
-
People are going to remember the opening prayer on the way home come 27 November. Surely you must be joking.
-
As noted many times previously, the argument that the translation doesn’t matter because people won’t notice or remember the words is not a very convincing point.
-
I could have been clearer. I simply can’t credit the idea that the new texts are going to be so memorable that they will be the focus for family discussion at home after Mass. People will indeed notice, but I think the majority will find the language so tortured and alien that they will be inclined, indeed happy, to forget the collects as soon as they have been proclaimed. I believe deeply that the people will notice. They deserve far better. This is a strongly-held conviction. I have, with so many others, some now gone to God, given long years in the service of the PEOPLE’S PRAYER.
-
-
Oh come on, John.
They’ll remember alright.
They’ll remember how strained and convoluted it was.
And they’ll remember how weird it is to say “with your spirit” which means “with you” but one can’t say “with you.”
And they’ll remember how awkward and seemingly meaningless were so many of the new long sentences.
And they’ll remember how “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again” has been outlawed.
And they’ll remember the days when we used to say Christ died “for all” but now only “for many” even though we still believe “for all.”
Or do we?
Yes, John, they’ll remember.
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/prelate-disobeying-pope
-
In these types of circumstances, I think it’s more prudent to go to mass to adore and praise God – not to judge and find fault.
-
-
No I don’t think they will be discussing the opening prayer. They might be wondering what in the world is consubstantial, and why we now say Lord I am not worthy to have you come under my roof-is that the roof of my house? Many will wonder if Christ has still died, is risen, and will come again? Some will ask themselves what is God of hosts? What about the other 10.000 changes in the Presiders’ prayers? Liturgy is built with highly charged ritual language. I have a feeling for both Presider and Assembly we may need to consult our theological dictionaries for quite some time.
-
-
Are people really going to stop coming to Mass because of the translation? Forgo the nourishment of the Body and Blood of Christ because they don’t like to prayers being said?
Take it from someone who truly dislikes the current Sacramentary: no way. No way at all that you abandon Jesus because you don’t like the words. No, you take a deep breath, recall that even if one doesn’t like the prayers’ translation that doesn’t make the translation invalid.
At least, that’s what I’ve been doing since I left the angelic, lofty prose of Cranmer for the blah and meh of the current Sacramentary.
Jesus is Jesus, no matter how silly it sounds to get to him.
Sheesh.
-
“Are people really going to stop coming to Mass because of the translation? Forgo the nourishment of the Body and Blood of Christ because they don’t like to prayers being said?”
Probably not all at once. But if you’ve noticed there has been a mass exodus over the past 20 years, and it is ongoing. Note for example the declines in catechumens over the past ten years which has been documented here on PTB.
People won’t stop coming, but the rate of attrition is likely to increase dramatically. The largest single denomination making up the membership of megachurches is “Former Catholic.” The VC2010 is going to give those people what they are looking for? As Tina Fey and Seth Meyer would ask “Really???”
-
“Are people really going to stop coming to Mass because of the translation? Forgo the nourishment of the Body and Blood of Christ because they don’t like to prayers being said?”
We were wondering IF this question was serious or rhetorical. OF COURSE people are going to fall off and away. WHY you may ask would this be the case? Consider the priest slowly, desperately, reading the prayers….a few too many “with thy Spirits” and the dewfall of the Spirit…..
The simple fact of the matter is that the dumbing down of America is accurately reflected in the “easy listening” of the current liturgy…especially with its ad lib options. People like it and its the same people who write checks in support of the parish.
Just because “tough love” is mandated by Rome as the cure for this dumbing down does not mean that the people will accept it or stick around for that matter…they won’t…take it from Janet.
The 80+ generation will swallow it, in order to assure themselves a Catholic funeral, the middle aged and younger will walk away seeking something relevant in their lives, something which they can understand and speaks to them. This should not be the case, but it will be the case.
Regarding the abandonment of the Sacraments, the catechesis offered in your typical Catholic parish has been so poor and pathetic for so long now (reflecting the dumbing down of America) that they will not consider, understand or even care if this is the case. Catholics see little difference between the Eucharist of a Catholic Mass or an Episcopal, Lutheran, UCC or even Baptist service…..they get a little piece of bread and a shot of Welches and are good for the week…. You disagree? Attend a funeral in a Protestant church and watch all the good Catholics process up for communion…its a scandal….and it goes on daily out of complete ignorance of what they are doing.
So yes Dylan…people will be right OUT THE DOOR in droves and it will be a rotund Monsignor in Worcester who will be driving the bus!
-
“it will be a rotund Monsignor in Worcester who will be driving the bus!”
His weight is relevant to your argument how?
-
As someone who has processed up for Communion in more than one Protestant Church, I testify that I did so in spite of the catchesis I’ve received. I know what is taught regarding Communion in Protestant Churches, that only we Catholics have the real Presence. I just don’t believe it.
-
-
-
I have yet to see the video that is the subject of this posting. However
now that the National Pastoral Letter from the Bishops of England and Wales relating to the introduction of the New Translation of the Roman Missal has been read in our churches may I add just this.The oft-quoted passage from Proverbs, “that without vision the people perish”, is never more true.
It is this vision that we urgently need in the midst of the turmoil that we will undoubtedly face as we come to terms with a flawed translation however many videos are produced.
There have been those, both in our own country and other English-speaking countries, who have been willing to speak out over the last eighteen months, offering a vision that is respectful of tradition, that is rooted in deep faith, yet recognises the cultural need and language experience of our times.
Their voice has been a blessing for the people.
We now need to move forward in that faith and together, bishops, priests and people, and be supportive of each other in the difficult days ahead.
Chris McDonnell UK
-
” the argument that the translation doesn’t matter because people won’t notice or remember the words is not a very convincing point.”
That was not the argument. The point was that regular Sunday Catholics do not cherish the current translation now, nor will they rebel at the new.
“And they’ll remember how weird it is to say “with your spirit” which means “with you” but one can’t say “with you.”
Maybe it’s more pertinent to those of us who live in a bilingual community, but the Spanish translation has ALWAYS faithfully translated “y con tu espiritu”. Which means that to a Spanish-speaker, the new English translation will be refreshingly familiar.
That particular phrase, by the way, underscores the need for the corrected translation. The Novus Ordo in no way intends for that to be a mere exchange of greetings between priest and people, but the current translation implies that. Unfortunately, that conveys a completely wrong understanding of what active participation consists of at the four times that exchange is made. See http://causafinitaest.blogspot.com/2010/11/new-translation-monday-and-with-your.html
-
On the other hand, those of us (like me) who live in bilingual communities where Mass is regularly celebrated in Portuguese hear this translation of that greeting and response instead:
V.: O Senhor esteja convosco.
R: Ele está no meio de nós.Can you really decide how English-speakers should pray based on how “refreshingly familiar” the prayer will strike non-English speakers?
-
-
“The present translation clearly expresses the faith of the church in a manner that makes it audibly accessible to those who participate in Mass on a regular basis.”
Part of the problem in discussing whether or not the 1973 or the new translation of the Missal effectively communicates the ancient beliefs of the Church is our very problem with textual obsession: an elevation of the word written on the page over the word taking flesh. No doubt this is why the Liturgy of the Word has become “the people’s thing”.
That the majority of parishioners are drastically ill-informed about the real content of the Catholic Faith, there is no question. This is because most people simply don’t pay too much attention or even have much of a hope of a sophisticated comprehension of the Catholic system. No, this is not to say they are stupid. Or, if they are stupid, Catholicism never promised anything special to the smart. Far from it, it can only warn the intelligent not to bring their souls to ruin through their hobbies.
This is to say, simply, that lay people have a life! Priests don’t have lives, shouldn’t have lives, they’ve given them to God. Or did they not have lives to begin with.? Some days this is unclear. Probably many of us participating in the above discussions don’t have real lives either. I, for one, enjoy not having one. Nonetheless, we’re also just a little bit too consumed with our geeky obsessions…
-
[continued..]
The colossal error of this generation is to think that everyone ought to have a solid textual understanding of the Catholic faith when the majority never have. This is, I believe, the academic- liberal and superficial anthropology that undergirds many of our problems today.What has been missed is how much of the Catholic imagination- and therefore its doctrines- is communicated indirectly. The orientation of the altar to the Lord, the sublimity of the Sacrifice, Christ offered in the silence of the canon…
The manner of Mass is as important as its text. This why we can’t vandalize the sanctuary and then say “nothing’s changed” or “no bad, no rupture”.
The senses are, in fact, far easier to ensnare than the mind. The soul and the heart are far more wonderfully worked upon by the flesh than by the mental faculty. The fact that the world is itself sacramental and created in light of God’s great Sacrament to man- His Son- should cause us to reflect. It is superficial to think it is enough to instruct people that the Eucharist is Very God of Very God. People who kneel for communion are far nearer to the Eucharistic doctrine. To touch the Holy Wounds on the Pieta is to be the nearer to those Wounds themselves. To genuflect, closer to an angel. This is not to say that piety equals sanctity, by no means! Only that what the body does, what the eye sees, is greater than what the mind thinks. This is why I think previous generations had a more substantial understanding of the Catholic faith because they understood it in their bones and knees. Today, 50 years after the Council, a very great many still do not have it in their heads—-or, now, below the neck either!
-
Chris refers to the infelicitous (to many) 2010 revision of 2008:
Preface II for Lent
Qui filiis tuis ad reparandam mentium puritatem,
tempus praecipuum salubriter statuisti,
quo, mente ab inordinatis affectibus expedita,
sic incumberent transituris
ut rebus potius perpetuis inhaererent.New ICEL translation 2008:
For you have established for the well-being of your children
a special season to renew and purify their minds,
so that, freed from all inordinate desires,
they may so use the things of this passing world
as to hold more firmly to the things of eternity.Vox Clara’s Pell-Moroney-Ward Missal, 2010
For you have given your children a sacred time
for the renewing and purifying of their hearts,
that, freed from disordered affections,
they may so deal with the things of this passing world
as to hold rather to the things that eternally endure.Several points:
Some stylists consider the infinitive forms (2008), “to renew and purify” stronger English usage than the gerundives (2010) “for the renewing and purifying”.“Mens” is usually rendered “mind,” though “heart” is a frequent translation as well (cf. most English versions of the Veni Creator).
The change from “inordinate desires” to “disordered affections,” to which Chris refers, is odd, since the former certainly translates “inordinatis affectibus” while the latter is often theological code for homosexuality. Why the change?
“Deal with” is considered by many too colloquial for liturgical prayer, i.e., “Deal with it,” and an unncessary revision.
“Potius” is more accurately conveyed by “more firmly” rather than by “rather” 🙂
In these, as in so many of the Pell-Moroney-Ward 10,000 changes, there is little to recommend the changes: i.e., we’re changing it because we can.
Also, note that TEMPUS may no longer be translated SEASON. It is now TIME in every instance (Proper of Time, instead of “of Seasons.”
-
Sorry, but I find the 2010 version much, much better than the 2008 version in your example. But both better than the current version.
-
But not better than the 1998 version, presumably.
-
1998:
You set aside this season of grace for your people
to renew and purify their hearts,
so that, freed from all harmful desires,
they may live in this passing world
with hearts set on the world that will never end.I’m generally a fan of 1998, but I don’t think this is one of its best efforts. “Filiis” becomes “people” — when “children” is a more literal and unobjectionable choice. “inordinatis affectibus” becomes “harmful desires,” and while disordered desires are surely harmful, this somewhat loses the point that the reason they are harmful is not because the things loved are not good, but because they do not observe the proper ordering of love in which God is loved above any creature. Finally, the last part loses the sense that we are to make use of this passing world so that we might enjoy eternity (something also lost with 2010’s “deal with”): a clear reflection of Augustine’s uti-frui distinction. Indeed, the original is a very concise expression of Augustinian theology, the echoes of which are muted by the 1998 translation.
-
-
But what about the version that COULD have been done … the one that is faithful to the Latin text and its scriptural allusions but is in artistic, poetic, idiomatic English? We’re still waiting for that one.
-
I think, Mark, the point is not which version you, I, or anyone, prefers, but rather that the rules of translation, approved by the Pope, were followed in the ICEL 2008 effort, but not in the 2010 one.
-
Good for you, Mark: you are an answer to prayer.
The anonymous (haha) revisers of 2008, who changed “overflowing” (profusis) “with paschal joys” to “overcome” as in “by toxic fumes”, followed by “even the heavenly Powers rejoice”, as if somehow we thought Christ’s resurrection wouldn’t be to their liking (one of many misuses of “even” by our resident English scholar-reviser throughout the Pell-Moroney-Ward Missal), and who have given us “the immensity of your majesty,” “constrain them mercifully,” “by a bond of love so tight,” and a multitude of other torturous constructions and ridiculous vocabulary choices are counting on folks like you to like what they’ve done.
But a mistranslation is still a mistranslation; violations of the approved translation norms are easily documented throughout the coming translations; and a guide for correcting the grammatical mistakes is already in production.
But join the cheerleaders-there are plenty of you on board here!:-)
-
-
Samuel J. Howard :
“it will be a rotund Monsignor in Worcester who will be driving the bus!”
His weight is relevant to your argument how?“Rotund” doesn’t refer to weight, Samuel, but shape.
Similarly, “immense” (as in “the immensity of his majesty” a common vernacluar expression in Worcester) refers to size, not shape or weight.
I think Janet, God love her, good faithful Bible Christian that she is, is just trying to protect the reputation of the non-rotund monsignori of Worcester, some of whom may drive buses.
-
“Rotund” doesn’t refer to weight, Samuel, but shape.
That’s completely disingenious.
“Rotund – 3: notably plump : chubby”
-
Yep, plump and chubby, similarly, refer to shape Samuel, not weight.
You can call it “disingenious” or whatever other word you care to use, but it’s also accurate, Samuel: the big, sad news is that our opinions, no matter how sincerely held, don’t change the facts – and the fact is, Janet made no reference to the rotund guy’s weight.
-
“Ok class, please identify each polygon using the following choices: square, triangle, chubby.”
-
-
-
There are a variety of opinions expressed on this blog, but I think you’ll find that there are few enthusiasts for the current translation, even though many people are critical of the forthcoming translation. -Bauerschmidt @ June 2, 2011 – 1:06 pm
The simple fact of the matter is that the dumbing down of America is accurately reflected in the “easy listening” of the current liturgy…especially with its ad lib options. People like it and its the same people who write checks in support of the parish. . Darcy @June 3, 2011 – 5:52 am
While FB is probably correct about the opinion expressers on this blog, JD is more in touch with Catholics in the pew, and a very large section of them, even a silent majority, who are very underrepresented on this blog,
The Little Rock Bible Study Program that is popular in Catholic parishes promotes “conversational prayer” in its small groups. When I interviewed people about their experiences with this form of prayer, most of the people, even the majority who did not pray aloud, liked it. They thought it was something we Catholics should do more often. They liked its simplicity, its honesty. They liked listening to other people pray this way, even when they were hesitant to do it themselves. Some reported they had adopted this form of prayer as a way to communicate with their spouses and with their children even when they were still hesitant to pray in a group.
So in terms of people, we may lose many more people who are interested in the simplicity of the present translation and the honestly of ad-libbing, than we please with the “exalted” language of the incoming Missal. As Janet points out they are probably very familiar with Protestant churches where they can find a more comfortable “easy listening” liturgy.
-
Brad Wilson :
“Ok class, please identify each polygon using the following choices: square, triangle, chubby.”Ah even Brad’s getting it now: none of square, triangle or chubby refer to weight!
-
So, can a skeleton be chubby?
-
-
Brad Wilson :
In these types of circumstances, I think it’s more prudent to go to mass to adore and praise God – not to judge and find fault.Who’s talking about judging or finding fault at Mass? You are the only person who’s ever admitted on this blog that it is what YOU do.
-
Really, Chris? Can you please point me to the extact location on this blog where I admitted that I judge and find fault? I innocently assumed that the advice you gave me was equally applicable to you…
-
-
Fritz wrote: I think you’ll find that there are few enthusiasts for the current translation, even though many people are critical of the forthcoming translation.
I am close to being an enthusiast for the current translation. It has served us well for a long time. The principles of Comme le prevoit are far more sensible than the convoluted mess of Liturgiam Authenticam, and the 2008 and forthcoming translations demonstrate the stupidity of LA.
I also don’t think that — taken as a whole — the current translation misrepresents the Latin text. And I attend a Novus Ordo Latin Mass on most Sundays; my Latin is strong enough that I can understand most of the collects, postcommunion prayers, etc., in Latin, on hearing them, as long as the priest doesn’t mumble.
Finally, although I think Joe is one of the wisest and most learned posters here, I disagree with his claim that the preces of the current translation are “sawdust”. Yes, they could have been better. The current translation was done quickly and rushed into use. But they aren’t terrible.
What makes me really sad is that the 1998 translation — not perfect, but generally so much better than anything else we have — was done with care, and then summarily rejected.
by
Please leave a reply.