Fr Z links to and quotes an important point made at the blog Serviam: A Semantic Proposition. He outlines the different reactions to the new ICEL translation and points out that many people have no idea what is really going on:
As most people don’t know there is anything wrong with the current translations, their default position will likely be “why hassle me with a change where none is needed?” They might also conclude that the original prayers were simply re-written by Pope Benedict to reflect his conservative agenda. Then we are put in a defensive position from square one.In my own comments to people about the new translations, I have always pointed out that the older translations are inaccurate in many places and deficient in many others, and that the new translations are a vast improvement in terms of fidelity to the text that we were supposed to be using all along.
When people (especially priests) look doubtful about this, I generally quote my favourite example which has appeared several times on this blog before:
Latin textThere are many, many other examples of the disservice done by the translation which we have had to use for several decades.
accipens et hunc praeclarum calicem in sanctas ac venerabiles manus suas
Old ICEL
he took the cup
New ICEL
he took this precious chalice in his holy and venerable hands
There is much talk of the need for preparation and catechesis for the new translations. In some cases, at least, I think this is just a part of the foot-dragging that has dogged the process of preparing the texts. Nowhere have I seen any official preparatory material that actually admits that primary reason for the new ICEL translations is that the old translations were faulty and defective. if we do not tell people this, we are simply not being honest with them. I agree with Serviam who says:
I suggest our default reference be “corrected translation” or “new corrected translation.” By adding the word “corrected” to all references, we teach that the original translations were defective and that this was a repair, not the promotion of an agenda. We communicate the the real reasons for the change from the outset, not in defense against those on the left who ARE promoting an agenda.So it's "new Corrected translation" here from now on.
Fr Z has a poll too.
13 comments:
True Father
Some teaching of what the Mass is might still be good for those who were never taught or who have forgotton.
I would offer the idea that modern secular sacrifice seems to take the form of a sponsored event such as cycling to Rome. The concept of a sacrificial offering is not new, just modified over time.
I went to a talk on the new translation by a priest who made 3 telling points (among many others) as to why we need a new translation.
1. We are still using edition 1 of the Missale Romanun whereas we should be on edition 3
2. The unity of the Church is threatened by using, for example, "for all" when no other translation, and no liturgy ancient or modern, uses other than "for many".
3. The more accurate translation restores scriptural references: eg "from the rising of the sun to its setting" occurs twice in the psalms, and elsewhere.
Ironic, isn't it, that the corrected translation, so much closer to the original Latin, is seen as an unwelcome innovation, using 'elitist' language according to a Bishop.
Jews can manage Hebrew, Muslims learn Arabic, both difficult languages.
Are we English so stupid or lazy that we can't cope with 'ineffable' or 'venerable'?
Plese excuse typos - new glasses.
My son, a 7th grader in an Omaha, Nebraska Catholic school, came home with the following report today.
Before Mass, Sister was in a huff. She told the kids, "Enjoy Mass while you can. Next year there will be a new translation and everything will change!"
My son, full of hope, couldn't wait to ask me, "Will they change the music too??"
"Will they get rid of the piano and drums and rock songs and clapping and hand motions?"
"How long do I have to wait for the change?? A whole year???"
I guess Fr. Gutgsell's EF Mass at St. Cecilia's cathedral has poisoned my son! (We were four of thirteen souls in attendance Saturday night.)
http://www.archomaha.org/newsevents/pdf/Roman_Missal_approval.pdf
Here is a great quote from the Archdiocese website:
"Unlike the implementation of the Roman Missal after the Second Vatican Council, there will be no significant ritual changes in the liturgy as a result of the third edition. This will afford parish priests the time to review their application of the ars celebrandi to ensure that any abuses or aberrations that may have crept into the liturgy are corrected."
http://www.archomaha.org/romanmissal/priestdeacons.html
Love your blog, Father.
Hrothgar
PS: Tabula Delenda Est
A point Pepinster made recently in respect of blogs (web logs) has some validity. Her claim was that their contents imply that a culture war is taken place in parishes when in reality this is not the case and I agree.
Whilst I accept that in the USA there are (perhaps) the first signs of a culture war erupting notably in the form of "Tea Parties" we are seeing nothing like that in Europe in general and the UK in particular. Even then the Tea Parties have already been corrupted by neo-conservative elements working in tandem with Fox news journalists to restore "normal service" so short of a military coup, I see no change there.
The culture war issue is worth exploring however. The changes experienced by the Church these last 45 years have been so radical and dramatic, that they presuppose the existence of a culture war in the first instance to anticipate them. Yet all fair minded historians agree that this was not the case and that no such war existed. John XXIII's optimistic opening address to the Council reflected the mind set of many parishes throughout North American and certainly the Anglo-Saxon World if not Western Europe. The average parish was a safe, peaceful and vibrant community forward looking and confident of the future.
For that reason let us leave the liturgy alone.The Vatican II project has failed. Like a Shakespearean tragedy, let it run its miserable course. Oppose the reform of the reform.
I would also like to mention that here in the US we need a better official translation of the Bible to be used in the OF Mass. Get rid of the dull NAB and replace it with the more popular and accurate RSVCE.
Why not just call it 'the correct translation'. End of story.
Jesus Christ did not take “a precious chalice".
"He the cup" (I Cor 11: 25)
"He took a cup" (Matt 26:27)
"He cup a cup" (Mark 14:23
"He did the same with the cup after supper.." (Luke: 22:20)
"The inspired books teach the truth. Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confined to the Sacred Scriptures." (Catechism of the Catholic Church No. 107)
Just as the Sacred Scripture is the “soul of theology” it should also be the “soul of the Liturgy”. Let’s not alter Holy Writ for pious claptrap!
My own illustration of what is lost in the old ICEL translation is
Domine, non sum dignum ut intres sub tectum meum, sed tntum dic verbo, et sanabatur anima mea.
The old translation of
"Lord I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed" does not easily recall this response as being modified from the Centurion's declaration of faith in Jesus.
The old Chinese translation - " Lord, I am not worthy that you should come into my heart, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed" at least gets the "anima" in, but still omits the "intres sub tectum meum".
Lawrence - your comment raises a matter that is worthy of a post in its own right which I will do today or tomorrow.
Lawrence,
There is not one single liturgy in the history of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches which quotes the Institution Narrative exactly according to the words of Scripture, nor has historical Christianity ever considered itself bound to use only the exact words of Scripture in its prayers. In the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil, the Institution Narrative reads: (count the non-scriptural words!)
...when He was about to go forth to His voluntary, ever memorable, and life-giving death, on the night on which He was delivered up for the life of the world, He took bread in His holy and pure hands, and presenting it to You, God and Father, and offering thanks, blessing, sanctifying, and breaking it, He gave it to His holy disciples and apostles saying: Take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you and for the forgiveness of sins.
Likewise, He took the cup of the fruit of vine, and having mingled it, offering thanks, blessing, and sanctifying it, He gave it to His holy disciples and apostles saying: Drink of this all of you. This is my blood of the new Covenant, shed for you and for many, for the forgiveness of sins.
Dear Father:
I am writing an article promoting the revised translation of the Roman Missal. A dear priest friend of mine gave me his copy of a 1966 Roman Missal that has English translations. Evidently, there was another version that predated this one.
Did the USCCB (I'm American) start using some sort of an English hybrid during this time frame?
Thank you
Michelle
Michelle - the old hand missals used an unofficial translation. In 1964, some English was allowed, and there would have been an official translation for congregational use. There were quite a few changes between then and the publication of the old ICEL translation.
Post a Comment