What If We Just Said Wait?

[Matilda]

This is a link to a website I found, which shows some examples of the current translation, the rejected 1998 translation, and the proposed new/old translation. It's rather heartbreaking to see what we missed out on.

Take a look, and if you think the proposed translation isn't up to scratch, you can sign your name to a petition. I'm sure it won't do a blind bit of good, but I always think we should let authority know when we're annoyed with them. Particularly the Vatican, with its current concept of the papacy as an absolute monarchy.

http://www.whatifwejustsaidwait.org/1998missal.htm

[hedgehog]

1. How's the new translation working out? What reactions (if any)

have there been?

[Matilda]

2. In our church, generally negative.

We have a sung mass at 10.30 Sunday - of what has been tried so far, the choir aren't happy, the congregation isn't happy, and the priests aren't happy. Most of them have said publicly that they're not in favour of the change.

If we don't have the words on the screens in the church, we just forget and say the old ones. Last Sunday when it came to the Gloria, the words didn't appear, so we all automatically said the old version. Then the new words suddenly appeared, and we tried to pick it up, but there was great confusion while we tried to figure out where we were. The screen was slow to change to the second section, the congregation didn't know what to say, the priest threw his hands up in the air, we all laughed, then finished the final section strongly.

We didn't have the Creed up, so Father said "I'll just read the Apostles' Creed" to avoid the confusion – even he doesn't know the new version by heart. We've always said the Nicene Creed, so I don't know why suddenly they're substituting the Apostles' Creed, but we don't know either of the new versions anyway.

I can tell you – it's going to be very difficult to plunge straight in at Advent if you haven't done any prior work on it. I doubt we'll be able to do it without reading, even with months of practice. The old words are too firmly entrenched.

A German friend of mine said they've been saying the new version in Germany all year – being German, I guess they're very obedient.


Edit: sp

[47of74]

5. I went to a session on the new translation last night...

...and I have to say I don't have a good feeling about a lot of these changes. Especially since Rome went and :sarcasm: worked their magic :sarcasm: on the new translation after the translators and experts working for the English speaking conferences put so much work into it. Some of the language seems quite stuffy and quite stilted.

And if Rome intended for the "my sacrifice and your sacrifice" to mean that since the priest was speaking in persona Christi that Christ's sacrifice and the sacrifice of the people of the church - which is what the speaker we had last night indicated it was - Rome did not do a very good job with that phrase.

[brendan120678]

3. I'm not completely opposed to all of the coming changes...

In fact, some of them I particularly like. I know that puts me in the minority of some of my fellow Catholics here - but oh well. I do understand some of the reservations that people have about the coming changes. Some of the prayers are a little less flowing and to an extent awkward.

I'm not old (only 32!), but I guess I am an "old fashioned" Catholic. I love going to our parish's Extraordinary Form Mass (Tridentine Latin Mass) whenever I can. It's offered every Sunday evening - Low Mass during the summer and High Mass the rest of the year.

[Matilda]

4. The Latin Mass has a beauty of its own.

I've always liked Latin - it's very precise in meaning, and has a lovely sound and rhythm that is pleasing to the ear. But if it's translated word for word, as JPII and Benedict demanded, it sounds awkward and clumsy, and the language used in the "new" translation is archaic.

This is against the aim and spirit of Vatican II, which ordered that the mass be translated in a way that would make it accessible to all in their own language. Who among us today uses words like "consubstantial" and "ineffable" in daily speech? It's the equivalent of asking us to speak English as Shakespeare wrote it – we can appreciate the beauty of his prose, and it's sublime when trained actors speak his words, but we'd sound pretty damn silly if we tried to speak that way today.

It's a shame that in the rush to get the new missal out in 1972, some of the translations were rather banal, and didn't always say what the Latin meant; the hotly debated translation of "et cum spiritu tuo" as "and also with you" is a perfect case. English was the only language that didn't translate the Latin to mean "and with your spirit", for some reason, so I'm happy to go with that - if only I could remember it!

But take a look at the "new" translation of this Advent Collect, which is a prime example of how not to do it:


O God, eternal majesty,
whose ineffable Word
the immaculate Virgin received
through the message of an Angel,
we pray that, following the example
of her who became the dwelling place of divinity,
and is filled with the light of the Holy Spirit,
we may humbly hold fast to your will.

This is what the ICEL committee came up with in 1998:

O God,
by consenting to the message of an angel
the immaculate Virgin
became the dwelling of your eternal Word
and was filled with the light of the Holy Spirit.
Give us the grace to follow her example
and devote ourselves humbly to your will.


The first is archaic and clumsy, and unless it's said very carefully with pauses in all the right places, would be so much gobbledegook to listeners, whereas the 1998 is both lovely and easy to comprehend. But because it's not a word-for-word translation, the Vatican squashed it.

That is my objection - commonsense and clarity have been thrown out the window, and it is definitely not "accessible" to all the faithful. To return to the exact translation of the Latin Mass shows neither creativity nor imagination, and a sad lack of knowledge of how the English language can be used in the hands of an expert.

There was always a happy medium, but the Vatican has chosen to ignore both its bishops and the laity, and, above all, the decrees of Vatican II. And that, I suggest, is what this is really about - rolling back Vatican II.