Bishop Criticizes 'slavishly Literal' English Translation Of M

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='03 November 2009 - 10:06 AM' timestamp='1257260780' post='1995665']
Well I've pretty much said all I have to say on the subject, and what the Bishop stated in his article is right.

I'll leave with one quote from the Vatican II Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy, on what the translation of the Mass should entail.




Some have use the term, dumbing down. However, text are retranslated over the centuries in order to keep the language with current norms, so people of the current age, can understand what was written. St. John of the Cross's "Ascent of Mt Carmel," has been translated into English four different times since the 17th century, and it will be translate again. No one speaks in 16th century Spanish as St. John wrote, so, as language changes, new translations will be required in the future.

So too is the Liturgy of the Mass. It makes no sense to translate back to the 16th century forms of English and understanding.

Some call the current Novus Ordo format, a dumbed down translation. I call the new reversed translation, just plain stupid.

The Bishop was gentle enough to call it "slavishly translated."

Now those who have been hasrsh on the Bishop, go look up the word "slavishly."

Jim
[/quote]

Action failed: You have reached your quota of negative votes for the day

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='03 November 2009 - 01:02 PM' timestamp='1257271347' post='1995723']
In other words, when the Latin Mass was put together, they took into account the langauge and understanding of the common person, back then, especially because most people could not read.

Jim
[/quote]

Wrong. Many parts of the Mass (the Canon of the Mass being foremost among these) were written in a poetical style of Latin that would have been both more archaic and more literary than the vulgar Latin spoken by the Roman plebeians in the fifth century, when the Roman Canon took its complete and final form.* In fact, the language of the Roman Canon was to fifth century Latin speakers what Elizabethan English is to English speakers today.

*I am not here including the addition of St. Joseph's name to the "Communicantes" in 1962 or the modifications to the words of consecration and the addition of the memorial acclamation in 1969.

Edited November 3, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Slappo]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='03 November 2009 - 01:56 PM' timestamp='1257285366' post='1995819']
Wrong. Many parts of the Mass (the Canon of the Mass being foremost among these) were written in a poetical style of Latin that would have been both more archaic and more literary than the vulgar Latin spoken by the Roman plebeians in the fifth century, when the Roman Canon took its complete and final form.* In fact, the language of the Roman Canon was to fifth century Latin speakers what Elizabethan English is to English speakers today.

*I am not here including the addition of St. Joseph's name to the "Communicantes" in 1962 or the modifications to the words of consecration and the addition of the memorial acclamation in 1969.
[/quote]

Action failed: You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day

[Slappo]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='03 November 2009 - 10:02 AM' timestamp='1257271347' post='1995723']
Slappo'





Actually, certain parts of the new translation, are taken litterally from the Latin Format, which is 1500 years old. In other words, when the Latin Mass was put together, they took into account the langauge and understanding of the common person, back then, especially because most people could not read.

Jim
[/quote]

Oh so we are coming out with a literal translation of the Latin into an English context of 1,500 years ago?

That would be Old English, which would make the Our Father look like this:
Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum, Si þin nama gehalgod. To becume þin rice, gewurþe ðin willa, on eorðan swa swa on heofonum. (ETC...)

This in fact is NOT what the translations are coming out as. As a matter of fact, we aren't even using "thee's" and "thou's" in the new translation, which mean it can't be a 500 year old version of English either. It is in fact a [b]noble but common[/b] modern translation.


If all it takes for a common person (meaning not mentally disabled in anyway, but average IQ) to fully understand the texts is to look a few words up in the dictionary, then it is not an uncommon or overly lofty translation. An overly lofty translation would be one where it required careful study of the texts to understand what was going on, not a couple dictionary definitions of words like [b]incarnate[/b] that they should have learned in CCD anyways.

Learning words like consubstantiation (transubstantiation they should know) is easy. Break down transubstantiation into it's root words (trans: across, substantiation: substance, Across substances), and then do consubstantiation (con: with, substantiation: substance. Literally, with substance, with the same substance as). It would take one or two ccd lessons to explain to the average high schooler the words in the mass.


Having to spend 1 hour for the average adult to come to an understanding of new words in the mass is not asking too much. Even the average Sunday Joe Catholic. Say this traslation is around for 40 years, thats 52 sunday masses for 40 years = 2080 Sunday masses with a new translation (over 2000 hours in mass) and it takes 1 hour (or less) to understand them.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Slappo' date='03 November 2009 - 07:07 PM' timestamp='1257289648' post='1995853']
Having to spend 1 hour for the average adult to come to an understanding of new words in the mass is not asking too much. Even the average Sunday Joe Catholic. Say this translation is around for 40 years, thats 52 sunday masses for 40 years = 2080 Sunday masses with a new translation (over 2000 hours in mass) and it takes 1 hour (or less) to understand them.
[/quote]

Evidently Jim believes catholics are too stupid for even this...

[MithLuin]

Sometimes we forget that many people just don't like change. They get all bent out of shape when you change something just because it is [i]different[/i].

That will [u]certainly[/u] happen when we change the translation of the mass; it would be very naive to think otherwise.

The trick is to warn people ahead of time, and ease them through the transition. We'll get there, but there [i]will[/i] be plenty of masses where people try to say the responses they have memorized and forget about the new words.

I am looking forward to the "with your spirit" business, though. Ever since I attended mass in Italy and figured out that's what it was supposed to be, I've been tickled silly with that version.

I would also be a lying hypocrite to say I think the translation we have now is [i]bad[/i] - I don't. In fact...I've been attending mass in America my whole life using it, and obviously I find mass a moving and spiritual experience.

I see this as 'tweaking', not 'they changed everything?!!!!'

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='MithLuin' date='03 November 2009 - 05:38 PM' timestamp='1257295125' post='1995887']
I would also be a lying hypocrite to say I think the translation we have now is [i]bad[/i] - I don't. [/quote]
You are right, because in some cases the texts from the 1970s are not even a bad translation; in fact, they are not a translation at all, but are instead a paraphrase. For example:


[i]Prayer before communion:[/i] "Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum: sed tantum dic verbo, et sanabitur anima mea."

[i]2009 translation:[/i] Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

[i]1970s paraphrase:[/i] Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word, and I shall be healed.


[i]Eucharistic Prayer III:[/i] "Vere Sanctus es, Domine, et merito te laudat omnis a te condita creatura, quia per Filium tuum, Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum, Spiritus Sancti operante virtute, vivificas et sanctificas universa, et populum tibi congregare non desinis, ut a solis ortu usque ad occasum oblatio munda offeratur nomini tuo."

[i]2009 translation:[/i] You are indeed Holy, O Lord, and all you have created rightly gives you praise, for through your Son our Lord Jesus Christ, by the power and working of the Holy Spirit, you give life to all things and make them holy, and you never cease to gather a people to yourself, so that from the rising of the sun to its setting a pure sacrifice may be offered to your name.

[i]1970s paraphrase:[/i] Father, you are holy indeed, and all creation rightly gives you praise. All life, all holiness comes from you through your Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, by the working of the Holy Spirit. From age to age you gather a people to yourself, so that from east to west a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your name.

Edited November 4, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Theoketos]

Is there a chance you and the good Bishop you quote misunderstand the council fathers and the meaning of liturgy?

It seems to me that you think children and adults of are incapable of learning. I hope that is not so.

May God grant you Wisdom of little ones.

The hand writing is on the wall and the reform of the reform will not be undone by ignorance or disobedience this time. The Bishop you quote is known for serious liturgical abuse.

I hope that you Jim, as long as you have this negative attitude, are in no way are in charge of teaching either the English language or rather any other language for that matter let alone catechizing youth with such an attitude.

[Apotheoun]

My take on the good bishop's position is that he does misunderstand the council, because the simplification of the prayers and services of the Roman Rite requested by the Council Fathers was carried out prior to the publication of the Latin typical editions. Thus, the work of translating those revised Latin texts into the vernacular languages has nothing at all to do with "further" simplification of the Roman Church's liturgy, but instead involves faithfully relating what the Latin texts say, without injecting some type of modern ideology into the Church's worship.

Edited November 4, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Theoketos]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='03 November 2009 - 10:12 PM' timestamp='1257304350' post='1995934']
My take on the good bishop's position is that he does misunderstand the council, because the simplification of the prayers and services of the Roman Rite requested by the Council Fathers was carried out prior to the publication of the Latin typical editions. Thus, the work of translating those revised Latin texts into the vernacular languages has nothing at all to do with "further" simplification of the Roman Church's liturgy, but instead involves faithfully relating what the Latin texts say, without injecting some type of modern ideology into the Church's worship.
[/quote]


Exactly!

The council Fathers did not intend such wide use of the venacular, though I for one enjoy its use. Sacrosanctum Concilium anticipates a "simpler" noble Latin Mass.

On the other hand the council wanted and the Church wants Latin, the normal language of our right to have its proper pride of place still btw...

AND I really hope the Bishop is here just ignorant and not malicious. There were clearly vicious actions taken in the implementation of Vatican II.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='03 November 2009 - 08:18 PM' timestamp='1257304739' post='1995935']
AND I really hope the Bishop is here just ignorant and not malicious.
[/quote]
I will give him the benefit of the doubt, but I must admit that I am glad that he will be retiring in about two years.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='03 November 2009 - 10:20 PM' timestamp='1257304847' post='1995937']
I will give him the benefit of the doubt, but I must admit that I am glad that he will be retiring in about two years.
[/quote]