www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Proposed New Translations for the Roman Liturgy

From http://fatherdowd.blogspot.com/

DTBrown,

When will these new translations be implemented? I'm very out of touch with issues concerning the text of the Mass, the GIRM, etc.

Logos Teen

My recollection is that these changes are in the works to be implemented in the next couple of years. Other changes are the reponse: "And also with you" to be changed to "And with your spirit." Also, "We believe" at the Creed is to be changed to "I believe."

I haven't heard if the more traditional "for many" will replace the current "for all" in the Words of Institution. It would seem that given the flavor of these translations (much more literal) that would change also.

Dear DTBrown,

Thank you for the heads up on the proposed new Mass texts.

After living through the changes of V2 (their implementaion was way too rushed), my first reaction is, "Not another change to the liturgy."

I don't like a complete revision of the texts for Mass. I like the simplicity of the current Eucharistic prayers. The proposed changes make the text too wordy in American English.

The small changes like "I" instead of "We" in the Creed are OK. "And with your spirit," I'm not sure.

I love the phrase in the Roman canon:

"for all who hold and teach the catholic faith that comes to us from the apostles."

compared to the proposed:

"holding to the truth, hand on the catholic and apostolic faith."

Bishops, stop torturing us Latins.

Christ is our peace,

Paul

Paul,

Our equivalent reads:

Among the first, O Lord, remember our holy Ecumenical Pontiff N . . ., the Pope of Rome, our most reverend Archbishop and Metropolitan N . . ., our God-loving Bishop N . . ., preserve them for Your holy churches, in peace, safety, honor, and health, for many years, as they faithfully dispense the word of Your truth.

I have to say I think the banality of language of the current English Roman Rite Mass text, and all ICEL texts really, has always been a problem. I am glad to see a translation that is more true to the Latin text rather than a paraphrase.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Fr Deacon Lance,

Thank you for posting a parallel text from the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom.

New translations in the liturgy and the Bible can become a firestorm among believers. For example inclusive language is a hot button issue.

I've heard criticisms if ICEL. I don't have enough information to make a judgement. Even so, Rome makes the final approval of liturgical texts. I feel safe with that.

My door is not closed. I will read and reflect on the proposed revisions to liturgical translations.

I'm tired of changes. If changes are genuinely needed, why not wait until the next generation. There is a natural and spiritual attachment that develops with the liturgy that I grew up with and practice.

I rememeber the 1962 Latin Mass too. When I attended a Latin mass a few years ago. I realized that I liked the Mass of PPVI better. I totaly respect those who prefer the Tridentine Mass. Pope John Paul II was wise to make that treasure available again.

Something I admire is the consistency of the Byzantine liturgies.

I've rambled enough.

God bless you and your ministry,

Paul

Christ is Risen!! Indeed He is Risen!!!

Having also lived through the rushed changes from the Latin texts to the ICEL texts of the late 1960s, I, too, have a reaction, though it is the opposite of that of my brother, Paul.

I have been praying for 40 years that the English translations used in the Latin Church would some day be made to say what the Church intended in the Latin texts from which the translations were made. And, thanks be to God, it looks like that day has finally come.

I have studied both languages during the period when the current culture wars got started and the current translations were made. Unfortunately, those who sought to remake the language had the upper hand during the translation process which produced the current texts. It has been said that any fourth year Latin student, who is also a native speaker of English, could have done a better job of translation. It seems, however, that the constant need to adjust the language to political ends has produced what we have had to become used to.

Finally, there is a new document--Liturgicam Authenticam--that gives the translation norms that have produced these new texts. It has taken Rome these past forty years to help us get it right.

The proposed drafts, though, are just that. They will be read and adjusted as they are studied at the various bishops conferences in the English speaking world. So the texts we are now seeing may not be the ultimate text we receive. But they are, at least, a much better start than we have had.

In all this process, though, I have always wondered what the problem has been. There were and are many translations extant of these same Latin prayers from the Liturgy. The whole discussion sometimes takes on the character of something that has never been attempted before. It makes for a strong argument that the whole thing has been a political struggle rather than an honest attempt to translate the liturgical texts.

In Christ,

BOB

"I haven't heard if the more traditional "for many" will replace the current "for all" in the Words of Institution. It would seem that given the flavor of these translations (much more literal) that would change also."

This is not correct. The translation is left "for all," and the translators included a footnote in the proposed text to explain WHY they translate it in this way---and indicate that the Italian, French, German, and Portugese translations of the Roman Missal translate it the same way.

Prof. J. Michael Thompson
Byzantine Catholic Seminary
Pittsburgh, PA

The "next generation" isn't so young any more, for one thing.

I have no more interest than you do in returning to the Tridentine Mass, but I am tired of the watered-down translation that I grew up with, and I would love to see the revised prayers put into place. ("I" and "and with your spirit" should never even have been an issue - what was the point of paraphrasing those two to begin with?)

I believe the French version actually has "pour la multitude." And, if I remember correctly, the Polish version reads similarly.

Thank you Professor Thompson for answering with what the proposed translation will be for "pro multis." It's a shame that they did not decide to follow the translation used in various Eastern Catholic and Orthodox jurisdictions and use "for many" instead of "for all." I don't agree with some of the arguments against "for all" instead of "for many" but I fail to see why it's essential for the Church not to seek a translation that would make peace with some Traditionalists when there's no real issue at stake. (If there were then we Byzantines would need to change our translation also.)

Dear Friends,

I reviewed a translation from the 1962 Roman Missal. Latin text on one page, English on the other. The English translation (unofficial) read as a more literal translation than the Mass of PPVI.

I found the more literal translation which, by the way, used the word "orthodox" is a little confusing when proclaimed in American English.

No translation is perfect. I find that the current Mass texts capture the MEANING of the Latin texts in our usage of the English language.

What I'm saying is that a translation can be literaly and technically correct, but if what is proclaimed by the words is not understood by the hearers the meaning is somewhat lost.

A similar example on translation/interpretation of sacred texts:

In a book, "A Catholic Looks at Billy Grahm," the writer points out that Dr. Graham of often uses the phrase, 'The Bible says...'. the writer further states, What we Catholics stress is: "The Bible means..."

When the English language changes signifigantly enough to make the translation outdated to the faithful, then careful revision should be consdered to make the liturgy's meaning true to the Latin text.

It is premature to revise the English version of the Roman Missal.

I think further discussion of this Latin matter should be done on a RC forum not on the Byzantine forum.

My nickel.

Paul

"Paul has spoken - the matter is finished!"

Alex

Dear Alex,

My bride used to get in the last word until
I learned to respond, "Yes dear."

Paul

Dear Paul,

I, for one, think that if the RCC allowed for married priests, the entire RC priesthood will get a good lesson in humility and obedience.

And instead of having to face the daunting task of calling the priest directly to chide him for insubordination, the bishop can simply give his wife a call . . .

I'm sure that would be a more pleasant experience all around . . .



Alex

LOL!

I understand the objection, but disagree. That's why I placed it in the Town Hall section since it's definitely not a Byzantine item but it is something that does affect the entire Church in this country. The principles behind these new translations might possibly be used some day in translations of our services so this happening in the RC Church could conceivably have an impact on our Church someday.

Non timete nos episcopos! Non!

Ah, did I just say 'Don't scare our bishops' or 'Don't fear our bishops'...? I'm not certain that the latter is even possible, after all.

The proposed texts can be viewed at:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/relrpt/liturgy.htm

Dave,

To which principles are you referring? I'm sorry, but they are not self evident to me.

I'm only speaking theoretically. The translation principles in the revision of the Roman Missal are much different than the current texts in the Roman Church. Some may feel it's an improvement. Some may disagree. Whatever the case, it's of interest to all Catholics (whether Latin or Byzantine or Syro-Malankara, etc.) as these type of disagreements over translation can affect each ritual Church.

I was only responding to the idea that what happens in the Roman Church is of no interest to Byzantines and was not making any application to events in other Churches. I apologize if I gave the impression otherwise.

Slava Isusu Christu!

Hello bretheren! It's nice to be back after a hiatus. I hope all of you are well and in good spirits.

I have recently read redemptionis sacramentum and the new (ABC exclusive)proposed rite of Mass and am rather numb about the whole thing. I mean the whole issue of the integrity of liturgical translations should of been dealt with 40 years ago - not after the Jubilee Year! But, we cannot get in our liturgical time machines, in the modern Latin Church, now can we?

I cannot imagine a Latin parish that would take the new translations, or a bishop other than a few conservatives who would take it seriously. This means that it is going to take the USCCB to go along with Rome on this; however, if this happens then wonderful! I still think the Anglicans had it right 400+ years ago :)I mean why can't they just use Rite I, for the Roman translation for English-speaking people, and be done with this issue..hehe I mean even Rite II (BCP) uses pro multis (for many) in the consecration (too bad they don't have valid priests, except odds and ends like former Catholic priest Fr. Matthew Fox, to make a valid consecration).The Book of Common Prayer had glorious English Liturgy way before ICEL or the new Commission got ahold of the revised (renewed?)Latin Missale Romanum of Paul VI. But Rome for the past 40+ years has been trying to re-invent the wheel. Hey, let-em...lets watch and see what comes of it!

At any rate...I think the neo-orthodox priests in Sem will like it.

In Christ,


Ruthenian traveler
(Robert)

The proposed new translation are an improvement. Nevertheless, it seems to be [much] too little and [much] too late.

What else is to be expected?

Logos Teen