While ergoglio fools the world with his fake humility and false 'mercy', the catholic universe is further falling into apostasy Personally, I enjoy using words that translate the Mass accurately and I far prefer the latest translation. I remember as a child reading a book about the quest for the Holy Grail and was fascinated by the word "chalice". That was a huge disappointment. It has now been reinstated as chalice. I agree with many of these posts that it raises the mind and heart to speak to God in more formal language when worshipping Him in the Sacrifice of the Mass.
It is also good to enlarge our vocabulary and not to bring it down to the language of the lowest common denominator. As a child I managed to learn the Latin Mass and was proud to do so. And what a relief now to have Credo translated correctly: I believe. This is each person's profession of Faith that they take responsibility for; they cannot hide behind the "we" believe.
For Earl you're absolutely right about "we believe" instead of "I believe. Tell the authorities that "I believe" in community smacks of dangerous Protestant individualism! That might get their attention, though for the wrong reasons. I am deeply grateful to these two courageous men for speaking out on behalf of all who find the new missal a stumbling block. May their tribe increase. At our deanery meetings since the introduction of the revision of the Missal we have constantly had comments wishing that the bishops of England and Wales had been sufficiently courageous to reject the new translation.
The young people cannot understand it, the mass congregations do not like it. The clergy find it still very difficult to make sense of many Collects.
Thank you Bishop Trautman for voicing our disatisfaction. Right on! Bishop Trautman's comments should get full distribution to the English-speaking world.. These are the same patronizing plonkers that said that Latin was too "hard" - well it may have been for them but it wasn't for my parents who left school at 14 and were happy to attend mass with a parallel translation should they need it.
These are the same PPs who took more than a decade to translate "pro multis" and still didn't get it right - my 11 year old with no Latin and a dictionary did it in under two minutes! If words like "consubstantial" are too "hard" then teach them!
A few sermons should do the job. If they are too hard for some Theology graduates what do they teach? This is no reason to not attend mass. If the real reason is that they do not agree with the underlying theology - that of the Catholic Church - then that is another issue.
The Mass should proclaim what we believe or are expected to believe and dodgy translations do not help. Hopefully, if we can implement Vatican II and not just its "spirit" then this aging gang which impede it will just shuffle, to heaven of course as the other place doesn't exist for them and certainly not "pro multis". Prayers are directed to GOD, who understands the words of people, whether technical or simple The mistake of the complainers about the new translation is that they think they are talking to the people.
They have forgotten what prayer is! I spoke recently to a Bishop who is now retired in the UK and asked him how we had been landed with first-rate junk in the new missal.
His comment was interesting "We were supine - we were told that this is what Rome wanted and we needed to accept it". This was under the watch of Vincent N who won't allow any discussion on women priests and a bunch of Bishops who are ill-fitted to the job.
As a lifelong member of the Church with almost 80years behind me I have seen a few changes but none so unhelpful as the current changes as proposed, at least I hope they are only 'proposed'!
If Rome will not listen to the majority view it does not understand the damage it could potentially cause. This could be from 'The Church knows best, so don't interfere' to the distinct possibility that existing and potential church members could be'turned off' by the awkward language. Even more important is how will children receive this language? My guess is that they will quickly loose interest, and vote with their feet - and children are future!
I thought 'Simplicity and clarity' was part of Pope Francis's message. Let us hope this filters through to the decision-makers who are threatening to turn the clock back many decades. Simplicity and not arrogance should prevail.
Laus Deo Semper. It has always bothered me that instead of saying we at the beginning of the Nicene Creed we say I. This creed is the creed of the church not of the individual as source. Also, I is part of we so I is not really excluded. Does anyone else agree with me or see my point.
In God's name ENOUGH of this infantile whining about a translation which, if by no means perfect, is at least something like worthy of divine worship. I never found it the slightest problem. Linguistic or theological terms were easily explained, including all those listed as SO difficult for "ordinary people" in this column.
The fact is that there is something wrong with the education of a modern Catholic who does not understand such basic concepts. Now, in old age I normally offer Mass in Latin, and due to ill-health I quite happily use the Novus Ordo, but I do occasionally use the present English translation. Yes, there are problems. Some rare expressions are appalling. Anglophone Catholics still have not found another Cranmer, but on the whole, the improvement is vast.
Several contributors ask "what can we viz. But do so in clear, simple, courteous English. Take the arguments of the other side seriously, don't ridicule them, and deepen your own understanding of the issues involved: what the language of prayer is or should be , what translation is and what it isn't , and what weight if any should be given to the international character of English, and separately to its widespread use in non-native-speaker contexts. Don't assume that all latinists I am one are necessarily committed to favouring either worship in Latin either Tridentine or Novus ordo , or in a heavily latinised English as in the present version.
You may surprize yourself by wanting to return. It is significant that the A. One of the effects of this liturgy is that it forces the celebrant to leave his "personality" in the sacristy and lose himself "In persona Christi" --and you don't need to know Latin to understand that means.
Although I do feel like condescending to explain to Bishop Trautman that it means "being humble". This has actually caused me to tip in the other direction. The people in the pews are not stupid and a little explanation of "prevenient" from the pulpit would allow them to fully appreciate what is being prayed. As for "consubstantial" who even knows if "one in being" actually conveys in English what was meant by the Greek at Nicea? I would rather have people asking "what does that refer to?
This is a massive supernatural revelation we are attempting to put in modern English, maybe it is better to cause us to pause, ask and learn about the stuff for which all human languages are inadequate. Those who refused to attend the most holy sacrifice of the mass because they are displeased with the present translation remind me of children who lack maturity. What absolute rubbish! The Instruction on Translation of Liturgical Texts issued in by the Consilium for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy read as follows: "The prayer of the Church is always the prayer of some actual community assembled here and now.
It is not sufficient that a formula handed down from some other time or region should be translated verbatim, even if accurately, for liturgical use…" no 20 Hmm I do not agree with those who claim that this is an unimportant issue. Language does matter. Indeed, it is central to how we relate I speak as a professional translator! But I also think that some slight 'jarring' with everyday language can be helpful in liturgical contexts.
Not instantly understanding can be an opporunity to look at little deeper into the texts we are praying and make them our own. Does anyone instantly 'understand' the language of the Book of Common Prayer, for example?
Nevertheless, the our Anglican friends continue to promote its use admittedly, alongside alternatives. Liturgical language should, in my view, be distinctive. On this principle alone should this poor cuckoo of a translation which has further split the Eucharistic community be consigned to the back of the sacristy cupboard.
If parishes adopted the practice of printing the whole service, as many Anglican churces do, surely the celebrant could raid the translation whenever his pastoral instincts suggested the approved prayers were unlikely to be understood Come on people; what is the fuss? I have an out of date Missal from Words are different, but message is the same. These will almost never be noticed by the average Catholic parishioner -- only by experts who study those issues.
What will be noticed most of all are the responses of the congregation to the celebrant and the prayers that the entire congregation prays together in ordinary Sunday Masses. While it is permissible to arrange the wording, the syntax and the style in such a way as to prepare a flowing vernacular text suitable to the rhythm of popular prayer, the original text, insofar as possible, must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses.
Any adaptation to the characteristics or the nature of the various vernacular languages is to be sober and discreet. That is the ruling dynamic in the new English translation of the Roman Missal that U. The instruction encouraged dynamic equivalence translations over more formal or literal translations when the cultural situation might seem to call for it; the instruction gives high priority to more literal translations from the Latin even when they might not be readily understood by the local culture.
To prepare people for the changes, the U. It has scheduled more than 20 workshops around the country this year for priests and diocesan leaders, and it has built a Web site, www. A few of the other major differences churchgoing Catholics will immediately recognize when the changes go into effect are:. Current version : I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault , in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do; and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin, all the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord, our God.
New version : I confess to almighty God and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have greatly sinned in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault; therefore I ask blessed Mary ever- Virgin, all the Angels and Saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.
Current version : Glory to God in the highest, and peace to his people on earth. Lord God, heavenly King, almighty God and Father, we worship you, we give you thanks, we praise you for your glory. Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of the Father , Lord God, Lamb of God, you take away the sin of the world: have mercy on us; you are seated at the right hand of the Father: receive our prayer. New version : Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to people of goodwill.
We praise you, we bless you, we adore you, we glorify you, we give you thanks for your great glory , Lord God, heavenly King, O God, almighty Father.
Lord Jesus Christ, Only Begotten Son Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us; you take away the sins of the world, receive our prayer; you are seated at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us.
But there will be other changes as well in the new authorized version of the Creed. Current version : We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.
Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary , and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures ; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. Its work is coordinated by a secretariat which has been based in Washington, DC since its inception.
In the first decree to issue from the Council, the Fathers wrote:. The statement of this intention essentially implied two distinct processes which would consequently result in a liturgical revolution for Catholics of the Roman Rite: a radical revision of the liturgy of the Roman Rite resulting in new liturgical books which were not merely redactions of their predecessors but included ancient liturgical texts together with texts of more recent composition and subsequently the translation of these texts into vernacular languages.
I think it is vitally important to consider these two issues together, as from the time of the Council they are virtually inseparable in the experience of the majority of Catholics. More than forty years later, if asked what liturgical changes resulted from the Council, many Catholics would simply state that in the celebration of Mass the priest began to face the people and that Mass was said in English rather than in Latin.
It comes as a shock to many people to realize that both of these developments have a much longer history and that neither of them was explicitly mandated by the Council or its decrees, although some, perhaps most, would argue that they are implicit in its formulations. The idea of liturgy in the vernacular is as old as the Church herself, just as the parallel notion of a hieratic or sacred language used in worship is considerably more ancient than Christianity.
The complex relationship between the use of both Latin and Greek, in the little we know of the earliest forms of Catholic liturgy, bears witness to the juxtaposition of these two ideas in the development of that liturgy through the centuries.
Towards the end of the first millennium, the missionary experience of the Church in the East led reformers such as Saints Cyril and Methodius to advocate the liturgical use of vernacular languages as a means of deepening comprehension of the celebration of the sacred mysteries. The Council of Trent considered the issue of vernacular celebrationii in its sessions, largely although not exclusively in response to the Protestant Reformation. Its resistance of the notion at that stage led to the clarification and codification of Latin as the sole liturgical language of the Roman Rite.
In many places the use of the vernacular, in liturgical song and devotional prayers for private and sometimes public recitation during the liturgy ensured that the idea of a vernacular element in liturgy was kept alive in the experience of many Catholics.
This was particularly true in Germany where metrical settings of German texts of the Ordinary of the Mass were frequently sung from the seventeenth century onwards. In an increasing number of countries where English was spoken, English hymnody and devotions were also greatly in evidence.
Out of this popular culture, there grew a movement for increased use of the vernacular, a movement that gathered momentum in the years immediately preceding the Second Vatican Council. In the fall of , with the Second Vatican Council still in session, several English- speaking Bishops met in Rome to discuss the production of the vernacular translations that they anticipated would be authorized by the Council.
These Bishops envisaged forming a committee which would produce uniform translations for all English-speaking countries. Their deliberations led to the formation of the International Committee later, Commission on English in the Liturgy. In , The Philippines would become the eleventh member Conference. Assisting the Bishops was a second body, the Advisory Committee, composed of liturgical experts appointed by the Episcopal Board to oversee and carry out the work.
It is now widely accepted that much that is ascribed to the Second Vatican Council was in fact the work of the Consilium for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy hereafter, Consilium , a curial committee charged with the task of implementing the provisions of Sacrosanctum Concilium by making concrete proposals.
The Consilium rapidly identified the use of the vernacular as a key to increased participation on the part of the laity, hence the emphasis on vernacular translation and the speed with which the English translation was prepared.
Concerning the principles that need to govern translation, the document says:. To achieve this end, it is not sufficient that a liturgical translation merely reproduce the expressions and ideas of the original text.
Rather it must faithfully communicate to a given people, and in their own language, that which the Church by means of this given text originally intended to communicate to another people in another time.
A faithful translation, therefore, cannot be judged on the basis of individual words: the total context of this specific act of communication must bekept in mind, as well as the literary form proper to the respective language. The Instruction goes on to underline the necessity of taking great care in the translation of Latin terms and idioms that are difficult to render in vernacular languages or present obstacles in a contemporary context not foreseen in the original text.
At the time of the production of the edition of the Missal, it was envisaged that a revision of the translation would in time be both necessary and desirable. With Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Letter Vicesimus quintus annus , issued on 4 December to mark the 25th anniversary of Sacrosanctum Concilium , there began a gradual process of evaluation, completion and consolidation of the liturgical renewal.
A draft revision of the Missal was prepared by ICEL and submitted to the Congregation in after a long and scholarly process of preparation. During this same period, the Holy See was carefully considering a fuller statement of the principles that should govern the production of vernacular translations.
The press release issued by the Holy See gives a clear indication of the significance of this Instruction:. In this regard, the Instruction takes up the observations made in by Pope John Paul II calling for progress beyond an initial phase to one of improved translations of liturgical texts.
It calls more than once for a new era in translation of liturgical texts. The most far-reaching consequence is that the Instruction embodies an entirely different approach to translation. In order to illustrate this, we must consider several important aspects of translation theory which are pertinent in this regard.
Dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence are two quite different approaches to translation. Dynamic equivalence also known as functional equivalence attempts to convey the thought expressed in a source text if necessary, at the expense of literalness, original word order, the source text's grammatical voice, etc.
The two approaches represent an emphasis, respectively, on readability and on literal fidelity to the source text. There is, however, in reality, no sharp boundary between dynamic and formal equivalence and elements of both approaches will often be evident in most translations. Broadly speaking, the two represent a spectrum of translation approaches, each approach having its own integrity and resulting in a translation that demonstrates characteristics in marked contrast to each other stylistically.
The terms "dynamic equivalence" and "formal equivalence", as you may know, are associated with the translator Eugene Nida born , and were originally coined to describe ways of translating the Scriptures, but the two approaches are applicable to any translation.
0コメント