Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Liturgy and Sacraments
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #1  
Old Jun 5, '12, 5:47 pm
In Hoc Signo312 In Hoc Signo312 is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2011
Posts: 6
Religion: Roman Catholic with Eastern Orthodox Sympathies
Default Does anyone *not* like the revised translation?

Maybe it's just because I'm still not used to it, maybe there's a few fragments where the old one seemed to make more sense...

Furthermore, why did it take so long to revise it if it was supposedly so "flawed"?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old Jun 5, '12, 6:27 pm
Oneofthewomen's Avatar
Oneofthewomen Oneofthewomen is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2009
Posts: 2,668
Religion: Catholic
Send a message via ICQ to Oneofthewomen
Default Re: Does anyone *not* like the revised translation?

There are parts I love- especially the new "collects" (opening prayers).
I am not really crazy about the use of "chalice" instead of "cup" in the EP, and some of the grammar and syntax make me nutty!!

I was talking with my grandmother, who remembers well the so-called "golden age" of American Catholicism from the 1930's-1950's, and she asked me why this "consubstantal", how is that better than "one in being with"? At least I know what that means, she said.

As far as taking so long, (from what I remember from a lecture I attended, given by a priest & the Director of Liturgy for my diocese,) what we have know is actually the third attempt. The project, I believe, was started by Blessed JPII and when Cardinal Ratzinger became Pope, he had to put his seal of approval on it, and from what I understand, this was something the two men did not always agree upon. So the second translation was sent back to the proverbal drawing board and it became what we have now.
__________________
The most difficult thing I have ever had to do is follow the guidance I prayed for.
-Albert Schweitzer

Musings From One of the Women
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old Jun 5, '12, 6:39 pm
Diana Catherine Diana Catherine is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: February 25, 2012
Posts: 854
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Does anyone *not* like the revised translation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by In Hoc Signo312 View Post
Maybe it's just because I'm still not used to it, maybe there's a few fragments where the old one seemed to make more sense...

Furthermore, why did it take so long to revise it if it was supposedly so "flawed"?
I like it. I prefer it to what was said before. I feel it is a more accurate translation.

When the USCCB first started talking about the changes they put out several videos on why the changes and from what I remember them explaining why it took so long was because it is very difficult to get an accurate translation and it can take many years to work through it all and then get it approved and perhaps if something isn't quite right they have to re do it.
__________________
God bless.

Thus saith the Lord: Stand ye on the ways, and see and ask for the old paths which is the good way, and walk ye in it: and you shall find refreshment for your souls. Jeremiah 6:16[/i]
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old Jun 5, '12, 6:58 pm
Chatter163's Avatar
Chatter163 Chatter163 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: April 24, 2005
Posts: 3,361
Religion: Roman Catholic
Exclamation Re: Does anyone *not* like the revised translation?

Many of us thirty years ago were pointing out the inaccuracies and less-than-optimal translations, but few in the establishment wanted to listen in those days. Such complaints were regarded as "anti-Vatican II."
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old Jun 5, '12, 7:01 pm
ProVobis ProVobis is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: January 26, 2008
Posts: 28,618
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Does anyone *not* like the revised translation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneofthewomen View Post
I was talking with my grandmother, who remembers well the so-called "golden age" of American Catholicism from the 1930's-1950's, and she asked me why this "consubstantal", how is that better than "one in being with"? At least I know what that means, she said.
If I recall, the "one in being" language was ICEL-developed in the 60's. No English was used in the liturgy until the 60's but either "consubstantial to the Father" (Patri is in dative case) or "one in substance with" had been written in the Latin-English missals prior to that point.

That said, I haven't been to an English Mass in quite a while so I have no English translation preference.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old Jun 5, '12, 7:23 pm
Rich C's Avatar
Rich C Rich C is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2011
Posts: 1,845
Religion: Irish Catholic
Default Re: Does anyone *not* like the revised translation?

Ironically, I was the only person I knew who was excited about this before 2011, and by the time it came I had gotten hooked on the Extraordinary Form and sort of missed it.

How it is?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old Jun 5, '12, 7:28 pm
Diana Catherine Diana Catherine is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: February 25, 2012
Posts: 854
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Does anyone *not* like the revised translation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chatter163 View Post
Many of us thirty years ago were pointing out the inaccuracies and less-than-optimal translations, but few in the establishment wanted to listen in those days. Such complaints were regarded as "anti-Vatican II."

Yes, my dad was one of those who just kept saying the translations just weren't right. You're correct, people didn't want to listen.
__________________
God bless.

Thus saith the Lord: Stand ye on the ways, and see and ask for the old paths which is the good way, and walk ye in it: and you shall find refreshment for your souls. Jeremiah 6:16[/i]
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old Jun 5, '12, 8:10 pm
LilyM's Avatar
LilyM LilyM is offline
Forum Elder
Forum Supporter
 
Join Date: February 1, 2006
Posts: 33,198
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Does anyone *not* like the revised translation?

Most of the new translation is fine - things like 'through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault' and 'Lord I am not worthy that you should enter ...' are only return ing to what I remember from childhood.

'Consubstantial' is a bit unfortunate - something less clunky like 'of one substance' could surely be found which is equally accurate and rich in meaning but less difficult to say and understand.
__________________

Christ The Lord Is Risen Today! Alleluia!!


God bless and keep our new Pope Francis - Viva il Papa!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old Jun 5, '12, 9:20 pm
Chatter163's Avatar
Chatter163 Chatter163 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: April 24, 2005
Posts: 3,361
Religion: Roman Catholic
Thumbs up Re: Does anyone *not* like the revised translation?

The problem with the former "one in being," was that it did not even mention substance, which is a key metaphysical concept contained in the Latin.

The Anglicans had traditionally translated consubstantialem as "being of one substance," which I always thought was reasonable and accurate. However, I am fine with consubstantial. It should be fairly easy to tell its meaning from context, and even if it is not, one simply gets to learn a new theological and philosophical word. Is that such a bad thing?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old Jun 5, '12, 10:47 pm
thistle thistle is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: August 23, 2005
Posts: 20,200
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Does anyone *not* like the revised translation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by In Hoc Signo312 View Post
Maybe it's just because I'm still not used to it, maybe there's a few fragments where the old one seemed to make more sense...

Furthermore, why did it take so long to revise it if it was supposedly so "flawed"?
Its introduction here in the Philippines was delayed by a year so we are not using the new translation yet.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old Jun 5, '12, 11:12 pm
MarkThompson MarkThompson is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2010
Posts: 5,330
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Does anyone *not* like the revised translation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by In Hoc Signo312 View Post
Furthermore, why did it take so long to revise it if it was supposedly so "flawed"?
Because the Church moves slowly. In reality, there had been plans to revise it ever since the '70s, but other things simply took precedence over the following decade. Eventually a lot of work was done in the '90s culminating in a proposed 1998 version, but this introduced as many new problems as it eliminated of the old, and it was rejected by the Vatican. In 2001 the Vatican issued the instruction Liturgiam Authenticam on the appropriate methodology for liturgical translation, and in 2003 a (slightly) revised edition of the base Latin text of the Mass, the Missale Romanum was issued. From that point, it took around six years of proposals, consultations, and major work, followed by another year or so of revisions and the better part of another year to print the books and prepare people for it.
__________________
Qui meditabitur in lege Domini die ac nocte, dabit fructum suum in tempore suo.

Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old Jun 6, '12, 4:00 am
Brooklyn Brooklyn is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: June 23, 2007
Posts: 2,389
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Does anyone *not* like the revised translation?

It is not the "revised" translation. It is the "corrected" translation.
__________________
http://catholicinbrooklyn.blogspot.com/

Discussion about God risks losing its interior strength, and witness withers, if not animated, sustained and accompanied by prayer.
Pope Benedict XVI
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old Jun 6, '12, 5:06 am
LilyM's Avatar
LilyM LilyM is offline
Forum Elder
Forum Supporter
 
Join Date: February 1, 2006
Posts: 33,198
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Does anyone *not* like the revised translation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chatter163 View Post
The problem with the former "one in being," was that it did not even mention substance, which is a key metaphysical concept contained in the Latin.

The Anglicans had traditionally translated consubstantialem as "being of one substance," which I always thought was reasonable and accurate. However, I am fine with consubstantial. It should be fairly easy to tell its meaning from context, and even if it is not, one simply gets to learn a new theological and philosophical word. Is that such a bad thing?
Given that 4 year olds are also having to try to learn it, needlessly IMHO, yes it is. We are not all great theologians or philosophers, and cannot all hope to be either.

Our Lord used the simplest language possible, even when speaking of the great mysteries of our faith - 'the Father and I are one' - 'This is My body' - 'what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven' and so on. He didn't express things in an unnecessarily difficult way.
__________________

Christ The Lord Is Risen Today! Alleluia!!


God bless and keep our new Pope Francis - Viva il Papa!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old Jun 6, '12, 5:35 am
ProVobis ProVobis is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: January 26, 2008
Posts: 28,618
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Does anyone *not* like the revised translation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chatter163 View Post
The problem with the former "one in being," was that it did not even mention substance, which is a key metaphysical concept contained in the Latin.

The Anglicans had traditionally translated consubstantialem as "being of one substance," which I always thought was reasonable and accurate. However, I am fine with consubstantial. It should be fairly easy to tell its meaning from context, and even if it is not, one simply gets to learn a new theological and philosophical word. Is that such a bad thing?
For what it's worth, "being of one divine nature" IMO might have been a little more accurate theologically. I'm not sold on much of the Anglican translation(s).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich C View Post
How it is?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old Jun 6, '12, 7:00 am
ProVobis ProVobis is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: January 26, 2008
Posts: 28,618
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Does anyone *not* like the revised translation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklyn View Post
It is not the "revised" translation. It is the "corrected" translation.
That depends on how it is received. On another forum, I translated bits of Polish from some video that was presented. I had listened to the video 3-4 times and I had supporting evidence for my translation but one person took exception to my translation anyway. Apparently it did not fit his position so I "revised" it somewhat for him/her through PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Liturgy and Sacraments

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8481Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: SueZee
5154CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: UpUpAndAway
4429Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: daughterstm
4037OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: eschator83
3864SOLITUDE
Last by: Prairie Rose
3764Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: DesertSister62
3334Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3288Poems and Reflections
Last by: tonyg
3227Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: Rifester
3120For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: flower lady



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 6:25 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.