Does anyone *not* like the revised translation?

In Hoc Signo312 · #1 Jun 5, '12, 5:47 pm

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"?

Oneofthewomen · #2 Jun 5, '12, 6:27 pm

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.

Diana Catherine · #3 Jun 5, '12, 6:39 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by In Hoc Signo312

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.

Chatter163 · #4 Jun 5, '12, 6:58 pm

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."

**ProVobis** · #5 Jun 5, '12, 7:01 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oneofthewomen

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.

Rich C · #6 Jun 5, '12, 7:23 pm

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?

Diana Catherine · #7 Jun 5, '12, 7:28 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chatter163

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.

**LilyM** · #8 Jun 5, '12, 8:10 pm

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.

Chatter163 · #9 Jun 5, '12, 9:20 pm

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?

thistle · #10 Jun 5, '12, 10:47 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by In Hoc Signo312

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.

MarkThompson · #11 Jun 5, '12, 11:12 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by In Hoc Signo312

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.

Brooklyn · #12 Jun 6, '12, 4:00 am

It is not the "revised" translation. It is the "corrected" translation.

**LilyM** · #13 Jun 6, '12, 5:06 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chatter163

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.

**ProVobis** · #14 Jun 6, '12, 5:35 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chatter163

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

How it is?

**ProVobis** · #15 Jun 6, '12, 7:00 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brooklyn

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.