Okay, so maybe ‘faith alone’ is a stretch. But I see the Centurion’s story as one primarily about faith. While I think the communion prayer is primarily about humility. So I think the previous translation is better. I think the previous translation also ties it in better with the Eucharist by using the phrase “to receive you” instead of “enter under my roof”.
But the previous translation missed the whole scriptural basis. You keep saying it’s about the translation, but your problem seems to be with the official text itself. You only liked the previous translation because it was not a translation. Your arrgument at least proves my point that as far as quality of translation goes, that was the worse part of the mass.
Furthermore, as yo your argument about the reply “but only say the word…” implies faith alone and not needing to receive: is not that part the same in both translations? Why is that just a problem now?
I don’t think so. The scriptural basis is just not as obvious, it’s not overpowering the prayer. And that’s why I prefer it. Because I don’t think the scriptural basis fits very well at that point in the Mass anyway.
Yes it’s the same “but only say the word…” But the newer translation brings the scripture to the front with the “enter under my roof” part, and overshadows the communion prayer. We are saying a prayer, not reciting scripture.
Maybe I don’t remember the old translation. “Only say the word”… I thought was the same. I do not see how that is problematic in response to " …to enter under my roof". ,but is a fine response to “…to receive you”. Replying to the former implies faith alone, replying to the latter doesn’t?
That’s my point, your problem is not with the translation, but with this part of the mass itself. The old translation was only okay because it hid the part of the mass you don’t like.
It’s more with the translation being changed. I don’t have a problem with it being used as long as the translation is properly understood in English.
I don’t understand Latin, but I don’t think a word for word translation of the Latin into English would suffice to carry over the Latin meaning, or so I have read. I trust that the previous translation was faithful to the meaning that is supposed to be conveyed in the Latin.
I guess it seems as if I am splitting hairs. But the previous translation was a good one for the purpose that the USCCB’s website says is expressing humility. I believe the previous English translation was well thought out, and meant to convey humility on our part while still retaining enough of it’s scriptural basis.
By previous, I assume you refer to the translation immediately prior to the form we are now using.
I am not sure you’ve acknowledged the earlier posts that indicated we are actually changing back to the form we are now using. What are your thoughts about that?
Can scripture ever overpower prayer, or do scripture and prayer support and reflect each other?
If Latin was our venacular, and as such the Latin text was our version in this country, it would bring the scriptural reference “to the front” (to use yourphrase). It would be the Latin equivalent of “…under my roof”, not “…to receive you”.
Your problem is not the translation, it is with the wording of the mass itself, a scriptural reference that has been there at least 400 years, likely much longer.
And now your gaslighting. Not responding to you anymore.
I honestly don’t know what you’re asking here.
Well yes. I do think the scriptural basis can overshadow the prayer if the prayer isn’t written well.
They do reflect each other. That doesn’t mean that people writing the prayer can’t get their wording wrong.
Some people think that the English translation of the Our Father should be changed.
I am most certainly not. I am trying to accurately frame the discussion. Are you actually taking issue with a translation problem, or are you taking issue with a problematic part of the mass? It makes a difference. It should make a difference in you approach the problem and how we address your concerns.
I looked up gaslighting, I am not trying to make you question your sanity, I am trying to come to at least a common understanding of the issue being discussed.
You are repeatedly telling me that I have an issue with something that I keep telling you I don’t have an issue with.
“I am unworthy to receive you” is identical meaning in English with “I am unworthy that you should enter under my roof.”
When I “receive a guest” I open my door to my house and bid the guest enter (under my roof).
“I am unworthy to receive you” does not mean in English “I am unworthy to consume you by eating your flesh and drinking your blood.”
It is a mistake to think the prior wording meant, “I am unworthy to eat and drink you.” It meant then in the prior wording and now using the word roof, “I am unworthy to receive you into my abode as a guest.”
Ok, I wont tell you. I will pose a question. If we assume the current translation is a near literal translation of the Latin, why do you only have an issue with the English translation and not the Latin text of the mass?
How did you come up with this ^. Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems to contradict what you posted upthread:
”Only say the word…” and the Word is uttered, “Take and eat, this is my body.”
He said the word, and I am compelled to obey his command to take, eat.
I am not worthy, yet he commanded me anyway. Who am I to question his command?
All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. Lumen gentium 14
This is the principle that I think is illustrated by the quote. We are outsiders, present only by the special grace of Christ.
There is more that can be traced to the scripture. The centurion is a man who is used to giving order. He is not a child, or other helpless person. He is a man with authority, who recognizes that he is unworthy. It is always the grace of Christ, and never our own credentials, that allows us to receive.
But I always prefer the full story over just the moral.
I addressed this in post #65
Sometimes people just don’t like change. I am saying that in earlier posts, people referenced the fact that “not worthy that you should come under my roof” was in use many years before “not worthy to receive you” and the Latin equivalent (throughout the world) was in use before that.
That should be worth consideration, if not outright acceptance as a legitimate restoration.
I don’t agree the prayer can be poorly written, when it clearly reflects scripture. I checked 4 different translations, almost identical. When people writing the prayer use the same words as scripture, no way can they get their wording wrong.
I agree. That principal being based primarily in humility, no?
I suppose so. But I am not familiar at all with the pre-VII liturgical changes to go any further with it.
At the same rate, aren’t the post VII changes worth consideration.