Okay I don’t like this. It has been how we have said this prayer for centuries. And it hasn’t hit English yet but I have read that is coming too. Why change what’s not broken? Is this even a translation from the Latin? I could be wrong how it should be in Italian as I’m not fluent and it could mean be translated to something else in another language.
For the same reason they changed the mass that wasn’t broken.
I tend to be skeptical about unneeded changes to the words of the Liturgy, but these changes don’t really bother me.
The changes to the words of the Our Father probably better reflect the meaning of the Latin and parallel what has been said in the French and Spanish liturgies for decades.
As far as the Gloria, I’m not sure what those changes are intending, but I don’t see them as particularly significant or troubling.
Yah well I’d like them to finally finished the new English translation of the Liturgy of the Hours that is to conform to the 2011 Missal translation instead of worrying about changing the Lords Prayer.
Well, don’t hold your breath. The committee that does English translations is notoriously slow when it comes to new editions. When they say 5 years, that probably means 20.
The changes are imposing (at least suggesting) one way to understand what the original text means. That’s what translations do, more or less. I would prefer less, so that we can more easily realize how Scripture is often open to more than one “interpretation” and, depending on our circumstances at any given time, be able to be inspired and educated by what Revelation is telling us.
Odd, the changes in Our Father has been made in French for almost a decade… and theologicaly it is more accurate. But Catholics in general hate changes even when it makes sense.
I think it’s because changes are often an apologetic nightmare
That is a terrible Gloria rendering. Sure it can be an accomodation for “eudokias” (his favour rests), but the Missal’s editio typica is the Latin, not the Biblical Greek. The Latin has “bonae voluntatis”. Lit. “good will.”
However, in fairness, I’m probably seeing this as a rendering via the Italian. Perhaps the Italian sounds more elegant in the new translation.
I would absolutely hate to have to recite THAT in English.
Yah according to the article it is the new translation for the Third Edition which was approved in 2008 but here in America came out in English in 2011.
They change the missal a lot it seems.
Don’t they realize everytime they change something it means every priest is basically having to buy a new missal? They aren’t cheap… Especially an altar edition. The chapel ones however are even around $90.00.
It’s good to know the big important issues are being dealt with.
As for the “makes theological sense” and “God does not lead us to temptation”, well.
The Greek says “bring”. Do not bring us to temptation.
Popes do not trump the inspired word of God for their own comfort.
Heaven forbid Pope Francis gets his hands on the English translation. Really.
If he wants to catechize, then catechize. But do not promulgate bad translations. It’s 1973 all over again.
He is going for the English translation! This article was from late last year.
And yes the 1973 translation was terrible.
I like the new translation which came in 2011 it is so much more true to the Latin.
As I said above we are still waiting for the new translation of the Liturgy of the Hours. That one is still the 1976 edition in the U.S.
I can take a balanced approach. The 1973 was translated dynamically because that was the legislation in force at the time. That still does not excuse the adoption of the ICET Glory to God in the Missal, an awful version. They could still have dynamically translated without losing the structure, which ICET mangled badly (I find the ICET texts of the Benedictus and Magnificat acceptable). I can still accept the collects as they stand in the Liturgy of the Hours, because, again, the law at the time (if you can call Comme le Prevoit an Instruction) called for it. That changed with Liturgiam authenticam.
But this…dumbing down…does no one any service.
We should be seeking to understand God’s word, not twist it to make it sound according to how WE prefer it to sound. Yes, God does not actively lead people into temptation, but that is exactly what the Greek working says and that’s what God inspired the sacred author to write for his own good reasons. Perhaps to think deeper, perhaps to emphasize that God is still actively involved in the order of Divine Providence and not merely protecting us. Who knows.
I’d love a Danish Liturgy of the Hours that’s younger than I am, but I digress.
Also, in regards to ecumenism, this will not help.
In fact most of the Protestants, and even the Orthodox for that matter have a real issue with the Pope changing things motu proprio when it comes to liturgy. Some could make the case that the east west schism was multiple things, but one of the main ones was the adding of filoque to the Creed without an ecumenical Council.
As for the Protestants, this will just fuel some of their views of the papacy and probably view it as an abomination in their eyes changing the Lords Prayer from the one in their precious KJV.
Though something interesting is I don’t think the Lords Prayer was ever part of the ICET. I believe they allowed that to still be local translations. But the Gloria was.
I was curious if the other churches like the Anglicans were going to adapt the new translation in 2011, but they didn’t. Wasn’t the point of the ICET to promote unity in the prayers we hold in common?
This isn’t the first thread o the subject that we’ve seen here at CAF.
I agree on that!
I wonder what he will do with the Hail Mary…