There’s a thread about this in the liturgy subforum. He just approved a proposed update to the Italian translation. This article and its click-bait headline makes it seem like he actually changed the prayer itself for everyone. To me it seems like a change from “world without end” to “will be forever” in the Glory Be (which was done a long time ago)–ie the updating of an idiomatic expression that had become less common and clear.
Not that I am complaining, but I am surprised we still have the Elizabethan-esque English translation of the Our Father here in the US, when the rest iof the Mass is more modern English. But the thread in the other subforum has some background on this and why English speaking bishops have resisted any update to it.
And, UCatholic has nothing on it’s website to suit me to believe that it is publishing anything official from the Church.
Good point. It’d be best to keep the conversation in the already-lengthy existing thread. It’s at:
No “big change” at all.
Then why make it?
There have been other modifications in different language translations to better align with the original meaning.
But the way I read the news on this, it it isn’t bringing the vernacular back to the original, it is revising the vernacular to mean something similar but different.
I think that rather than dumbing down our faith we need to improve our religious education to understand it.
Because the words of our prayer should Express the actual intent.
I must admit that the Catholic Church has much bigger problems than changing The Lords Prayer, even if it’s only a minor change. I go to church religiously and have seen the difference in not only the amount of people attending but the age of those there. Most are baby boomers and beyond. Trying to change this prayer is a big mistake, it is what it is and unfortunately I do not agree with it. What’s been said for years will be difficult to change, esp, this prayer that all Christians say, the same way, except “for thine is the kingdom, the power and glory now and forever” which they add.
The biggest issue I see with this is that the change seems to ignore the original intent of the prayer, which is that God is in charge. This line of the prayer is a plea to God, who is sovereign over all things, not to allow us to be lead into temptation, but (and the word translated as but is demonstrating a contrast rather than introducing a dependent clause) deliver us either from evil or from the evil one (Satan). To me, the change in the language puts the onus on man, when the original intent is a plea to God. I am not necessarily against updating a translation, but if we do so, the change should clarify the meaning rather than make it more confusing. In this case, I think the proposed change actually conveys a meaning that is opposite what is meant in the original language (or at least confuses the intention of the prayer).
Does anyone posting here live in Italy?
If not, why do you care?
Well the same change has been made where I live, in French Canada.
What I see here though, is the issue being blown way out of proportion. We changed the prayer in the 60s, and again now. So it’s nothing new for us.
My word. You ought to have more respect for reverent language. Many other cultures have special liturgical languages. We do not. So why not use Early Modern English (that is what it is called, by the way) in a similar fashion?
Not everything needs to be colloquial and contemporary. I actually find it disrespectful to have “the most famous prayer in Christianity” be rewritten by Whosis out somewhere in the Midwest that will then be used all across North America.
Although I like the new translation of the Mass in English, for instance, we really didn’t need to change the native English “seen and unseen” to the Latinate “visible and invisible”. It was totally unnecessary.
The translation of the Our Father is understood and known. We don’t need to confuse people by changing it all of a sudden when it is already ingrained in everyone’s head. Do you want people to stop participating at Mass? People are not going to learn a completely unnecessary new downgraded translation just because it’s the current pope’s pet peeve. I don’t detest Pope Francis like many do, but I do find some of his decisions troubling. This one won’t bother me so long as it doesn’t lead to a change in the longstanding English translation.
I worry that this is going to make some knuckleheads (in my own country, probably) decide to ditch the translation that we have been using for hundreds of years now, rather than simply suggest that one line be changed.
The only reasonable thing that could be done would be to change “lead us not into temptation” to “let us fall not into temptation”. That’s it. Nothing more. There would be no good reason to do anything else.
But, sure, if you want to needlessly tick people off and perhaps make them be silent during Mass (because we really need that, don’t we?) go ahead. Oh, you ought to change the Hail Mary too, since, y’know, it’s obviously old and yucky.
The thing that you don’t realise is that these changes would not be nearly as drastic in many other languages, because (unlike English) they have not lost their T pronoun (the “thou” pronoun) in their standard language.
But for English, it would be drastic. The first problem is that we now have “do-support” in our language, so do we change "___ us not’ to “don’t ___ us”? What about “hallowed”? Ought we to change it to “sacred” so that we can stuff all of those Latinisms in there? Oh, and of course, we have to get rid of the T-pronoun stuff: ‘‘you’’ all of the way!
[CONTINUED IN NEXT POST]
[CONTINUED FROM LAST POST]
We really don’t need any more division being sown in the Church right now. But, of course, who cares about sowing division? Anyone who doesn’t like it is a goat, right?
Give me a break! I’m sick and tired of foolishness permeating everything. And I’m only 22-years-old! I don’t dare think about what the liturgy is going to look like forty or fifty years from now. *shivers٭
And don’t give me that “change is hard” hogwash. Change is perfectly fine if it makes sense. Completely retranslating the Our Father, or carelessly inserting the line “Don’t be letting us fall into temptation, daddio” or the like into the current translation is 100% unnecessary, and will cause gargantuan swaths of people (myself included) to be really ticked off. If you are going to change it, change it properly!
It’s quite pretentious (and obnoxious) to dismiss people’s concerns with “change is hard”. I see that all across the Web these days when people bring up legitimate concerns. If you don’t have anything constructive or productive to say, you may want to consider not saying it.
My apologies, I just feel very strongly on this issue. To summarise simply, I suppose:
Let us not be rash in our decision-making.
So we’ve been saying it wrong for how long now?
Who cares? And of course you can continue saying it the old way – and if you believe that God leads us into temptation, you certainly should pray “lead us not . . .”
Me, I believe He loves us, and does not “lead us into temptation.” So I’m perfectly happy with the correction. But, you do you.
Like I said, I wasn’t complaining that we have it!
My surprise that we still do is because those in charge of liturgy translations–especially the one back in 1970–tended to not share our views…
I never said that. And I doubt that those who translated and approved the current version believed that either. As I said above, I am against dumbing things down because some people don’t understand them.
That doesn’t really matter much if they end up changing it in the Mass, you realise.
Oh, that really sounds like a good faith comment right there.
“Sure, you ought to continue saying it ‘the old way’ if you think that God is the one who leads people into temptation. But I, up on my high horse here, know that God never leads us into temptation, so I will use an enlightened (but downgraded) translation instead.”
I will assume good faith on this comment, but surely you know that the Church rejects relativism, right?
Amen, my friend!