Posted on 04/10/2014 7:22:11 PM PDT by marshmallow
(RNS) A new translation of the Mass has been used in the nation’s Catholic parishes for less than three years, but there are signs that the language—often criticized as stilted and awkward—could be in for another edit.
“We’ve tried it, we’ve lived with it, we think it needs correction,” Atlanta Archbishop Wilton Gregory told a conference on liturgical reform last month in one of the most public and high-level expressions of discontent with the missal, as the Mass text is called.
Gregory was seconded by Bishop Robert Lynch of the Diocese of St. Petersburg, in an echo of comments last year by Bishop Robert Brom, now retired as head of the San Diego diocese, who said “the new missal needs corrective surgery and this should take place without delay.”
Reopening that process would be a momentous step.
(Excerpt) Read more at uscatholic.org ...
I think the earlier translation, before the ICEL came in a deliberately screwed it up, was “one in substance with the Father.” That strikes me as an accurate English version of the Latin consubstantial, and I think that it matches the old Anglican version.
The ICEL version that was corrected in the latest translation was in some places, I think, deliberately misleading. “Et cum spirit tuo” was translated, “And also with you.” It was obvious that the translators didn’t like the word “spirit”—perhaps didn’t believe there was any such thing—and therefore threw the word entirely out of the Mass. If it was up to me, I’d have gone back to “And with thy spirit.” (Thank God they at least kept the word “thy” in the Lord’s Prayer.) That was the standard English, found in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, and of course imitates the Latin, where “you” is the plural form and “thy” is singular.
Anyway, it’s far, far better than it was. And I’m certain these guys itching for more changes want to move things back in all the wrong directions.
This isn’t new — in fact, it’s quite old — like 2000 years old.
http://biblehub.com/matthew/8-8.htm
This is from the New Testament where an officer asks Jesus to heal his servant. And he says, “Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof, but say the word and my servant will be healed.”
And his servant was healed at that hour.
Actually, "thou/thee/thy/thine" is familiar form, like the German "du". Formal singular second person is still "you".
Jawohl.
“Adore is from the Latin root and worship is from the Germanic root, and was universally used in the English language ever since Christianity was introduced into England.”
There was no “English” when Christianity was introduced. Old English was not English. And about “adore”:
Middle English adouren, from Anglo-French aurer, adourer, from Latin adorare, from ad- + orare to speak, pray — more at oration
*****First Known Use: 14th century*****
“worship”:
Middle English worshipe worthiness, respect, reverence paid to a divine being, from Old English weorthscipe worthiness, respect, from weorth worthy, worth + -scipe -ship
*****First Known Use: before 12th century*****
“....the Mass now goes to over at least 1 hour.”
Oh, the horrors! That’s about one-third the time Jesus spent on the cross bleeding out for your sins and mine. You think you can handle 60 minutes of worshiping Jesus once a week? I mean, gee, we wouldn’t want to wear you our or anything.
Here’s a novel idea: let’s scrap the Novus Ordo and return to Latin!!
No translation issues!!!!
“As a Catholic, I’m disinclined to like anything new. Maybe it will get better over time.”
Great! Then you should love it because it isn’t new. It was said in the Mass for many centuries.
Domine, non sum dignus
ut intres sub tectum meum,
sed tantum dic verbo
et sanabitur anima mea.
Well, actually, Old English and Middle English are the root sources of more recent English. I’ve put in quite a bit of time studying and reading them both.
“Well, actually, Old English and Middle English are the root sources of more recent English.”
Yes, I know. I said nothing that goes against that. I just noted that English DID NOT EXIST when the Anglo-Saxons were converted. That is undeniably true. Old English IS NOT English.
“I’ve put in quite a bit of time studying and reading them both.”
Yeah, great. Me too. I’m looking forward to Tolkien’s translation of Beowulf coming out next month: http://www.amazon.com/Beowulf-Translation-Commentary-J-R-R-Tolkien/dp/0544442784/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1397261294&sr=8-1&keywords=tolkien+beowulf
And none of that changes the fact that Old English is no English. Modern English shares much with Old English but far from everything. They are related but distinct languages and no one should say they are the same. No one says Old Church Slavonic is Bulgarian, or Russian, or whatever. They share many things, but are not the same.
http://www.slideshare.net/desfleuves/differences-between-old-english-and-modern-english
On that note, why ONE hour? Heck, we should make it 2 hours if the time-spent is relatedly worth your self-sanctimonious analogy.
“Heck, we should make it 2 hours if the time-spent is relatedly worth your self-sanctimonious analogy.”
If it helps us avoid ‘Heck’, then 2 hours is fine with me. The Melkite liturgy is often 3 hours. I attend the Latin Mass. The missa cantata is always more than an hour. It’s just no big deal for it to be an hour long.
Then i semantically inflated to mean just high honor towad anybody. The Anglican marriage rite has (used to have?) the marital couple say to each other, "with my body I thee worship." "Worship" was a title of judges ("Your worship") Etcetera.
I now tend to avoid the word "worship" and stick with "adore" when talking about God only. Or God and sweet little baby kitties.
And with Mary? Strictly "hyperdulia"! Now most people use "adore" to
WOe-mans weally worship. Wight.
And my toeses.
Actually, when I hear the word “worship,” I tend to think of the old Hollywood movies where the suitor addresses a beautiful girl: “I worship the ground you walk on!” or the like.
Maybe it’s my Anglican origins, but worship was the usual biblical word for it, in the English Bible—until they came out with a hundred new and usually questionable Bible translations.
In Latin, it’s different—if we ever return to regular use of the Latin Mass. Adoro te devote, and so on.
I’ve heard both. There are some lines I liked better in the old translation, but I see why they rewrote them and I’m fine with it.
I read this and think, really? It’s not as if they rewrote the entire Mass. They changed lines here and there, but it’s largely the same translation. Two years should be more than enough time to absorb the changes and get used to them.
Some do and when they do, that’s where the power is. Christ is not just in the church building.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.