What have you heard about the new translation of the Mass?

[hedgehog]

My own reaction ranges from wondering why the Vatican is tinkering with what works to being appalled by forcing English to follow Latin constructions to disgust at seeing inclusive welcoming language replaced with language that separates us from God. I think too many in the Vatican have themselves confused with God and feel the need to elevate God in order to elevate themselves.


Does anyone know if this new translation would be used only in America or world wide wherever English is spoken? By the way, according the CBC, many of the men on the committee who came up with this are not native English speakers.

Why is the Latin "Credo" - "I believe" - replacing the original Greek "We believe"? I guess the Church fathers really should have written the Nicene Creed in Latin because that is the only language God understands!


At least they didn't substitute "consubstantial" for "one in being". I can't even say consubstantial!

[Matilda]

1. I've read that it's an improvement, but I haven't seen any of it.

All English-speaking countries will get the same version, so ours will
still be the same as yours. I believe the current version has some
very slight alterations in the text for use in certain places to allow
for local traditions, so I expect the same will still apply.

I'm not qualified to speak on the content, but I've always disliked
the current translation. I think a lot of it is "dumbed down" language,
written at primary school level. I do feel it lost a lot of the beauty
of the text as it used to be translated in our Latin Missals, and I
know many theologians weren't ever happy about the actual wording,
especially of the Consecration and the Eucharist, as they felt it
watered down the original language of the words, and altered their
meaning, particularly in regard to Transubstantiation. I can't argue
from a scholar's point of view, but I'll be happy if we have a more
adult translation with a less simplistic wording.

[hedgehog]

3. Jesus told us to call the Father "Abba" which is closer to

Dad or Papa than it is to the more formal "father". Somehow I think Jesus prefers the current translation to the fussy new one. The Vatican may think that Consubstantial is good English, but that just goes to show how little the Vatican knows.

[meow2u3]

7. If Jesus were American

He'd be calling God the Father Dad--or Daddy if He came back to Earth in the South!

Abba really means "Dad" or "Daddy" in Aramaic. So Jesus also, like we do with our own dads, called the Father by the affectionate name.

[AngryOldDem]

2. Here's one I just read about today

Instead of, "O Lord, I am not worthy to receive you," it will be "O Lord I am not worthy that you should come under my roof."

[Matilda]

4. It's just going back to the correct translation of the original Latin.

That's how we used to say it when the vernacular was first introduced,
so to me it's familiar anyway.

The "new" translations, which are really the old translations, perhaps
sound more old-fashioned than the current, but they are also correct
translations of the Latin. To me, they are more beautiful and poetic,
but I'm a language geek, I admit.

Theologians are happier because in fact slight variations in translation
can convey a completely different meaning to the words.

It comes down to whether we are correctly expressing what we are taught
to believe.

And for me, it is also about beauty of language.

[hedgehog]

5. As you said, slight variations can convey a different meaning

I see the proposed changs as part of a trend to seperate us from the Eucharist because we are unworthy. Of course we're unworthy, but didn't we hear from St. Paul a few weeks ago that by Christ's death we were made true children of God?

[Matilda]

6. Yes, I did notice the restoration of the words

"my sacrifice and yours" in the Eucharistic prayers, not "our sacrifice" as we have been saying.
It is the correct translation for the original Latin, but is less inclusive. The inclusiveness
is what allows us to now receive the Eucharist in our own hands, and I'd not want to see that
disappear. We're all unworthy, but equally unworthy, IMO!

[DemBones DemBones]

8. We will also say "But only say the word and my SOUL will be healed"

instead of "I will be healed." Vatican II translated "anima" as "I" which is bizarre.

[Matilda]

9. We used to say "my soul will be healed"

in the earliest translations when the vernacular was introduced. Then changes were introduced -
in the late seventies or early eighties, and that's when I thought it became dumbed down.

When I was married, in 1981, I rejected the new translation of the marriage service, because I
thought the old form was more poetic and beautiful. The priest was surprised, because I was
progressive in a lot of ways, but he was quite okay about it.

[DemBones DemBones]

10. Vatican II did so much dumbing down and Protestantizing of the Mass and

it wasn't a dogmatic council, but a pastoral one, so bishops and priests never HAD to follow any of its proposals. I've come to believe it was the worst thing ever to happen to the Catholic faith, though of course I missed out on the Arian and Walbigensian heresies. . . I am hoping they will change "for you and for all" in the Consecration to "for you and for many" as the Latin Mass says ("pro multis"), and as Jesus says in the Bible. Why did they change what Jesus said?

[DemBones DemBones]

11. Cardinal Arinze has sent a letter to the bishops directing them

to change "for you and for all" to "for you and for many," as "pro multis" means. The people are to be instructed and the change is to be implemented in the next one to two years . In my view, the people can learn faster than that, especially since this is a prayer said only by the priest!

In some languages, the translation has always been correct but the Italians have been saying "per tutti" ("for all") too and there are some others, too.

I'm very glad about this change.