Introducing settings of new translations

[johnquinn39]

I think the average person in the pew (including me) really does not give a flying jump about the new translation.

People sing their hearts out and pray to tunes / prayers / translations that they like. In my parish, this includes 'Follow me...'; 'Here I am Lord'; the grail psalms in the Joan McCrimmon book; etc.

The most popular mem. accl. I know is 'Christ has died'. Parishoners raise the roof with this when reciting it or singing it to Haugen or Liam Lawton.

We were not baptised to call women men, sing Latin hymns, or use archaic language.

Will excising 'Christ is risen' and '[God is] power[ful] and might[y]' from the Sunday Eucharist result in a greater understanding that Christ is risen, and that God is powerful and mighty?

The new translation is loved by the people who will not be using it - they will be using the ef form in Latin.

Would it just be better to stick to the translation we have?

[Southern Comfort]

The new translation is loved by the people who will not be using it - they will be using the ef form in Latin.

Would it just be better to stick to the translation we have?

More than a grain of truth in the first sentence, alas...

No, we shouldn't stick to the translation we have. We should be using the 1998 ICEL revision which all the English-speaking bishops of the world approved but which Rome sidelined because of its minions' political agenda. In the 1998 version, the people's parts do not change (John will be glad to hear) but the presider's prayers are much improved.

[presbyter]

The post-communion purification of the vessels prayer is certainly going to take some getting used to - (not that the assembly hears it):

What has passed our lips as food, O Lord, may we possess in purity of heart, that what has been given us in time may be our healing for eternity.

But if the Latin is indeed a prayer said almost silently by the priest on behalf of all present - that does beg the question as to why the current translation is in the first person singular - a prayer said by the priest for the priest. You have to admit there are anomalies in the current translation - and it would be good to see the 1998 translation. Anywhere we can see it SC?

[johnquinn39]

In the 1998 version, the people's parts do not change (John will be glad to hear) but the presider's prayers are much improved.

To be honest SC, I'm ambivalent about texts changing. (Although, as I have said, why get rid of 'Christ has died...' ).

Man (no women involved in the new translation) proposes, God disposes.

It remains to be seen (in the next 50-100 years) if this translation works!

All the best,

John

[Southern Comfort]

The post-communion purification of the vessels prayer is certainly going to take some getting used to - (not that the assembly hears it):

What has passed our lips as food, O Lord, may we possess in purity of heart, that what has been given us in time may be our healing for eternity.

But if the Latin is indeed a prayer said almost silently by the priest on behalf of all present - that does beg the question as to why the current translation is in the first person singular - a prayer said by the priest for the priest. You have to admit there are anomalies in the current translation - and it would be good to see the 1998 translation. Anywhere we can see it SC?

There are difficulties about posting it on a website because in theory ICEL still own the copyright and could sue to have it taken down. But I might find a way of sending you the files....

The Latin of the prayer cited above runs:

Quod ore súmpsimus, Dómine, pura mente capiámus, et de múnere temporáli fiat nobis remédium sempitérnum.

and the 1998 ICEL version runs as follows:

Lord, may the food we have received in our bodies purify our inmost hearts;
and may this earthly gift sustain us for life eternal.

[Southern Comfort]

For a different cultural view on the problems that all this is throwing up, see http://www.ucanews.com/2009/11/30/humpty-dumpty-in-the-vatican/

[mcb]

Quod ore súmpsimus, Dómine, pura mente capiámus, et de múnere temporáli fiat nobis remédium sempitérnum.

Lord, may the food we have received in our bodies purify our inmost hearts;
and may this earthly gift sustain us for life eternal.

What has passed our lips as food, O Lord, may we possess in purity of heart, that what has been given us in time may be our healing for eternity.

The proposed new version is shockingly poor English, to my eye. Putting the object of the first clause before the verb, and then cutting one off from the other with O Lord, gives a sentence structure that is so remote from good English grammar as to feel pretty alien.

The that introducing the second clause is equally unidiomatic. It reads like a bad Google translation. (Is it actually even in the original? SC, should that et be ut?)

And it's not even in the cause of fidelity to the Latin. The translators obviously feel at liberty to be as florid as they please in terms of vocabulary choice. Quod ore sumpsimus doesn't mean What has passed our lips as food, it just doesn't: it means What we have eaten by mouth. But the translators seem to be embarrassed about putting the Christian message in plain language, so we get a pompous euphemism instead.

The bigger problem is the fetishistic preoccupation with Latin syntax. The translators depart as much as they like from directly translating the words themselves, but they seem not to care how bad the grammar of the English version is as long as the grammatical categories come in the same order as in the Latin. That isn't good translation, it's a kind of clumsy transliteration.

It would be nice to think that the Church will come to its senses on this one, but the time scale for that kind of epiphany is longer than a lifetime. (How long was the interval between the First and Second Vatican Councils?)

[Lakelark]

Yes, indeed, southern comfort and mcb! The Latin is balanced, dignified and rhythmic. None of the English versions has ever achieved even one of those qualities. Perhaps this is an example of an original which simply cannot be translated successfully. And if so, and if the prayer is said inaudibly, why not leave it in Latin?

[docmattc]

Interesting as this is, a gentle reminder that this topic is about how to introduce the new translations, not about their quality.

[Lakelark]

Point taken, doc, and the decision is unquestionably yours. But, surely, the way we introduce new translations will be affected by their quality. I detect a reluctance to go about the task, rather than an enthusiasm for something better than we already have.

[Southern Comfort]

how to introduce the new translations

In a word, don't!

[mcb]

The Latin is balanced, dignified and rhythmic.

Forgive me, Lakelark, but I don't think that's a meaningful statement. What would the Latin sound like if it was undignified? Or is all Latin, ahem, ipso facto dignified?

None of the English versions has ever achieved even one of those qualities.

On the contrary, the 1998 version seems to me comprehensively better than the newer version: a well-crafted prayer.

Perhaps this is an example of an original which simply cannot be translated successfully.

Again I just don't know what this could mean. Something could arguably be "untranslatable" if it used a concept in the culture represented by one language that had no direct equivalent in another. That's manifestly not the case here. I don't believe it's possible to find a a syntactic structure in one language that in itself conveys a meaning that can't be rendered (perhaps by an altogether different structure) in another.

And if so, and if the prayer is said inaudibly, why not leave it in Latin?

I'm with Pope Paul VI on this one: understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed.

[presbyter]

Interesting as this is, a gentle reminder that this topic is about how to introduce the new translations, not about their quality.

Sorry - my fault - I think I put up a diversion sign.

BUT surely the topic demands a question: "Are there any new settings to introduce?" We had a stab at a Sanctus & Mystery of Faith "ad experimentum" at the AGM Mass but I know of no other settings as yet.

[HallamPhil]

Yes presbyter I am aware of at least one from another at the AGM. From my own humble pen comes a setting of Lord have mercy - Glory to God - Holy - 3 Memorial Acclamations - Lamb of God. I've also set 'What has passed our lips' as a post communion chant. I'm still working on instrumental parts and may choose to add a further Penitential setting. I think what we need is a forum similar to that which enabled the St Thomas More group to find its feet. I'm as reticent as many composers about releasing material until absolutely satisfied with it. I suspect that at the moment many creators are working away in isolation without the sense of trust which I suspect STMG may have enjoyed a few decades ago. Perhaps thereby more settings will become apparent.

[mcb]

what we need is a forum similar to that which enabled...

That forum was the SSG Composers' Group, wasn't it?