Areas of Difficulty

[presbyter]

The Missal translation needs to be a vehicle for people to assent to and express their faith with sincerity and joy, and for this it needs to use language which is genuinely theirs. Obfuscating vocabulary and a quasi-fetishistic preoccupation with Latin syntax are likely to impede this rather than promote it.

4. To carry out such a task, the Church has always had the duty of scrutinizing the signs of the times and of interpreting them in the light of the Gospel. Thus, in language intelligible to each generation, she can respond to the perennial questions which men ask about this present life and the life to come, and about the relationship of the one to the other.

Gaudium et spes 4

11. But in order that the liturgy may be able to produce its full effects, ..................that the faithful take part fully aware of what they are doing, actively engaged in the rite, and enriched by its effects.

Sacrosanctum Concilium 11

25. So that the content of the original texts may be evident and comprehensible even to the faithful who lack any special intellectual formation, the translations should be characterized by a kind of language which is easily understandable, yet which at the same time preserves these texts’ dignity, beauty, and doctrinal precision

Liturgiam Authenticam

Discuss!

[alan29]

The Missal translation needs to be a vehicle for people to assent to and express their faith with sincerity and joy, and for this it needs to use language which is genuinely theirs. Obfuscating vocabulary and a quasi-fetishistic preoccupation with Latin syntax are likely to impede this rather than promote it.

4. To carry out such a task, the Church has always had the duty of scrutinizing the signs of the times and of interpreting them in the light of the Gospel. Thus, in language intelligible to each generation, she can respond to the perennial questions which men ask about this present life and the life to come, and about the relationship of the one to the other.

Gaudium et spes 4

11. But in order that the liturgy may be able to produce its full effects, ..................that the faithful take part fully aware of what they are doing, actively engaged in the rite, and enriched by its effects.

Sacrosanctum Concilium 11

25. So that the content of the original texts may be evident and comprehensible even to the faithful who lack any special intellectual formation, the translations should be characterized by a kind of language which is easily understandable, yet which at the same time preserves these texts’ dignity, beauty, and doctrinal precision

Liturgiam Authenticam

Discuss!

Lovely stuff, but now irrelevant. We are to be saddled with texts that will be in clunky poor English, imposed by people who think that poor English is good enough for worship, just so long as it meets other criteria.

[presbyter]

Speaking as one who has had some - but manifestly not enough - intellectual formation, could someone please explain the awkward construction: "O God, who have shown your........" I think many presiders will simply substitute "you" for "who", don't you think?

[alan29]

Speaking as one who has had some - but manifestly not enough - intellectual formation, could someone please explain the awkward construction: "O God, who have shown your........" I think many presiders will simply substitute "you" for "who", don't you think?

Its just laughable. As if a totally mangled language is worthy of the worship of God!

[nazard]

Speaking as one who has had some - but manifestly not enough - intellectual formation, could someone please explain the awkward construction: "O God, who have shown your........" I think many presiders will simply substitute "you" for "who", don't you think?

Except in Dudley, where they will say, "O God, who has shown..." and in London where they will say "O God, what has shown..."

Back in the seventies they gave us language which sounded as though it came from Ambridge, and this time it looks as if we are getting language from an advanced learners class somewhere in the empire where the sun never set (well not for a century or so). Can anyone, without resorting to insulting the translators and Bishops, please explain what is going on?

[VML]

I am not qualified in any way to comment here, but could it perhaps be because the Latin verb is in the second person, so it has been translated to the Engish second person, as in e.g. 'qui tollis' ? Clumsy English usage but pedantically correct?

[contrabordun]

Don't worry, it's all academic anyway. It turns out that "God's pure, perfect and preserved words in English are found only in the Authorized King James Bible." Will you tell the Pope or shall I?

[presbyter]

Christmas "Midnight"

O God, who have made this most sacred night
radiant with splendour of the true light,
grant, we pray,
that we who have known the mysteries of his light on earth
may also delight in his gladness in heaven.
Who lives and reigns.....

What do the "have" verbs mean? What tense / mood are they in?

Are they a form of present tense?

O God, you make this most sacred night.......

Grant that we who know the mysteries...........

Are they a form of past tense?

Grant that we who have known .......... sometime ago but now no longer??

I do not have the Latin to hand.

Can mcb help perhaps?

[mcb]

Deus, qui hanc sacratissimam noctem veri luminis fecisti illustratione clarescere,
da, quæsumus, ut, cuius in terra mysteria lucis agnovimus,
eius quoque gaudiis perfruamur in cælo. (Gregorian Missal p.190, on line here)

agnovimus = perfect tense of agnosco, 'realise, discern, acknowledge, come to know'. Have known looks like a terrible translation to me.

[presbyter]

Online, I can only find the "he who have...." construction in a Scripture commentary by, of all people, Calvin - God saying to Jeremiah, "I am he who have taken Babylon".

[presbyter]

I've now found the construction in a "Contemporary Language" Anglican prayer

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bio/63.html

Almighty God, who have knit together your elect in one communion and fellowship.........

[mcb]

Online, I can only find the "he who have...." construction in a Scripture commentary by, of all people, Calvin - God saying to Jeremiah, "I am he who have taken Babylon".

In O God, who have made this most sacred night, it's have because it's implicitly in the second person (i.e. it's implicitly O God, you who have made...).

Without the pronoun, it's an odd construction for idiomatic English, I think, but then so is any English sentence beginning with a vocative expression followed by a relative clause beginning who and containing a verb in the second person singular. How do these feel:

Your majesty, who have kindly agreed to open our new School...
Mister Deputy Speaker, who are ably filling in for our absent colleague...

Grammatical or ungrammatical? My hunch is that a third-person verb feels more natural (i.e. Your majesty, who has kindly agreed to open our new School...). In the plural the problem goes away, because second and third person verbs are the same. (So there's no problem with Mums and dads who have come along to our assembly this morning, thank you for coming.)

Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi ought to be a test case. I think an earlier draft of the translation had Lamb of God, who take away the sins of the world, but I think in the most recent version it's dodged the problem by reverting to Lamb of God, you take away.... Very old translations sometimes have Lamb of God, who takest away... Is that ok?

Finally, what to make of You who dwell in the shelter of the Lord - is that a second person singular or a third person plural? What's our instinct on hearing these words - is it addressed to one person or several? Until I thought about it this evening, I think I'd always thought of it as addressed to several people at once. I wonder what Michael Joncas intended?

[presbyter]

If anyone's interested how the C of E did it:

Eternal God,who made this most holy night
to shine with the brightness of your one true light:
bring us, who have known the revelation of that light on earth,
to see the radiance of your heavenly glory;
through......

Common Worship

[presbyter]

(i.e. it's implicitly O God, you who have made...).

Yes, I know - but have ICEL avoided making what is implicit explicit simply to avoid "you who" - You-hoo! ?

[mcb]

Yes, I know - but have ICEL avoided making what is implicit explicit simply to avoid "you who" - You-hoo! ?

Well, there's no tu in the Latin, but I don't think one is needed - Deus qui fecisti is good Latin, it's just poor English!