Fit for purpose

[johnquinn39]

Is the new translation the above?

What do people think?

[gwyn]

I think so. It's exactly what it says, a translation and so will always be flawed to one degree or another.

I'm comfy with it. Being a convert from the Church in Wales where they were using the blue Holy Eucharist book at the time of my conversion, the language is very familiar and has a beauty. I appreciate that for many whose only exposure may have been the somewhat lacklustre hues of the previous R.C. translation, it may seem quite a contrast. It's growing on the faithful I think.

"And also with you" seems like a bad dream now.

This is a good time to ask the question John. Well done.

[VML]

Was the question perhaps prompted by a report I think I saw in the last week or two saying that priests in Ireland are rebelling against using it? I agree with Gwyn.

[justMary]

No.

The verbal contortions in many of the priests' text make it almost impossible to follow them, much less listen and pray with them.

"Through my fault, my fault, my most grievous fault" - sorry, I just don't believe that I'm that flawed. If that makes me sound arrogant, then so be it. But I just don't believe in a God who made me grievously flawed.

Etc.

[gwyn]

But;

Through my fault, my fault, my most grievous fault

. . . is a good translation. It's the translation that we're discussing here, not how we understand - or fail to understand - the consequences of The Fall on mankind.

Any suggestions as to how we can better translate "Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa" into English?

[Southern Comfort]

Well, the previous translation had "I have greatly sinned" which seems more than adequate. The piling-up of adjectives, descriptors, etc is a peculiarly Latin trait that does not work well in English.

But to answer the OP's question, it's not about accuracy of translation so much as about the art of making the translation sound as if it had been originally written in the receptor language. That is what the revised Missal translation manifestly does not do. As long as it comes across as stilted and unnatural it is not going to get good marks. The Irish priests are not the only ones to be rebelling against it. There is a lot of talk about bishops having woken up and realized that they approved a pig with lipstick, and that attendances are haemorrhaging as a result... The question is, how to remedy that. It seems inevitable that the Missal will be tweaked in the not-too-distant future. I suspect that this will leave the people's parts as they are now but fix all the priest's prayer texts. Unfortunately that will only partly resolve the problem.

[alan29]

Not fit at all. Replicating the grammar of the original language in the translated version is just to commit a howler.
I really dislike the theology shown in using two different words for calix, cup and chalice. It seems bizarre to refer to the vessel that Jesus used as a chalice when it was almost certainly a glass or a cup, and to refer to the one that we use as a cup when it is most certainly a chalice!
On "mea culpa," Latin used repetition for increased emphasis, English doesn't. It just sounds petulant.
On "And with your spirit," I rather hope the Lord with the whole man, not just the unbodily part of him.
"Dewfall?" - give me a break. Though I do prefer "from the rising of the sun etc."
Don't get me started on "O God who....."
I attended Mass this summer which was celebrated by a retired priest who relied rather too much on his memory. I was delighted to be reminded that "we wait in joyful hope for the coming......" The simple profound beauty of the phrase actually brought an tear to my eye.
We are fortunate to have a language that has a heritage of magnificent literature, and we are given a prayer book that sounds like a bin man attempting to talk like a duke and failing miserably.

[gwyn]

attendances are haemorrhaging as a result...

I suspect that the advent of any haemorrhaging predates a new translation.

[Nick Baty]

The piling-up of adjectives, descriptors, etc is a peculiarly Latin trait that does not work well in English.

I just let it wash over me. These days, Mass may as well be in Latin because the current translation is certainly not in a language I recognise.

[IncenseTom]

I'm with Gwyn on this one. I think the issue of attendance might be more to do with a 'self-affirming', or 'horizontal' liturgy which is all about us and making us feel good rather than about a 'vertical' worshipping and adoring of God. I think we were bleeding parishioners long before the new translation, although, sure, I accept that some people have been put off as a result.

I think the current translation is far better than the previous one. Even the collects (which I know some people are going mad about) - when you read the old ones now, I just think they lack meaning and find the new ones far richer.

'And with your spirit' reminds me that God is not just 'also with me' as he could be walking along the street next to me, but that he is part of my spirit, my soul. I think there is much more soulfulness, if you like, in this phrase.

'Through, my fault, through, my fault, through my most grievous fault' emphasises my sinfulness in a fuller way. I don't think I would be alone in saying that we have been a bit 'light' on the idea of sin over recent times, and I hope that this does it's bit to put it right.

I rather like 'dewfall' and absolutely agree that 'rising of the sun' is majestic.

One area which people have complained about is 'for you and for many' rather than 'for all'. I even know a priest who still says 'for all'. Again, 'for many' reminds me that God's grace is indeed for everyone, but not everyone will accept it and we must do our part.

I think our parish have been very lucky in that our PP totally embraced the translation and presented it very positively. As a bonus, we sing the dialogue at the start of Mass and before the preface, and he sings the collect and preface. I think this has really helped as the greeting dialogue and collect were not sung previously.

Anyway, my experience of the translation is very positive and all in all I find the new texts to have much more meaning, which I think was the point.

[old barmaid]

'Through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault' is the most natural thing in the world to me. It is what I learned as a six year old,
preparing for my First Confession and it is what I have said all my life every time I go to Confession. I never took to the 1970s version.

[gwyn]

And where " . . . God of power and might" came from is anybody's guess.

I quite liked " . . . not worthy to receive you . . ." though, it was equal to ". . . come under my roof" as a translation of "ut intres sub tectum meum,"

[JW]

An article worth reading, though reflecting a wider view of the liturgy?

http://ncronline.org/blogs/faith-and-justice/suggested-agenda-new-prefect-congregation-divine-worship

[High Peak]

I quite liked " . . . not worthy to receive you . . ." though, it was equal to ". . . come under my roof" as a translation of "ut intres sub tectum meum,"

The new translation on this makes a very clear reference to the words of the Centurion, whose sentiment we echo. It is, I think, quite appropriate. Indeed, in the New Translation there is a greater focus on links with Scripture.

I like the mea culpa and naturally find myself emphasising a different word each time: "..through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault."

I have not, I confess, got my head round the substitution of "cup" with "chalice" but will do some reading before I am bold enough to make a claim whether it should have remained as "cup".

The English translation that I grew up with was too often bland, lacking in poeticism and often, I believe, inaccurate (I am NOT a Latin scholar). For me the New Translation falls down mostly when priests do not take time with their "lines" or attempt to intonate appropriately. The old translation could be rushed through (and often was, in my experience) and you simply cannot get away with doing that with the New.

[contrabordun]

I think the current translation is far better than the previous one.

Yes, but nobody was planning to keep the previous one: the real question is whether the current one is better or worse than ICEL's 1998 version, the one that was passed by all the English-speaking bishops' conferences, before being killed by Rome, presumably on the grounds that they knew more about the English language than the English speaking bishops.

See what you think: it's here