Mass translation may be revised?

[oopsorganist]

This talk of re translation!
It is like, we don't think we gave you the right words, last time and the time before, maybe the time before that. So. This time these are the right words. Sorry for making you say it wrong.
It is like, this is the new and better curriculum, this one is better, we gave you the wrong one before, and the time before that, and the time before that so sorry for making you do it wrong. So many times.
Argh.
The last time they changed my particular curriculum I was too old to care so I carried on using the old one - I just looked up the differences and digested them and then just plodded on as normal. They changed it again three years later. Nobody knows why.

It's understanding we are after. Helping people to understand.
If people don't understand then there really is no point.
And Liturgy is people understanding together, otherwise they could all just be saying prayers down the shopping centre or whatever individually.
Collective understanding. So it had better be in English. And it will need doing again because langauges are alive and develop and change.

Which is also why if you give me the Curriculum (Liturgy) in Latin it will be no use at all. It would have been quite useful around about say, 1500 but after that, Latin began to gradually decline as a language of communication.

And since it is all going on around the Earth in the heavens that great thingy wotsit of praise and stuff, then it must be happening in all sorts of languages and ways and means and so the fact that there is variation in any form is really of no consequence in the wider scheme of things. God likes it all and the angels are rocking along with it.

Our current translation has some awkward bits of obscurity. Some bits are OK. But generally it is understandable. Preferred the one before as I had internalized quite a lot of it and now sometimes find mayself reverting back to some older bit.

(There are so many golden reasons for using the same words as the other Christians are using) which is another kind of discussion).

[High Peak]

The last time they changed my particular curriculum I was too old to care so I carried on using the old one - I just looked up the differences and digested them and then just plodded on as normal. They changed it again three years later. Nobody knows why.

It's so that they can produce and sell a new batch of text books! Education has become a money-making enterprise.

[alan29]

While I dislike some of this translation intensely, cannot understand some of it at all (see below, and most collects) and have nothing but contempt for the process by which it was imposed on us ........ I do think that it would be a shocking waste of money and resources to dump the books we have now and replace them.
It would seem to go directly against the pope's wish that we should be better custodians of the planet.
Meanwhile .........
Maybe someone could explain what this means please? Its the prayer after the Our Father.
"as we await the blessed hope and the coming of our Saviour, Jesus Christ."
Do we not already have hope? If not, why not?
The previous translation was "As we we wait in joyful hope for the coming....."
That made perfect spiritual, grammatical and theological sense,and was beautifully expressed.
The new version seems to make neither theological nor grammatical sense. And yet we hear it said every day.
Maybe someone can unpick it.

[Howard Baker]

Yes, I agree that "awaiting the blessed hope and the coming..." is obscure. It's a close translation of the Latin, and is a direct quotation from Paul to Titus, the meaning being that we are waiting for that which is our blessed hope, namely the coming of Jesus Christ... The previous English Missal's version often managed both to translate and helpfully explain at the same time certain obscurities (eg "pro multis" given as "for all"; "Deus Sabaoth" as "God of power and might" etc.), though I'm not sure "as we wait in hope for the coming..." captured the full meaning. I'd certainly welcome a return to the earlier English version (perhaps slightly cleaned up, with some of its omissions rectified), but I wouldn't welcome the work and expense involved in renewing/re-editing - again - the music of the Ordinary! (Did you keep your old English mass settings?!)

[alan29]

Yes, I agree that "awaiting the blessed hope and the coming..." is obscure. It's a close translation of the Latin, and is a direct quotation from Paul to Titus, the meaning being that we are waiting for that which is our blessed hope, namely the coming of Jesus Christ... The previous English Missal's version often managed both to translate and helpfully explain at the same time certain obscurities (eg "pro multis" given as "for all"; "Deus Sabaoth" as "God of power and might" etc.), though I'm not sure "as we wait in hope for the coming..." captured the full meaning. I'd certainly welcome a return to the earlier English version (perhaps slightly cleaned up, with some of its omissions rectified), but I wouldn't welcome the work and expense involved in renewing/re-editing - again - the music of the Ordinary! (Did you keep your old English mass settings?!)

Thanks for that. Maybe if translations were trialled by being read aloud to people who haven't seen the text we wouldn't end up with so many phrases that need explanation. Certainly that particular one sounds as though we await hope because we have none at the moment ..... which is a very long way from my understanding of what Christianity is about.
Trialling the texts might have given us clearer collects etc which we are expected to grab on a single hearing.

[dmu3tem]

Just a few further remarks:

[1] It is impossible to satisfy everyone when producing a liturgy.

[2] A more fruitful line might be to go back to first principles and ask (a) what is a liturgy? (b) what is it for?

Here are some possible responses:

[a] Liturgy is a (more or less) formalised exchange between God, the individual and the other people present.

[b] As far as communications with God are concerned, if he is omnisient, he is not going to have much trouble understanding what we (as individuals or as a group) have to express, however imperfectly we may do it. So, in this sense, 'getting the liturgy exactly right' is not crucial. What matters is the intent behind the communication and the sincerity with which it is expressed.

An alternative is to argue that God is a pernickity so-and-so who insists that we must get the liturgical expression absolutely right since otherwise the 'magic will not work'. This is to treat liturgy as a sequence of magical formulae.

[c] Communicating with each other is somewhat different. Given human frailties the scope for mis-understanding a message are considerable; so here some exactitude is necessary. The object here - surely - must be to ensure that everyone understands a given prayer or action in the same way. This means that language should be as clear and un-opaque as possible. This drives us in the direction of using the most up-to-date vernacular language possible; preferably with scope to take account of local variations in understanding due to differences in accent, education and social background. It also has to be continually up-dated as language usage continually changes. Yet, at the same time, there needs to be an almost legalistic approach to liturgical formulae to ensure there is no misunderstanding and a stable common grasp of what is being expressed.

In turn we should take account of semiotics on such matters as (a) the vagaries of translation (b) the concept that 'the medium is the message' (e.g. note how musical associations can alter the meaning or emphasis within it of a given text)

[alan29]

Its also worth remembering that the liturgy is also supposed to be a school for faith. We learn as we worship.
Language should help that process along, not impede it.