Leaked draft of the new translation of the Mass

mcb · Post by **mcb** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 2:05 pm

Here's what's claimed to be a draft of the new translation of the Order of Mass. Some things for composers to be thinking about, especially the changes to the words in the people's acclamations.

M.

Nick Baty · Post by **Nick Baty** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 8:55 pm

Removed

gwyn · Post by **gwyn** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 6:48 am

You're right, Nick. There are indeed some well established and loved Eucharistic Acclamations which will sadly have to be consigned to the skip. My first impression of the whole thing is that it doesn't lend itself to ease of musical composition.

Having said that, there's a delightful setting of the Sanctus used in the C of E composed by a chap called Burton, this setting ( I think it's referred to as Burton in F) fits the proposed new Sanctus translation all but perfectly, in fact, looking again, many anglican settings - with a bit of tweaking - fit the bill for the Sanctus, Gloria and most certainly the Agnus.

This is where I came in.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be Joyful, keep the faith.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

docmattc · Post by **docmattc** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 4:16 pm

Nick Baty wrote:What's the time frame? Five years? Ten?

This is a key question. I've been asked to look at the Lough Derg Mass with my choir. Is it worth the effort to teach any Mass setting at the moment?

How long will it be before settings of the new texts become available and in the interim between the new translation taking effect and musical settings appearing what does one do? use the old (now illegal) settings? Disregard GIRM and speak the acclamations, go back to the (still valid) Latin?

monty · Post by **monty** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:53 pm

Hopefully within the next couple of years! Otherwise I am going to have to buy a new weekday Missal.

One thing I have noticed and have reservations about is the 'Word of the Lord' after the readings. I have heard some people doing this already and to be honest, it sounds aggressive. Whether that is because of the explosion of air from the 'w' or whether they have been trying to make the point they are trendy and know what is coming, only time will tell. What exactly was wrong with 'This is the Word of the Lord'?

contrabordun · Post by **contrabordun** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:17 pm

Obvious, innit.

Latin has no definite articles, so in order to preserve word-for-word purity of translation...

mcb · Post by **mcb** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:33 pm

monty wrote:One thing I have noticed and have reservations about is the 'Word of the Lord' after the readings.

The draft translation has The word of the Lord, which to my mind is an improvement. There's a nice parallel with the body of Christ at Communion.

M.

monty · Post by **monty** » Thu Apr 19, 2007 8:32 am

Phew!

Missed the 'the'.

alan29 · Post by **alan29** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 12:01 pm

Dat still not English though, innit?
Alan

contrabordun · Post by **contrabordun** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:30 pm

mcb wrote:here's a nice parallel with the body of Christ at Communion.

I'm not sure I agree. It sounds natural enough person to person at communion because the proffered host/chalice supplies the missing verb in the sentence. IMO a closer communion parallel would be prior to the Agnus Dei - "This is [or, in the new version "Behold"] the Lamb of God" - here you do get the demonstrative.

This new version was lauded by one commenter on the Valle Adurni blog because "the horrible 1970 ICEL translations [sounded] the same as Protestants" Apparently we will now "SOUND LIKE CATHOLICS AGAIN!!!" Maybe that poster didn't realise that "Behold" is also the word the BCP 1662 uses?

I wonder what Catholics do sound like? Non singing, obviously, but what else?

Am I too far off topic?

docmattc · Post by **docmattc** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 8:05 pm

contrabordun wrote:
mcb wrote:here's a nice parallel with the body of Christ at Communion.

I'm not sure I agree. It sounds natural enough person to person at communion because the proffered host/chalice supplies the missing verb in the sentence.

I know where you're coming from but should the Word of God not speak to us person to person?

nazard · Post by **nazard** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:22 am

There are a few places in the mass where there are phrases with no verb where you would expect a sentence with a verb. "Dominus vobiscum" is an obvious one, and translators have always put in "be". The "Corpus Christi" has already been pointed out, and there is even "Mysterium Fidei" where the old translators saw fit to put in "Let us proclaim", in my view a spectacular error. I think that it was common practice in the Latin of the early christian period to miss out the present tense of the verb "To be." The "Ave Maria" says "benedicta tu", not "benedicta es" as you would expect of classical latin. I therefore think that the translation of "Verbum Domini" as "This is the word of the Lord" is supportable. It is good English, does not sound abrupt, and I believe an accurate rendering of the Latin.

monty · Post by **monty** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:23 am

Is it time to re-introduce some Latin?

By now, we know what 'Dominus vobiscum' means so if there are major problems translating it, don't!

Latin has never gone away but I doubt anyone is brave enough to bring back key phrases.

Just a thought.

Benevenio · Post by **Benevenio** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 11:16 am

nazard wrote:"Dominus vobiscum" â€¦translators have always put in "be". â€¦I think that it was common practice in the Latin of the early christian period to miss out the present tense of the verb "To be."

But the present tense of "to be" would be "is": The Lord is with you. So why substitute "be"? "The Lord is with you" is a statement of fact (the priest acknowledging the truth of Christ's assertion 'where two or more are gathered in my name, there I am'); "The Lord be with you" almost implies that this can only be so if, and when, the ordained minister commands it, because there's no point in asking/telling God to be with the people if God is already with usâ€¦

monty wrote:By now, we know what 'Dominus vobiscum' meansâ€¦

Do we?

contrabordun · Post by **contrabordun** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 11:45 am

But the present tense of "to be" would be "is".

Present indicative, yes. Present subjunctive is indeed "be". This can have a number of senses, but I've always assumed it had the sense of "may the Lord be with you"