AmericanPapist Comments
Sounds good to me.
Well, it's a start.
Of course first it has to be approved by the USCCB. The fact that they picked Trautman as the head of liturgical things is not a good sign.
Guess I have been too beat down by the translation problems to have much hope right now.
I like how the Nicene Creed will change. But I just got down all of the responses!
Although, it is inaccurate to say that the "we" versison of the Creed was closer to the Greek original. The Greek begins with "pisteuo" that is first person singular of the verb "to believe". Therefore, the change to "I believe..." is closer to both Greek "Pisteuo" and Latin "Credo".
As an amateur latinist, I tend to like changes to make it a more authentic translation (a la Fr. Z.), but some idioms don't seem to cross over well. I feel that's the case with "And with your spirit." I have to admit I like the simpler form.
Does anyone think the meaning itself is any different?
A welcome change. Now to get the common people to understand. I know that many won't.
What I REALLY would like to see is "pro multis" finally coming out as "for many" and not "for all" in the consecration.
"And with your spirit" is an expression we find in the New Testament already.
As a liturgical expression, the early Church saw it as an acknowledgment of the apostolic, sacramental nature of the priesthood.
St. John Chrysostom describes the "spirit" of the response as the indwelling Spirit, alluding to the priest as one who presides and offers sacrifice by the power of the Holy Spirit.
From early on in the Church, the liturgical greeting "The Lord be with you" was reserved to bishops, priests and deacons, with the people answering them "and with your spirit." It is a way of acknowledging the "credentials" of the ordained.
Fr. Stephanos, as always, makes great sense. But I'm Patrick on this one: "With your spirit" just doesn't sound right to my 21st century English ears.
Patrick and Edward, yes, it sounds stilted. However, we'll get used to it. Who thinks twice while saying, "... who ART in heaven ... THY name ... THY kingdom ... THY will ...."?
There have been churches in the Roman Rite using this English translation for a while: Anglican-Use Catholics. We say "and with thy spirit" as a response and there has never been a problem with it.
Well, although some people just dread the thought of latin, it would just be easier to say "et cum spirituo tuo" and wouldn't have to argue if it has been translated correctly. But then again, I do appreciate that they are finally fixing some of the poor translations.
I also especially like the "I believe". While the role of community in memory and faith is crucial, in the end, one's belief must be personal to be real. Great to get back to that and away from the "we" stuff that always makes me think of goofy catch phrases like "we are church", etc.
peace
I've seen all sorts of different reports on this matter, and some simply refer to a new translation of the "Missal" while others to the "Order of the Mass." Now, when I heard "Order of the Mass," I take that to be exclusive of the Sanctoral and Temporal Propers.
Does anyone know if these prayers are included in the new translation effort, or is this simply the Ordinary that's being revised?
The report is about the prayers and responses of the people in the Order of Mass.
The translation of the entire Missal is said to take another two years.
Maybe Fr. Stephanos can answer this: What happens if the bishops do vote to "veto" (for lack of a better word) this translation? Will it be stuck in limbo for a long time, or will the pope over-ride the decision of the bishops in order to make this translation available?
Part of it is just that people are not used to it. It will take a bit of time, but it should not be a problem.
I remember when they changed the ending of the readings from "This is the Word of the Lord" to the more literal "The Word of the Lord." Everyone thought it sounded so weird, but now, everyone is used to it.
I think this just proves Trautman's argument to be lame.
If 'and with your spirit' doesn't sound right to 21st-century ears, it may be because The Lord be with you isn't a normal form of greeting outside the liturgical setting. As Fr Stephanos points out, it has a special meaning, and this meaning is at odds with the bureaucratese English that is generally spoken and written these days--even, sadly, in liturgical translations.
As to "I believe" and "We believe", my understanding (which may be erroneous) was that "We believe" was how the Nicene Creed was state by the Church Council (as a corporate statement of what all the bishops agreed to be the faith of the Church), but that the "I believe" came from the baptismal rite whence the Apostles' Creed developed, and that the singular was (apart from the recent aberration) the normal statement of the Credo in liturgical use--in East and West.
The Vatican has affirmed that the "translation" we have been using only for a few decades is defective. The Vatican WANTS a better translation, even calling for a FAITHFUL translation, and has now shown that it will not tolerate less than what the VATICAN judges to be an acceptablly faithful translation. Ultimately, the Vatican has the last word in this matter.
How did the defective translation that we are using get through in the first place?
I'll make two guesses.
First. At the time our English translation was submitted in the 1960's, all the other languages were submitting theirs also. A flood.
Second. I would guess that in the 1960's the U.S. bishops placed excessive trust in the "International Commission on English in the Liturgy" and relayed the translation to the Vatican with a "stamp of approval" without giving a thorough and critical eye to the thing. Someone at the Vatican offices didn't look critically at the translation (perhaps just trusting the U.S. "stamp of approval").
People have a love of conspiracy theories. Maybe the bishops trusted ICEL too much. Maybe the Vatican trusted the bishops. The buck stops somewhere, so let's face the fact that a) liturgy geeks have always been with us, even in the episcopate, and that b) the Vatican approved the supposedly poor translation we've been using for the past 36 years.
Given that the Vatican seems to have changed its mind, it might also serve us to concede that ICEL as it was constituted changed significantly from when it translated Roman Missal I in the 70's. One only has to consider the texts of the RCIA, the Order of Christian Funerals, and the rites for Pastoral Care of the Sick to see the improved work done in the 80's.
The two operative factors: a more faithful translation and a more artistic translation might be at odds at some junctures. Personally, I find a literal faithfulness to Latin not as important a consideration as a high quality of modern English in a usable vernacular Missal. If ICEL, the bishops, and the Vatican need ten years to get it right, then they should take the time and do it well. The last missal suffered from being a rush job. We don't need another forty years after the Council.
In October 2000, the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Liturgy and the Sacraments, Cardinal Jorge A. Medina Estevez, wrote to the chairman of ICEL to tell him that ICEL is no longer considered able to serve "the bishops, the Holy See, and the English-speaking faithful." The Cardinal accused ICEL of composing unauthorized texts and spoke of its failure to "accurately and fully convey the content of the original (Latin) texts."
Estevez Medina then required ICEL to obtain a "nihil obstat" from his Congregation before any of ICEL's work would be accepted.
Then, the Congregation later wrote the U.S. bishops straightforwardly denouncing the I.C.E.L.'s translators as exhibiting a clear but unacceptable ideological agenda in the new translations they were forwarding to Rome. The Vatican clearly told the bishops to (1) replace the personnel on I.C.E.L. and to (2) restructure the I.C.E.L. statutes.
Trautman responded critically.
Estevez Medina answered ("corrected him") with the following letter.
http://www.americamagazine.org/g...=42&
issueID=292
Clarification. The last letter I cited seems, rather, to have come before the Vatican required the replacement of the ICEL staff and the rewriting of ICEL's statutes.
Commenting by HaloScan
