Accurate? Did you notice that in the version of the Roman Canon on the USCCB website Mary becomes the mother of Joseph? This may be the version already used in public worship in South Africa -- a true scandal, and in fact blasphemous. Do not buy a pig in a poke.
Here is the bishops' or the Vatican's text:
In communion with those whose
memory we venerate, especially the glorious ever-Virgin Mary, Mother of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ, and of blessed Joseph, Spouse of the same Virgin
Someone pointed out that the text does not contain the error I signaled in this version:
http://usccb.org/romanmissal/
Whi...okAnnotated.pdf
whereas it does in this one (which is more accessible. since the other one is a clumsy pdf file):
http://usccb.org/romanmissal/exa.../
examples.shtml
There are one or two other differences between the two texts. Which is the definitive version?
I am happy to report that the offending passage has now been corrected (thanks to me!). But the subtler errors as regards English and Latin idiom and syntax and the general errors of taste and style and the underlying erroneous theory of translation remain to be corrected. They need to hire a team of competent translators who are also theologically literate and liturgically trained, and start all over again. The Roman Canon is in fact one of the better parts of the translation we currently have and should be left alone.
I still do not know whether the new translation will say "we make humble prayer and petition... that you accept..." or "we make humble prayer and petition... We ask you to accept..." BOTH texts are given here: http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/
The one that had the heresy now corrected can be found under "Catechetical Resources".
we make humble prayer and petition... that this junk translation be dumped!
Did you notice that in the version of the Roman Canon on the USCCB website Mary becomes the mother of Joseph?
What do you care, Father O'Leary? Do you even believe in the virginal conception of Our Lord and the perpetual virginity of Our Lady?
Which is the definitive version?
The pdf file has the definitive version. The other page only gives samples.
But the subtler errors as regards English and Latin idiom and syntax
In your opinion, that is, which counts for little. You know Latin and English, but so do a lot of other people who would disagree with you on matters of English and Latin idiom and syntax.
and the general errors of taste and style
. . . she said as she kissed her cow . . .
and the underlying erroneous theory of translation
Right. Erroneous theory of translation. Huh. Well at least it's actually a theory of translation, unlike the rubbish theory under which the current non-translation was generated.
They need to hire a team of competent translators who are also theologically literate and liturgically trained
They already have said team -- they're known as ICEL and Vox Clara. Not only are they theologically literate, but even more importantly, they are theologically and doctrinally orthodox, unlike yourself.
The Roman Canon is in fact one of the better parts of the translation we currently have and should be left alone.
Really? That deliberate mistranslation that we must now endure should be left alone?
If it's one of the better parts of the current non-translation, that only shows how absolutely rotten the non-translation is.
Translations are like spouses (before we were all politically correct they were like women). Would that they were all beautiful and faithful but, as it is, some are beautiful but not faithful and some are faithful but not beautiful. If a choice has to be made, faithful is better.
Jordanes, I recommend fewer of the angry ad hominems, and more consideration of the problems I point out. Remember that in blessing this translation you are exposing to judgment your own literacy and orthodoxy as well.
On the background of the present debacle the following is ESSENTIAL reading: http://findarticles.com/p/articl...ag=content;
col1
The present translations have been improved over 13 years of labor blessed by all the English-speaking episcopal conferences. Their work was dumped in a wastebin by the Vatican and the new bastardized version imposed on the worlds' bishops instead. At the June meeting of the US bishops it emerged that only 5 bishops had bothered to comment on the 800 pages they had been given three months before. At the meeting they were just goofing off, letting the bullies have their own way.
If the pdf version is definitive, why do the bishops give among their samples texts that Rome has not approved? For example, "we make humble prayer and petition... We ask you to accept" where the pdf has "we make humble prayer and petition... that you accept".
I see that in fact Jordanes is not recommending the new translations either, just cursing the darkness and putting on his usual "more orthodox than thou" stunt, which is an easy and pathetic game to play.
However, I was wrong to say the current translation of the Roman Canon (which is better than most of the present unsatisfactory translations) should be left alone. I think we should be allowed to see the improved version dumped in the wastepaper basket by the Vatican in 1998.
Though the grotesque heresy I made a song and dance about has been removed from the USCCB website, thanks to me, you can verify that it actually was on the website by consulting the cached pages: http://74.125.153.132/search?q=c...3&hl=en&
ct=clnk
I feel that only about 10 bishops are paying any real attention to this debate. The other feel "powerless", a favorite whine-word of bishops in their dealings with Rome. The slip I picked up was simply unnoticed because no one was on the watch. Nor did the laity that are supposed to be responding to this catechetical output (according to Bp Serratelli) reading it with any due care.
The crash will come when the texts are actually read aloud in live worship -- as happened in South Africa!
Why is "wondrous Resurrection" supposed to be an improvement on "glorious resurrection" in Eucharistic Prayer III?
"Look, we pray, upon the oblation of your Church, and, recognizing the sacrificial Victim by whose death you willed to reconcile us to yourself, grant that we, who are nourished by the Body and Blood of your Son, and filled with his Holy Spirit, may become one body, one spirit in Christ."
How is this heavily charged and awkward sentence an improvement on what we have at present?
Bp Trautman is right -- these texts are not proclaimable or prayable.
Or again, are you really prepared to argue that this passage from EP IV is a real improvement on what we currently have? It seems to me to replace a clear text with a fussy and murky one:
And you so loved the world, Father most holy, that in the fullness of time you sent your Only Begotten Son to be our Savior. Incarnate by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary, he shared our human nature in all things but sin. To the poor he proclaimed the good news of salvation, to prisoners, freedom, and to the sorrowful of heart, joy. To accomplish your plan, he gave himself up to death, and, rising from the dead, he destroyed death and restored life. And that we might live no longer for ourselves but for him who died and rose for us, he sent the Holy Spirit from you, Father, as the first fruits for those who believe, so that, bringing to perfection his work in the world, he might sanctify creation to the full.
A typical problem is the murky reference of "he" and "his" in the last line of the section quoted.
The current version is clearer: "to complete his work on earth and bring us the fullness of grace".
Some one has wwwwaaayyy too much time on his hands . . ..
Commenting by HaloScan
