Another Messy Translation: The Third Eucharistic Prayer

PREX EUCHARISTICA III
  
Vere sanctus es, Domine,

et merito te laudat omnis a te condita creatura,

quia per Filium tuum, Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum,

Spiritus Sancti operante virtute

vivificas et sanctificas universa,

et populum tibi congregare non desinis,

ut a solis ortu usque ad occasum

oblatio munda offeratur nomini tuo.

Father, you are holy indeed, and all creation rightly gives you praise. All life, all holiness comes from you through your Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, by the working of the Holy Spirit. From age to age you gather a people to yourself, so that from east to west a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your name.

THE NEW TRANSLATION:

You are indeed Holy, O Lord, and all you have created rightly gives you praise, for through your Son our Lord Jesus Christ, by the power and working of the Holy Spirit, you give life to all things and make them holy, and you never cease to gather a people to yourself, so that from the rising of the sun to its setting a pure sacrifice may be offered to your name.

This sentence is too long, and cumbersome. The biblical ‘Father’ has the advantage over “O Lord” of bringing out more clearly the Trinitarian structure of the Eucharist and of this prayer. “All you have created” is awkward; if literalism it to prevail, why not “every creature established by you” or “wrought by you”? “Through your” and “by the” are less effectively combined in the new version than in the current version. “Power and working” is an unidiomatic and unexpressive pleonasm; “to your name” is very odd in English, and “to the glory of your name” captures the meaning better. “Pure oblation” would be better than “pure sacrifice”.

“From the rising of the sun to its setting” reproduces the RSV translation of Malachi 1:11, where the phrase is placed in parallel with “in every place”, suggesting  a spatial rather than temporal reference, namely the space of all the nations in contrast to Israel. The new translation conveys the temporal sense “from dawn to dusk”, but the meaning intended by the Latin text probably was “from the place where the sun rises to the place it sets” (the Japanese Mass text has the word tokoro, place, twice here). If so, “from east to west” is more correct in that it avoids this ambiguity.

Supplices ergo te, Domine, deprecamur,

ut haec munera, quae tibi sacranda detulimus,

eodem Spiritu sanctificare digneris,

ut Corpus et + Sanguis fiant Filii tui Domini nostri Iesu Christi,

cuius mandato haec mysteria celebramus.
 

And so, Father, we bring you these gifts. We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit, that they may become the body and blood of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at whose command we celebrate this eucharist.

THE NEW TRANSLATION:

Therefore, O Lord, we humbly implore you: by the same Spirit graciously make holy these gifts we have brought to you for consecration, that they may become the Body and Blood of your Son our Lord Jesus Christ at whose command we celebrate these mysteries.

“Therefore” is unsuited to the language of prayer; it is used mostly in the context of logical argument in English. “For consecration” is a misleading translation of “sacranda” – it means dedication of the gifts not their consecration in the sense of transubstantiation. The result is that “consecration” could mean the same thing as “become the Body and Blood” whereas in the Latin the reference is to two different things.

  Ipse enim in qua nocte tradebatur

accepit panem et tibi gratias agens

benedixit, fregit, deditque discipulis suis, dicens:

On the night he was betrayed, he took bread and gave you thanks and praise. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said:

THE NEW TRANSLATION:

For on the night he was betrayed he himself took bread, and giving you thanks he said the blessing, broke the bread and gave it to his disciples, saying:

“He himself” grates here, its emphasis heavier than in Latin. In English “he himself” suggests a contrast with someone else, as in “It was not I but he himself who said it.” Here the implied suggestion is “It was not a servant or one of the apostles or a priest of the later Church who took bread, but Jesus himself.”

  Simili modo, postquam cenatum est,

accipiens calicem, et tibi gratias agens benedixit,

deditque discipulis suis, dicens:

 When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said:

THE NEW TRANSLATION:

In the same way, when supper was ended, he took the chalice, and giving you thanks he said the blessing, and gave it to his disciples, saying:

The “it” here could suggest the blessing rather than the chalice.

Memores igitur, Domine,

eiusdem Filii tui salutiferae passionis

necnon mirabilis resurrectionis et ascensionis in caelum,

sed et praestolantes alterum eius adventum,

offerimus tibi, gratias referentes,

hoc sacrificium vivum et sanctum.

Father, calling to mind the death your Son endured for our salvation, his glorious resurrection and ascension into heaven, and ready to greet him when he comes again, we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice.

THE NEW TRANSLATION:

Therefore, O Lord, we celebrate the memorial of the saving passion of your Son, his wondrous Resurrection and Ascension into heaven, and as we look forward to his second coming, we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice.

“Celebrate the memorial of” is a clumsy, verbose translation of “memores”; “calling to mind” is correct. “Wondrous” is an inadequate expression for the Resurrection in English. “Look forward to” has a casual connotation in contemporary English; “await” is more accurate and expressive. The “and as” for “sed et” is hopelessly lame and creates a graceless syntax: “We celebrate X, Y, and as we look forward to W, we offer Z.” Better would have been: “Bearing in mind X, and Y no less, and also awaiting W, we offer Z.” Introducing the indicative verbs “celebrate” and “look forward” spoils the rhythm and natural syntax that was preserved and respected in “calling to mind” and “ready to greet him” in the current translation; which thus turns out to be more faithful to the Latin.

Respice, quaesumus,

in oblationem Ecclesiae tuae

et, agnoscens Hostiam, cuius voluisti immolatione placari,

concede, ut qui Corpore et Sanguine Filii tui reficimur,

Spiritu eius Sancto repleti,

unum corpus et unus spiritus inveniamur in Christo.

Look with favor on your Church's offering, and see the Victim whose death has reconciled us to yourself. Grant that we, who are nourished by his body and blood, may be filled with his Holy Spirit, and become one body, one spirit in Christ.

THE NEW TRANSLATION:

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.

“Recognizing” is bizarre in English, suggesting that God is short-sighted. The opening words of this sentence are fustian and in no way improve on the current text in accuracy or expressiveness. The words “recognizing the sacrificial Victim by whose death you willed to reconcile us to yourself” are an unattractive “mouthful” and sound cumbersomely pleonastic, especially because they are packed into a subordinate clause. “See the Victim whose death has reconciled us to yourself” in contrast is a noble and vivid sentence.  The translation shies away from the literal “by whose immolation you willed to be placated.”

Ipse nos tibi perficiat munus aeternum,

ut cum electis tuis hereditatem consequi valeamus,

inprimis cum beatissima Virgine, Dei Genetrice, Maria,

cum beatis Apostolis tuis

et gloriosis Martyribus (cum Sancto N.)

et omnibus Sanctis,

quorum intercessione perpetuo apud te confidimus adiuvari.

May he make us an everlasting gift to you and enable us to share in the inheritance of your saints, with Mary, the virgin Mother of God, with the apostles, the martyrs, [Saint N.] and all your saints, on whose constant intercession we rely for help.

THE NEW TRANSLATION:

May he make of us an eternal offering to you, so that we may obtain an inheritance with your elect, especially with the most blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, with your blessed Apostles and glorious Martyrs, [with Saint N.] and with all the Saints, on whose constant intercession in your presence we rely for unfailing help.

Here “ipse” is translated “he” not “he himself,” which shows it was not necessary to translates it as “he himself” earlier. Calling human beings “eternal” in English is always incorrect. We do not say an “eternal brotherhood” or “the eternal Communion of Saints” but rather a “perpetual brotherhood” and “the everlasting Communion of Saints.” “Your elect” is fustian; it sounds like old-fashioned Protestant jargon to modern English ears. “Those you have chosen” would be a perfectly literal and faithful translation of the Latin. “Obtain an inheritance with” is misleading. “Especially with” is not a good translation of “inprimis.” The correct translation might be something more like: “Attain the inheritance, alongside, in the first place…”

  Haec Hostia nostrae reconciliationis proficiat,

quaesumus, Domine,

ad totius mundi pacem atque salutem.

Ecclesiam tuam, peregrinantem in terra,

in fide et caritate firmare digneris

cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N.

et Episcopo nostro N.,

cum episcopali ordine et universo clero

et omni populo acquisitionis tuae.

Lord, may this sacrifice, which has made our peace with you, advance the peace and salvation of all the world. Strengthen in faith and love your pilgrim Church on earth; your servant, Pope N., , our Bishop N., and all the bishops, with the clergy and the entire people your Son has gained for you.

THE NEW TRANSLATION:

May this Sacrifice of our reconciliation, we pray, O Lord, advance the peace and salvation of all the world. Be pleased to confirm in faith and charity your pilgrim Church on earth, with your servant N. our Pope and N. our Bishop, the Order of Bishops, all the clergy, and the entire people you make your own.

“Sacrifice of our reconciliation” is incorrect; it is not our reconciliation that is sacrificed; rather the sacrifices effects our reconciliation. Also in English, “our reconciliation” on its own suggests the reconciliation between us, as when an estranged but reunited couple speak of “our reconciliation.” The meaning of the Latin, however, is “our reconciliation with God.” “Firmare” is more accurately translated by “strengthen” than by “confirm,” especially because the latter word brings in misleadings from contemporary usage: “Please confirm that you are coming on the 23^rd.” “Consolidate” or “make secure” would perhaps be better. “The order of bishops” is not a piece of jargon in common church use today.

Votis huius familiae,

quam tibi astare voluisti, adesto propitius.

Omnes filios tuos ubique dispersos

tibi, clemens Pater, miseratus coniunge.

Father, hear the prayers of the family you have gathered here before you. In mercy and love unite all your children wherever they may be.

THE NEW TRANSLATION:

Listen graciously to the prayers of this family, whom you have summoned before you. In your compassion, O Merciful Father, gather to yourself all of your children scattered throughout the earth.

“Summoned” is fustian, and has a grim connotation in contemporary usage: “The headmaster summoned me to his office. A summons was served.” “Compassion” and “merciful” is a displeasing pleonasm, avoidable by translating “clemens” as “loving.”

Fratres nostros defunctos,

et omnes qui, tibi placentes, ex hoc saeculo transierunt,

in regnum tuum benignus admitte,

ubi fore speramus,

ut simul gloria tua perenniter satiemur,

per Christum Dominum nostrum,

per quem mundo bona cuncta largiris.

Welcome into your kingdom our departed brothers and sisters, and all who have left this world in your friendship. We hope to enjoy for ever the vision of your glory, through Christ our Lord, from whom all good things come.

THE NEW TRANSLATION:

To our departed brothers and sisters and to all who were pleasing to you at their passing from this life, give kind admittance to your kingdom. There we hope to enjoy for ever the fullness of your glory through Christ our Lord through whom you bestow on the world all that is good.

“Give kind admittance” suggest a ticket office request. The kingdom sounds awfully static here. The “in” of “in regnum tuum” has the dynamic sense of “into” and this is lost in “give admittance to your kingdom.” The inversion, “to our departed… give…” is awkward, as we are kept waiting too long for the verb. “Where we hope we shall be that we may be perennially sated with Thy glory” would be a literal translation; “to enjoy for ever the fullness of your glory” is already dynamic equivalence, and as such is no improvement on “the vision of your glory.” “The fullness of your glory” is in any case ambiguous. It suggests that there is a fullness of divine glory as opposed to a partial measure thereof – such a distinction is alien to Scripture and to orthodox theology. The word “simul” is untranslated in both versions. There should be a comma before “through Christ our Lord.” The two “throughs” are graceless and the Prayer ends lamely in the new version.

It seems that the new translation is a careless piece of work, falling short of the much-maligned current translation even in respect of fidelity to the Latin original.

Comments

[evagrius]

Perhaps all of this is being done in order to convince everyone that, golly, English, and for that matter any language other than Latin, just isn't good enough for liturgical worship and that we all better just get back to Latin.

[Gene O'Grady]

Remarkable -- I have seen many translations of Latin or Greek that omit the particle "o" before a vocative, but this is the first time I have ever seen it added in English where it doesn't appear in Latin.

I note that you observe that the tone of argument in several of these translations. I noted that in several of your previously posted extracts -- seems to fit Francis George, though.

[cor ad cor loquitur]

The new translation is dreadful. But isn't the battle over? I thought that the last group of English-speaking [sic] bishops had decided to vote this one through. It is easy enough to find things to criticise in this translation, but will anyone listen?

[Spirit of Vatican II]

Yes, the battle is over. No, nobody will listen.

The entire debacle is a grim symptom of church dysfunction.

Heaven knows what will happen when the texts are actually used in worship. Perhaps the faithful are already so inured to trashy hymns and vacuous sermons that they will take a new batch of dull verbiage in their stride.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

But we could get together and send close analyses of the Eucharistic Prayers, pointing out the weaknesses, to the Congregation for Divine Worship.

[cor ad cor loquitur]

I agree, Joseph, and feel I should apologise to you and other readers of this blog for what must have seemed a despairing post.

I agree that we should send a close analysis of the prayers and translations, not only to the CDW but also to some of the more thoughtful bishops (e.g. Abp Nichols); at the very least it might help them deal with the pastoral problems that these texts will cause in the US and UK.

[Andy K]

Joseph, can you give us some insights into how the new Latin text was developed?

There are millions of people with sufficient talent and charism to produce well crafted English text. How many people can there be that can do the same in Latin? Maybe the English text of a "close" translation is bad because the Latin is bad.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

Good question -- I'll seek enlightenment on it.

[cor ad cor loquitur]

Andy, I suppose it's possible that "bad Latin" is the cause of the poor vernacular translations.

But I think it's unlikely.

The Latin text of the Roman Canon (now called Eucharistic Prayer 1) is virtually identical in the Tridentine and Novus Ordo forms of the Mass. I haven't compared every variation (prefaces, commemorations, variations in the 'Hanc igitur', etc.) but the unchangeable bits don't differ. So the dreadful translations of the Roman Canon cited on this blog aren't a result of changes to the Latin, but of poor translation; more precisely, of the badly conceived Liturgiam Authenticam.

There were more changes to the Latin of the proper prayers -- collects and the like. Prof Lauren Pristas has written extensively about these; the following papers may be of interest:

http://www.execulink.com/~dtribe/blog/Pristas.pdf

http://communio-icr.com/articles/PDF/pristas30-4.pdf

http://faculty.caldwell.edu/lpristas/novaetveteraweb.pdf

These papers feature very close comparisons of the prayer texts, together with analysis of the principles by which the new Latin text was constructed.

Pristas shows that the post-conciliar liturgists tended to simplify the Latin of the older prayers and to correct errors in Latin grammar that had crept into the texts. They also made other, more substantive changes -- for instance, removing some of the darker language of sin and guilt. Whatever you think of these, it's hard to believe that they made the translators' task harder; if anything, simpler and more grammatically correct Latin should be EASIER to render in idiomatic English.

Finally, if "bad Latin" is the culprit, why does the French vernacular read so easily, even though it is close to the Latin? No doubt French and Latin are structurally more similar than are English and Latin, but not enough to account for these horrid translations.

[Gedsmk]

Speaking of other cultures, read this:
http://www.ucanews.com/2009/11/30/humpty-dumpty-in-the-vatican/

[Daniel]

I find that most of your criticisms of the new translation are not criticisms of the English but actually the Latin.

The New translations do not cut out or add new words for the most part unlike the ICEL. If you do not like the latin, then maybe you are int he wrong Church.

[Spirit of Vatican II]

Daniel, I like the Latin and love the Roman Canon in Latin. Your comment is uncalled for.

[Martin]

The new translation is abysmal. In places it seems irreverently to bring God down to the level of man as if he's informing God as to the best way to do things. Not only that but to pray to God in ambiguous language seems and sounds so disrespectful. I for one will seek out a church where the first prayer is used.