The Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer I) is a prayer loved by all Catholic priests. It was well translated by ICEL back in the late 1960s, and they explained the rationale of their translation, line by line, in a booklet published at the time. It remains one of the more successful and prayable sections of the current liturgy in English. In an earlier posting I criticized a draft of the new translation of the Roman Canon that I found on Fr Zuhlsdorf’s website.
See: http://josephsoleary.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/06/bishop-donald-t.html
The latest version, which has won the final approval of the English-speaking Bishops worldwide, is not an improvement on previous drafts. Apart from being a very tawdry piece of English prose, it is riddled with grammatical and syntactical infelicities or errors. (In one version published on the USCCB website it even contained an extraordinary theological howler, now corrected: it made the Blessed Virgin the mother of her husband, like Jocasta!)
UPDATE: The “latest version” is no longer the latest version. Since the Bishops gave their approval of the new version the Vatican have unilaterally introduced more than 10,000 changes into the text. A champion of the 2008 version finds these latest alterations deplorable: http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2010/10/17/a-funny-thing-happened-on-the-way-to-the-2010-received-text/
Somehow I feel there is poetic justice in this most recent twist in the farce. It is like watching the last wizened and crippled scions of some decadent imperial dynasty caught in the throes of progressive decrepitude. The bishops sold the pass, failed to assert their authority; now even what they thought they had authority over has been taken away from them, and they are mocked by irresponsible underlings who merrily make an even more total mess of the shoddy product they so obediently, so virtuously rubberstamped. Surrender your authority and your dignity, and this is how you are treated.
When this is dumped on the faithful, who will be blamed? Not the Vatican, and not the illiterates who put the finishing touches to the ghastly texts, but the bishops -- and rightly. Care for the liturgical texts is the responsibility of the bishops and they have not fulfilled it. They will hear thousands repeat the words of one disgruntled South African Catholic: “I hate you, hierarchy.” I remember Bishop Arthur Roche of Leeds telling the US Bishops that when he first took on responsibility for the new translations he thought it was “a relatively straightforward matter”; obviously the mistranslators of the last hour share that bishop’s delusions of competence.
Bishop Brian Dunn’s article
could be read as passing the buck to the Vatican, and it is true that Vatican encroachments are the main cause of the debacle. But the failure of the bishops to resist these was a spineless betrayal of their office. “Conversio textus latini in linguam vernaculam in liturgia adhibenda, a competenti auctoritate ecclesiastica terriroriali, de qua supra, approbari debet” (Sacrosanctum concilium 36.4); that is, translation from Latin to the vernacular should be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority. The Vatican has arrogated that competence to itself, leaving to the bishops only the right to make “observations” on texts pushed through by the Vatican, observations which the Vatican has freely ignored. Moreover, the latest batch of mistranslations, accepted by the Vatican but not even seen by the bishops, further gravely contradicts the letter and still more the spirit of the Council.
THE ROMAN CANON
Te igitur, clementissime Pater, per Iesum Christum, filium tuum, Dominum nostrum, supplices, rogamus ac petimus, uti accepta habeas et benedicas, haec dona, haec munera, haec sancta sacrificia illibata. In primis, quae tibi offerimus pro Ecclesia tua sancta catholica: quam pacificare, custodire, adunare et regere digneris toto orbe terrarum: una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N. et antistite nostro N. et omnibus orthodoxis atque catholicae et apostolicae fidei cultoribus.
CURRENT TEXT:
We come to you, Father, with praise and thanksgiving, through Jesus Christ your Son. Through him we ask you to accept and bless these gifts we offer you in sacrifice. We offer them for your holy catholic Church, watch over it, Lord, and guide it; grant it peace and unity throughout the world. We offer them for N. our Pope, for N. our bishop, and for all who hold and teach the catholic faith that comes from the apostles.
NEW VERSION:
To you, most merciful Father, we make humble prayer and petition, (unidiomatic and pleonastic) through Jesus Christ, your Son, our Lord, that you accept [or in another version also on the USCCB site: ‘We ask you to accept’] and bless these gifts, these offerings, these holy and unblemished sacrifices, (pleonastic and fulsome), which we offer (offerings which we offer – clumsy) you first of all for your holy catholic Church. Be pleased to grant her peace, to guard, unite and govern her (pleonastic and uncommunicative; the four ideas are more perspiciously presented in the current translation) throughout the whole world, together with (the Church together with the bishops?) your servant N. our Pope and N. our Bishop, and all those who, holding to the truth (sounds like propaganda, and is rather vague in its denotation; it translates ‘orthodoxis’), hand on the catholic and apostolic faith. (The ‘holding’ and ‘handing on’ is cumbersome; ‘hold and teach’ was fine.)
[2010 VERSION To you, therefore, most merciful Father, we make humble prayer and petition (the addition of “therefore” improves the rhythm, though it remains unclear as always what the “therefore” (igitur) refers to
which we offer you firstly for your holy catholic Church (a disimprovement on “first of all”; why not “in the first place”?]
‘that you accept’ is too far removed from the verb governing it, so that it comes as an unrhythmical afterthought or appendage to what had seemed a completed sentence.
********************************************************
Memento, Domine, famulorum famularumque tuarum et omnium circumstantium, quorum tibi fides cognita est et nota devotio, pro quibus tibi offerimus: vel qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium laudis, pro se suisque omnibus: pro redemptione animarum suarum, pro spe salutis et incolumitatis suae: tibique reddunt vota sua aeterno Deo, vivo et vero.
CURRENT TEXT
Remember, Lord, your people, especially those for whom we now pray, N. and N. Remember all of us gathered here before you. You know how firmly we believe in you and dedicate ourselves to you. We offer you this sacrifice of praise for ourselves and those who are dear to us. We pray to you, our living and true God, for our well being and redemption.
NEW VERSION (2008)
Remember, Lord, your servants N. and N. and all gathered here, whose faith and devotion are known to you. For them and all who are dear to them (confusing), we offer you this sacrifice of praise or they offer it for themselves (confusing) and all who are dear to them (bizarre repetition), for the redemption of their souls (fustian), in hope of health and well-being (flat, unidiomatic), and fulfilling their vows to you (obscure), the eternal God, living and true.
[In the 2010 VERSION the bizarre repetition is eliminated and a ghastly phrase “paying their homage to you” is introduced: For them, we offer you this sacrifice of praise or they offer it for themselves and all who are dear to them, for the redemption of their souls, in hope of health and well-being, and paying their homage to you, the eternal God, living and true.]
Can this gibberish be seriously proposed as a liturgical text? I cannot believe that the English-speaking bishops have approved it. I shall check the text again (on June 7, 2010). --- I have checked at the USCCB site, and the words are exactly as they appear above. This is redolent of contempt for the People of God. I think we will be hearing the words ‘Abuse’ and ‘Scandal’ when this rubbish hits them.
********************************************************
Communicantes, et memoriam venerantes, in prímis gloriosae semper Vírginis Mariae, Genetrícis Dei et Domini nostri Iesu Christi : sed et beati Ioseph, eiusdem Vírginis Sponsi, et beatorum Apostolorum ac Martyrum tuorum: Petri et Pauli, Andreae, et omnium Sanctorum tuorum; quorum meritis, precibusque concedas, ut in omnibus protectionis tuae muniamur auxílio.
CURRENT TEXT
In union with the whole Church, we honor Mary, the ever-virgin mother of Jesus Christ our Lord and God. We honor Joseph, her husband, the apostles and martyrs, Peter and Paul, Andrew, and all the saints. May their merits and prayers gain us your constant help and protection.
NEW VERSION:
In communion with those whose memory we venerate, (fustian), especially the glorious ever-Virgin Mary, Mother of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ (heavy-handed), and of blessed Joseph, Spouse of the same Virgin (clumsy, unidiomatic), your blessed Apostles and Martyrs, Peter and Paul, Andrew and all your Saints... : through their merits and prayers, grant that in all things we may be defended by your protecting help (pleonastic, unidiomatic).
[2010: and blessed Joseph, her Spouse…
we ask that through their merits and prayers, in all things we may be defended by your protecting help.]
‘In communion with those... especially... and all your Saints... : grant that we...’ The part of the sentence before the colon either hangs ungrammatically loose, or it is in apposition with ‘we’ after the colon, which is very odd in English. In the Latin the ‘Communicantes’ also hangs loose, unless attached to the ‘reddunt’ toward the close of the preceding sentence. The translation would be more literal if that sentence ended with a comma or at most a semicolon. Then instead of a break where the colon is in the present sentence, there should be a semicolon followed by ‘to (or by) whose merits and prayers mayst Thou vouchsafe that in all things we may be strengthened by the help of Thy protection.’ That is, in the Latin the phrase ‘in communion with’ is in apposition with a preceding ‘they’ not with a later ‘we’. The half-baked imitation of the Latin destroys its syntax and produces an odd syntax in English as well!
********************************************************
Hanc igitur oblationem servitutis nostrae, sed et cunctae familiae tuae, quaesumus, Domine, ut placatus accipias; diesque nostros in tua pace disponas, atque ab aeterna damnatione nos eripi, et in electorum tuorum iubeas grege numerari.
CURRENT TEXT:
Father, accept this offering from your whole family. Grant us your peace in this life, save us from final damnation, and count us among those you have chosen.
NEW VERSION:
Therefore, Lord, we pray: graciously accept this oblation of our service (unidiomatic, pleonastic), that of your whole family (clumsy, obscure); order our days in your peace, and command that we be delivered from eternal damnation and counted among the flock of those you have chosen. (groveling, verbose)
:
********************************************************
Quam oblationem tu, Deus, in omnibus, quaesumus, benedictam, adscriptam, ratam, rationabilem, acceptabilemque facere digneris: ut nobis Corpus et Sanguis fiat, dilectissimi Filii tui, Domini nostri Iesu Christi.
CURRENT TEXT:
Bless and approve our offering: make it acceptable to you, an offering in spirit and in truth. Let it become for us the body and blood of Jesus Christ, your only Son our Lord.
NEW VERSION:
Be pleased, O God, we pray, to bless, acknowledge (earlier draft: ‘recognize’) and approve this offering in every respect (pleonastic, verbose, flat); make it spiritual and acceptable (unidiomatic, unclear), so that it may become for us (earlier draft: ‘that it become for us’) the Body and Blood of your most beloved Son (fulsome), our Lord Jesus Christ.
********************************************************
Qui, pridie quam pateretur, accepit panem in sanctas ac venerabiles manus suas, et elevatis oculis in caelum ad te Deum Patrem suum omnipotentem, tibi gratias agens benedixit, fregit, deditque discipulis suis, dicens: ACCIPITE, ET MANDUCATE EX HOC OMNES: HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, QUOD PRO VOBIS TRADETUR.
Simili modo, postquam caenatum est, accipiens et hunc praeclarum calicem in sanctas ac venerabiles manus suas, item tibi gratias agens benedixit, deditque discipulis suis, dicens: ACCIPITE ET BIBITE EX EO OMNES: HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM. HOC FACITE IN MEAM COMMEMORATIONEM.
CURRENT TEXT:
The day before he suffered he took bread in his sacred hands and looking up to heaven, to you, his almighty Father, he gave you thanks and praise. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said: TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND EAT IT: THIS IS MY BODY WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU.
When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said: TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT: THIS IS THE CUP OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT. IT WILL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR ALL SO THAT SINS MAY BE FORGIVEN. DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.
NEW VERSION:
On the day before he was to suffer he took bread in his holy and venerable hands (pleonastic, fustian), and with eyes raised to heaven to you, O God, his almighty Father (fulsome, and why add the ‘O’?), giving you thanks he said the blessing, broke the bread and gave it to his disciples, saying: TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND EAT OF IT: FOR THIS IS MY BODY WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU. (the two ‘for’s are bad style.
In a similar way (unidiomatic, confusing), when supper was ended, he took this precious chalice (mistranslation; calyx means ‘Cup’ as in the earlier draft) into his holy and venerable hands (clumsy repetition, fustian, pleonastic), and once more giving you thanks, he said the blessing and gave the chalice (mistranslation) to his disciples, saying:
TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE (mistranslation) OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT; WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY (mistranslation) FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS. DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.
********************************************************
Unde et memores, Domine, nos servi tui, sed et plebs tua sancta, eiusdem Christi Filii tui Domini nostri tam beatae passionis nec non ab inferis resurrectionis, sed et in coelos gloriosae ascensionis : offerimus praeclarae maiestati tuae de tuis donis ac datis hostiam puram, hostiam sanctam, hostiam immaculatam, Panem sanctum vitae aeternae et Calicem salutis perpetuae.Supra quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris: et accepta habere, sicuti accepta habere dignatus es munera pueri tui iusti Abel, et sacrificium Patriarchae nostri Abrahae, et quod tibi obtulit summus sacerdos tuus Melchisedech, sanctum sacrificium, immaculatam hostiam.
CURRENT TEXT:
Father, we celebrate the memory of Christ, your Son. We, your people and your ministers, recall his passion, his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into glory; and from the many gifts you have given us we offer to you, God of glory and majesty, this holy and perfect sacrifice: the bread of life and the cup of eternal salvation. Look with favor on these offerings and accept them as once you accepted the gifts of your servant Abel, the sacrifice of Abraham, our father in faith, and the bread and wine offered by your priest Melchizedech.
NEW VERSION:
Therefore, O Lord, we celebrate the memorial of the blessed Passion, the Resurrection from the dead, and the glorious Ascension into heaven of Christ, your Son, our Lord, (ungrammatical punctuation; a period is required) we, your servants and your holy people, offer to your glorious majesty (fulsome), from the gifts that you have given us, this (earlier draft: ‘the’) pure victim, this holy victim, this spotless victim, (pleonastic, fustian, fulsome) the holy Bread of eternal life (verbose, fulsome) and the Chalice (mistranslation) of everlasting salvation (pleonastic with ‘eternal life’). Be pleased to look upon them with serene and kindly countenance, (unidiomatic, pleonastic; earlier draft: ‘with a serene and kindly gaze,’) and to accept them, as you were pleased to (unidiomatic, groveling, clumsy repetition) accept the gifts of your servant Abel the just (clumsy; earlier draft: ‘your just servant Abel’) the sacrifice of Abraham, our father in faith, and the offering of your high priest Melchizedek, a holy sacrifice, a spotless victim. (pleonastic, verbose, reference unclear, appended ungrammatically)
[2010: Therefore, O Lord, as we celebrate (corrects grammatical error above)
Be pleased to look upon these offerings
With a serene and kindly countenance]
********************************************************
Supplices te rogamus, omnipotens Deus: iube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui in sublime altare tuum, in conspectu divinae maiestatis tuae; ut, quotquot ex hac altaris participatione sacrosanctum Filii tui Corpus et Sanguinem sumpserimus, omni benedictione caelesti et gratia repleamur.
CURRENT TEXT:
Almighty God, we pray that your angel may take this sacrifice to your altar in heaven. Then, as we receive from this altar the sacred body and blood of your Son, let us be filled with every grace and blessing.
NEW VERSION:
In humble prayer we ask you, (self-consciously groveling; pleonastic) almighty God: command that these gifts be borne by the hands of your holy Angel to your altar on high in the sight of your divine majesty, (verbose, fustian) so that all of us who through this participation at the altar (unidiomatic, obscure; the earlier draft had ‘sharing’) receive the most holy Body and Blood of your Son may be filled with every grace and heavenly blessing.
********************************************************
Memento etiam, Domine, famulorum famularumque tuarum N. et N., qui nos praecesserunt cum signo fídei, et dormiunt in somno pacis. Ipsis, Domine, et omnibus in Christo quiescentibus, locum refrigerii, lucis et pacis, ut indulgeas, deprecamur.
Nobis quoque peccatoribus famulis tuis, de multitudine miserationum tuarum sperantibus, partem aliquam et societatem donare digneris cum tuis sanctis Apostolis et Martyribus, cum Ioanne, Stephano, Matthia, Barnaba… et omnibus Sanctis tuis: intra quorum nos consortium, non aestimator meriti, sed veniae, quaesumus, largítor admítte. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Per quem haec omnia, Domine, semper bona creas, sanctificas, vivificas, benedicis, et praestas nobis.
CURRENT TEXT:
Remember, Lord, those who have died and have gone before us marked with the sign of faith, especially those for whom we now pray, N. and N. May these, and all who sleep in Christ, find in your presence light, happiness, and peace.
For ourselves, too, we ask some share in the fellowship of your apostles and martyrs, with John the Baptist, Stephen, Matthias, Barnabas,… and all the saints. Though we are sinners, we trust in your mercy and love. Do not consider what we truly deserve, but grant us your forgiveness. Through Christ our Lord. Through him you give us all these gifts. You fill them with life and goodness, you bless them and make them holy.
NEW VERSION:
Remember also, Lord, your servants N. and N., who have gone before us with the sign of faith (unclear) and rest in the sleep of peace (unidiomatic, pleonastic). Grant them, O Lord, we pray, and all (ungrammatical) who sleep in Christ, a place of refreshment, light, and peace.
To us also your sinful servants who hope in your abundant mercies, graciously grant (pleonastic, and groveling) some share and fellowship with (ungrammatical, pleonastic; earlier draft had ‘some share in the communion of’),your holy Apostles and Martyrs: with John the Baptist, Stephen, Matthias, Barnabas, and all your Saints, admit us, we beg you, into their company, (groveling) not weighing our merits but granting us pardon, through Christ our Lord.
Through whom you continue to create all these good things, O Lord, you make them holy, (ungrammatical) fill them with life, bless them, and bestow them on us. (flat, obscure).
[2010: To us, also, your servants, who, though sinners, hope in your abundant mercies
admit us, we beseech you, into their company
granting us your pardon]
Through whom you continue to make (“to create” was better) all these good things, O Lord; you sanctify them, (still ungrammatical)]
********************************************************
Per ipsum, et cum ipso, et in ipso, est tibi Deo Patri omnipotenti, in unitate Spiritus Sancti, omnis honor et gloria per omnia saecula saeculorum.
CURRENT TEXT:
Through him, with him, in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, almighty Father, for ever and ever.
NEW VERSION:
Through him, and with him, and in him, to you, O God, almighty Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, is all honor and glory, for ever and ever. (clumsy, unidiomatic)
********************************************************
PLEONASM: Pleonasm, using two words that have the same meaning, e.g. ‘holy and venerable hands,’ had been a hallmark of Latin liturgical style since pre-Christian times. It is not experienced as an enrichment or adornment in English, however, perhaps because we have been so influenced by Shakespeare and Milton, who loaded every rift with ore, avoiding the pleonasms that can sound so grand in Latin languages. That is why much of French verse is untranslatable into English. The pleonasms of Racine are sublime: Oublions-les, Madame, et qu’à tout l’avenir/Un silence éternel cache ce souvenir, becomes in English: ‘Let us forget them, Madam, and for all the future/Let an eternal silence hide that memory.’ Nothing sublime about that! The same problem dogs the new translation of the Roman Canon. FUSTIAN: This refers to old, dead diction that cannot be renewed for contemporary use. GROVELING: Liturgical language should not reduce the dignity of the one praying in the name of glorifying God.
Here are the comments on the earlier version of this posting:
It’s kind of... amusing, to see someone criticize words for being too old-fashioned with the word “fustian”. It’s too bad “fustian” doesn’t appear anywhere in the new translation, as I would have enjoyed the sight of seeing “fustian (fustian)”. It would have increased and expanded (pleonasm) my enjoyment of your critique, which one zealously anticipates (fustion) will influence the Church to rewrite the liturgy to your idiomatic preferences (sarcasm).
Posted by: joye | November 23, 2009
joye, like ALL defences of the new translation I have seen, yours confines itself to satirizing the critics. Bp Trautman has received barrages of this. Even the bishops, who have a sacred responsibility to watch over the liturgical life of the people, have treated the topic with jokes and frivolity. The noisy people who drowned out the warning voices will have some explaining to do when the ghastly texts are actually used in the Mass. In South Africa the bishops ran for cover, blaming Rome for the mess, except for Card. Napier who told the laity they had no right to criticize the new texts.
Posted by: Spirit of Vatican II
I agree with Joseph on this. There is far too much sarcasm, some of it extremely bitter, in Catholic blogs. It doesn’t advance understanding in any way. The respectful critiques of John Baldovin SJ and Peter Jeffrey, Obl.SB, not to mention our host on this site, get drowned under the screechy rhetoric of the bloggers. There’s a difference between fustian and elevated language. Fustian means language that is pretentious and pompous. Another word for it is bombast... I think Bp Trautman erred in critiquing words like “ineffable” in the new translations. This opened the door for sarcastic bloggers to claim that he wanted to “dumb down” the liturgy. Joseph pointed out a great example of fustian in this bit of the new translation: “Listen graciously to the prayers of this family, whom you have summoned before you.” By attempting a ‘slavishly literal’ take on the Latin we end up with the sense of a police court or a headmaster’s office -- in other words, a complete misunderstanding of the sense of the prayer.
Posted by: cor ad cor loquitur | November 25, 2009
I for one am looking forward to the new translation -- a simple layman, who will figure out what I do not understand. That is active participation at its best. Side by side, you realize just how banal and insipid the old translation was. If people don’t like it, then go back to Mass in Latin with the English translation in the Missal. That would solve the problem forever. In the age of the internet, understanding a few Latin prayers that do not change (the Ordinary) is not so hard. It may be the best way to go after all.
Posted by: Mitch
Mitch, you should look more closely at the new translation. The current translation is indeed banal and insipid; but apparently the improved version of this has been buried in the Vatican vaults, and we are given shoddy goods instead. Joseph Gannon makes a disturbing remark on the Commonweal thread about the scandal in Dublin: “The recent bishops of Dublin seem to me to have much in common with the bishops who produced the new English version of the Missale Romanum. Both sets of bishops surely did no less and no more than what they believed they were supposed to do and of course they took this to be exactly what Rome wanted, and quite possibly in both situations they were right about what Rome wanted. In both situations also there were unfortunate consequences, in the one situation damaged, perhaps ruined, lives and betrayed innocence and in the other an awkward, pompous and in some places a faulty translation. The difference that stands out is this, A poor translation can be scrapped and replaced by a better one if, as is possible, Rome should see the light. The situation is more difficult with the victims of presbyteral predators.”
Posted by: Spirit of Vatican II
Je vois les choses autrement. Par exemple : “In humble prayer we ask you, (self-consciously groveling; pleonastic) almighty God” I can’t understand your criticism in many cases. here for exemple, the prayer reminds the faithful what are the inner way of standing to praise the Lord.
“command that these gifts be borne by the hands of your holy Angel to your altar on high in the sight of your divine majesty, (verbose, fustian)” I love the reminding of the altar : it reminds O.T. cult and the way the N.T.’s cult accomplish it. It reminds one of Isaiah. That’s very ecumenical !
“so that all of us who through this participation at the altar (unidiomatic, obscure; the earlier draft had ‘sharing’)” This reminds us of our self offering to the Father through the self offering of Christ ! It reminds us that our life isn’t reduced to eucharistic cult; or more precisely that’s it’s our entire life that is eucharistic!
Sincerely, Gégé | January 08, 2010
With respect, can a French speaker easily judge the quality of English prose? The reference to the altar is in the original Latin and in the current translation; it was not the target of my criticism, which concerns style rather than content.
Posted by: Spirit of Vatican II
I do not see how you can assert that the Roman Canon is loved greatly by priests. Generally, this is the canon that is said the least in English speaking countries. One almost never hears this except from young priests.
Posted by: me | June 09,
The “buried” 1998 ICEL translation has been freed from the “Vatican vaults”. You can download the complete 1998 sacramentrary in all its glory. http://rapidshare.com/files/387089704/ICEL_Sacramentary__1998_.zip
Posted by: Anonymous
I had a rather different response from “me.” I am no longer Catholic, and never was a priest, but I have always loved those prayers, many of which I know by heart in Latin, since I first came to know them nearly fifty years ago. It may amuse some to know that the Bryn Mawr Classical Review review of the new Loeb edition of Cicero’s Philippics with Shackleton-Bailey’s English translation is in French by a French speaker. I do not understand the objection to “fustian” -- the use of the term, the thing itself is quite objectionable. It’s a a fairly common literary critical term with a precise meaning. I ran across it recently in an intelligent introduction to an obscure Hardy novel where it clarified something that has always bothered me in reading Hardy -- the tendency to say something like “he traversed the field” when it would have been fine to cross it.
Posted by: Gene O’Grady
Priests may avoid the Roman Canon in English because it is rather heavy for the congregation (the Third Eucharistic Prayer is the most serviceable). If there are priests who do not love the Roman Canon in Latin I am sorry for them. It is one of the iconic texts of Christianity, along with the Veni Creator (and the Veni Sancte Spiritus), the Salve Regina, the Pange Lingua. This is DNA-level.
Posted by: Spirit of Vatican II
See tomorrow’s TABLET, page 30: “THE CONTROVERSIAL new English translation of the Roman Missal, which the Vatican officially approved in its entirety last April, is actually still a work in progress and will include more changes that were never endorsed by the world’s English-speaking bishops…. “There were so many errors and inconsistencies in the [Missal] text that it required serious reediting,” sources said this week. They claimed that substantial changes were being made, even though the text was voted on by the bishops’ conferences.”
Posted by: Chris Grady | June 11
Chris, what a bombshell! Hoist with their own petard, indeed. The only honorable thing the Vatican can do now is to allow the present translations to be used indefinitely while they keep on tinkering with their new ones -- or else just jettison the new ones altogether. They might do some reflection on how they got to this sorry pass. What blind ideology lay behind Liturgiam authenticam and the promotion of incompetents to enact its mistaken prescriptions?
Posted by: Spirit of Vatican II | June 12,
“to grant her peace, to guard, unite and govern her” is not “pleonastic and uncommunicative”. It is perfectly clear and on this point I must say this is a vast improvement. to guard, unite, and govern are acts distinct from the granting of peace. One could have peace without protection, one could be protected without unity, etc.
Posted by: me | June 26
How is it a vast improvement on: “watch over it, Lord, and guide it; grant it peace and unity throughout the world”? Here too to watch [= guard] and guide are acts distinct from the granting of peace. “Grant it unity” is more expressive than “unite”. The four items in the current translation fit together well and do not create the impression of pleonasm. But “guard, unite and govern” are a sequence of verbs that are individually less firmly profiled than in the current translation, and that do not form an interesting differentiation or dynamic progression when set alongside each other. They are far from the spontaneity of a heartfelt prayer. If one prays for the Church, what sort of things does one ask for? “O Lord, watch over your church, preserve her from danger and disunity, guide her by your word and with your grace” or something like that would be the normal way of praying for the Church. “Guard, unite and govern it” is cold and pale language; “watch over it Lord and guide it, grant it peace and unity” is far better.
Posted by: Spirit of Vatican II
Does anyone else find it amusing that a priest who is concerned about simplicity and clarity in liturgical language would repeatedly use the word “pleonastic?” Ha! Ha! My computer keeps underlining this word in red. Who are the real liturgical sobs?
Posted by: PastorJack | September 14, 2010
Pleonasm is a well-known trait of classical Roman liturgical language. Unfortunately it does not easily translate into English. Pleonasm means vacuous repetition, as in “a hot, scorching day” or “melancholy sadness”, though sometimes it can be used as an effective literary device, as in classical Latin ritual language both pagan and Christian, where it sets a trap for the unwary translator. “Fustian” is heavy pomposity, like the heavy, dusty fabric of that name. In German it is schwulstig, in Italian ampolloso. The translators of the disgraceful new versions do not have the literary ability to use fustian with conscious art; they are the kind of people who think they have struck a vein of eloquence when they write “he traversed a field” instead of “he crossed a field”. They are estranged from the strength of the Saxon roots of English, and from the powerful directness and immediacy of contemporary English (or Globish) speech. Their translation may be an attempt to be nobly counter-cultural, to spit in the face of history; the result is fatuous fizzles.
Posted by: Spirit of Vatican II
Posted by: Spirit of Vatican II | October 19, 2010 at 06:41 PM
I thought the 2008 translation showed bumbling idiocy. But the 2010 alterations show a worse condition -- dementia or hebetude:
"Among the revisers’ other problems with English usage is an inability to get the word order of subject and the auxiliary “may” right in subjunctive clauses: “Grant that, just as, being conformed to him, we have borne by the law of nature the image of the man on earth, so by the sanctification of grace may we bear the image of the Man of heaven.” Obviously, the line should read “we may.” “Look upon us and have mercy, that as we follow, by your gift, the way you desire for us, so may we never stray from the paths of life.” It should be, “so we may never stray”. There are a dozen such errors." (From the Pray Tell site.)
How can people translate Latin correctly if they are ignorant of basic English grammar?
Posted by: Spirit of Vatican II | October 25, 2010 at 02:15 PM
Father, I certainly can't judge English prose as you can. However, something clumsy isn't always useless. All the more that there isn't one only "good" way of translating something.
You know, what's strikes me is that the new translation becomes more and more like the French one. Another tool for better understanding ? I find it interesting.
Posted by: Gégé | January 02, 2011 at 04:25 PM
You know father, for an anonymous lay Catholic like me it is very difficult : no one is ever satisfied, especially in liturgy : from Blosser 's blog to yours, for very strict priests to fancy ones, we lay people are asked to take part in a community to help building the Church and live in the Spirit. However at each level, it's World War III, and I still search for charity... Which is the criterion of authentic Christian life.
In each Catholic trend, no one is afraid of treating the other trend with wonderful names from "heretic" to "homophobic".
Where is good will, an attentive ear?
Each time in a blog I ask the question, the blogger answers the same way ... He has many good reasons to do what he does.
So the Catholic war goes on.
What would you answer (If you want, hey, that's not an ultimatum ;-).
Posted by: Gégé | January 02, 2011 at 04:34 PM
I would answer: in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas. Of course what I think are disputed questions others regard as matters of unshakable certitude, so the answer is not really an answer in practice.
I find the French translation of the liturgy very pleasing and truly dignified. But the Vatican wants to do a hatchet job on the French version too, claiming it is not literal enough...
Posted by: Spirit of Vatican II | January 05, 2011 at 12:34 PM