Article on The Translation of the Mass - Sigh!
  • I just read this and am not sure what to make of it: https://international.la-croix.com/news/english-is-not-latin/6885
  • I'd say, as somebody who has done a fair bit of translation (though not, I would emphasize, liturgical translation) that the principles mentioned in the article are basically correct. However, there are (at least) two omissions:

    1. 'Meaning for meaning' (as opposed to word for word) translation requires that one get the meaning right; too often this method is used to impose new meaning rather than to capture the original.

    2. Ritual language (which is what we are talking about, here) works very differently from other sorts of language. In particular, the 'cultural condition' and expectations of those who will hear the translation looms far less largely.

    All things considered, taking also these two points into account, I feel (but it is just my non-expert opinion) that the new translation fares better than the old.
  • Yes, I agree with that. While 1975 was impoverished in theology, and deliberately intended to be chantable, 2011 seems to be designed to read rather than heard or even spoken. The LIT in liturgy is not about literacy, which should not be a requirement of Christ's faithful. 1998 was better than either of them.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,049
    Here is the 2002 explanation from CDWDS rejecting that 1998 draft translation. That happened for reasons.
    https://adoremus.org/2007/12/31/observations-on-the-english-language-translation-of-the-roman-missal/
  • Wow. I had never actually read that document until now. It's quite a dressing-down.

    "...one might cite the inappropriateness of the reference to Santa Claus in commemorating St. Nicholas". Indeed, one might.
  • I find the new translation better in tone but worse in flow than the old. Overall, still prefer the new (although it's miles from perfect)

    The new psalmody translations we are forced to use in Canada are nothing short of a travesty, though. The (not inaccurate) poetry of the last translation was replaced with utter tedium that reads and sings like the work of someone who has never laid eyes on proper English before. Hate, hate, hate it with a passion.
  • As to the 'hagiographical notes' and Santa Claus :- the note in question read
    Bishop of Myra (Turkey), Nicholas died in the fourth century. Nothing more is known about his life. Since the tenth century, ... Nicholas’s reputation for generosity led to the custom of giving children gifts on his feast day, and thus to the Christmas figure of Santa Claus.
    CDWDS rightly questions the need to print this in the Altar Missal, as it is neither a liturgical text nor a rubric. However an expanded version appears both in my CTS Daily Missal Peoples Edition, and in the diocesan Ordo, including
    ... "Santa Claus" is based ultimately on his patronage of children, ...

    [Edit] Similar, though less folksy, notes appear in LOTH.
    Thanked by 1MichaelDickson
  • My reaction is probably too subtle by half, but the 'scare-quotes' around 'Santa Claus' in the second quotation make quite a (positive) difference.
  • Caleferink
    Posts: 227
    @Schönbergian (or any other Canadian contributor to this forum) Out of curiosity, what translation of the Psalms are you now having to use in Canada?
  • The 2002 Observations of CDWDS, referenced by chonak, call for use of the same scripture translation through all the liturgy, where possible (III M). Not only do I think that uniformity is an overrated virtue, but tradition does not support it. I would point in particular to the Psalter, where the office psalms are not the same as the Vulgate, a difference maintained for 15 centuries. Similarly the Anglican Psalter is not that of the KJV. Within my memory the church in England used the Knox translation at Mass where the text was read in English. I doubt anyone would want to set Knox psalms to music.
    The Lord is my shepherd; how can I lack anything? He gives me a resting-place where there is green pasture, leads me out to the cool water's brink, refreshed and content. As in honour pledged, by sure paths he leads me; ...
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,350
    Not only do I think that uniformity is an overrated virtue, but tradition does not support it. I would point in particular to the Psalter, where the office psalms are not the same as the Vulgate, a difference maintained for 15 centuries.


    Not to be rude, but So What?

    In any case, the Bishops will be ignored. Not to worry.
  • In Canada the psalter is based on the NRSV, itself based on the venerable RSV. The whole Lectionary is NRSV, of course (with adaptations). It is sometimes a little clumsy, but I having grown up on Coverdale and the AV find it more familiar, and more solemn, than the various sprung-rhythm Grail versions (one of which we used before and still use in the CBW). And having years ago set the whole Canadian NRSV Lectionary psalter to chant, by now I am happily used to it.
  • Was there ever a justification given for the rewritten Introductory Rites in the rejected 1998 Missal?

    The Pope has written that Rome should trust the episcopal conferences to do the translations faithfully. Doesn’t 1998, with its significant deviations from the editio typica, stand as glaring proof that such trust would be misplaced?
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,049
    That text was a product of ICEL in its former structure, not directly a work of the conferences; if I understand right, they had less leeway than they now have to modify proposed texts from ICEL.

    OTOH, I suppose that the conference's mere approval of the text was glaring proof, etc.
  • OTOH, I suppose that the conference's mere approval of the text was glaring proof, etc.

    Right. If they wanted it modified, the time to do that was prior to giving approval.
  • Felipe - yes there was a great deal of debate in academic liturgical circles about the Introductory Rites. And there was no assumption that the innovations in the NO were the right ones. I have only an amateur interest, but I have been told by someone with a Masters in Liturgy (from a German university) that the number of different ways of arranging them within the present rubrics gives a number well over 50 (I recall 84, but don't quote me). I think the feeling in ICEL was that the Penitential Rite is perfunctory, it would be preferable to have an option so that it could be larger (or even smaller). IMHO that's right, we could well go for Cranmer's 'we like lost sheep ... ' in Lent
    Note that the Penitential Rite has moved in the Ordinariates Divine Worship Missal to immediately after the Prayer of the People, and is not part of the Introductory Rite.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 520
    In Canada the psalter is based on the NRSV, itself based on the venerable RSV. The whole Lectionary is NRSV, of course (with adaptations). It is sometimes a little clumsy, but I having grown up on Coverdale and the AV find it more familiar, and more solemn, than the various sprung-rhythm Grail versions (one of which we used before and still use in the CBW). And having years ago set the whole Canadian NRSV Lectionary psalter to chant, by now I am happily used to it.


    But didn't the Vatican order the Canadian Bishops to abandon the NRSV?
  • a_f_hawkins: What I mean is: why were the ritual changes in 1998 put into the English text rather than into the Latin—from which they would then propagate for the (assumed) good of the entire Roman Rite, rather than just one language? It’s not the role of a translator to make sweeping changes to the ritual like that. Was that ever given explanation?

    While it’s true that the translations in 1998 were, by and large, improvements over the 1970s text, the ritual changes went *way* beyond the mandate of a translation and deserved to be rejected.

    Even putting those changes aside, 1998 took a lot of unneeded liberties. For example, its variant of the Ash Wednesday collect bowdlerizes the militaristic themes that give that one such a “punch”. I can’t see any reason for that other than that some translator simply didn’t like that aspect of the original and wanted something “softer”.

    2010 has its share of problems, to be sure, and while 1998 might address some of those, it would bring a host of far deeper problems all its own. IMO, we are all better for 1998’s rejection.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 676
    Fuller reply later, but for myself I would only want the collect and other presidential proper prayer translations from 1998 considered in the short term*. Because on the whole they are as accurate and much better English than 2010, and much more comprehensible at one hearing.
    * Liturgical developments should take decades.
    Thanked by 1Liam

Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!

To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.