Pope Francis’ changes to the Pater noster and Gloria
  • graduale
    Posts: 21
    What’s the deal? And when will we get official ICEL versions (and chants)?!
  • Liam
    Posts: 3,757
    Has nothing to do with English; they also were not changes at his or the Curia's initiative, he only confirmed the revised Italian translation of the Roman Missal 3rd edition approved by the Italian episcopal conference, per the revised process for confirming translations under the motu proprio Magnum Principium issued in 2017:

  • Ken of Sarum
    Posts: 339
    In case one might be curiously interested -

    abbun d'bishmayya,
    yitqadesh sh'makh!
    titey malkhutakh;
    tihey re`utakh -
    heykhma d'bishmayya,
    keyn af be'ar`a.

    lachman d'me'ar`a,
    hab lan yoma deyn umachra.
    ushbaq lan chobayn,
    heykma d'af sh'baqnan l'chayyabayn.
    ve'al ta`eylan l'nisayuna,
    ela atseylan min bisha

    Our Father (Beloved), who is in heaven,
    Sanctified be Your Name;
    May Your Kingdom be fulfilled;
    May Your will be realized -
    Just as it is in heaven,
    So also upon the earth.

    Our bread, which is from the earth,
    Give us day by day.
    And forgive us our sins,
    Just as we should forgive our debtors.
    And do not bring us to trial,
    Rather deliver us from evil (the evil one - the accuser).


  • The french translation of the Pater has been slightly changed,
    "Et ne nos inducas in tentationem"
    from "et ne nous soumets pas à la tentation"
    to "et ne nous laisse pas entrer en tentation".

    In the Credo, there will be a most necessary change :
    "consubstantialem Patri", presently translated by "de même nature que le Père" (which is highly unapropriate, as the Son has two natures) will become "consubstantiel au Père" (which the perfect translation).
  • Elmar
    Posts: 135
    ... and when you grab your dictionary to look up what this word means, you get as explanation the relation between Father and Son as expressed in the Creed ... truly 'self-explaining' this!
  • Ken of Sarum
    Posts: 339
    A little change here and a little there, then later on, another little change again and then again, and again . . well, before you know it, its all changed and you have something totally different. All this reminds me of that poor frog in the water being slowly boiled, yet unknown to the poor frog. Why not alter a Stradivarius or the Hope Diamond or some other great work of art. After several changes its no longer the great thing it was, and besides, who are we to alter the things that great persons have handed down to us. Are we never satisfied? Must we always meddle in things we are not qualified to meddle in? Change, yes if it is from error into truth. But for goodness sake - LEAVE WELL ENOUGH ALONE PEOPLE!
  • "To be, or not to be, that is the Gezornenplan"
    (illustrating your point, I think, courtesy of Monty Python)
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,764
    Those modifications to the French text do seem to be accurate interpretations of the Latin text, so I wouldn't object to that.

    Is that French text going to be used in Canada as well as in France?
    Thanked by 1Casavant Organist
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 1,843
    Is there such a thing as an unaltered Stradivarius?
  • Ken of Sarum
    Posts: 339
    Richard - YES, there are a few unaltered Strads. Unfortunately, they are in museums and extremely few in number. No violins, 2 or 3 violas, one cello and several guitars. The least altered is the "Messiah" violin in Oxford's Ashmolean Museum; lengthen new neck and new tailpiece, bridge and pegs.
  • Elmar
    Posts: 135
    Those modifications to the French text do seem to be accurate interpretations of the Latin text, so I wouldn't object to that.
    I'd like to challenge this on the grounds that the word 'consubstantiel' is not only directly derived from Latin (which is not uncommon in French, of course), but also seems to exist only in contexts closely related to the text to be translated. (Francophones and Francophiles, please correct me if necessary).
    If a translation aims to make a text intellegible to those unfamiliar with the language of origin, this is a typical example where it misses its goal due to excessive 'accurateness'.
    This is not new, St. Jerome wrote about this problem concerning the Vulgate.

    On the other hand, many translations of liturgical texts in the 70s suffer from the opposite: they convey an accessibility of liturgical texts, even to the uncatechised, that they simply do not have (in whatever language).
  • Elmar,

    Some words should be explained in contexts other than the act of praying them. Sabbaoth, Alleluia, Amen all come to mind in this regard.

    The translation (at least in English) in the 1970s is a singular example of fabricated desuetude. The translators seemed to know neither English nor Latin, nor did they have any sense of the value of a beautiful text prayed publicly. Either that, or they intentionally eschewed all of the foregoing in favor of foisting an alien faith on the Church.
    Thanked by 1Elmar