+
  • Thomas_Mary
    Posts: 73
    +
    Thanked by 1EMH
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Thomas Mary,

    Are you required to use the translation you have?

  • Thomas_Mary
    Posts: 73
    +
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Thomas_Mary,

    That's what I feared. It's a much better translation than its predecessor, but the Agnus Dei still "tells God something he already knows", to quote the Prince of Wales.

  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    Is telling God something He already knows, by itself, a defect? If so, whoever wrote the Latin texts of the Sanctus, the Te Deum, and the Gloria has some 'splainin' to do.

    Why a commitment to using the lawful and Church-approved English text for the Mass is something to be "feared" is puzzling to me.
    Thanked by 4Ben Richard Mix Adam Wood Spriggo
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,963
    The Agnus Dei and parts of the Gloria seem to have radically diverged from the English translating tradition with all the “You take away...” clauses that are strictly declarative. The question would be, did earlier translators err in phrasing them as “Who takest away...”? I prefer the older way personally...
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    On the one hand, I'm surprised that the new ICEL translations in their QUEST FOR LATIN ACCURACY left "you take away."

    On the other hand, I decided some time ago to stop caring about that sort of thing.

    I will start caring again when I am asked to assist ICEL with their work. In the mean time, what they have written, they have written.
    Thanked by 2Heath Salieri
  • EMH
    Posts: 47
    ...has a human ever told God something that He doesn't already know?

    I think the piece is nice, btw.
    Thanked by 1Salieri
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Richard,

    While I take your point, but if the translation of the Te Deum emphasized we praise you, o lord, we acknowledge you to be the lord
    something would be out of whack.

    "You take away" is a mistranslation based on the fact that English has (and knows how to deploy) relative pronouns. "Qui" means "WHO", not "YOU".

    If our translation leads to anthropocentric liturgy, the community celebrating itself and similar narcissisms, that translation is defective, and should be corrected.
  • Heath
    Posts: 934
    Chris,

    IIRC, "qui" can also be translated as "you" in the right context. I don't have the Latin grammar in question on me right now, but I may look it up later on...
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,963
    Chris, surely that comparison doesn't work, for that's precisely what the Te Deum ought to say in English.

    Heath, liturgical prayer tends to refrain from directly telling God what he can do, instead relying on relative pronouns which to me are more expressive than addressing him as "you" in our asking something of God and explaining (to him somewhat but also to everyone at Mass) why we are asking it of him.
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Heath,

    The purpose of translating "qui" as "you" is to abolish the relative clause and the subordinate clause at one go. It has the extra added effect of removing the ability to recognize attributes of God. Remember that God doesn't need rites, but we do.

    "God, you are big and strong and happy. Make us big and strong and happy just like you."????

Add a Comment