I have very mixed feelings about the new General Instruction of the Roman Missal.
Some of it, I see no problem with. Other parts, I feel have lost something in translation.
The current translation is the only one I know. I find that there is a rhythm to the Mass that I find comforting, almost soothing. The new translation, from my understanding, is a more literal translation of the original Latin. I am not a linguist. But I do know that translating involves not only translating the word, but also conveying the proper meaning of the word in the context it is being used. In Greek, there are at least four words for love, whose use depends on the object of that love. In English, we use one word, “love”, when we talk about the feelings of a husband for a wife, a parent for a child, or for how we feel about chocolate- the same word, but three distinctly different connotations.
Which brings me to the question, why is literal better?
Why is “consubstantial” better that “one in Being with”?
Why is “incarnate” better than “born of”?
My feeling on these two examples is that the new translation takes away the relationship aspect of the humanity of our faith. “Incarnate” brings to mind a “mystical” sort of coming into the world, without the very personal, very human experience that Mary had in carrying and giving birth to Jesus. “Consubstantial”, of the same substance, seems more of a chemistry term to me than one that describes the relationship of God and Jesus, and that of Jesus’ nature of being both truly human and truly divine.
I think we should wait. I would like to hear some discussion as to why a more literal translation is thought to be better. I understand that many people are concerned that some priests take it upon themselves to change the words as they see fit. Do we really think that this won’t happen with the new translation? Shouldn’t we spend our efforts and energy on combating these abuses, instead of just changing the words?
Thoughts, comments..?
honestly, though, "one in being with" is a pretty meaningless phrase...in fact, i'd argue it's MORE convoluted than "consubstantial," and, i'd argue, misses the point of the clause
ReplyDeletethe credo says "genitum, non factum, consubstantialem Patri; per quem omnia facta sunt."
consubstantialem is a word coined in latin to translate "homooúsios" (the greek word used) which literally means "same substance"
now, you could make an argument to use the phrase "being of one substance with the Father" but it's not like consubstantial is some horribly difficult word, as H.E. Bp. Trautman would have people believe. There's plenty of words in the current liturgy and in scripture that aren't really everyday words, which we only know and use because of the Church. The way I see it is that people only prefer the current liturgical language for one of two reasons:
1) it's familiar (this seems to be one of your major reasons, and when I first heard about the translations, I agreed with you. But I think now that there is something more important at stake than what is simply familiar--there are distinct theological issues that arise)
2) it's irreverent (they phrase this as "pastoral" or "engaging the community" or some other word/phrase that means, essentially, "the focus is on the people instead of God.")
Another important note is the publication of Liturgiam Authenticam a few years back which calls specifically for more literal translations. So, arguing against it isn't so much complaining to the USCCB as it is to the CDW, and I'd just as soon not do that :P
Good point about Liturgiam Authenticam, Well Done, as it is one that people often forget.
ReplyDeleteHere's a good resource on the translations: http://catholicinsight.com/online/church/liturgy/new_mass.shtml
Most of the differences are explained under the section "Marked Contrast."
There is a two-fold reason for the changes we will soon see in the Mass language: 1) To elevate the language of the Mass and make it less informal, 2) To correct errors in translations which are found in the present English translation of the Roman Missal. For the examples you mentioned, these fall more under the first reason.
~Dr. K
"Incarnate" is vastly different than "born of." Born of conjures up images of a birth, plain and simple. There **may be** a sense of mystery, but there is generally a lack of understanding the true message as intended by that word. "Made incarnate" speaks to the mystery of the Incarnation, the putting of God on Earth, by His own will, and at the humble "Fiat" of the Blessed Virgin. "He was made incarnate" is much more inclusive of the entirety of the Paschal Mystery than is "born of."
ReplyDeleteWell Done, Dr. K and Gen,
ReplyDeleteThank you all for your responses.
Dr.K, a special thank you to you for the resources. A very interestng article, and I plan on reading Liturgiam Authenticam, I have scanned through it, but do not have the time right now to really read it. Hopefully by the end of the week, I will have been able to read and understand it better and this conversation can continue.
Peace to you all!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Persis!
ReplyDeletePeople can have long debates about the new translations and we could spend a great deal of time talking about syntax and idiom and sentence structure and the original greek v. latin, etc...But when it comes right down to it (and for me, my faith is rooted in the following belief), Holy Mother Church has mandated the revised translations. Again, if we believe in the Church as the Church founded by Christ, protected by the Holy Spirit, then why would we want to buck Her at every turn? I know my approach leads to a perjorative "sheeple" label, but I can see no other way then to trust in Christ and his vehicle for salvation - the ark of the Catholic Church.
For the record, I do find the new translations unfamiliar but not necessarily off-putting. The implementation CAN go easily with proper catechesis. Or, it can go badly, with a grinding and gnashing of teeth. I pray our local priests will enable the former.
Wonderful.
ReplyDelete