Reason #64675 for the new, corrected translation.

I am not making this up.

Here is the Post Communion for the 3rd Sunday of Lent in the Ordinary Form, the 2002MR, a new composition for the 1970MR based on a prayer in the Veronese Sacramentary.

LATIN (2002 Missale Romanum):
Sumentes pignus caelestis arcani,
et in terra positi iam superno pane satiati,
te, Domine, supplices deprecamur,
ut, quod in nobis mysterio geritur, opere impleatur.

The basic meaning of the adjective arcanus, a, um (related to the verb arceo) is “shut up, closed” and thus “hidden, concealed, secret, private.”  It is used in the neuter as a substantive, “a sacred secret, a mystery”.

WDTPRS SLAVISHLY LITERAL RENDERING:
Taking/eating the down payment of the sacred heavenly mystery,
and, placed on earth having been filled already with bread from on high,
we, kneeling in entreaty, beseech you, O Lord,
that, what is being accomplished in us by the sacramental mystery, may be brought to fulfillment by work.

NEW CORRECTED ICEL VERSION:
As we receive the pledge
of things yet hidden in heaven
and are nourished while still on earth
with the Bread that comes from on high,
we humbly entreat you, O Lord,
that what is being brought about in us in mystery
may come to true completion
.

I had to double-check that I had the correct Sunday.

Here goes nothing…

LAME-DUCK ICEL STILL IN USE:
Lord,
in sharing this sacrament
may we receive your forgiveness
and be brought together in unity and peace.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Reason #64675 for the new, corrected translation.

  1. MarkJ says:

    What a horrible mistranslation we have been living with! Was this intentional sabotage of the Faith by the translators? If you ask me, prayers like this provide direct evidence that the ICEL people who did this translation were modernist schismatics trying to “sing a new church into being” and to deliberately sever the Church from its Tradition. They are, in my opinion, directly responsible for the current state of the Church in the English-speaking world. Only time will tell if the new translation is too little, too late to rescue the New Mass…

  2. catholicmidwest says:

    No way. We have been hearing a jingle, a bland platitude, the whole time, and this beautiful theological concept is hidden underneath it?

    I can’t wait for the new translations.

  3. wanda says:

    Ugh, it lands with a ‘thud’ followed by crickets chirpping.

  4. shane says:

    Father Joseph ‘America magazine is too conservative for my tastes‘ O’Leary is calling for a boycott of the new translations. I suspect a few recalcitrant priests will attempt this, hopefully without success.

    http://josephsoleary.typepad.com/my_weblog/crisis-in-the-liturgy-2-translations/

    In fairness, he does make some good points, although he overstates the merits of the rejected 1998 translation. [I will support all priests who refuse to use the new, corrected translation, for whatever reason they assert, provided that they use instead only Latin or the Extraordinary Form.]

    I picked up a recently published 1962 hand missal this morning and was horrified at the dumping of ‘thou’ and ‘thee’. Hopefully hieratic English will be reintroduced in time to the Novus Ordo ICEL translations. One step at a time.

  5. Agnes says:

    Ick.

    I am on pins and needles waiting for Advent. So when do we get a new translation for the Liturgy of Hours??

  6. priests wife says:

    wow. just wow.

    Will the corrected translation say- Go in peace- instead of Go in peace to love and serve the Lord and have a great Sunday and …..the people don’t know when to say Thanks be to God

  7. Kevin B. says:

    What was it you once said Father? “ICEL English makes the angels weep and the saints in heaven frown.”

  8. Daniel Latinus says:

    The lame-duck ICEL version looks like sheer laziness.

    Father, when you mention the sources of these prayers, is there some document that has all this information, or do you have to do some detective work of your own to find it?

  9. irishgirl says:

    Ick indeed, that ‘lame duck’ is!
    Compared with the more noble translations, the lame duck lands with a thud!

  10. skull kid says:

    That’s the worst yet Father.

  11. Philangelus says:

    My first impression is that the translators were stymied by the slavishly literal translation and couldn’t figure out how to properly render all those complicated concepts and constructions. So they punted. *sigh*

  12. APX says:

    I don’t know what y’alls are upset about. I think the current ICEL translation is great. It’s easier to understand without all that stilted language and fluffy wordy imagery. Besides, I don’t have time to stick around after communion for an extra three lines of prayer. I have to get my daughter to hockey practice right after mass.

    *sarcasm*

    My first impression is that the translators were stymied by the slavishly literal translation and couldn’t figure out how to properly render all those complicated concepts and constructions. So they punted. *sigh*

    I kinda thought that too a little bit.

  13. Childermass says:

    What were people smoking in the 1970s?

    I think it was the case of some really shady characters in control of the ICEL, trying to usher in their New Pentecost, and Rome being too trusting of these partners in “collegiality”. The same could be said for the execrable NAB, which (of course) dates from the same time.

    Thank God Rome is now less automatically trusting and is taking a more active role in ensuring that the flock get content of the Faith less diluted and redacted.

  14. BobP says:

    >I picked up a recently published 1962 hand missal this morning and was horrified at the dumping of ‘thou’ and ‘thee’. Hopefully hieratic English will be reintroduced in time to the Novus Ordo ICEL translations. One step at a time.<

    I doubt it. It wouldn't be in the ICEL's interest to resurrect old translations. It's all a matter of avoiding already-copyrighted materials and putting copyrights to its own material (and collecting royalties on them, unfortunately.)

  15. Henry Edwards says:

    MarkJ: Was this intentional sabotage of the Faith by the translators?

    Having read every WDTPRS column (print or blog) since Father Z published the first one in The Wanderer over a decade ago in 2000, I have long since concluded that, however its motive be described, what ICEL 1973 did to these propers in English translation was fully conscious and deliberate, with a rationale that was carefully planned and consistently implemented.

  16. JenB says:

    Father, your translation was beautiful. It brought tears to my eyes.

  17. JenB: Well.. to be fair.. the slavishly literal translation is awkward and not suited to liturgical use. Those literal renderings are intended only as a crowbar so that people can see inside a Latin prayer they ordinarily might not be able to read. They provide a basis for looking at the official translations.

  18. Tony Layne says:

    “My first impression is that the translators were stymied by the slavishly literal translation and couldn’t figure out how to properly render all those complicated concepts and constructions. So they punted. *sigh*”

    No, that wasn’t a punt … that was a fumble in the offense’s own red zone. Catholicmidwest said it best: We’ve been living with a jingle … even worse, a Hallmark card. The new translation rocks!

  19. Singing Mum says:

    What a tangled web we weave, when we ditch the Latin for casualese.

    I notice the kneeling bit is dumped in both ICEL versions. But the tone of the ’74 gives the impresion that those praying are far more on the same level as God. That seems to be a pretty consistent flaw, IMO.

  20. The Cobbler says:

    “No way. We have been hearing a jingle, a bland platitude, the whole time, and this beautiful theological concept is hidden underneath it?”

    How is the current translation sitting over the theological concept at all? They look totally unrelated. Except for both being addressed to God, I can’t see anything they have in common whatsoever. It’s because there are so many sections like this that I don’t consider what we currently read to even be a translation (even the word “paraphrase” is inapplicable to much of it; we’re just lucky they somehow got a few of the essentials, e.g. “This is my body”). The new translation could be in the most craptastic English possible and still be a translation; what we have now is not, in my (admittedly less humble than it should be) opinion.

  21. RichR says:

    Were the the third-rate, grade-school catechesis books I learned from in the 80′s written by the same crowd who gave us these ICEL translations. I find their depth and inspirational qualities to be eerily similar.

  22. Maltese says:

    “[T]here will soon [this was written in 2009] be available a new translation of the various texts, certainly improved regarding some verses, but I will not marvel at all if for other passages there will be more problems than in the first edition resulting from certain exegetical or historical-theological eccentricities which I myself have already pointed out…the liturgical reform inserted into the latreutic and theocentric perspective that of the anthropocentric, and this for man’s sake…From this comes the constant need of revisions, adaptations, and new translations.” (pgs. 181-182) The Ecumenical Vatican Council II, A MUCH NEEDED DISCUSSION. Msgr. Brunero Gherardini, Foreword by Archbishop Ranjith, Casa Mariana Editrice, 2009, translated from the Italian (available from Academy of the Immaculate, Advance, NC–and, no, I’m not in anyway affiliated with them!)

  23. Maltese says:

    Keith: “What was it you once said Father? “ICEL English makes the angels weep and the saints in heaven frown.” LOL!

    The new mass “‘[w]as born without music, I would even say with a poorly concealed aversion to music’ which opened ‘the door to amateurism, to poor taste, to superficiality’ to the point where ‘this music goes well with this Liturgy’” Gherardini, ibid, pg. 172, quoting Msgr. Domenico Bartolucci, Master of the prestigious Sistine Chapel at the time.

  24. catholicmidwest says:

    Agnes says, “So when do we get a new translation for the Liturgy of Hours??”

    My question exactly. That also sounds like it was written by a semi-literate PTA committee on a typewriter with 9 keys.

  25. achmafooma says:

    I knew the current translation was bad even from my very limited experience (I’ve only been Catholic for two years).

    I had no idea it was this bad.

  26. Bryan Boyle says:

    Re: our current translation…

    A professor at Dunwoodie, when I was studying there for my Masters, once opined (and I’ve heard it since) concerning the composition of the Commission that did the ’73 translation was something to the effect that ICEL was a committee of translators, half of whom didn’t understand English, and the other half didn’t understand Latin.

    I’m looking forward to what’s coming, and not crying over what we’ve had. It’s bad, everyone that had even an ounce of awareness knew it…but, the Church works in centuries, not quarters, or years. So, yeah, it’s beyond banal and trite in many (most?) areas. But it’s what we have until Advent. Time to focus (IMHO) on the riches that will be opened up that correct the mistakes. (FWIW in preparation, I’ve already ordered a nice new altar missal as a gift for the parish I’m moving to after I finish my RCIA obligations where I’m currently attending…)

  27. catholicmidwest says:

    Bryan, you said, “but, the Church works in centuries, not quarters, or years.”

    That’s a miserable excuse and should be seen for what it is.

  28. J Kusske says:

    The Church does look at the long term, but Catholicmidwest is absolutely right we need to straighten things out as soon as we can, where and when we are able to. This dreadful prayer barely qualifies as bowdlerising. I wish I could get the English speaking priests here using the new translation immediately if not sooner, but I’ll be lucky if I can get them to go along with Advent (I’m overseas and they’ll probably use their Order to slow things down as much as they can). I’ve already gone over myself though, for the shorter responses… If the priests have monkeyed with the mass all these years, the faithful should be able to redress things a bit themselves!

  29. J Kusske says:

    Apologies–the current prayer isn’t a bowdlerized version. It has no relation whatsoever to the actual prayer. Amazing. I think the commentor is right–they simply washed their hands of the whole thing, and punted (or made an own goal, or whatever other analogy may be appropriate).

  30. Bryan Boyle says:

    The Church, and the USCCB has decided that Advent 2011 will be when the new translation is used.

    Is anyone suggesting that priests disobey what their superiors have set as the date by using the corrected translation in advance of the date the hierarchy has decided will be when it’s implemented? IMHO, that makes us just as…um….creative as those who tore through the liturgy during the late 60s and 70s. 7 months in the 2000 year history is nothing.

    Obedience is hard. And, no, it’s not a lame excuse, @Catholicmidwest. They’re still discussing and examining fine points of Vatican I. It will be done in the Church’s time, not ours. We may not like it. But the wisdom of the Church is far greater than our individual insights.

  31. J Kusske says:

    I can wait as long as obedience calls for. But I can also press for a change as soon as possible within that framework. The UK bishops approved a switch in September. I can try to get the priests here (whose province is based in Australia) to go with that date instead of Advent, at the least… And I don’t see why I can’t go over to a quiet “and with your spirit” and “Lord, I am not worthy that You should enter under my roof… my soul shall be healed” in the meantime, as long as I’m not annoying anyone in so doing. I hope that doesn’t make me a Godless rebel…

  32. catholicmidwest says:

    It is a lame excuse, Bryan. There’s no use trying to bless off everything that happens as “the church works in centuries.” There have been some big screw-ups in the Catholic church, and among them have been the bad translations we have been suffering with. We also have a mess around catechesis. We need this stuff fixed. You can’t just write off the bad things done by inadequate translations and bad catechesis with a wave of the hand like that.

  33. catholicmidwest says:

    J Kusske,
    “Lord, I am not worthy that You should enter under my roof… my soul shall be healed” actually never went away here in the sticks. You could always hear a murmur of it in the crowd. It will be easy to use it again.

  34. JenB says:

    Father, while your translation is not suited for liturgical purposes, the sentiment it exposed was stunning and moving. Thank you so much for your time and devotion

  35. Charles E Flynn says:

    Origin of the expression “lame duck”:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lame_duck_%28politics%29

  36. Joseph-Mary says:

    It is NOT a translation at all! it is a total banal innovation.

    Shame on them. They have robbed us for years of the beauty and meaning of our liturgy.

  37. digdigby says:

    Romeo And Juliet (Lame Duck Version)
    Two mixed up teenagers run away together and end up dead.

  38. Father and Everyone,

    I’m sorry, but I can’t resist popping over to Father Ruff’s anti-corrected-translation blog just to see what ‘they’ are saying. [Don't drag it back here.] You probably know there is a “xavier rindfleisch” who says he’s for the 2008 translation, but not the 2010.. I’ve pasted his latest ‘beef’ below, where he seems to have us in a corner because of an omission of the angel Gabriel in the corrected translation’s Annunciation Collect.

    What can be said to someone like that? Anything?

    —–Let us hear not from those who oppose a new translation under any conditions, but from those who, like the author of this petition, do support a new translation: speak up, lads! Aren’t you at all upset when you find that the recognitio has been granted to a Missal that omits the Archangel Gabriel from the English version of a Preface, that misuses “even” (also here a mistranslation of etiam) in the Annunciation Collect, that butchers standard English usage in multiple places – and that does all this AFTER these egregious errors were respectfully and specifically pointed out to the Congregation?
    Come now, speak honestly to this staggering display of …. of what, incompetence?—–

    Please, everyone! The above is a quote!

    k.c.

  39. —[Don't drag it back here.]—

    I apologize for bringing it up. I should mention that there are people who post there who defend the corrected translation quite ably….pointing out among other things, that by reintroducing us laity to words like ‘Incarnate’, ‘grievous’, ‘spirit’, ‘grace’, …..it will move us back to praying what Catholics thoughout the world already pray (and never stopped praying).

    IMO that reason alone carries the day, though that is only one….

    sorry again,

    k.c.

  40. Margaret says:

    Darned if I didn’t hear the new translation at Mass this morning! Honestly I wasn’t even trying to pay attention– I was trying to keep the infant quiet after a long Mass with a long gospel and long homily. It was at a Carmelite convent, celebrated by a Jesuit from the local university. (And the homily was remarkably heresy-free, I’ll have you know…) I’m not there that frequently, so I don’t know what gives with the new translation– anybody know if this is a Jesuit and/or a Carmelite thing??

  41. ArtND76 says:

    I have been reading the slavish and ICEL old/new translations Fr Z has posted here for a while, but for this one I have only one word:

    Wow!