Jarring??! How about this: "Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldst come under my roof, but only say the word, and my soul shall be healed."
Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, Pennsylvania, who heads the bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, said the summer survey found that 52 percent of bishops favored the changes, while 47 percent judged them “fair or poor.”
I'm inclined to agree with the "fair" designation, only because while these translations are thankfully more accurate, they are not beautiful. As has been pointed out ad nauseam on this board, any pre-1967 Missal has extremely accurate and beautiful translations, replete with the thee's and thou's that elevate the English to a more proper dignity.
In any case, the new proposals are still better than the current ICEL abomination.
I always say it in Latin (Domine, non sum dignus, etc.) because the lame paraphrase - probably done that way to avoid using the word "soul," which might have implied something other than materiality and horizontality - offends me so much.
Most of the proposed changes prevent heretical understandings, and I believe are quite necessary. But "Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof" ... Yick. It just doesn't conceptually translate well. Coming under one's roof just doesn't have any *meaning* in English. In Latin, it meant to place oneself in the responsibility of another (A lingering remnant of this concept?: "As long as you are under MY ROOF..."). Hence, "protect" is from the Latin word, "tectum," or "roof."
Hence, in Latin, "non sum dignus, ut intres sub tectum" means more than "I am not worthy for you to enter under my roof," but also "I am unfit to serve as your protector."