Posted on 06/21/2009 3:05:45 PM PDT by Salvation
I don’t think you can really blame JPII. As you know, an entire generation of post-Vatican II liturgists were operating under a different translation paradigm of dynamic equivalence, basically allowing a paraphrase of the Latin that simplified and ommitted all sorts of “old fashioned” words like spirit, soul and grace. This generation was entrenched in the Church at many levels. Also, collegiality was the buzzword after the Council, so a lot was left to the bishops, who created the old ICEL and pushed this paradigm. However, JPII slowly but surely shifted the course of the ship of the Church against the entrenched liturgists. The Vatican under JP II repeatedly denied recognitio of the US bishops’ translations in the 1990s, particularly over inclusive language issues. Finally, the Vatican got so fed up with the texts that the bishops were sending them for approval, that the new instruction Liturgiam Authenticam requiring formal equivalence in translation was issued in 2001. The Vatican itself translated the Catechism into English to avoid the same type of problems as it had with the bishops’ translations of the liturgy. Concurrently, a lot of the old guard responsible for the bad post Vatican II translations are fading from the scene (although Bishop Trautman still seems able to wreak havoc as he did at the bishops’ meeting a few days ago). The translation issue relates to broader historical and generational forces at work. JPII and now BXVI are slowing trying to right the mess. Things move slowly in the Church, and that is not always a bad thing. The Post Vatican II liturgists moved much to fast in preparing and imposing the Novus Ordo, in my opinion. Any changes to the liturgy should be done slowly and deliberately. And there is an added benefit that the post Vatican II old guard will grow less powerful over time and therefore will be less in a position to sabotage the implementation of better translations.
Yeah, I don’t know if the priest is actually following the spanish in the missal or not, I have only been to bi-lingual english/spanish masses on certain Holy days not the regular spanish mass.
Freegards
“If Missals are being printed with English and Spanish, one would hope they were using the proper texts for each language.”
So I take it “proper texts” can can actually be pretty different in different languages, as long as the Vatican OKs it?
Freegards
The Met. is considered something of a right winger, with reason. I didn’t get the impression that his prayer was political, though and he certainly didn’t suggest that the USA do anything about the Iran situation. I know personally that he believes that the safety of The Church, to the extent there will ever be any, in places like Iran depends on the development of representative governments which respect the rights of minorities. It may be that his hopes for Iran are delusional but I don’t doubt the sincerity of the prayer or its non-political essence.
That's been the case with human language since Babel, no?
Then involve committees.
For instance, how does one translate a theological term like "consubstantial"? Do you leave it in the Latin and educate people what it means? Or do you try to translate it and end up with something impecise yet more readibly understandable?
You mean Bishop Trautperson, don’t you? ;-)
Well, I reckon they should ‘probly have the same strategy for every translation, no matter what strategy they pick. That might be closer to “being one” than having different aproaches to translation.
And I’m not sure it’s a translation problem as much as it is just making a change for whatever reason. “And also with you”/”And with your spirit” can be expressed in english and spanish but in my church I take it the english masses are one way and the spanish masses are the other. I think that’s a little strange, but maybe there is a good reason for it.
Freegards
We’ve been regularly attending Spanish liturgy for about 18 months. It’s something of a trial for my husband, who doesn’t understand Spanish, but at least he gets to play the guitar!
Sometimes I don’t see how they got the Spanish version, as it’s very different from the Enlish, but if both are translations from Latin (more or less ...) that would explain it.
**If Missals are being printed with English and Spanish, one would hope they were using the proper texts for each language**
Unfortunately, that is just coming with the English, per tax-chick’s input! (Very different, aren’t they?)
Yes, many of the texts of the Mass, as well as Scripture readings, are significantly different in the Spanish and English versions. For example, in the opening dialogue of the Eucharistic prayer, the priest’s lines starting with “The Lord be with you,” are same, but the congregation’s responses vary considerably.
English “And also with you,” is Spanish, “And with your spirit.” “We have lifted them up the Lord” is the same. But the last response is “It is right to give him thanks and praise” in English, while in Spanish it’s “Es justo y necessario,” “It is just (correct) and necessary.” This is similar to what we said in the old-days Presbyterian church when I was growing up, “It is meet and right so to do.”
Texts of the Memorial Acclamation are also different.
I’m sure they differ, cause the ICEL texts are awful.
My point was that the texts would be official for that language and not something the US bishops translated from English into Spanish.
It’s worth noting that from 1549 to 1979, “et cum spiritu tuo” was translated “and with your spirit” in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. The version “and also with you” didn’t appear until the 1979 BCP. The Anglican Mission in the Americas has developed a new prayer book which, I believe, restores the original “and with your spirit” response.
Oh, I see. I'm sure they are. I don't know if there's a single approved Spanish text, though. Maybe there is for the Mass, but not for the Lectionary. The only difference I've noticed among Spanish versions of the Mass text is grammatical: Spain-Spanish has a slightly different verb conjugation from Mexico-Spanish.
I think that's the case with English, too - different countries' Bishops can approve different lectionary translations. No other English-speaking country has the "New American Bible" lectionary, fortunately for them!
“I couldn’t quite figure out what the translating authority had done by simply leaving the spiritu part out.”
Theory: what if the folks coming up with the English translation were trying to produce a liturgy that did not sound like the 1662 or 1928 Book of Common Prayer (both of which use “and with you spirit”)? Otherwise they’d be accused of pirating Anglican liturgy.
Do you actually think there are members of the priesthood who actually READ Anglican stuff?
I wouldn’t doubt it at all. Anyone tasked with preparing an English language translation of the liturgy would certainly be interested in how the Anglicans translated it. They would also be interested in how the Lutherans and Orthodox did it as well.
No, since that liturgy was formulated in the years just after the Novus Ordo Roman missal the response was (and remains in the 2007 book) "and also with you."
By changing the whole meaning theologically?! I suppose enduring rationalizations will dull even the dumbest of excuses.
All in one lifetime, which is pretty speedy for the Church
Sitting on a theological nonsense for 40 years...it says a lot about the Church they created, doesn't it?
Sorry this displeases you
Doesn't displease me a bit. My pay is the same. It just surprises me to see something that is theologically a nonsense incorporated into the liturgy by the Church, approved by her highest experts, recited over and over for more than 40 years now, and having that Vinnie "what?" attitude.
Why can't anyone in the Church simply admit that it was a mistake?. Too much pride? And if it wasn't a mistake, why change it now?
Just curious: what about the versus populi? Is that the next mea culpa?
Then, again, the next pope may change everything back to 1970, who knows! Once you tear down tradition, change is the what happens (constantly), just look at the Protestants. :)
Obviously when things went further than ever anticipated and the Church had to deal with such embarrassments as cookies, and Kool Aid "communions," ordinary glass chalices, and clown "masses," and vestal nuns, and skimpily clad or bare breasted women inside the churches, the pope (JPII) began to resist, because he could (all along) and should have done so from the start, had he wanted it. BXVI certainly imposes his vision of what's good for the Church without much trouble, or at least it seems so.
Guess he didn't quite make it.
Large organizations manage to hide the names of the individuals who do these things, particularly if they're important. If they're not important, they'll print your name on everything they can just to make sure everybody knows who made the "mistake".
Any Cardinals pass on recently?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.