Vatican gives thumbs up to new English translation for Mass

From Catholic World News:

Vatican, Jul. 25, 2008 (CWNews.com) - The Vatican has given formal approval to a new English translation of the central prayers of the Mass for use in the United States.

In a June 23 letter of Bishop Arthur Serratelli, the chairman of the US bishops' liturgy committee, the Congregation for Divine Worship announces its recognitio for the translation, which had already won the approval of the US bishops' conference, despite strong protests from some liberal prelates.

The new translation adheres more closely to the Latin of the Roman Missal. Since the 2001 publication of Liturgiam Authenticam, the instruction on the proper translation of liturgical texts, the Vatican has pressed for more faithful translations of the official Latin texts.

Alluding gently to the fierce debates over English-language liturgical translations in the past decade, the Congregation for Divine Worship reports "no little satisfaction in arriving at this juncture." The letter from the Vatican is signed by Cardinal Francis Arinze and Archbishop Albert Malcom Ranjith, the prefect and secretary, respectively, of the Congregation.

Read the entire report.

The USCCB has a news release about the changes:

The more significant changes of the people’s parts are:

1. et cum spiritu tuo is rendered as “And with your spirit”
2. In the Confiteor, the text “through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault” has been added
3. The Gloria has been translated differently and the structure is different from the present text
4. In the Preface dialogue the translation of “Dignum et justum est” is “It is right and just”
5. The first line of the Sanctus now reads “Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of hosts”
6. The   response of the people at the Ecce Agnus Dei is “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.”

At this time, no date is available as to when the entire translation of the Roman Missal will be released.

• For "Many" or For "All"? | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger | An excerpt from God Is Near Us: The Eucharist, the Heart of Life
• "The Spirit of the Liturgy" website

Comments

[Curious]

There's no mention about "for many" or "for all". Is this not covered, not corrected or not important?

[Carl E. Olson]

The CWNews piece states: At the Consecration, the priest will refer to Christ's blood which is "poured out for you and for many"-- an accurate translation of pro multis-- rather than "for all" in the current translation.

[Robert Miller]

Wonderful news.

It's too bad we have to wait until the whole Missal has been translated. Why not just introduce it immediately -- like the first Sunday of Advent -- the same way the current translations were brought in? I'm sorry, but I'm getting a little on in years and I'd like to see it before, well ... I get my invite to the Heavenly Banquet.

What happened to "consubstantial" -- to my way of thinking one of the more important issues?

I hope Adoremus is cranked up to provide us with the materials. How about an Adoremus Missalette this time? I'll bet you'll get a lot more takers in that format.

[Dan]

I'd read somewhere that the new translation of the Creed was going to drop "men" from "for us men and our salvation" -- something that many liberals priests do on their own (to my iritation). Does anyone know if this was in fact done?

[Deacon Harold]

Curious:

"Pro multis" was already addressed back in 2006:

http://www.adoremus.org/Arinze_ProMultis.html

[Joseph Previtali]

I have had a question about the translation of "mea maxima culpa" for some time now. Why "most grievous" rather than "greatest"? I must be missing something contextual about "maxima". Not that "most grievous" doesn't make sense; it's just that it is suspiciously "dynamically equivalent". Any ideas on this seeming departure from exactitude in translation?

[Ed]

I've read that the translation of the Creed reads "For us [missing word] and our salvation" too. Perhaps we'll have to wait a few more years for that...but I read elsewhere that "Credo" is correctly translated as "I believe" and that the more philosophical "consubstantial" is used.

I'd like to second the above commentators' desires to bring the translation of the ordinary into use now. Why wait? (One reason is for music settings to be written, but I think that can be worked around.)

[ATHELSTAN]

The Catholic Church is ravaged by discord and dissent, women are leaving in droves, young cradle Catholics are indifferent, or totally ignorant of basic church teachings. The far right, arch traditionalists want the Tridentine rite imposed on the universal church and no other form of celebration. They want everyone to give unquestioning obedience to the supreme magisterium while they themselves constantly suggest creating satellite churches in schism. Now we have the Vatican telling us to wait three years for the whole new English Mass translation?
Now you know why protestantism spread so quickly. Martin Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Knox and Henry VIII were eating the pope's lunch while the pope was waiting for Gadot. Let's get on with it. Mail the inserts for the common parts of the Mass so the priest and people can put them into their sacramentaries and missals, and get this show on the road for God's sake.

[Robert Miller]

"most grievous" was in all of the pre-Vatican II Latin-English popular missals -- whose translations, by the way, were pretty good, pretty much in conformity with the directives of Liturgiam Authenticam. Most Catholics over -- well, 60 -- will find what I've seen of the new ICEL version completely familiar from their old St. Joseph Daily Missals.

What bothers me is that there is so little groundswell from priests and laity for implementation of the new translations. And there is considerable undergroundswell from "liberals" (priests and laity, usually 50+) against them. I think the latter, unlike their (mostly younger) "conservative" counterparts, paradoxically understand the "lex orandi, lex credendi" stakes better. Also, I think many "conservatives" are simply uninformed about the issues altogether -- much, regrettably, as many are uninformed about the great stuff Benedict, Arinze and Ranjith are trying to do more generally with the liturgy.

I was quite serious when I proposed that Ignatius get into the missalette business -- and get into it ASAP.

[Augustine]

How does this approval relate to the "nay" that the bishops voted recently about the translation?

TIA

[MenTaLguY]

+1, I love my Ignatius Bible; I'd love to see what you guys would do with missalettes.

[Mike]

As a recent convert I appreciate Vatican II; were it not for that I would have no hope to understand the liturgy let alone participate. Clarity counts for much; words mean things; productive reflection relies on reliable statement of concept. As I see it.

[HQD]

In a CWN article (http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=59877), the issue of "for many" was mentioned. The translation for "pro multis" will be translated as "for many" and not "for the many." Sure beats "for all."

Also, the recent "nay" from bishops was for the Proper of Seasons Part I; the Order of Mass (Eucharistic Prayers, etc) was approved and finally got Rome's Recognitio. Whew! I too was diasspointed to find the Proper of Seasons was shot down by the USCCB (but approved by all the other Conferences). Back to more wasted funds towards "consultations" with liturgical "experts" and whatnot. From my understanding the text was brilliant, lovely, elevated, and dignified.