Come unto me all that travail and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you. (St Matthew 11:28, from the Prayerbook of the Church of England). Intelligible, poetic, lofty and fitting for Divine Service. Let us compare such treasures to the shite that Rome has lately dispensed for us. If people find the tone of this post disagreeable, then I am sorry (though not surprised), but I fear that there is too little ''calling a spade a spade'' in the blogosphere, and it's up to poor old Patricius to do it. By the way, I have it on good authority that some prominent churches in London (and a local one) have decided not to implement the new ICEL. Good for them! The more who eschew the fallible Magisterium, the better; the better for all of us. And may those long accustomed to the old ICEL continue to respond And also with you - it's far more accurate than saying ''and with YOUR spirit.''
They err who think that all enemies of the new translation are tambourine-waving yokels and serviettes of the ''spirit of Vatican II'' generation. I despise the new translation with the uttermost fervour, and for very good reasons; yea and I look down my nose at such idiots who welcome it, whose views are inimical to the Gospel. In reality they're very much like the Modernists, two sides of the same Ultramontane coin; just as tasteless, ignorant and untraditional as the lacey tabard-wearing pope, whose idea of liturgical tradition is more lace, more candles, more Latin and dalmatics for Lententide. Dress up a pig in a lace cotta, give him a 1962 Missal, and you call that Tradition? Puleeeeeeeeez.
During my lunch break at work the other day I was perusing my copy of the Book of Common Prayer, and comparing the texts therein with the new ICEL ''equivalents.'' I am now more than ever convinced of the superiority of the Church of England to the Roman communion. Just look!
A general Confession (''meekly kneeling upon your knees'') from the Order of the Administration of the Lord's Supper (said by one of the Ministers of the Mass on behalf of those present who are duly disposed to receive the Sacrament, under both kinds naturally):
Almighty God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Maker of all things, Judge of all men; we acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness, which we, from time to time, most grievously have committed, by thought, word and deed, against thy Divine Majesty, provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against us. We do earnestly repent and are heartily sorry for these our misdoings; the remembrance of them is grievous unto us; the burden of them is intolerable. Have mercy upon us, have mercy upon us, most merciful Father; for thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ's sake, forgive us all that is past; and grant that we may ever hereafter serve and please thee in newness of life, to the honour and glory of thy Name. Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Compare this to the rather bald translation of the new, untraditional, version of the Confiteor in the New ICEL:
I confess to almighty God and to you, my brothers and sisters [is this an accurate rendering of ''et vobis fratres''?!], that I have greatly sinned, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault; therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin, all the Angels and Saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.
Or the Gloria:
Glory be to God on high, and in earth peace, good will towards men. We praise thee, we bless thee, we worship thee, we glorify thee, we give thanks to thee for thy great glory, O Lord God heavenly King, God the Father Almighty. O Lord, the only-begotten Son Jesu Christ; O Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father, that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us. Thou that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us. Thou that takest away the sins of the world, receive our prayer. Thou that sittest at the right hand of God the Father, have mercy upon us. For thou only art holy; thou only art the Lord, thou only, O Christ, with the Holy Ghost, art most high in the glory of God the Father. Amen.
They err who think that all enemies of the new translation are tambourine-waving yokels and serviettes of the ''spirit of Vatican II'' generation. I despise the new translation with the uttermost fervour, and for very good reasons; yea and I look down my nose at such idiots who welcome it, whose views are inimical to the Gospel. In reality they're very much like the Modernists, two sides of the same Ultramontane coin; just as tasteless, ignorant and untraditional as the lacey tabard-wearing pope, whose idea of liturgical tradition is more lace, more candles, more Latin and dalmatics for Lententide. Dress up a pig in a lace cotta, give him a 1962 Missal, and you call that Tradition? Puleeeeeeeeez.
During my lunch break at work the other day I was perusing my copy of the Book of Common Prayer, and comparing the texts therein with the new ICEL ''equivalents.'' I am now more than ever convinced of the superiority of the Church of England to the Roman communion. Just look!
A general Confession (''meekly kneeling upon your knees'') from the Order of the Administration of the Lord's Supper (said by one of the Ministers of the Mass on behalf of those present who are duly disposed to receive the Sacrament, under both kinds naturally):
Almighty God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Maker of all things, Judge of all men; we acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness, which we, from time to time, most grievously have committed, by thought, word and deed, against thy Divine Majesty, provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against us. We do earnestly repent and are heartily sorry for these our misdoings; the remembrance of them is grievous unto us; the burden of them is intolerable. Have mercy upon us, have mercy upon us, most merciful Father; for thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ's sake, forgive us all that is past; and grant that we may ever hereafter serve and please thee in newness of life, to the honour and glory of thy Name. Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Compare this to the rather bald translation of the new, untraditional, version of the Confiteor in the New ICEL:
I confess to almighty God and to you, my brothers and sisters [is this an accurate rendering of ''et vobis fratres''?!], that I have greatly sinned, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault; therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin, all the Angels and Saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.
Or the Gloria:
Glory be to God on high, and in earth peace, good will towards men. We praise thee, we bless thee, we worship thee, we glorify thee, we give thanks to thee for thy great glory, O Lord God heavenly King, God the Father Almighty. O Lord, the only-begotten Son Jesu Christ; O Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father, that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us. Thou that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us. Thou that takest away the sins of the world, receive our prayer. Thou that sittest at the right hand of God the Father, have mercy upon us. For thou only art holy; thou only art the Lord, thou only, O Christ, with the Holy Ghost, art most high in the glory of God the Father. Amen.
New ICEL crap:
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to people [''people''!?! ffs, hominibus is a dative plural form which refers to MEN, not men and women - see the botched confession above] of good will. We praise you [thee], we bless you, we adore you, we glorify you, we give you thanks for your great glory [or better, we give thee thanks for the greatness of thy splendour?], Lord God, heavenly King, O [please] God, almighty Father. Lord Jesus Christ, Only Begotten Son, Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us; you take away the sins of the world, receive our prayer; you are seated at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us. For you alone are the Holy One, you alone are the Lord, you alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit [Ghost], in the glory of God the Father. Amen.
There is something inherently distasteful about addressing God in the plural. It is also dangerous theologically, which I believe I have explained elsewhere. I don't know what it is exactly, but could it could possibly be the combination of inclusive language and the ''O's'' that makes this translation ridiculous? Who wants inclusive language in the Liturgy? Since when was the Sacred Liturgy subject to the parameters set by ''political correctness''? My God, I've read better literature in the waiting area of the Maudsley Hospital, or that Watchtower magazine the Jehovah's Witnesses left with me yesterweek after I demanded they get off my land. At least Old ICEL was dynamic and was fit to compare to the Latin in cadence and rhythm.
I'm sorry but I don't think I have ever read such an awful translation. It conveys nothing but artificiality and pretence, and is not edifying in the slightest. It betrays the very principles of good translation in many respects. Why, for example, translate consubstantialem into ''consubstantial''? What is wrong with simply saying, as in the Prayerbook, being of one substance with? It isn't really a ''translation'' in the proper sense if you keep using latinate words is it? (This, I guess, is my chief objection to the translation Holy Spirit. It is more traditional to say Holy Ghost; why shy away from a goodly name used by our Catholic forebears?) The idiocy of the translators is shown most clearly in the inconsistency of the next part, referring to the Holy Ghost, where they say: who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified. What would Tolkien, or Fortescue say? Oh I know what Fortescue would say:
Frankly, I do not think I have ever read a book written in so atrocious a style. The only thing in its favour is that it is extremely funny. However, since the book is meant to be serious, it is a pity that someone did not apprize Dale to proceed to observe the customary use of language, in conjunction with people who write English.
Once again, shame on Mother Rome, and a goodly number of anathemas upon those who use this translation willingly, in the spirit of contempt for our godly English tongue. They do well who eschew it, for of a surety it is a ghastly affront to ecclesiastical propriety and taste.
Patricius locutus est.
I agree that the new translation is bald and does not match the cadences of English. With that said, you talk an awful lot of nonsense here, particularly about translation.
ReplyDelete"There is something inherently distasteful about addressing God in the plural."
Except it isn't addressing God in the plural, because English hasn't had a separate second person singular personal pronoun (with the exception of Yorkshire dialect) for well over two hundred years. It was already dying in the 17th Century, for heaven's sake. This is absolute a complete dud of an argument, and that you continue to refuse to accept the patently obvious in this regard only weakens your overall argument and shows you up as either intellectually mendacious or a fool.
"My God, I've read better literature in the waiting area of the Maudsley Hospital,"
So what? The liturgy isn't some half-baked aesthetic experience. It is for the worship of God and to stand with fear and trembling before the Sacrifice of Calvary, not to make you go wobbly-kneed at some fine vestments and 16th Century poeticism.
"or that Watchtower magazine the Jehovah's Witnesses left with me yesterweek after I demanded they get off my land."
Once again, your living example of Christianity astounds.
"It isn't really a ''translation'' in the proper sense if you keep using latinate words is it?"
So presumably the Coptic Orthodox have never used Coptic in their liturgy really, since their liturgical/religious language is riddled through with Greek borrowings? Or even the Latin Church, which has consistently used Greek terminology. Presumably, Tyndale didn't 'really' translate the Bible either, by your measure, since he kept inventing words to cover Hebrew terms. This is another ludicrous argument.
"why shy away from a goodly name used by our Catholic forebears?"
Because 'ghost' no longer has the same meaning as it did in times past; it has undergone semantic shift to the point where 'spirit' now fills the role it used to have.
The translation is simply a lightly edited formal equivalence rather than a dynamic one. It should be no surprise that it therefore does not sound 'natural'. That this is far from an ideal translatioin is obvious; but your arguments are ridiculous, hysterical and manage to be at once nit-picking and inaccurate.
In short, this blog-post represents a triumph of screeching condemnation over sound criticism, and not only does nothing to critique the new translation, but seriously undermines your credibility as a commentator on anything at all, let alone the liturgy.
"English hasn't had a separate second person singular personal pronoun (with the exception of Yorkshire dialect) for well over two hundred years."
ReplyDeleteBut it HAS! The second person singular has survived in liturgical English. Don't you think that counts? If you try to abolish it you are effectively saying that liturgical and devotional usage must be conformed to something else.
To be more accurate, Little Black Sambo, today both "thou" and "you" have second-person singular senses in liturgical English. "You" also maintains its former plural sense. This is hardly strange---consider that "vous" in French has both a singular and plural sense.
ReplyDeleteSo while I DO prefer the use of "thou" in liturgical English, and I would have liked to see it in this new translation, I will not condemn the use of "you" as wrong. It isn't.
Of course, all things being equal, I will always prefer Latin in the liturgy.
If you always prefer Latin in the liturgy, then you prefer to retain the use of the second person singular.
ReplyDeletePatricius: Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to people [''people''!?! ffs, hominibus is a dative plural form which refers to MEN, not men and women - see the botched confession above] of good will.
ReplyDeleteConsider Cicero's use of homo in this famous passage, De. Leg.I.22 -- 23.
I. quem uocamus hominem is more than a non-vegetative being. This being possess a list of unique attributes generatum esse a supremo deo. We do not know if Cicero is using homo exclusive to anatomical males, or homo as gender-inclusive. All that is know is that the human being archetype possesses certain god-given qualities that facilitate cognition and the formation of "state".
II. Wouldn't Cicero use vir (anatomical men) instead of homo (anatomically inclusive "people") if he intended only anatomical men to receive the divine genesis, create law, and establish communities? If one might argue that De. Leg. is a response to Platonic political philosophy, one would have to admit that the Republic also contained women.
However, koine roughly contemporary to Cicero's Latin suggests that ἄνθρωπος can be freely used instead of ἀνήρ through context. Compare John the Evangelist's introduction of John the Baptist, "Ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος, ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ θεοῦ, ὄνομα αὐτῷ Ἰωάννης" (John 1:6) with the proclamation of the baptism of God the Son: "κἀγὼ ἑώρακα καὶ μεμαρτύρηκα ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ."(John 1:27) Both ἄνθρωπος and υἱὸς can be gender-neutral (υἱὸς = puer, "boy" or "child"), but John's references are contextually male-gendered without doubt.
The problem with an automatic assumption that homo/ἄνθρωπος denotes anatomical males resides in the assumption that context is irrelevant. Given the high profile of women in early-post-Constantinian churches, I would suggest that homo in the Gloria is gender-inclusive.
The Lord be with you.
ReplyDeleteAnd with thy ghost.
>>>>Why, for exampIle, translate consubstantialem into ''consubstantial''?
ReplyDeleteI agree, but does not the D-Rheims bible translation also suffer from this foible? What is your opinion of this publication?
I think the idiotic first comment has been duly dealt with by 'sam'!
Forgive the delay in response but blogger wouldn't let me comment on my own blog for a few days and I've finally had the problem sorted.
ReplyDeleteJM, your contribution is welcome, however I think you misunderstand my objection, which was to the use of inclusive language. It is an unwholesome veneer imposed on the translation and inspired by principles inimical to Christianity. That is the chief danger.
Jack O'Malley, and also with you!
Pete, I like the Douay Rheims translation. To my knowledge the Authorized translation drew heavily from it, though I have no citation for that. In terms of the dignity of expression and idiom, however, I prefer the style of the pericopes in the Prayerbook of the Church of England.
"...homo in the Gloria is gender-inclusive."
ReplyDeleteSo is "men".
And what do you think of "mortals", which now appears in many liturgical texts? Perhaps the liturgists have been reading The Pink Fairy Book.
Patricius: It [inclusive language] is an unwholesome veneer imposed on the translation and inspired by principles inimical to Christianity. That is the chief danger. (my brackets)
ReplyDeleteThere are different types of inclusive language. The translation of hominibus as "people" is not theologically problematic and entirely orthodox. Yes, it could lead to heresy if "horizontal inclusion" is deceptively conflated with "vertical inclusion". When taken alone it is not a problem.
The Gloria is a post-Constantinian composition introduced to the West at the very end of the late antique age. The high visibility of women in congregations and Christian life at this point suggests "persons" (or "people") as an accurate translation. Given the composite of early institutional Christianity, viribus would be strange.
What we need to be afraid of is "Father-Mother", "Son-Sophia", and the like. None of these have scriptural, patristic, scholastic, or systematic precedent. I've heard a few groovy (and inherently heretical) "alternative" Trinitarian formulae in my time, such as "Creator God, The Christ, and Life-Giving Spirit." I suspect you would have an aneurysm if you ever heard that. This is where the real issues of inclusive language lie, and not the translation of ἀδελφοί/fratres as "brothers and sisters".
Do I prefer that "orate fratres ..." be translated and prayed as "pray brethren ..." Heck, I would prefer that we used the BCP translations for the Mass ordinary. Still, sometimes it's better to give a bit of ground on inclusive language for humankind, rather than let heresy creep by.
It is interesting to note that the Sarum mass contains the following for the "Orate": "Orate, fratres et sorores..."
ReplyDeleteDale, that IS interesting, and I had not forgotten it. It would be interesting to know when that variation crept into the Sarum and other mediaeval local Uses.
ReplyDeleteJM, I have heard of heretical ''Trinitarian'' formulae. Wasn't one French priest put under interdict for baptising in the name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier, or something?
Even so, we don't use inclusive language on Liturgiae Causa. Neither do we use kilometres and metres, which many of you may find strange for someone of my generation.
The "Douai Rheims" that is commonly used is the Chancellor revised version and more similar to the KJV. The traditional DR is almost impossible to buy but you can read it online here: http://digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/etext/bie-idx?type=header&bible=Rheims%20Douai
ReplyDelete