More Reactions to the New Missal Translation

The new Mass translation inspired me to revitalize my Latin skills and examine the source Latin text.  Using literal translation techniques (the approach used by translators in rendering this new translation), I translated the Mass to see what it actually says and make my own assessment as to its accuracy.  The net is, it contains many inaccuracies.  I was going to include the full source Latin and my translation compared to the new translation at the end of this but it's about 12 pages long.  So, instead, if you want a copy, please send me an email and I will send you a copy. But here are a few things I noticed that I thought worth pondering.  

Sometimes the new translation merely opts for a different synonym though any synonym should be considered a faithful accurate translation.  Those cases may have resulted in increased domineering but not necessarily in increased accuracy. 

Yet, in some cases the nuance of the new synonym disturbs me.  For example, the Latin word for “cup” and “chalice” is calix; either is an accurate literal translation.  However, placing Jesus in his environment – an impoverished man in a borrowed room, I think “cup” is far more accurate.  The translators changing “cup” to “chalice” in the Eucharistic Prayer yields a mental image very incongruous with Jesus’ humble lifestyle and circumstances.  Since the clergy use opulent chalices rather than simple cups, are they perhaps forming Jesus in their image to justify their divergence from his humble poverty?

In the Nicene Creed visibilium omnium et invisibilium used to be translated as “seen and unseen” but now uses a synonymous translation, “visible and invisible.”  Though “visible” and “seen” are pretty much interchangeable, “unseen” and “invisible” are not.  Some things are not visible (not seen) but yet are not invisible (transparent or see-through).  An unborn child is an example.  Unless a woman has an ultrasound, her child is not visible but it is not invisible.  The creed’s new wording doesn’t include that unborn child as God’s creation.  That seems very wrong and incomplete.  Many of the world’s greatest wonders are things that typically are not seen/not visible but not invisible: microscopic matter, sub-atomic particles, the internal workings of living organisms or electronics, the stars, the galaxies.  The new translation omits them all from being God’s creation.     

Also, “seen and unseen” seems to humbly acknowledge blindness from seeing God’s involvement making things that might be visible but just disliked. For example, God made the person you consider your “enemy” whether you can see that or not.  God also made all those things in society to which you object, because according to Church teaching “the evil one” is not capable of creating anything – only distorting things.  

The new translation also failed to correct some very simple inaccuracies.  For example, the Lamb of God in Latin says, Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccàta mundi.  In the previous and new English translation we say, “Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world.”  However, that omits literally translating the word qui, meaning, “who.”   A more accurate literal translation might be, “Lamb of God, you who take away the sins of the world” or, “Lamb of God, who take away the sins of the world.”  Why didn’t translators fix that?

Another uncorrected inaccuracy occurs at the end of the Lord’s Prayer when we say, “For the kingdom, the power and the glory are yours now and forever.”  The source Latin, Quia tuum est regnum, et potèstas, et glòria in sàecula, literally translates into, “For (or because) yours is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, in all ages (or for ever).”  Almost all Christian denominations except Roman Catholics end the Lord’s Prayer this way.  Why didn’t translators fix this inaccuracy and form another connection with other Christians?  By the way, the Latin for what we say would be Quia regnum, potestas, et gloria tua sunt nunc et semper (or nunc et in saecula).

I also am confused about the ado regarding “consubstantiation” in the Nicene Creed rather than “one in being.”  The Greek word used in the original Nicene Creed stated Jesus was homoousios with the Father, which literally means “one in being “.  When the Creed was translated from Greek to Latin, it was changed to consubstantio.  If accuracy is the aim, then we should be saying “one in being” rather than insert a minor inaccuracy due to having an intermediate translation step from Greek to Latin.   

Translating the Confiteor’s first sentence was very insightful also.  The current official Latin text says Confìteor Deo omnipotènti et vobis, fratres, quia peccàvi nimis cogitatiòne, verbo, òpere et omissiòne, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa which literally translates into, “I confess to Almighty God and you, brethren, that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word, deed, and omission, my fault, my fault, my greatest fault.”  This differs from the pre-Vatican II Latin, Confiteor Deo omnipotenti, beatae Mariae semper virgini, beato Michaeli archangelo, beato Joanni Baptistae, sanctis Apostolis Petro et Paulo,  omnibus Sanctis, et tibi, Pater, quia peccavi nimis cogitatione, verbo, et opere:  mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, which literally translates into “I confess to almighty God, the Blessed Mary, ever Virgin, blessed Michael the Archangel, blessed John the Baptist, the holy apostles Peter and Paul, to all the saints, and to you, Father, because I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word, and deed: my fault, my fault, my greatest fault .”

The text and punctuation changed between the two Latin versions rendering a different sentiment due to adding the word “omission” and using a comma rather than a colon.  A colon usually indicates an exemplary list follows whereas a comma either separates thoughts or sets off a modifying clause.  The difference in meaning might best be explained using a few tables.

In the pre-Vatican II version of the Confiteor you confess to sin in “thought, word, and deed: my fault my fault, my greatest fault.”  One way to interpret that is:

Sin Source	thought	word	deed
Modifier	my fault	my fault	my greatest fault

In the current version of the Confiteor you have confession of “thought, word, deed, and omission, my fault, my fault, my greatest fault” which could be interpreted as:

Sin Source	thought	word	deed	omission
Modifier				My fault, my fault, my greatest fault

This would seem that far and away “my greatest fault” is the sin of omission - which makes sense as I reflect on Jesus’ example giving dignity to society’s overlooked.  The new translation fails to express this because it is not an accurate literal translation. 

However, the words introducing the Sign of Peace are what sparked my effort to translate the Mass myself.  The new wording says, “Lord Jesus Christ, who said to your Apostles: Peace I leave you, my peace I give you; look not on our sins, but on the faith of your Church, and graciously grant her peace and unity in accordance with your will.”  The “in accordance with your will” statement seemed odd; I assumed we would ask God to grant the Church full peace and unity. 

The new translation is not an exact literal translation.  A closer one might be, “Lord Jesus Christ, who said to your apostles: peace I leave you, my peace I give you; Look not upon our sins, but on the faith of your church; deign/vouchsafe to bring it according to your will to be pacified and gathered together.”  However, the two translations render a similar sentiment that leapt off the page at me.  In our liturgy, we acknowledge that the will of God can include disunity in the Church!  Why then do church leaders rail against those who disagree, question or dissent?  Why do they try to force unity through uniformity when perhaps God wills that there be disunity and non-conformity?  Why do they cling to concepts like “ecclesial communion” and “episcopal communion” as reasons to be intolerant of differing views?  Such intolerance is evident in the forced march to adopt this sub-par translation. 

More importantly, I don’t understand why on the one hand we’re being told to make the changes because it shouldn’t be a big deal to say some different words, but then make a big deal about the different words and ensuring people make the changes.   If it isn’t a big deal, why do it?  If it is a big deal, why do such an inferior job?  

Perhaps most importantly, why the fixation on saying the “proper” words when it gets down to splitting hairs?  Prayer is talking to God; it’s not magic.  Magic spells worry about exact wording lest you accidentally turn a toad into a turnip rather than a prince.  Please don’t reduce the faithful and God to sitcom characters as though if the priest says “cup” instead of “chalice” God’s going to turn the wine into motor oil rather than the Precious Blood.   

I don’t think the new changes matter an iota to God other than possibly being saddened by misdirected energies from misplaced priorities.  I know the new changes don’t enhance my understanding of the Mass or theology.  I guess the one thing I value about the new translation will likely be overlooked by church leaders; we acknowledge at every Mass that God’s will includes dissent.  Could the piety patrol please stand-down?