New Translation of the Mass

By Fr Dylan James, Shaftesbury

27th March 2010
In September 2011 the prayers that we currently use in the Mass are going to be replaced
by a new translation. This change is going to be the biggest change that we have
experienced in the Mass in 38 years.

Why is this happening?

The prayers that we use the Mass are the same prayers said by Catholics all across the
world. The official version of these prayers is written in Latin and was revised after the
Second Vatican Council in the 1960s. In 1973 we started using the current English
translation of these prayers, however, this translation was produced in something of a hurry
and it was always planned that it would be revised. The revision has taken a long time and
gone through many different drafts, many of which have been rejected or approved by our
bishops and by the Vatican. A new improved text is now finally ready.

Why is this important?

The prayers we say in the Mass reflect what we believe, however, by the very fact that we
say these prayers they also form our belief and potentially change what we believe. As the
ancient saying goes, lex orandi, lex credendi, “the rule of prayer is the rule of faith”. It is
therefore important that the prayers we say are truly a worthy and accurate expression of
our Catholic faith. Making sure that the new English translation is a better reflection of the
original Latin will help make sure that the prayers form us into better Catholics.

What principles have the translators used?

The 1973 translation drew on principles of translation that were fashionable at the time. In
particular, they avoided “formal equivalence” methodologies that aimed at a word for word
rendering of the words of one language into another language. Instead, they drew on the
“dynamic equivalence” methodology of Eugene Nida. This theory avoided focussing on
exact word translations and instead tried to produce the same effect in the new language
that a text in the original language had produced. In practice, however, it can often be
difficult to faithfully produce the same effect unless you also faithfully translate the
particular words. As one of the new translators has put it, “sometimes formal equivalence
can be the way to achieve dynamic equivalence”.

What was wrong with the old translation?

The translators of the new text have been keen to say that it is not so much that the old
translation was "wrong" but that the new translation will be better. This said, there are
certain weaknesses that have been consistently noted in the old translation. One of the
problems in the 1973 translation is that it often failed to convey the Scriptural imagery that
was in the Latin text. In contrast, the new translation includes many words and phrases that
we will recognise as being from the Bible, and this should help us appreciate the significance
of the prayers better. Another problem with the 1973 text is that many specific Latin words
were given no English equivalent in the translation, with the consequence that the 1973
translation often had a very reduced meaning. In particular, priests have often noted that
the Opening Prayers of the Mass can often feel rather vague and as if they lack content. In
addition, the general style of the English used in the 1973 translation lacked the “sacred”
feel that was present in the style of the Latin phraseology of the original text. This is one
way in which the "dynamic equivalence" methodology of the 1973 translation actually
defeated itself and failed to produce the same “effect” that was present in the original Latin
prayer. Many of the original Latin prayers were composed at a time when Latin was a living
language, but they were nonetheless written in a specific sacred style. The new English
translation aims to have something of this sacred feel to it, while avoiding words like “thee”
and “thou” that might simply feel old-fashioned.

What about some examples?

Different examples can be given to indicate different strengths in the new translation.
One of the strengths, as noted, is the renewed Scriptural imagery in the new translation.
For example, before the congregation get ready to receive Holy Communion the priest
raises the host and in the old 1973 translation we have been saying, “Lord, I am not worthy
to receive you”. Instead, the new translation says, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you enter
under my roof”, clearly quoting the words of the Centurion to our Lord (Mt 8:8). Similarly,
we might note how the 1973 translation of the “Holy Holy Holy” continues, “Lord God of
power and might”. The new 2010 translation of this line is more faithful to the Latin and by
doing this takes us back to another phrase we should hopefully recognise from the Bible:
the new text says “Lord God of hosts”, a common Scriptural title for God as the Lord of
armies (e.g. Isa 6:3; Rev 4:9).
There are also many cases of words that were lost in the 1973 translation but are now
restored in the 2010 translation. The “I confess” or Confiteor in the introductory rite gives
two examples of this: Whereas the 1973 translation had the phrase, "I have sinned”, the
new 2010 translation says, “I have greatly sinned”. In addition, whereas the 1973 text said,
"through my own fault", the new 2010 text restores the threefold repetition that is in the
Latin text, “through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault”.
Finally, an example of the changes in the Opening Prayers can be seen in one of the recent
weekday Masses, Thursday of the 2nd week of Lent. The Latin of the first line of this prayer
reads, “Deus, innocentiae restitutor et amator”. The out-going 1973 translation rendered
this as “God of love”, a ‘translation’ that bears no resemblance to the original Latin! In
contrast, the new 2010 translation translates the text as “O God, who delight in innocence
and restore it”.
While each of these are small changes they will add up to a give a new “effect” that will be
closer to the Latin, better express our Catholic faith, and better help raise our hearts and
minds to the Lord.