CURRENT
Father, direct your love that is within us,
that our efforts in the name of your Son
may bring mankind to unity and peace.
FORTHCOMING
Almighty ever-living God,
direct our actions according to your good pleasure,
that in the name of your beloved Son
we may abound in good works.
And oh look, it's less sexist language too.
Wooty woot!
Strange. The Latin has ". . . ut in nomine dilecti Filii tui mereamur bonis operibus abundare." Where did "mereamur" (that we may merit) go? The Latin prayer is not "that we may abound in good works", it is "that we may *merit* to abound in good works."
Perhaps it was thought that this one of those rare instances in which the original Latin is a bit murky, and therefore ought to be "corrected" in translation. For if our actions are directed by God's good pleasure, then perhaps we will not merely merit to abound with good works, but (actually) will abound with good works.
Does anyone know why "everlasting" was replaced by "ever-living" in the revised text?
A funny note: whoever did it used the "search-and-replace" function to do so, because there was one instance in the Received Text (corrected, we dare to hope, in the final edit) where the original "everlasting life" had become, hilariously, "ever-living life."
The originally submitted text had the final line "we may be made rich in good works." Odd to omit the "mereamur," as it was scrupulously omitted by Cranmer in his translations – for obvious reasons.
"And oh look, it's less sexist language too.
Wooty woot"
Adam,
Please feel free to fill in here,
'In the name of the ___, and the son and the Holy Spirit.'
Oh, I didn't mean "God" instead of "Father."
I was referring to unwarranted use of "mankind" in the otherwise overly-liberaled unity and peace mumbo jumbo at the end.
"overly-liberated unity and peace mumbo jumbo" = certainly nothing Jesus EVER spoke about.
Excellent point Adam!
"Mumbo I leave with you, my jumbo I give unto you . . . Father, may they be mumboed with me as I am jumboed with you." Cf. John 14-17.
Jesus talked about a lot of things that the original Latin collect in question is not about.
The problem is not with "unity and peace" but with the idea that our efforts will bring them about.
Can't we all just get along?
Disclaimer: I'm not of the 60's-breed and a very EF-leaning member of OF congregation… but seriously, let's just hold hands and say peace be with you already.
One problem is the vagueness of the "unity and peace." Are we channeling John Lennon's dream of no religion, too? Jesus asked that they (the disciples) be one–that the world may know that He sent Him. And presumably, then, the world would become one by joining us, which is what SC 10 says is "the goal of apostolic activity."
Another problem is what Julia Six said.
Another problem is (as I've said again and again) the old ICEL prayer keeps God at a distance. His love is within us but God is not. We ask him to direct our love, but not our actions. We ask God for a something vague, but not for the day-to-day help that is nearer than our breathing. That's what collects (and introits, btw) as for.
The current translation is shocking in its banality (as well as the paucity of expression). I can hardly wait until they are tossed onto the ashbin of history. I will likely attend more English language Masses as a result. I go almost exclusively to Latin language Masses now to avoid the current drivel.
Isn't it amusing that most of the people who claim to be so enthusiastic about the new translation for the OF prefer to pray in Latin at the EF?
Oh interesting point. NOT!
ANON at 2:28
My post at 10:17 AM contradicts what you just posted. I will be much more likely to attend the English Mass as a result of the New Translations! By the way, I generally attend the OF in Latin, not the EF.
Now, now, now: I was just saying . . .
But notice that even Fr. Z has questioned the final translation of the Collect for the Third Sunday in Ordinary Time . . . the "ever-living" being universally substituted for "everlasting" by the Vox Clara team did lead to a very humorous error in the "Received Text": one prayer ended up petitioning that we be admitted to the joys of "ever-living life"!
Chironomo is quite right about all this, I think: the People's Parts should pose no problem whatsoever, especially if they are chanted, and Bravo for the fine settings showcased here and for your amazing tutorials (what a wonderful technology to be able to have the actual score "move" as the chant audio is progressing: DEAR PRIESTS, TAKE NOTE & USE!) But some of the priestly texts . . . another matter.
On a more positive note, and also in keeping with this site's attention to "the beauty of holiness" as regards the outward forms of the liturgy: In addition to having inspired a restored "Catholic sensibility" regarding the musical "dress" the text is presented in, can we hope for the BOOKS, i.e., the Missals, to be something of higher quality (outside – binding/ and inside – typography and ESPECIALLY artwork!) than the wretched Sacramentary now in use????