Communion Antiphon, First Sunday of Advent
LATIN
Dominus dabit benignitatem:
et terra nostra dabit fructum suum.
CURRENT MISSAL
The Lord will shower his gifts,
and our land will yield its fruit
GREY BOOK
The Lord will show us his kindness,
and our earth shall yield its fruit
RECEIVED TEXT
The Lord will bestow his bounty
and our earth shall yield its increase.
We copy you, Odyssey.
But where's the problem?
"Kindness", "generosity", or "bounty" are all suitable renderings of "benignitas".
I would also be more comfortable with "will bestow" than "will show" for "dabit".
And "fructus" is too narrowly thought of only as "fruit", though it can mean that; it is the word for a general agricultural yield, product, or produce; it can also connote a profit, income, or bounty. "Increase" as a noun is philologically sound.
Over.
More English translations of this Psalm verse, for enjoyment and edification. And the NAB.
I should have explained more. This demonstrates that the Grey Book of 2008 is (was?) being completely re-rendered by a Vatican congregation with a method explicitly rejected by Liturgiam, starting with a rejection of the Vulgate in favor of that Grail method which thereby robs the Psalm propers of their Christological parallels and which drives a deep wedge between Missal and Gradual propers, and it further suggests that the translation that was stable and approved by the Bishops of the entire English speaking world was hurled out the window in favor of a version cobbled together by some anon. bureaucrats somewhere in the Vatican. It says other things, most of which have already been said by Fr. Ruff, whom I publicly doubted but who seems to have been correct all along on this issue.
No doubt that whatever happens, this will be a better Missal than the current one but it is missed opportunity to attempt to redo already excellent work.
Musicians beware!
I will point out that 'bounty' and 'increase' both end in strong-weak pairs, and would make this easier to set to an authentic Gregorian psalm tone than the other two translations.
"…and it further suggests that the translation that was stable and approved by the Bishops of the entire English speaking world was hurled out the window in favor of a version cobbled together by some anon. bureaucrats somewhere in the Vatican."
Slow down, partner!
We're forgetting here that many of the changes to the Grey Book were changes recommended to the CDW by the various Bishops Conferences!
From Saritelli's recent letter:
"In approving the gray books, each conference also had the opportunity to make further suggestions to the Congregation, as was done in particular by our Conference. We submitted many amendments to the texts. The Congregation, working with the Vox Clara Committee, carefully listened to what the bishops said. The Congregation incorporated many of the suggestions of the various Conferences (including our own), combined with their own review and changes, and put forth the final text."
I have it from a very reliable source that at least half of the said 10,000 changes to the Grey Book came as a result of the suggestions of the various Conferences! And the CDW has every right to make its own changes to the text–this is in Church law.
So the point here is that the CDW did not do anything illicit. It is acting fully within its competency. Whether the work done is of an acceptable quality is a different story, but there is no reason to make the CDW the bad guy here!
But… the Christological parallel is still there. In fact, if you want to use this as a "God gives us His Son and Mary bears Him" verse, you could argue that the Grey Book version is better. Shrug. Why people are so allergic to translating give as give, that I don't get.
What seems to be more a problem is that, even with the Grail translation, the focus is more on translating than on doing it for singing. Jerome explicitly tried to make the Vulgate sound good as well as being a faithful and witty translation. Some English Bible translations try to be witty, but they really are after the look and not the sound. It makes a big difference. Maybe Bible translation committees should have fewer profs and more old Tin Pan Alley songwriters, before they all die off.
Adam B. wrote:
“I have it from a very reliable source that at least half of the said 10,000 changes to the Grey Book came as a result of the suggestions of the various Conferences!”
I’m sure that Adam is accurately and honestly reporting what his source said. But I wonder if that source is covering his tracks or doing damage control. The math doesn’t add up.
We know that some conferences submitted no amendments, that one conference simply approved the US amendments because they’ll buy their books from the US, at least one conference never submitted the Order of Mass to Rome (they intended to submit it later with the propers and were surprised to get back the OM with recognitio from Rome in 2008), and the US submitted amendments numbering in the hundreds at most. In some cases the BCDW reported in the newsletter (available online) how many (or how few) amendments they made to various sections of the missal. There is no way that all of this adds up to anything close to 5,000 total amendments.
Fr. Anthony, OSB
"And the CDW has every right to make its own changes to the text–this is in Church law."
Legal doesn't make it a good idea. Evidently the CDW wasn't acting illicitly, but the results speak for themselves.
What Fr. Ruff says makes sense if you look at many of the changes themselves and ask yourself whether bishops conferences would request such changes – switching words here, changing the tense of a single word there, on prayers for particular saints that are only prayed once a year! Or conversely, systematically changing other texts across the length and breadth of the missal. Many of the changes simply don't make a lot of sense.
We should also remember that: 1) we are looking at drafts that have been rejected, 2) working from old information, 3) and, as Fr. Z pointed out, the internet attention alone might be enough to get this project back on the right track again.
It seems like there is a rush but there really isn't. We have a full year. Yes, things need to be printed but this isn't 1550 or even 1950. Digital typesetting and speed printing make it possible to meet nearly any deadline.
"It seems like there is a rush but there really isn't. We have a full year."
Maybe so. Maybe not.
There are worlds other than liturgy. Child catechesis is one, and their deadlines coincide with the summer of 2011, not Advent.
I can also relate that I just submitted my liturgy budget for 2011-12. Other departments at my church are doing likewise over the next month.
I asked for no money for any new implementation materials. Who knows how much they will cost, what will be available, or even if somebody will just say "wait."
The tinkering and the delays will cost Rome dearly in terms of the loyalty of pastors and parish ministers who have shown themselves more than willing to put the best face on it all. We're already laughing amongst ourselves at this display of incompetence. So if somebody has a good reason for not fully implementing on 27 Nov 2011, I don't see a reasonable complaint in the air.
Jeffrey Tucker wrote:
"We should also remember that: 1) we are looking at drafts that have been rejected, 2) working from old information, …"
It's hard to keep track of all the drafts and the various "final" versions. But as I understand it, the 2010 Received Text (now leaked online) was not a draft, but a final version approved by the CDW. Then this summer at a FDLC/USCCB workshop it was announced that they had changed the Doxology and other things in this text – so the 2008 text of the Order of Mass at USCCB was changed.
I'm confused by Bp. Sarratelli's BCDW statement of 11/18. The statement seems to be saying that there is only one final text and there are no further changes to it – does this mean to claim that the leaked 2010 text is what we'll get in our missal? But the statement also says that critiques of the Received Text are based on an earlier version, not the final. Doesn't this mean that the Received Text got changed after the CDW gave recognitio?
I can understand that the BCDW would want to calm the waters. But I don't find it very reassuring that there is only one final text and it's not being changed. I wish they would reassure us that the 2010 text, though approved, is nothing like what we'll be getting because they promise to make lots of corrections and improvements to it.
awr
I'm confused by Bp. Sarratelli's BCDW statement of 11/18. The statement seems to be saying that there is only one final text and there are no further changes to it
It's only cause for confusion if we assume that all of what we've been hearing regarding changes,drafts, deadlines, leaks, revisions etc… are all true. It seems believable until someone such as Bp. Serratelli, who actually is privy to the process and a definite "insider", says something contradictory. Then we have to wonder…is he lying, or have we been misinformed?
It says other things, most of which have already been said by Fr. Ruff, whom I publicly doubted but who seems to have been correct all along on this issue.
Fr. Ruff's editorial policy at Pray, Tell does his arguments no favour. Things proposed there may or may not be so, but the baggage and lack of editorial balance make it difficult to hear arguable points and discuss them reasonably. It's a great shame. Fr. Ruff is an intelligent and literate commenter, and it may be that he has a contribution to make in this matter. Who knows?
As for the Grey Book version vs the received text: the 'bestow' of the first line better translates the action of 'dabit', which is the granting of something to us, rather than than a simple showing.