Anyone looking at the new Translations for the Mass?

[rpp]

It was not and is not part of the Latin text of the Roman Missal. It’s an English addition. (Such things make it terribly easy to talk about the liturgy in a way that’s meant to be universal but ends up being completely foreign to non-English-speaking Catholics: “It’s like we say at Mass: ‘Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.’” “Huh? When do we say that?” asks a French/Spanish/Italian/German/etc. Catholic.)

It is unlike the three acclamations found in the Latin text, which a) are directly addressed to Jesus Christ (and are not simply about him), and b) mention his interaction with us.

The acclamation in the middle of the Eucharistic Prayer is also not a traditional element of the Roman Rite.

Thank you for that clarification. You seem quite well informed on this and I am grateful for your (name removed by moderator)ut and perspectives. From my perspective, I want translations to be as accurate and complete as possible, (no “dynamic” translations and no “dumbing down”, please). That means that if it is not in the original Latin get rid of it!

And if it was not in the original translation, how in the world did it get into the litrgy in the first place?

 

[japhy]

Thank you for that clarification. You seem quite well informed on this and I am grateful for your (name removed by moderator)ut and perspectives.

I only know what I’ve read and studied. I have neither degree nor training in the liturgy, but I read as much as I can about it. I read a lot of Magisterial (i.e. authoritative) documents on the matter, as well as non-authoritative comments and commentary by liturgically-minded clerics (like the Pope).

Some of what I say is a distillation of what I’ve read. Some of what I say is simply my own analysis of the matter.

From my perspective, I want translations to be as accurate and complete as possible, (no “dynamic” translations and no “dumbing down”, please). That means that if it is not in the original Latin get rid of it!

Which is why the priest will no longer say “Let us proclaim the mystery of faith,” but simply: “The mystery of faith.” The Latin is just Mysterium fidei. And the acclamation we speak is not the mystery of faith, the transubstantiation of the elements into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Divine Lord is the mystery of faith!

And if it was not in the original translation, how in the world did it get into the litrgy in the first place?

I don’t know if the “Christ has died…” was an English-speaking addition or a US addition, but it would appear that the people in charge of the translation wanted some local variety, things to make the English/US celebration of Mass stand out. That might be a bit glib of me to say, but I can’t imagine why such an innovation would be suggested or approved. It wasn’t like there was a tradition of saying “Christ has died…” already, since there was no “Memorial Acclamation” at all in the 1962 liturgy: it was an innovation to the 1969 liturgy.

 

[benedictgal]

One other point, has anyone noiticed that something was removed? Immediately after the consecration, curing the cannon, where the faithdul are called upon to recite the mystery of faith, there are now only three options. The option “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again” has been removed. My understanding, which may be wrong, is that this option never existed in the original Latin to begin with but was added a while back.

Thoughts?

Ths option never existed in the Latin. In fact, the Spanish version of the Roman Missal approved for use in Mexico does not have this option. This was a previous ICEL innovation.

 

[FrDavid96]

Thank you for that clarification. You seem quite well informed on this and I am grateful for your (name removed by moderator)ut and perspectives. From my perspective, I want translations to be as accurate and complete as possible, (no “dynamic” translations and no “dumbing down”, please). That means that if it is not in the original Latin get rid of it!

And if it was not in the original translation, how in the world did it get into the litrgy in the first place?

I can’t document this (perhaps someone else can), but I once heard that the “Christ has died…” acclamation was composed by Lucien Dias (spelling?). The same person who wrote some arguably decent hymns in his early days, but has since gone off the deep end.

 

[Joannm]

I can’t document this (perhaps someone else can), but I once heard that the “Christ has died…” acclamation was composed by Lucien Dias (spelling?). The same person who wrote some arguably decent hymns in his early days, but has since gone off the deep end.

Lucien Deiss wrote another one that is not in the text… “Keep in mind that Jesus Christ has died for us and is risen from the dead. He is our saving God. He is Lord for all ages.” He passed away a year ago, maybe more than that, I don’t remember.

 

[passus]

I can’t document this (perhaps someone else can), but I once heard that the “Christ has died…” acclamation was composed by Lucien Dias (spelling?). The same person who wrote some arguably decent hymns in his early days, but has since gone off the deep end.

This is correct.

Here is a quote from the July-August 2005 edition of the Adoremus Bulletin in an article more or less recounting a bishops’ debate of the liturgical use of Memorial Acclamation A.

The Committee is very understanding of the support and sentiment behind these amendments. The text in question is a popular music text and has served us well. The Committee wishes to point out that this well-known memorial acclamation is not a translation of any Latin text. I repeat, it is not a translation of any Latin text. It is an original English text composed by Lucien Deiss in 1964. In 1968 ICEL copyrighted this text, long before the Roman Missal came out in 1970.

“The Committee” is referring to the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy which is of course now called the Committee on Divine Worship.

 

[johnknoesel]

First off let me say this, I have only been a practicing Catholic for 11 years now and after reading over all of these changes I can only say one thing Alleluia, Alleluia:thumbsup:. When I came into the Church in 1998 I was a little disappointed with the lack of reverence in the parish that I came into but soon found that there is another part of the church, the part that celebrated Extraordinary Form… the old Latin or Tridentine Mass which I found the all of the pomp and glory that is due Our Lord in the Mass. The only problem I had of course was I did not know the Latin at all but I did recognize that this is the proper form of celebrating the Mass. So when I started seeing all the changes that were being approved etc… I was ecstatic The problem I have with the Novus Ordo is that it was such deliberate departure from the Latin that it became so non-reverent that I feel it is one of the reasons that the majority of todays catholic does not even believe in the real presence. Not only did they dumb down the mass but they dumbed down the masses. Finally those errors and many more are being addressed and corrected.

 

[benedictgal]

First off let me say this, I have only been a practicing Catholic for 11 years now and after reading over all of these changes I can only say one thing Alleluia, Alleluia:thumbsup:. When I came into the Church in 1998 I was a little disappointed with the lack of reverence in the parish that I came into but soon found that there is another part of the church, the part that celebrated Extraordinary Form… the old Latin or Tridentine Mass which I found the all of the pomp and glory that is due Our Lord in the Mass. The only problem I had of course was I did not know the Latin at all but I did recognize that this is the proper form of celebrating the Mass. So when I started seeing all the changes that were being approved etc… I was ecstatic The problem I have with the Novus Ordo is that it was such deliberate departure from the Latin that it became so non-reverent that I feel it is one of the reasons that the majority of todays catholic does not even believe in the real presence. Not only did they dumb down the mass but they dumbed down the masses. Finally those errors and many more are being addressed and corrected.

Here is what is the most fascinating part of the whole saga. It took a non-native English speaking prelate, in this case Jorge Cardnial Medina, who was Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, to see the glaring mistakes in the ICEL translation. ICEL had presented to Cardinal Medina its new translation for the Rite of Ordination, which the prefect deep-sixed. In his rejection, he found a lot of mis-translations from the Latin. In fact, this opened up a whole can of worms to the point that he started examining all of ICEL’s work, finding a lot of faults in it. This led to the promulgation of Liturgiam Authenticam and the creation of the Vox Clara commission that was designed to clean up the whole mess. As a result, a new, authentic translation was ordered. Call it the final gift to English-speaking Catholics from the late Pope John Paul II, with Pope Benedict taking the lead in the clean-up campaign.

 

[rpp]

Here is what is the most fascinating part of the whole saga. It took a non-native English speaking prelate, in this case Jorge Cardnial Medina, who was Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, to see the glaring mistakes in the ICEL translation. ICEL had presented to Cardinal Medina its new translation for the Rite of Ordination, which the prefect deep-sixed. In his rejection, he found a lot of mis-translations from the Latin. In fact, this opened up a whole can of worms to the point that he started examining all of ICEL’s work, finding a lot of faults in it. This led to the promulgation of Liturgiam Authenticam and the creation of the Vox Clara commission that was designed to clean up the whole mess. As a result, a new, authentic translation was ordered. Call it the final gift to English-speaking Catholics from the late Pope John Paul II, with Pope Benedict taking the lead in the clean-up campaign.

Cool! Thank you for this background. I had no idea. God bless Cardinal Medina.

 

[bob_roy]

I wonder something, as its somewhat related to the topic at hand. At first glance of the new translation, I see that they’re keeping the Roman Canon -and- the other 3 optional canons. Just like the NO instituted. I had kinda thought the translation would go back to just using the Roman Canon so I wouldn’t have to guess which optional canon is being used.

My question is…why were 3 optional canons instituted in the first place? I mean, do they serve a real purpose besides being “variety”?

 

[Bluegoat]

Here is what is the most fascinating part of the whole saga. It took a non-native English speaking prelate, in this case Jorge Cardnial Medina, who was Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, to see the glaring mistakes in the ICEL translation. ICEL had presented to Cardinal Medina its new translation for the Rite of Ordination, which the prefect deep-sixed. In his rejection, he found a lot of mis-translations from the Latin. In fact, this opened up a whole can of worms to the point that he started examining all of ICEL’s work, finding a lot of faults in it. This led to the promulgation of Liturgiam Authenticam and the creation of the Vox Clara commission that was designed to clean up the whole mess. As a result, a new, authentic translation was ordered. Call it the final gift to English-speaking Catholics from the late Pope John Paul II, with Pope Benedict taking the lead in the clean-up campaign.

It seems strange though - many bilingual people I know have noted to me the differences in the French and English version. Translations always take on some of the character of the language of translation, but it seems quite extreme.

But if even lay people had noticed this, than surely others must have realized too. But why did they not want to do anything about it? I can’t imagine the difference was sanctioned?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Bishop Blair (Toledo):
As one of the U.S. bishops working on the new translations Cardinal George] writes: “Our current translation might seem more personal and friendly, but that’s the problem. The spirit referred to in the Latin is the spirit of Christ who comes to a priest when he is ordained, as St. Paul explained to Timothy. In other words, the people are saying in their response that Christ as head of the Church is the head of the liturgical assembly, no matter who the particular priest celebrant may be. That is a statement of faith, a statement distorted by transforming it into an exchange of personal greetings.”
Just providing another voice of support.

And he’s going by what “scholars have suggested…” When scholars “suggest” something it means that its a “best guess.”

I don’t know why people give so little credit to the “average” parishioner (whoever that is). If priests clued in their parishes more often about Catholic happenings, the “average” parishioner would be much smarter and much more aware.

Its not about giving little credit, but rather, recognizing that where they are in life. The average family with three kids and careers, mortages and worries, is going to find all of this to be a bit much.

And questions from newcomers are good. It shows that they’re paying attention and that they care enough about something they don’t understand to ask questions and learn more.

And it also brings all sorts of other issues to their minds. Many people have already asked the question, “is this really the most important thing we need to be addressing right now?” Many have also told me they think this liturgical re-translation is the equivalent of rearranging deck chairs.

Mistakes and confusion (were you around in the 1960’s?) are inevitable, easily forgivable, and easy to move past.

[Sigh] Hardly comparable. Changing from latin to english it was easily understood why it was being done and most people liked that it was being done. In this situation most people don’t think the change is necessary and find it a major inconvenience without a major reason.

Frankly, there are some parishes which will refuse to implement anything the Holy See or their Bishop tells them to implement. This certainly is a test of obedience.

Yes, but in this age of low priestly numbers, how many bishops are going to pick this fight?

And it’s my personal goal to make the transition orderly rather than chaotic.

Its not going to result in a schism or anything. There will be no Society of John Paul I or whatever. This is just going to be an awkward year or so after its introduced.

 

[bpbasilphx]

When I came into the Church in 1998 I was a little disappointed with the lack of reverence in the parish that I came into but soon found that there is another part of the church, the part that celebrated Extraordinary Form… the old Latin or Tridentine Mass which I found the all of the pomp and glory that is due Our Lord in the Mass. The only problem I had of course was I did not know the Latin at all but I did recognize that this is the proper form of celebrating the Mass.

+++++++++++

**There is no one “proper form of celebating the Mass.” The EF is no more “proper” than the OF. (I’m not even mentioning the Eastern Catholic Liturgies here.)

If the Church gives options, one cannot be considered intrinsincally better than the other, despite one’s personal preference.**

 

[benedictgal]

And he’s going by what “scholars have suggested…” When scholars “suggest” something it means that its a “best guess.”

Its not about giving little credit, but rather, recognizing that where they are in life. The average family with three kids and careers, mortages and worries, is going to find all of this to be a bit much.

And it also brings all sorts of other issues to their minds. Many people have already asked the question, “is this really the most important thing we need to be addressing right now?” Many have also told me they think this liturgical re-translation is the equivalent of rearranging deck chairs.

[Sigh] Hardly comparable. Changing from latin to english it was easily understood why it was being done and most people liked that it was being done. In this situation most people don’t think the change is necessary and find it a major inconvenience without a major reason.

Yes, but in this age of low priestly numbers, how many bishops are going to pick this fight?

Its not going to result in a schism or anything. There will be no Society of John Paul I or whatever. This is just going to be an awkward year or so after its introduced.

Actually, this new translation is quite necessary. With all due respect, Father, this is not about rearranging deck chairs, not at all. Recall that the first commandment, above all others, is to love and honor God. Loving and honoring God means that we offer him the due worship that is fitting his Divine Majesty, not something slipshod. All the other commandments flow from this, even loving one’s neighbor. If we cannot love God properly, then everything else goes downhill.

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the most important act that we do as the Church. If we get this wrong, then everything else, that is supposed to flow from this source and summit of the Church’s life, is meaningless. The ICEL translations were faulty from the get-go. Rather than faithfully following the Latin original, the group paraphrased important prayers so that they lost their true and authentic meaning. Thank God, that both the late Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, through the CDWDS, saw through the faults and launched an effort to correct the problems.

 

[SMHW]

[Sigh] Hardly comparable. Changing from latin to english it was easily understood why it was being done and most people liked that it was being done. In this situation most people don’t think the change is necessary and find it a major inconvenience without a major reason.

I just don’t understand why changing from one form of English to another is so hard. Is it because religious education programs were considered better in the late 1960s than today?

We did it in the late 1960s. At least in the United States I think it was very uncommon for people to have gone directly from Latin to the translation used in the 1969 Missal. I think most people were attending English language Masses and had the English responses memorized long before they had to start using the current translation.

Frankly, it’s almost amusing to me that we’re worried about YOUNGER people having a hard time with change. We OLD folks, with some minor exceptions, pretty much know the people’s parts of the Mass already and could probably pick them up fairly quickly.

 

[FrDavid96]

…
And it also brings all sorts of other issues to their minds. Many people have already asked the question, “is this really the most important thing we need to be addressing right now?” Many have also told me they think this liturgical re-translation is the equivalent of rearranging deck chairs.

…

Unfortunately, what we see happening is more of a “we’ve hit an iceberg folks, but there’s nothing to be concerned about, keep dancing while the ship sinks to the bottom”

Instead we need to say “folks, you might be comfortable where you’re at right now, but it’s time to abandon what you’re doing and get into the lifeboats, even if you do think that might be rather inconvenient”

We can’t continue to use a text (valid and licit and approved for the moment) which is so problematic (and that’s not just an opinion, but that’s the conclusion arrived at by the Holy See), merely because making corrections might have the potential to cause some short-term confusion, whether that confusion would be real or feigned.

 

[trish2009]

First off let me say this, I have only been a practicing Catholic for 11 years now and after reading over all of these changes I can only say one thing Alleluia, Alleluia:thumbsup:. When I came into the Church in 1998 I was a little disappointed with the lack of reverence in the parish that I came into but soon found that there is another part of the church, the part that celebrated Extraordinary Form… the old Latin or Tridentine Mass which I found the all of the pomp and glory that is due Our Lord in the Mass. The only problem I had of course was I did not know the Latin at all but I did recognize that this is the proper form of celebrating the Mass. So when I started seeing all the changes that were being approved etc… I was ecstatic The problem I have with the Novus Ordo is that it was such deliberate departure from the Latin that it became so non-reverent that I feel it is one of the reasons that the majority of todays catholic does not even believe in the real presence. Not only did they dumb down the mass but they dumbed down the masses. Finally those errors and many more are being addressed and corrected.

I have been attending Holy Mass for over 65 years and I agree that the NO lost the sacredness and reverence that the Latin Mass had. I have been waiting almost 40 years for these changes to come about (and more I hope) and I’m very pleased that the Bishops have finally done something about the awful wording that ICEL brought to the Novus Ordo.

 

[trish2009]

Speaking of the ICEL changes, can you believe they changed the words “All generations shall call me blessed.” to “All generations shall call me happy.”??? Talk about changing words just for the sake of change, I truly believe that ICEL was making changes just to keep their jobs going. I hope the bishops get rid of that group.

 

[SMHW]

It seems strange though - many bilingual people I know have noted to me the differences in the French and English version. Translations always take on some of the character of the language of translation, but it seems quite extreme.

But if even lay people had noticed this, than surely others must have realized too. But why did they not want to do anything about it? I can’t imagine the difference was sanctioned?

There seems to be this idea that English speakers in the late 1960s and early 1970s weren’t aware of the differences between the original Latin and the 1969 English translation.

THIS IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE!

First of all, most of us were using an English translation which is very similar to the soon-to-be used translation.

But more importantly, we were specifically taught that the reason the 1969 translation was so different from the Latin was so we wouldn’t “overly spiritualize” the meaning by thinking words like “soul” and “spirit” meant something more than the word “person”. We were told that we shouldn’t imagine saying, “And with thy spirit” had any greater religious significance than would an avowed atheist be using if he were to say, “Good bye,” (“God be with you”) as a farewell greeting. We were told that the exchange, “The Lord be with you,” and the response, “And with thy Spirit,” were not to be understood as anything more than, “Hello, how are you?” and “I’m fine, thank you”, (which by the way, is the proper exchange even if one is about to collapse and die.)

Now, obviously younger people who never knew the older English responses, and converts from other denominations are not familiar with the history of the language so this is all new to them.

 

[Phemie]

It was not and is not part of the Latin text of the Roman Missal. It’s an English addition. (Such things make it terribly easy to talk about the liturgy in a way that’s meant to be universal but ends up being completely foreign to non-English-speaking Catholics: “It’s like we say at Mass: ‘Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.’” “Huh? When do we say that?” asks a French/Spanish/Italian/German/etc. Catholic.)

It is unlike the three acclamations found in the Latin text, which a) are directly addressed to Jesus Christ (and are not simply about him), and b) mention his interaction with us.

The acclamation in the middle of the Eucharistic Prayer is also not a traditional element of the Roman Rite.

Come to Canada and add another dimension to the confusion: each acclamation has its own introduction.

Yes, it’s true. Even though any of the 4 can be used after “Let us proclaim the mystery of faith”, in general practice only “Christ has died…” gets used after that invitation. We have 4 other invitations specific to the acclamations:

Priest: Great is the mystery of faith:
All: Christ has died…

Priest: Praise to you, Lord Jesus, firstborn from the dead.
All: Dying you destroyed our death…

Priest: We are faithful, Lord, to your command.
All: When we eat this bread and drink this cup…

Priest: Christ is Lord of all ages.
All: Lord, by your cross and resurrection…