Bishop Gracida's letter on the Tridentine Mass in the vernacular

[Megan7]

I cannot argue any of that. I spent last weekend at a Benedictine Monastery for the Easter Triduum and their liturgy was breathtakingly beautiful. All OF, mostly English but with liberal use of Latin in the responses, and heavy use of chant, etc. If I could have that all the time, I would be quite content.

However, I might argue which would be a faster or easier process in terms of tightening up the OF world wide or translating the EF and making it available in the vernacular.

In addition though, I do feel it is important to state that proponents of the EF of the Mass have been saying for a long time that it is not just about the language or even the beauty. They have made arguments that the change in the prayers from the EF to the OF were problematic. They have also made arguments that the changes to the readings were problematic. I am not suggesting that I endorse such views, but for the sake of discussion, even if all OF Masses were as you describe above, which I wish they were, those perceived issues would still exist.

These videos on the EF of the Mass from the FSSP would suggest to me that it is about far more than the language, or simply the reverence with which it is celebrated, though I agree the latter is a big part of it.

• Part 1 - youtube.com/watch?v=cR7xMhhjOVg
• Part 2 - youtube.com/watch?v=F83l2y4_mJM
• Part 3 - youtube.com/watch?v=Tqvlyig9Xsk&list=UUvNV_zwIfk3CCxrOYgu71rA&index=38
• Part 4 - youtube.com/watch?v=8X8VBdVQwZY
• Part 5 - youtube.com/watch?v=Ff4Q_1U1fx0
• Part 6 - NO VIDEO AVAILABLE (No material is missing, though, so they might have been incorrectly numbered by whoever originally posted them)
• Part 7 - youtube.com/watch?v=1mo7wh39xQU
• Part 8 - youtube.com/watch?v=iUnA6mrYEAE&list=UUvNV_zwIfk3CCxrOYgu71rA&index=20
• Part 9 - youtube.com/watch?v=UKfKkrtigzw

 

[Usige]

In addition though, I do feel it is important to state that proponents of the EF of the Mass have been saying for a long time that it is not just about the language or even the beauty. They have made arguments that the change in the prayers from the EF to the OF were problematic. They have also made arguments that the changes to the readings were problematic. I am not suggesting that I endorse such views, but for the sake of discussion, even if all OF Masses were as you describe above, which I wish they were, those perceived issues would still exist.

I’d agree with the first part. There are several prayers that were dropped that I wish were restored. I also wish the “expanded” intercession of the saints were reinserted into the prayers where they were removed (confetior, libera nos, etc). I know that I had read a quote from Archbishop Bugnini where he said they tried to remove any medevial negativity from the mass. It is a good explanation on why the tone of the mass changed. It might also explain why confession was down in most parishes too (less focus on our sinfulness and Christ’s redeeming sacrifice, less reason to have to ask forgiveness).

As for the readings? I think the expanded 3 year cycle with additional OT readings is one of the liturgical changes from Vatican II that has been unequivocally good.

 

[ProVobis]

I agree about the cost issue; I was assuming an English translation rather than the myriad of vernaculars used in the U.S. these days. Mea culpa.

Seems like the cost would be prohibitive even if it’s just English. If history repeats itself, there would be more copyright, royalty, not to mention more controversy, issues if a translation of the EF were spoken out loud. And would that many people attend on a sustained basis? I know one person who was thrilled when she heard the 1562 (?) BCP but week after week of that old style English was too much for her.

I hear people often say “Why don’t you just put the TLM in vernacular?” The first problem is how do you get 10 translators to agree, for example, on an official translation of “Ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam” without sounding mushy? And then should you use a literal translation or a dynamic one? Or a Knox translation which some love? It’s one thing to follow Latin-English in one’s missal and another to actually hear the English spoken. And let’s not assume English is the only vernacular which people would care for, if they went that way. People love the EF in France and other countries.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Seems like the cost would be prohibitive even if it’s just English. If history repeats itself, there would be more copyright, royalty, not to mention more controversy, issues if a translation of the EF were spoken out loud. And would that many people attend on a sustained basis? I know one person who was thrilled when she heard the 1562 (?) BCP but week after week of that old style English was too much for her.

I hear people often say “Why don’t you just put the TLM in vernacular?” The first problem is how do you get 10 translators to agree, for example, on an official translation of “Ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam” without sounding mushy? And then should you use a literal translation or a dynamic one? Or a Knox translation which some love? It’s one thing to follow Latin-English in one’s missal and another to actually hear the English spoken. And let’s not assume English is the only vernacular which people would care for, if they went that way. People love the EF in France and other countries.

I think it’s been pretty much decided that the dynamic translation was not giving the right result, at least, according to the Church. So, I would say the literal translation to go along with the latest thinking in the Vatican. I’m not saying it couldn’t change, but that would be a longshot at this point after the changes over the past year.

 

[codefro]

A link to that would be helpful if you have one. I’m not doubting the accuracy of your claims, but I am interested in reading it directly.

Secondly, I am curious as to why you would not wish to allow this. I mean, I can understand why you would personally not wish to attend, but as long as it did not take away from your ability to attend the EF of the Mass in Latin, what would be the issue? What would you rather see, Catholics who prefer more traditional liturgy but cannot make the leap to the EF due to language getting this, or them attending the OF?

All Masses are not going back to the EF in Latin, no matter what some would prefer (I’m not saying you as I have no idea of your thoughts on this matter). Would this not be more in line with what many who prefer the EF have been saying all along in that the Mass should have developed organically rather than making a wholesale change as was done with the OF?

Personally, I wish it to stay in Latin. The ordinariate and Anglican Use parishes have the basic EF in English. It would slightly render their liturgy moot if the EF were to just be tranlated into English. Pray for a growth in the Anglican Ordinariate and Anglican Use Parishes

 

[ProVobis]

So, I would say the literal translation to go along with the latest thinking in the Vatican.

Okay so as another example, consider the following prayer and various translations:

online interlinear:

Deus, qui humanæ substantiæ dignitatem
God, Who of human substance dignity

mirabiliter condidisti,
wonderfully has created,

et mirabilius reformasti:
and more wonderfully reformed:

da nobis per hujus aquæ et vini mysterium,
give to us through this of water and wine mystery,

ejus divinitatis esse consortes
His divinity to be partakers

qui humanitatis nostræ fieri dignatus est particeps,
Who in humanity our to become has granted partaker,

Jesus Christus Filius tuus Dominus noster:
Jesus Christ Son Your Lord our:

Qui tecum vivit et regnat
Who with You lives and reigns

in unitate Spiritus Sancti Deus:
in union with Spirit Holy God:

per omnia sæcula sæculorum. Amen.
for all ages of ages. Amen.​

St. Joseph - “O God, Who hast established the nature of man in wondrous dignity, and still more admirably restored it, grant that through the mystery of this water and wine, we may be made partakers of His Divinity, Who has condescended to become partaker of our humanity, Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord. Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen.”

My Sunday Missal - “O God, Who hast established the nature of man in wondrous dignity, and even more wonderously hast renewed it, grant that through the mystery of this water and wine, we may be made partakers of His Divinity, Who has deigned to become partaker of our humanity, Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord. Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God world without end. Amen.”

St. Andrew - “O God, Who in a wonderful manner didst create and ennoble human nature, and still more wonderfully hast renewed it; grant that, by the mystery of this water and wine, we may be partakers of His divinity who vouchsafed to become partaker of our humanity, Jesus Christ Thy Son, our Lord: who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen.”

Fr Lasance - “O God, Who in creating man didst exalt his nature very wonderfully and yet more wonderfully didst establish it anew: by the mystery signified in the mingling of this water and wine, grant us to have part in the Godhead of Him Who hath vouchsafed to share our manhood, Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God; world without end. Amen.”

Angelus - “O God, Who in creating human nature didst marvelously ennoble it, and hast still more marvelously renewed it: grant that by the mystery of this water and wine, we may be partakers of His Divinity Who vouchsafed to become partaker of our humanity, Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord, Who liveth and reigned with Thee, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, one God, world without end. Amen.”

1857 Missal - “O God, who, in creating human nature, hast wonderfully dignified it, and still more wonderfully reformed it: grant that by the mystery of this Water and Wine, we may be partakers of his divine nature, who vouchsafed to become partaker of our human nature, namely, Jesus Christ one Lord, thy Son, in the unity of …”

Which of the above would be satisfactory for everyone, especially in the light of everyone not holding the same Latin-English Missal, and who would get upset if their word-for-word translation doesn’t match? Can’t the priest just say the Latin, without forcing everyone to overanalyze the prayer in English?

 

[JamesCaruso]

Okay so as another example, consider the following prayer and various translations:

Which of the above would be satisfactory for everyone, especially in the light of everyone not holding the same Latin-English Missal, and who would get upset if their word-for-word translation doesn’t match? Can’t the priest just say the Latin, without forcing everyone to overanalyze the prayer in English?

Here’s how I see it. Point 1. The prayers in Latin are meant to be understood by the people attending the Mass. It is desirable in the EF that the faithful know the Latin, and second to that, that they follow the prayers in the English translation in their missals. It was never intended that the prayers were a secret known only to the clergy who alone knew Latin. One cannot much attend fully at Mass if one does not know exactly what is transpiring.

Point 2. If it is desirable for the faithful attending the EF of the Mass to know Latin, then their knowing of it must be in some form of translation. Hence, when I hear In Nomine Patris I immediately think of the English translation In the Name of the Father. I am saying this to illustrate that we do not know what the faithfuls’ translations will be on the texts that you so kindly provided, since they are more complex than my example. They may be one of the above, or they may be some heretical formulation of their own. Translation is in the eye of the beholder. It behooved the Vatican to change the language for the Novis Ordo because it found it to be an unsatisfactory translation.

My question is, wouldn’t it be better for the Church to provide its best of all translations after the literal fashion that seems to be to its liking than to have it in Latin leaving it up to the faithful to use whatever translation they like, even if it misses the boat, which is the current EF? I don’t think it matters which translation any of the faithful would prefer, it certainly didn’t matter in the new translation of the Novus Ordo. What matters is that the Church is confident that it has used a translation that is most faithful to the meaning in the Latin. We want everyone getting the same meaning out of the words, and that is not necessarily happening under the Latin EF, because as you have pointed out, translations abound. Does this make sense? .

 

[ProVobis]

We want everyone getting the same meaning out of the words, and that is not necessarily happening under the Latin EF, because as you have pointed out, translations abound. Does this make sense? .

Well, is there a translation of Shakespeare in Chinese so that everyone in China can understand him the same way as some English scholar? I doubt it. I’m afraid anyone in China wanting to appreciate Shakespeare and capture the poetry would just need to learn a little Shakespearean English, the more they learn the better. And, yes, it helps to memorize a few lines of his works, and not in Chinese either. You need exposure to that Shakespearean English, and you won’t have it reading or hearing just translations.

 

[Chatter163]

Which of the above would be satisfactory for everyone, especially in the light of everyone not holding the same Latin-English Missal, and who would get upset if their word-for-word translation doesn’t match? Can’t the priest just say the Latin, without forcing everyone to overanalyze the prayer in English?

I completely agree. We would have translation wars anew. There would be those who object to “antiquated” terms such as deign, vouchsafe, etc. There would be those who argue for a more prosaic version, a more cognate version, a more mystical version, etc.

 

[Corki]

Here’s how I see it. Point 1. The prayers in Latin are meant to be understood by the people attending the Mass. It is desirable in the EF that the faithful know the Latin, and second to that, that they follow the prayers in the English translation in their missals. It was never intended that the prayers were a secret known only to the clergy who alone knew Latin. **One cannot much attend fully at Mass if one does not know exactly what is transpiring. **
.

I just want to respectfully disagree with this one point. It it not necessary to understand, word-for-word what is transpiring. It is enough to understand the the words being said at some point are, for example, the words of Consecration or the words of the penitential rite. Thousands of people attend Mass every Sunday where they do not understand the vernacular. This does NOT mean that they are not “attending fully at Mass”.

 

[jwinch2]

I completely agree. We would have translation wars anew. There would be those who object to “antiquated” terms such as deign, vouchsafe, etc. There would be those who argue for a more prosaic version, a more cognate version, a more mystical version, etc.

Don’t we already kind of have that anyway with the different choices of Missals which are available? Is allowing the Faithful to choose which option they prefer in terms of translation the right way to go either?

 

[jwinch2]

I just want to respectfully disagree with this one point. It it not necessary to understand, word-for-word what is transpiring. It is enough to understand the the words being said at some point are, for example, the words of Consecration or the words of the penitential rite. Thousands of people attend Mass every Sunday where they do not understand the vernacular. This does NOT mean that they are not “attending fully at Mass”.

I think it is fair to say that this is individualistic at some level. Some may believe they are able to fully participate without understanding the words, while others may not. Perhaps even as people grow in their own prayer life and spirituality, this can change as well.

 

[Chatter163]

Don’t we already kind of have that anyway with the different choices of Missals which are available? Is allowing the Faithful to choose which option they prefer in terms of translation the right way to go either?

No, because that is not what was suggested. What was suggested is translating the EF Order of the Mass into English and celebrating it in the vernacular. To do that, the Holy See would have to allow ICEL and/or the bishops’ conferences to settle on one translation, which would become the official, one and only translation, to the exclusion of all others.

 

[jwinch2]

No, because that is not what was suggested. What was suggested is translating the EF Order of the Mass into English and celebrating it in the vernacular. To do that, the Holy See would have to allow ICEL and/or the bishops’ conferences to settle on one translation, which would become the official, one and only translation, to the exclusion of all others.

I recognize that is not what was suggested. However, we still have a situation where some are using one translation and some using other. Rather than it being Rome who decides, it is based on which Missal one purchases.

 

[Corki]

I think it is fair to say that this is individualistic at some level. Some may believe they are able to fully participate without understanding the words, while others may not. Perhaps even as people grow in their own prayer life and spirituality, this can change as well.

I meant attending fully as in fulfilling the obligation which is how I interpreted James’ post. Certainly, different people will relate to Mass differently. Language is part of it, so is music and other environment elements. But a literal understanding of the texts of Mass is not required to fully participate at Mass in terms of one’s duty.

 

[jwinch2]

But a literal understanding of the texts of Mass is not required to fully participate at Mass in terms of one’s duty.

I didn’t think he was talking merely about Mass obligation, but rather our ability to fully participate in the Mass.

If it is merely in terms of the obligation, of course this is true. However, if we are going beyond that, then I stick to my original claim that this will be an individual thing. Many will be able to participate more in the Mass when it is in their language. Others have no problem when it isn’t.

Speaking purely for myself, I don’t enjoy burying my head in a Missal but I do like to understand the prayers etc. It helps me to unit my prayers with those of the priest during the Mass. The antiphons, etc. being in English helps me by almost turning the Mass into a form of contemplative prayer based upon they are based off of. I don’t begrudge others the Latin Mass if they want it, I have always supported that.

 

[Corki]

I didn’t think he was talking merely about Mass obligation, but rather our ability to fully participate in the Mass.

If it is merely in terms of the obligation, of course this is true. However, if we are going beyond that, then I stick to my original claim that this will be an individual thing. Many will be able to participate more in the Mass when it is in their language. Others have no problem when it isn’t.

Speaking purely for myself, I don’t enjoy burying my head in a Missal but I do like to understand the prayers etc. It helps me to unit my prayers with those of the priest during the Mass. The antiphons, etc. being in English helps me by almost turning the Mass into a form of contemplative prayer based upon they are based off of. I don’t begrudge others the Latin Mass if they want it, I have always supported that.

Agreed. I am exactly the opposite. I “get” much more out of Mass when it is another language. I found this out about myself accidently when living as an expat in another country. My habit was to go over the readings before going to Mass and then spend Mass time immersed in the liturgy itself and not in the words. It lets me participate in Mass with all of my senses.

For that reason, I don’t think a EF Mass in English would be any more fulfilling for me than a regular OF Mass. And certainly wouldn’t be worth the drive.

 

[ProVobis]

The antiphons, etc. being in English helps me by almost turning the Mass into a form of contemplative prayer based upon they are based off of.

Have you looked into the Anglican Use? I think that’s probably as close to the EF in vernacular as it would get, after all is said and done.

 

[jwinch2]

Have you looked into the Anglican Use? I think that’s probably as close to the EF in vernacular as it would get, after all is said and done.

Yep. I’ve been to one. Unfortunately, there are none near where we live.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Well, is there a translation of Shakespeare in Chinese so that everyone in China can understand him the same way as some English scholar? I doubt it. I’m afraid anyone in China wanting to appreciate Shakespeare and capture the poetry would just need to learn a little Shakespearean English, the more they learn the better. And, yes, it helps to memorize a few lines of his works, and not in Chinese either. You need exposure to that Shakespearean English, and you won’t have it reading or hearing just translations.

So you’re saying the Latin isn’t any good either, since it is a translation of Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic? I disagree. I believe the Latin is a good translation and the vernacular can be just as good a translation, as well.