BREAKING: Pope Francis gives local bishops more responsibility for Mass translations

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimR-OCDS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry to inform you, but the Mass format as in the Tridentine Latin Mass is only 500 years.

For 1500 years before, the Mass went through various transformations. The East kept Greek and the West used Latin, because it was the most common language understood by the people.

Various parts of Christianity used formats which varied from the format used in Rome.

The Council of Trent sought to codify Catholic doctrines and the liturgy, as a means to ensure that Protestant influence would not be used.

Jim
 
The Latin Roman Canon goes back to the early centuries. In the 850 (?) Missal the “Te igitur clementissime Pater” are easily recognizeable words to those familiar with the First Eucharistic Prayer in Latin.
 
Great point, Brendan. Better to use a word or phrase that is accurate and precise, even if it is harder to understand. Anyway, does anyone who struggles with “consubstantial” find the phrase “one in being with” easier to understand? If anything, it’s easier to misunderstand, because it could mean a variety of things. One might suppose that it means that they are one because they are both “being,” i.e. they both exist. Or one could hear the words “being with” and infer that what is being said is that Jesus is one due to his “being with with the Father,” i.e., being in the Father’s presence. There are many opportunities for misunderstanding when a phrase is more vague. Consubstantial, on the other hand, has a very specific definition.
 
The “Tridentine Mass” is an inaccurate term for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, and one I’ve found to be used pejoratively. What Trent did was remove extra prayers that had accumulated over the years that unnecessarily prolonged the Mass and gave us back a Mass more similar to that of the days of St. Gregory the Great. Beyond that, other parts of the Mass (such as the Kyrie) have been present since the beginning.
 
Last edited:
Cimachol said:
Great point, Brendan. Better to use a word or phrase that is accurate and precise, even if it is harder to understand. .
Click to expand...
Thanks, and I would add that pedagogically, it is better to use a term that the ‘student’ does not understand instead of one that they incorrectly presume that they understand. It encourages them to investigate the true meaning of the term, rather than using the incorrect definition that they already understand

An example of this would be " One in Nature with the Father". The ‘vernacular’ understanding of the term ‘nature’ is one more related to wildlife biology than Aristotelian ‘substance’. It leaves the average person with a mental image of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit somehow interacting in a sylvan setting.

Likewise ‘One in Essence’ give more of an impression of a box of oils on the bathroom shelf than an underlying

Thus any teacher of the Faith has to take in account that the purpose of the Creed is not necessarily to use words that might be misinterpreted due to secular use of a word or phrase, but rather conveys the underlying Truth as the Church teaches it.

Look how many people, even on this forum, object to the Church’s description of homosexual acts as being ‘unnatural’. Those objectors point towards instances of homosexual acts within the animal kingdom as ‘proof’ that the acts are ‘natural’. This false use of the word totally misses the Church use of ‘nature’.

Hence why the Church deliberately uses terms such as Consubstantial or Transubstantial. It is because it avoids any misunderstanding that might arise with false understands of more common words.

Both of those require the teacher to bring forward philosophical concepts, no matter what verbiage is used, and after those concepts have been taught, any objections to the term(s) then disappear.

Which is why the Council had no objections to using the terms, in either Latin or Greek, they operated under the assumption that the were addressing an audience that had the familiarity with the concepts.
 
For the first part of my life I grew up with the Latin Mass. Even as a kid, I always knew what “et cum spiritu tuo” meant. Hearing it in English was not a problem, then or now. But when the first ICEL translation came out, I always knew that “and also with you,” was not an accurate translation.
 
Historically false and utterly wrong. The Tridentine Mass “format” as you call it was NOT invented in 1570, or in 1474 for that matter.
 
Actually the Tridentine Mass was codified after Trent.

Before that, Rome had a missal but it was not used throughout the entire Church and in various places, Protestant influences started to be brought into the Mass formats in those areas.

The Council Of Trent sought to stop the spread of Protestantism into the Catholic Church and the Tridentine Mass became the only accepted format for the Latin Church.

However, that was 500 years ago.

If you think the Tridentine Mass was the format used by the Church for the first 400 years, you’re sorrowfully misinformed. Even after the 4th Century, the Mass went through various changes.

The point is, the Tridentine Mass as we know it, was not the format used for 1500 years as posted.

Jim
 
You’re trying to tell us that the Kyrie was used by the 1st Century Christians ?

I’d like to see a source for that tidbit.

Jim
 
And Pius V allowed the uses of over 2 centuries to be retained…unlike Paul VI.
 
It has long been a common trick of liturgical progressives to claim that what Paul VI did in 1970 was pretty much the same as what Pius V did in 1570.

That’s nonsense from a historically critical perspective.

Paul VI’s Mass was composed by a committee, and is a new composition.

Pius V’s Mass simply codified what was already mainstream western liturgical practice. The lectionary cycle, for example, dates back to the early Middle Ages at least.

What happened in 1970 was radical; what happened in 1570 was conservative. Traditions that could prove 200 or more years of use were permitted to be maintained (same cannot be said for Paul’s Missal).

Nor did Paul’s Missal “restore” even older prayers. On the contrary, the Pauline committee cut, pasted, and altered the texts they cherry-picked from various traditions. In some cases, they worked with faulty scholarship - most notably re: Eucharistic Prayer II, which was touted once as the “oldest” Canon and the Canon of Hippolytus. Whatever it is, it most certainly is not the Canon of Hippolytus. A revealing read of how it was composed is found in the memoirs of Louis Bouyer, who helped write it in a Roman trattoria in a real hurry…Buginini was demanding it by morning.
 
This is why I have joined the Anglican Ordinariate, given the opportunity.
 
He is overturning Saint Pope John Paul II 's work! This is undermining Church authority and will lead to bad translations which will not have integriry or fidelity of the scripture. We must follow the Pope but not if he is going against doctrine.
 
Just another laity here. Some remarks from that point of view:

Even if precision is claimed for the definition of “consubstantial”, I and everyone I know have always found that word problematic. I’ve reconciled myself to its presence, but it doesn’t feel like my language.

I didn’t like “and with your spirit” at first, but then someone pointed me to the Latin. okay

I did like the change from the “we” to “I” in the last part of the Creed. I think that made the Profession more personal.

“For us men and for our salvation”. There’s an objection in this thread to “men”. No, that objection is an appeal to the trend of the times and that is something the Church simply does not do. Pope Francis may be criticized for some things, but at least he has held to the definition of marriage and the necessity of men only in the priesthood.

Saying “chalice” over “cup”. Chalice was never common usage in my family, it was always just another fancy word when something smpler suffices. But okay, it’s the priest saying it, not me.

“I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof”
My tongue still stumbles over this one after six years! What was so wrong with the old and much more direct translation? Even the long Byzantine Catholic version given in this thread rolls off the tongue better.

At least Kyrie Eleison still works as does the Our Father. Pity most parishes say “Lord have mercy” instead of the Kyrie. and rare is the parish that actually utters the Confiteor on any regular basis. I miss that…
 
Last edited:
I would prefer that the liturgy be as universal as possible, theologically correct (of course) and written in such a way to lift minds rather than appeal to dullness.
 
So: consubstantial “doesn’t feel like [your] language”, but Kyrie Eleison “works” for you?

Is your language Greek?

🤔 🤨
 
Well first of all, the 1500 years point is only a minor part of that entire post you seem to be harping on. Regardless, I stand by it. Also in regards to the Kyrie, the very fact that it’s actually in Greek should say enough along with its basis having come from various verses and books of the New Testament. Already by St. Gregory the Great’s time the Eastern and Western Churches had their own traditions established in the chanting of the Kyrie. If you don’t know your liturgical history I’m not even sure what your posts here are all about. The premise of this thread (the interpretation of the Motu Proprio) is entirely incorrect as the document in question essentially mentions the Dicastery and the competent departments thereof as having the final say; ie. nothing is really changing. A direct quote from the Motu Proprio speaks of the importance of “maintaining integrity and accurate faithfulness especially in translating some texts of major importance in each liturgical book” therefore in English, “And with your spirit” is really the only possible English translation for “Et cum spiritu tuo!”
 
Last edited:
Zzyzx_Road said:
“I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof”

My tongue still stumbles over this one after six years! What was so wrong with the old and much more direct translation? Even the long Byzantine Catholic version given in this thread rolls off the tongue better.
Click to expand...
The previous translation lost the tie in with the faithful Centurion

Matthew 8:8-10
The centurion said in reply,* “Lord, I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof; only say the word and my servant will be healed.

For I too am a person subject to authority, with soldiers subject to me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and to another, ‘Come here,’ and he comes; and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”

When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Amen, I say to you, in no one in Israel* have I found such faith
Click to expand...
Note that this is the only time in the Bible where Christ was ‘amazed’. And it harkens to our Faith that all it takes to solve our problems is for God to give the command, and it will be done.

The previous translation of “I am not worthy to receive you” was not a faithful translation of the Centurions words, nor did it bring to most people’s minds the specific Gospel passage that the Church intended. Most in the pews thought the “I am not worthy to receive you” dealt with the upcoming reception of the Eucharist, not as a call to have amazing Faith and trust in God.
 
Brendan said:
The previous translation of “I am not worthy to receive you” was not a faithful translation of the Centurions words, nor did it bring to most people’s minds the specific Gospel passage that the Church intended. Most in the pews thought the “I am not worthy to receive you” dealt with the upcoming reception of the Eucharist, not as a call to have amazing Faith and trust in God.
Click to expand...
The Latin, if I recall correctly, is “Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meam, sed tantum dic verbo, et sanabitur anima mea.” People who used their Latin-English missals for decades while attending the Tridentine Mass, read pretty much the same translation that we have now. No one seemed surprised by it, and it always recalled the words of the centurion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top