Different English Mass liturgies in different regions?

[SMHW]

Vic, I am very sorry but I am having difficulty understanding your concerns.

Phemie and Dmitri,

The VG and Pro Vobis - and my friend (who is English) - made it sound as if they didn’t hold the liturgy sacred.

Who is “they”? Do you mean those in the Church who were responsible for the English translations?

I have always been close to Protestants including non-conformists, but I have appreciated both attitudes as long as they are fair and square. (Many Protestants vary their liturgy precisely so that the officiant can spontaneously “catechise” the congregation thereby on an ad hoc basis.)

Are you saying that you think the Catholic Church should have continued to allow multiple English translations where priests could decide which one they thought best on a given day?

None of this explains why the Mass had to be extensively rewritten when the version you are calling unofficial already served us. To satisfy themselves, they had simply to re-dub it “official”. It sounds hypocritical. It sounds like the Church doesn’t really believe the Mass has a catechetical role. It’s only saying it believes it.

The English versions used from 1965 through 1970 were unofficial because THE Roman Church did not produce them. Individual committees, groups of bishops, etc. produced English versions for local usage while a unified translation (for use by the entire English speaking world) was being produced. At that time it was decided that a dynamic equivilency translation would better serve the English speakers in the Church as a whole than would a more literal translation of the Latin. Later on the Church decided that it was time for the English speaking world to return to a more literal Latin translation. (That is a simplification of what happened.)

There are people who are upset that we allowed the Mass to be in English in the first place. There are people who are upset that the first official translation was not as literal as the early ‘trial’ English translations. There are people who are unhappy that we have now returned to a more literal translation of the Latin.

Between the ages of 10 and 31 I asked two dioceses repeatedly for more and they said there was nothing more for me. No wonder I was a cult victim.

For more what? More Latin? More of the early English translation? More of an explanation of things? For help in a problem in your life? I don’t understand.

There should be many belts and braces! If Mass has to be the way they have decided at various times, well then they should roll out more catechesis in different forms!

I agree. I think part of the problem is that the local clergy do not always understand the reasons so it is hard for them to explain to the people. Another problem is that people do not always like or understand the explanations given so they ignore the explanations.

 

[Phemie]

While I remember the beginning of the use of vernacular, I can’t remember the Mass itself as vividly so let me ask this. When we first started using the vernacular the Mass itself had not changed yet, had it? It was still the Mass of 1962 translated, right? But when the “Novus Ordo” was promulgated it had the changes that the “Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy” had promoted (perhaps pushed to the extreme but I’ll leave that to someone else to judge):
***C) Norms based upon the didactic and pastoral nature of the Liturgy ***
33. Although the sacred liturgy is above all things the worship of the divine Majesty, it likewise contains much instruction for the faithful 34]. For in the liturgy God speaks to His people and Christ is still proclaiming His gospel. And the people reply to God both by song and prayer.
Moreover, the prayers addressed to God by the priest who presides over the assembly in the person of Christ are said in the name of the entire holy people and of all present. And the visible signs used by the liturgy to signify invisible divine things have been chosen by Christ or the Church. Thus not only when things are read “which were written for our instruction” (Rom. 15:4), but also when the Church prays or sings or acts, the faith of those taking part is nourished and their minds are raised to God, so that they may offer Him their rational service and more abundantly receive His grace.
Wherefore, in the revision of the liturgy, the following general norms should be observed:
34. The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people’s powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.
35. That the intimate connection between words and rites may be apparent in the liturgy:

1. In sacred celebrations there is to be more reading from holy scripture, and it is to be more varied and suitable.
2. Because the sermon is part of the liturgical service, the best place for it is to be indicated even in the rubrics, as far as the nature of the rite will allow; the ministry of preaching is to be fulfilled with exactitude and fidelity. The sermon, moreover, should draw its content mainly from scriptural and liturgical sources, and its character should be that of a proclamation of God’s wonderful works in the history of salvation, the mystery of Christ, ever made present and active within us, especially in the celebration of the liturgy.
3. Instruction which is more explicitly liturgical should also be given in a variety of ways; if necessary, short directives to be spoken by the priest or proper minister should be provided within the rites themselves. But they should occur only at the more suitable moments, and be in prescribed or similar words.
4. Bible services should be encouraged, especially on the vigils of the more solemn feasts, on some weekdays in Advent and Lent, and on Sundays and feast days. They are particularly to be commended in places where no priest is available; when this is so, a deacon or some other person authorized by the bishop should preside over the celebration.

1. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.
3. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.
4. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

…
Are you saying that you think the Catholic Church should have continued to allow multiple English translations where priests could decide which one they thought best on a given day?
The English versions used from 1965 through 1970 were unofficial because THE Roman Church did not produce them. Individual committees, groups of bishops, etc. produced English versions for local usage while a unified translation (for use by the entire English speaking world) was being produced. At that time it was decided that a dynamic equivilency translation would better serve the English speakers in the Church as a whole than would a more literal translation of the Latin. Later on the Church decided that it was time for the English speaking world to return to a more literal Latin translation. (That is a simplification of what happened.)

… 4)

For more what? More Latin? More of the early English translation? More of an explanation of things? For help in a problem in your life? I don’t understand.

…

No, it didn’t work like that, we had the same one from when it came in probably around 1964 or 1965 to about 1970.

It has been widely attested.

However, I never realised that overall, comparatively few places had an English version then.

I wanted to know about the Catholic faith but had only had about half a dozen 40 minute sessions - as one of the quieter of the nine-year-olds in the class - I loved the “Who made me - God made me” stuff but could have done with more when I was 12, 16, 21, 28, etc

What happened after I was 31 I have covered in other threads. Others have suffered the lack as well.

 

[Phemie]

I wanted to know about the Catholic faith but had only had about half a dozen 40 minute sessions - as one of the quieter of the nine-year-olds in the class - I loved the “Who made me - God made me” stuff but could have done with more when I was 12, 16, 21, 28, etc

What happened after I was 31 I have covered in other threads. Others have suffered the lack as well.

Oh, join the club. I had the same type of catechism, in school, taught by teachers who had learned it exactly the same way. You couldn’t ask questions because they couldn’t answer them. If you asked they referred you to the text.

By the time 1967 rolled around catechism had changed radically but as far as I can see the teachers hadn’t.

Later as an adult I taught catechism for a year. I was told explicitly that if kids asked certain questions I was to tell them that they’d learn that two years down the road. Oh, yeah, that always made me happy when I was a student. Two years down the road the kid may not be there any more because people hadn’t bothered to answer his questions.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

That’s sad Phemie! I had good “Scripture lessons” at non-Christian schools up to the age of 13 and hung around with a manic Pentecostal in my sixth form.

In my twenties there were people I could join for prayer and a bit of informal Bible reading. But not enough solid stuff to tie it together.

Anyway thanks everyone for the enlightening information!

 

[ProVobis]

Oh, join the club. I had the same type of catechism, in school, taught by teachers who had learned it exactly the same way. You couldn’t ask questions because they couldn’t answer them. If you asked they referred you to the text.

Or as George Carlin related

It was nice; like I say, a lot of classroom freedom…in fact there was so much freedom that by eighth grade, many of us had lost the faith. ‘Cause they made questioners out of us and, uh, they really didn’t have any answers, y’know. They’d fall back on, “Well, it’s a mystery.” "Oh, thank you, Father. I dunno. What’s he talkin’ about? Mystery."

madmusic.com/song_details.aspx?SongID=21776