Holy See approves new English translation of the Order of Mass - Plus, a bishop's pastoral concern

[Rolltide]

Here are some further comments on the matter by Father Z:
wdtprs.com/blog/2008/07/holy-see-recognitio-of-the-ordinary-of-mass-fr-z-reacts/

Of particular interest from this article was the fact that Cardinal Arinze HIMSELF had asked Father Z not to comment on this story early. Here’s why:

"However, now that I have explained why I went black on this story, and I am just writing now, let’s consider together the really interesting point in the news coverage.

Various internet news agencies put out stories, all with lists of some changes to common parts of the translation which will affect people directly.

Whereas CWN, for example, reported that in the words of consecration of the Most Precious Blood the priest will say, “poured out for you and for many (pro multis)”, which is the single most important change in the English translation, CNS was entirely silent about it!

The left-leaning news agency of the USCCB was silent about the change to the words of consecration.

No one can believe they missed that part.

You will recall that since Paul VI made this decision, the Pope reserves to himself the tranlation of sacramental forms. Benedict XVI determined that a correct translation of pro multis must be included in all the vernacular versions and told Card. Arinze to write to that effect to all the Conferences of Bishops: the form had to be something like “for many”, “for the many”, “for the multitude” (French has “pour la multitude”), for example.

WDTPRS has four lengthy articles on the pro multis issue. I am happy to report that they played a role in the deliberations about what to do with pro multis. Also, in my recent PODCAzT I included an an answer to a question put to me in voicemail about this controversial point."

 

[Illini]

I think the CDW made some changes to the text as submitted. According to the CNS article:

The Sanctus will start “Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of hosts.” The current versions says “Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might.”

 Didn't the version submitted read: "Holy, Holy, Holy **is** the Lord God of Hosts"? The approved version looks better, since the *Sanctus* is a prayer addressed to the Lord God of Hosts, not a statement about Him.

-Illini

 

[frommi]

Thank God! Not only will Haugen and Haas be wailing and gnashing their teeth, so will most of OCP’s stable. Bob Hurd is not going to be a happy camper. Of course, he has also been fooling around with the Spanish versions of the Mass.

This also means the death knell for the Haugen, Walker and Hurd versions of the Gloria.

The only caveat is that we still have to contend with “Christ has died. Christ has risen. Christ will come again.” The Memorial Acclamation is directed to the Second Person of the Trinity in second-person terms (you). “Christ has died…” is written in the third-person (he).

Oh what a happy day! Bless you, Cardinal Arinze. And, a shout out goes to Cardinal Pell for trying ot make sense of the whole thing and holding the line.

It’s not really a death knell for anything…the Holy Holy will translate easily to most of the current musical arrangements and I’ve seen some of the potential edits for the gloria…

This isn’t that dramatic of a shift.

Nice try.

 

[Dauphin]

I doubt that many will be bothered. It just amuses me to see some folks get so worked up over something so minor.

That’s right. The prayers of the Mass, the very centre and summit of the Christian faith, are minor. The words of the consecration, by which Our Lord’s Sacrifice is perpetuated, are minor.

 

[Kendy]

I think this means that we won’t be hearing quite as much Haugen and Haas. Their Mass settings won’t work with the new translations.

For example, this (Warning: Haugen. You may experience mild vomiting.)…

youtube.com/watch?v=dvj64BztuQA

…can’t be used with the wording “Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord, God of Hosts”.

I wish we would show a little more respect for catholics producing popular music, something severely lacking in the catholic church.

 

[ibkc]

I wish we would show a little more respect for catholics producing popular music, something severely lacking in the catholic church.

Marty Haugen is not Catholic.

 

[ethelzguy]

That’s right. The prayers of the Mass, the very centre and summit of the Christian faith, are minor. The words of the consecration, by which Our Lord’s Sacrifice is perpetuated, are minor.

Whether we use the phrase “for many” or “for all” won’t make one whit of difference as to how many souls are brought to Christ through the Church.

Neither will saying “and with your spirit”, as opposed “to also with you”…

But there’s the difference…for obedient Catholics, these changes are just another day at the office…while for some who fancy themselves as somehow superior in knowledge of Catholic living, they see some great battle won.

The changes will be all fine and good. But for some folks, there will always be something else to criticize the Church for when the sun comes up tomorrow.

Strikes me that there could be a better use for one’s spiritual energy.

 

[Dauphin]

Whether we use the phrase “for many” or “for all” won’t make one whit of difference as to how many souls are brought to Christ through the Church.

I’m sure Christ would want to be quoted correctly. Just because it won’t bring world peace, or herald the second coming, it doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing. This change may appear small, but any change to the consecration is of real significance to Catholics, and will undoubtedly be an excellent opportunity for proper catechesis on the theology of the Mass.

But there’s the difference…for obedient Catholics, these changes are just another day at the office…while for some who fancy themselves as somehow superior in knowledge of Catholic living, they see some great battle won.

For Catholics obedient to Tradition and the unchanging Magisterium, this is a reason for celebration. For disobedient Catholics wedded to the Spirit of Vatican II, this is an opportunity to make fun of those who think adherence to the liturgical tradition is important.

Strikes me that there could be a better use for one’s spiritual energy.

Instead of bashing loyal, obedient Catholics for placing such importance on their silly ritual, I think a better use for your spiritual energy would be reading the Summa Theologica. I recommend starting with Secunda Secundæ Partis, Question 11, Article 3.

 

[ethelzguy]

Instead of bashing loyal, obedient Catholics for placing such importance on their silly ritual, I think a better use for your spiritual energy would be reading the Summa Theologica. I recommend starting with Secunda Secundæ Partis, Question 11, Article 3.

Why bother reading anything when I have folks as young as my grandchildren to read it and interpret it for me. Especially since they are at that stage in life when they know EVERYTHING.

:coffeeread: :yawn:

 

[Dauphin]

Why bother reading anything when I have folks as young as my grandchildren to read it and interpret it for me. Especially since they are at that stage in life when they know EVERYTHING.

:coffeeread: :yawn:

Anything to avoid reading something written by that big, bad, traditionalist, eh?

 

[ethelzguy]

Anything to avoid reading something written by that big, bad, traditionalist, eh?

Nah. I have you to do that for me.

I enjoyed your comment about “loyal, obedient Catholics”.

A loyal, obedient Catholic follows the changes in the Liturgy without compliant, criticism, critique, or clamor.

Something to ponder.

 

[Dauphin]

Nah. I have you to do that for me.

I enjoyed your comment about “loyal, obedient Catholics”.

A loyal, obedient Catholic follows the changes in the Liturgy without compliant, criticism, critique, or clamor.

Something to ponder.

Nope. An obedient Catholic doesn’t check his brain and his faith at the door of the Church. An obedient Catholic doesn’t live as a child of this age, but as a recipient and guardian of the Tradition he has inherited.

 

[ethelzguy]

Nope. An obedient Catholic doesn’t check his brain and his faith at the door of the Church.

Yah, after all, who needs those priests, nuns, and bishops leading us anyways…:dts:

nighty-night

 

[tee_eff_em]

I think the CDW made some changes to the text as submitted. According to the CNS article:

The Sanctus will start “Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of hosts.” The current versions says “Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might.”

 Didn't the version submitted read: "Holy, Holy, Holy **is** the Lord God of Hosts"? The approved version looks better, since the *Sanctus* is a prayer addressed to the Lord God of Hosts, not a statement about Him.

-Illini

If you have a lead on the version submitted, I’d be interested to see it. They tend to keep things like that pretty tight.

tee

 

[GIMJ]

ethelzguy: I’m glad we have you on here. You manage to get some good points across (to the few of us who will listen) amidst the humor! This exchange between you and Dauphin has really just made my day.

By the way, Dauphin… I’m about your same age. And it doesn’t seem like you are much of a “guardian of the Tradition YOU inherited!”

 

[Rolltide]

Whether we use the phrase “for many” or “for all” won’t make one whit of difference as to how many souls are brought to Christ through the Church.

Neither will saying “and with your spirit”, as opposed “to also with you”…

Strikes me that there could be a better use for one’s spiritual energy.

The problem is that even something as simple as a single word can cause a massive fracture within the church. When the Nicene Creed was written, virtually every word was carefully crafted to counter a heresy or attest to a truth of the faith.

and yet…

a single Greek word added to the Creed, “filoque”, has been one of the the major sticking points between Catholics and Orthodox for almost 1000 years. Theological precision in the translation does matter.

 

[Dauphin]

By the way, Dauphin… I’m about your same age. And it doesn’t seem like you are much of a “guardian of the Tradition YOU inherited!”

I’m talking about the perennial Catholic tradition - not a bad translation done by a committee in the 70’s.

 

[GIMJ]

I’m talking about the perennial Catholic tradition - not a bad translation done by a committee in the 70’s.

I understand where you’re coming from, and I don’t fault your sincerity. But you cannot deny the irony of your patronizing someone about tradition who has been around 50 years longer than you.

 

[Dauphin]

I understand where you’re coming from, and I don’t fault your sincerity. But you cannot deny the irony of your patronizing someone about tradition who has been around 50 years longer than you.

Tradition is ageless.

 

[Walking_Home]

I understand where you’re coming from, and I don’t fault your sincerity. But you cannot deny the irony of your patronizing someone about tradition who has been around 50 years longer than you.

---

When the “Spirit of Vat II” took hold — it did not discriminate on age.