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

[benedictgal]

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

First of all, Haugen is not a Catholic, as has already been reported in a previous post. Of cousre, this should explain his bad theological songs and his lack of knowledge of Church teaching, as “Gather Us In” and “We Remember” indicates.

Now, as far as pro multis is concerned, I would suggest that we re-read the Gospel accounts. When Jesus prays over the cup filled with wine, he says, for you and the many. This is the interpretation of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments:

There are, however, many arguments in favour of a more precise rendering of the traditional formula pro multis:

a. The Synoptic Gospels (Mt 26,28; Mk 14,24) make specific reference to “many” (pollvn) for whom the Lord is offering the Sacrifice, and this wording has been emphasized by some biblical scholars in connection with the words of the prophet Isaiah (53, 11-12). It would have been entirely possible in the Gospel texts to have said “for all” (for example, cf. Luke 12,41); instead, the formula given in the institution narrative is “for many”, and the words have been faithfully translated thus in most modern biblical versions.

b. The Roman Rite in Latin has always said pro multis and never pro omnibus in the consecration of the chalice.

c. The anaphoras of the various Oriental Rites, whether in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, the Slavic languages, etc., contain the verbal equivalent of the Latin pro multis in their respective languages.

d. “For many” is a faithful translation of pro multis, whereas “for all” is rather an explanation of the sort that belongs properly to catechesis.

e. The expression “for many”, while remaining open to the inclusion of each human person, is reflective also of the fact that this salvation is not brought about in some mechanistic way, without one’s willing or participation; rather, the believer is invited to accept in faith the gift that is being offered and to receive the supernatural life that is given to those who participate in this mystery, living it out in their lives as well so as to be numbered among the “many” to whom the text refers.

Something else that bears noting is the fact that the revised translation came as a result of Liturgicam Authenticam, the document of the Holy See that regulates translations of the texts for use in the liturgy, hence the name “authentic liturgy.”

What we have been using is, in essence, a bad translation. There are perhaps those who have not yet gotten out of the sixties mode of thinking where everything was free-form creativity following the spirit of Vatican II (without bothering to read what the documents actually said). What Pope John Paul II did was to rein in everything and get much-needed uniformity back into the Mass.

This is what Liturgicam Authenticam mandates:

1. The Latin liturgical texts of the Roman Rite, while drawing on centuries of ecclesial experience in transmitting the faith of the Church received from the Fathers, are themselves the fruit of the liturgical renewal, just recently brought forth. ***In order that such a rich patrimony may be preserved and passed on through the centuries, it is to be kept in mind from the beginning that the translation of the liturgical texts of the Roman Liturgy is not so much a work of creative innovation as it is of rendering the original texts faithfully and accurately into the vernacular language. ***While it is permissible to arrange the wording, the syntax and the style in such a way as to prepare a flowing vernacular text suitable to the rhythm of popular prayer, the original text, insofar as possible, must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses. Any adaptation to the characteristics or the nature of the various vernacular languages is to be sober and discreet.20

1. Especially in the translations intended for peoples recently brought to the Christian Faith, fidelity and exactness with respect to the original texts may themselves sometimes require that words already in current usage be employed in new ways, that new words or expressions be coined, that terms in the original text be transliterated or adapted to the pronunciation of the vernacular language,21 or that figures of speech be used which convey in an integral manner the content of the Latin expression even while being verbally or syntactically different from it. Such measures, especially those of greater moment, are to be submitted to the discussion of all the Bishops involved before being inserted into the definitive draft. In particular, caution should be exercised in introducing words drawn from non-Christian religions.22

Thus, LA exists pretty much to clean up bad translation and make it conform to what the original documents actually say, as opposed to someone’s paraphrase or interpretation of what they think it should say.

 

[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

No, I just remember seeing that posted somewhere as one of the examples of the new translation. Perhaps it was in 2006 news stories on the bishops’ approval.

-Illini

 

[Illini]

Posted too soon. I found a CNS story from 2006 that contains the Holy Holy and other translation points:

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0505666.htm

-Illini

 

[tee_eff_em]

Something else that bears noting is the fact that the revised translation came as a result of Liturgicam Authenticam, the document of the Holy See that regulates translations of the texts for use in the liturgy, hence the name “authentic liturgy.”

I would say the revised translation came as a result of the promulgation of the third typical edition of the Roman Missal in 2000. And that, thankfully, this translation was able to be made with the guidance of the instruction Liturgicam Authenticam.

:twocents:
tee

 

[btdn]

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.

For the record filioque is Latin. Wikipedia tells me the Greek is καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, which is three words.

We do all know, however, that the Holy Spirit proceeds solely from angels playing harps. :harp: (I think we’d have less problems if they’d play whole notes instead of eight notes… )

 

[Rolltide]

For the record filioque is Latin.

I stand corrected. Still, my original point is still valid…

 

[Kendy]

Marty Haugen is not Catholic.

Well, he’s a Christian. He loves Jesus. Don’t we have enough real enemies?

 

[Brendan]

Well, he’s a Christian. He loves Jesus. Don’t we have enough real enemies?

That’s fine. But he doesn’t understand Catholic theology.

We’re not saying that he is our enemy, only that the song he writes are not in line with Catholic theology and the Vatican’s instructions on liturgical music.

He can write all the music he wants for his own Church, and leave Catholic music to those guided by Catholic theology as guided by Rome.

 

[BennyBoy89]

This is a happy day for the Church!

I’m most excited about the change to the response to Ecce Agnus Dei.

And no more Haugen and Haas!!!

 

[Mattjolley]

will the consecration be changed to ‘for many’ instead of ‘for all’ under the new liturgy?

 

[Brendan]

will the consecration be changed to ‘for many’ instead of ‘for all’ under the new liturgy?

That one is a given, it was mandated by Pope Benedict.

 

[MrS]

That’s fine. But he doesn’t understand Catholic theology.

We’re not saying that he is our enemy, only that the song he writes are not in line with Catholic theology and the Vatican’s instructions on liturgical music.

He can write all the music he wants for his own Church, and leave Catholic music to those guided by Catholic theology as guided by Rome.

splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/archives/004521.php

 

[Kendy]

That’s fine. But he doesn’t understand Catholic theology.

We’re not saying that he is our enemy, only that the song he writes are not in line with Catholic theology and the Vatican’s instructions on liturgical music.

He can write all the music he wants for his own Church, and leave Catholic music to those guided by Catholic theology as guided by Rome.

I don’t particular care to have his music at mass, but it’s rude to say that his music may make you “want to vomit.” It’s certainly doesn’t further Jesus’s call for us to be united.

 

[ethelzguy]

And no more Haugen and Haas!!!

Where do you people come up with this stuff?

What does changed verbage in the Mass have to do with composers of music? Do you think they aren’t capable of modifying to suit?

My grandkids get a big kick out of it when I make up songs on the fly. If I can do that, I’m sure Haugen and Haas will somehow cope with the pending changes, if they haven’t already.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

And no more Haugen and Haas!!!

We may lose the Mass of Creation, though perhaps Haugen working on a new version of that right now.

But I don’t think new words for the Mass would lead us to stop singing Gather Us In, The Canticle of the Sun, All Are Welcome, or other of his works.

 

[FCEGM]

Two bits of exciting news! First, the CDWDS in Rome has given the USCCB approval for the new English translation of the Order of Mass.

Second, Bishop Arthur Serratelli (Paterson, NJ), the chairman of the Bishops’ Committee on Divine Worship, spoke these important words on June 12th during the Bishops’ meeting:

There’s a concern or an interest that has surfaced for the Committee on Divine Worship that I feel many of us as bishops share. And that’s, when this new text is proposed for use, that prior to it there be a proper catechesis not just for the laity, but for our priests.
​

This is good news, but I do have to chuckle at this part. I can’t seem to recollect any “pastoral preparation” before the Vatican II changes were thrown at us. But I guess in our feebler society implementing the sacred is seen as shocking the systems of too many of those in the pews so we must be gently acclimatized. ​

 

[Kendy]

We may lose the Mass of Creation, though perhaps Haugen working on a new version of that right now.

But I don’t think new words for the Mass would lead us to stop singing Gather Us In, The Canticle of the Sun, All Are Welcome, or other of his works.

I like “All Are Welcome!”

 

[GIMJ]

I like “All Are Welcome!”

I’ve really liked all of his music that I have heard! I don’t see anything theologically amiss, either.

I guess the fact that his music enhances the worship for “less than holy” Catholics is a mark against him, though.

It sure must be miserable being a “traditionalist.”

 

[Brendan]

splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/archives/004521.php

splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/archives/2005/06/haugenhaas.php

Curt Jester introduces Hagen-Hass Ice Cream

 

[Kendy]

I’ve really liked all of his music that I have heard! I don’t see anything theologically amiss, either.

I guess the fact that his music enhances the worship for “less than holy” Catholics is a mark against him, though.

It sure must be miserable being a “traditionalist.”

Don’t worry. God will provide for us little people.