Hybrid: novus ordo/latin mass

[Speramus]

Indeed. I’m sure you’ll even find some writers who will continue to say that “for many” is wrong.

One priest, who will remain nameless, is on record as saying recently that translating “pro multis” as “for many” is heresy. :nope:

But speaking of poor scholarship, in the “for you and for all” expression, why did they bother with the “for you and” part? Is “you” not part of the “all”? Maybe they meant “all others.” And then they will argue perhaps the newer translation should be “for you and for many others.” Ah, ya ya.

http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/218/stopc.gif Please don’t give them any ideas! The new “they” depends on dictionaries and careful research to do their translating, where the old “they” would let their imagination soar free, but I’d just as soon leave them the way they are now.

 

[ProVobis]

The new “they” depends on dictionaries and careful research to do their translating, where the old “they” would let their imagination soar free, but I’d just as soon leave them the way they are now.

It appears to be happening. But there are dangers in trying to (re)translate with rewritten Latin-English dictionaries, though I’m glad at least “they” are leaving “consubtantialem” alone for the most part.

 

[DavidPalm]

Shockingly poor scholarship. Does this “all who are many” doublespeak ever appear outside the context of defending the mistranslation of the consecration? I don’t think so!

Please note that while the author can point out a few obscure Eucharistic prayers that leave out part of what our Lord said, he can quote none before the mistranslation of the NO that change our Lord’s words to “for all”. Even the NO in its officially promulgated Latin form gets it right. Soon the English translation will too. In the meantime, there are a few parishes that celebrate the NO ad orientem and in Latin. Saint John Cantius in Chicago is one.

Yes, I agree. I am all for efforts like those of Msgr. John F. McCarthy showing, in opposition to the sedevacantists, that the mistranslation does not invalidate the Mass: The Sacramental Validity of “for you and for all”. But unfortunately, some got overzealous in their defense of each and every action of the Holy See and ended up going to ridiculous lengths to prove not only that these changes did not harm the Church’s indefectability, but were good and right in themselves.

Once again, the traditionalists were right all along to oppose this mistranslation. But somehow I don’t think that even the Vatican changing the translation will be seen by some as vindication of the traditionalist position.

 

[malphono]

But somehow I don’t think that even the Vatican changing the translation will be seen by some as vindication of the traditionalist position.

No, it’s not very likely. But who cares, really? To me the important thing is that they see it (and the sunset of its siblings “also with you” etc, too) for what it is: an official disavowal of at least part of the agenda that they in their misguided zeal forced down our collective throat 40 years ago. It’s doubtful that the core group (and its progeny) has any interest in changing or diluting its agenda, but maybe they can at least learn to smell the coffee and keep their agenda to themselves.

 

[DavidPalm]

It’s doubtful that the core group (and its progeny) has any interest in changing or diluting its agenda, but maybe they can at least learn to smell the coffee and keep their agenda to themselves.

I agree, malphono, but I was speaking also of that cadre of orthodox Catholics (they have variously been described as neo-Catholic, neo-conservative, etc.) who took it upon themselves to defend each and every one of the actions of the Holy See as good and right, even if the pedigree or prudence of those actions was far from obvious. Now that the Holy See is reversing some of these changes (with more reversals in the wings, it appears) these same individuals never quite get around to admitting that in fact the changes weren’t necessarily that great and that the traditionalists were right all along.

It’s what continues to convince me that some semantic distinction between these groups of Catholics is necessary, although like many others I’m not fully satisfied with the labels. I’m not sure how to describe the phenomenon otherwise.

 

[HCC]

My friend, I dare say that any translation by so humongous a body as the Roman Catholic Church cannot be an accident. The translation of a linguist always reflects the background and beliefs of the man doing the job. We’re not robots who can simply put Latin words into a computer and come out with English - someone had to do that translation by the power of his own mind; and, apparently, his own imagination!

How can it be an accident… or, rather, how can it not be fundamental to the O.F. that “pro omnes” was interpreted as “pro multis”?, in English? There is a huge difference between the two, grammatically-speaking, and such a big mistranslation is either purposeful to the meaning of the Mass itself, or the International Commission on English in the Liturgy was wildly incompetent. Since many official changes after Vatican II were co-ordinated, I doubt it was simple incompetence.

A general spirit was at work in translating “pro multis” as “for all”. I think this same spirit can be seen in asking six Reformed pastors into the talks on Liturgy… Please excuse me if this sounds like conspiracy-theory, but my sympathies are with Ottaviani, generally-speaking. Anyway, my 1962 Missal translates this as “for many” in English, next to the Latin. What was the point of re-translating it when a perfectly good translation was right there 11 years before (the translation in question is from 1973)? The purpose must have been ecumenical sentiment.

The O.P. was speaking about various aspects of E.F. and O.F. being mixed, not necessarily about every component. Sorry if my dissection of the topics is wrong.

Absolutely agree. Well said. I love how everyone acts as if everything that happened and is still happening since Vatican II are just little misunderstandings.

 

[OraLabora]

Absolutely agree. Well said. I love how everyone acts as if everything that happened and is still happening since Vatican II are just little misunderstandings.

Could you then explain why “pro multis” was correctly translated in, umm, a multitude of other languages, but not English?

I agree that there might have been an “agenda” involved at the ICEL. But it is hard to attribute that to either the Council or the OF Mass itself, given that others got it right.

 

[malphono]

I agree that there might have been an “agenda” involved at the ICEL. But it is hard to attribute that to either the Council or the OF Mass itself, given that others got it right.

I don’t think one can attribute the agenda to either the Council or the OF itself, but rather to the usual (willful? ) misinterpretation of one or both. The anglophones with the agenda took a chance that the prevailing winds in Rome at the time would buy it, and their bet paid off for 40 years. Now, to their chagrin, it’s time to pay the piper. Too bad, so sad.

 

[ProVobis]

I find it very difficult to imagine the O.F. being celebrated with all human beings facing the same direction, and at the same time the priest using the words of consecration “for all”. Do you see that: 1. turning the priest inward, and 2. changing the consecration from “for the multitude” to “for all”, both have a common purpose? It seems to be a self-esteem move in terms of making the people feel less left-out. I, for one, would much rather be ‘left out’ of worship if it means the priest channels all our prayers through his back up to the altar of God. The very underlying philosophy of the words in the O.F. does not seem to jibe with facing ad orientem. It has been democratised; if not, please correct me, for I’d rather not be scandalous.

You probably know this but in all fairness to the OF, the “for all” words and the ad populum posture had already become accepted as part of the English liturgy before 1969. It could very well that the OF intended to correct these deviations from the traditional (but transitional) Mass; it is hard to know for sure at this point.

 

[corsair]

Guess it really doesn’t make a great deal of difference because its a “done deal”. So I guess those who question the change should just “suck it up” and accept it.

 

[malphono]

You probably know this but in all fairness to the OF, the “for all” words and the ad populum posture had already become accepted as part of the English liturgy before 1969. It could very well that the OF intended to correct these deviations from the traditional (but transitional) Mass; it is hard to know for sure at this point.

Yes. That stuff came in, as I recall, in 1967 with the second incarnation of the “interim Missal” (which was merely a lead-in to the OF anyway).

 

[ProVobis]

Guess it really doesn’t make a great deal of difference because its a “done deal”. So I guess those who question the change should just “suck it up” and accept it.

True, but I do hold a little compassion for those who feel they have to re-memorize the Creed, for example. Down the road, if we continue to go the vernacular route, I can easily see changes to the Our Father as well.

 

[ProVobis]

Yes. That stuff came in, as I recall, in 1967 with the second incarnation of the “interim Missal” (which was merely a lead-in to the OF anyway).

I don’t think much of the English crowd ever heard the words “for you and for many” in the Mass. At least not those few who actually paid attention to every word of the priest.