N
notredame_999
Guest
could a priest in a novus ordo mass face the alter during consecartion, as well as say the prayers in latin if he wanted to?
- Status
M
MarkThompson
Guest
The priest always faces the altar during consecration. And he can do the Mass bilingually English/Latin if he wants, definitely, just like English/Spanish or anything else. If you watch the EWTN Mass you’ll see this very thing.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
yes it is not a hybrid it is simply part of the Mass, Latin has always been an option and in fact in the official instruction is and always has been the preferred language even when and where the vernacular is allowed. I have never in 60 years, before or after V2, seen a priest consecrate when he was not facing the altar.
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
Do you mean the priest celebrated ad orientum facing the altar with “his back towards the people”? Yes, this is legitimate and always has been for the ordinary form.
Yes, the entire Mass can be celebrated in Latin or partly in Latin and another language. When the Holy Father visited Britain the other week, all the Masses he celebrated were partly in Latin and partly in English.
M
malphono
Guest
It’s not a “hybrid” anything. It’s the OF.
The editio typica of the OF missal is (a) in Latin and (b) presumes ad orientem posture. That has been so since it made its debut in 1969. That said, the occurrence of Latin and/or ad orientem in the OF (the “reform of the reform”) is admittedly rare, but both are perfectly legitimate.
D
drforjc
Guest
Guessing that the OP was referring to the priest facing the same direction as the people (ad orientem/versus apsum/however you want to call it), yes, the priest is certainly permitted to celebrate that way-- in fact the rubrics of the Sacamentary appear to assume it:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=496708
G
GloriousOrder
Guest
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. 
N
notredame_999
Guest
Why were the words “for many” changed with “for all” in the first place?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.
C
Corki
Guest
The OF doesn’t say “for all”. It is only the English mis-translation that uses those words. Those words are not at all part of the “underlying philosophy of the OF.” And it’s a moot point anyway since the OP asked about saying the Mass prayers in Latin so any translation anomolies won’t be a problem.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.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I’m not defending the position but one possible reason:
matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html#IV. Is “For All” an invalid translation of “Pro Vobis et Pro Multis”?
But, as Corki suggests, it’s all a moot point. Or at least it will be soon.
G
GloriousOrder
Guest
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.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
Huh? Where did you get “pro omnes” from? As you must know (right?), that’s an impossible Latin phrase, so regrettably methinks you’re just making it up.
C
Corki
Guest
I never said it was an accident. And I don’t argue that there wasn’t a strong liberal agenda at work in promulgating the English translation. But it’s irrelevant. The OF is a Mass written in Latin. If some group mis-translates something either intentionally or with malintent, it doesn’t cause a change in the underlying Latin or to the Mass itself.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…
.
In any case, it’s gone now. No more “for many” in English or in any other language. We are only waiting for the new books to arrive.
It can’t be a day too soon as far as I’m concerned.The point is that Latin is not an aspect of just the EF. It is the rightful first language of the OF Mass too. To say an OF Mass in Latin isn’t mixing in anything from the EF except by coincidence. Same thing for ad orientem.
O
OraLabora
Guest
As others have pointed out the OF Latin says “pro multis”; in fact I can affirm that the French translation says “pour la multitude” (for the multitude), and not “pour tous” (for all), as I attend a Mass that is in French and Latin.
There are clearly a lot of misconceptions about the OF Mass, the use of Latin within it, and the alleged change of words that happened to be a mistranslation into English and not a theological error in the Editio Typica.
First of all you’ve got it the wrong way around. It is not “pro multis” in English, it is “pro multis” in the Latin Editio Typica.
Secondly, you seem to ignore the fact that the Mass has been translated into many other languages besides English.
As I pointed out above, the French translation is an accurate rendition of the Latin. I know for a fact that the Italian and Spanish versions are also correctly translated.
Therefore any mistranslation to English, while it may have been or may not have been a agenda-driven by the translators, cannot be attributed to the OF itself if the Editio Typica retains the traditional words, and in many other languages the translation is correct. Point the finger at the ICEL, not the Church or the OF itself.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
since we have now changed thread topic to translations, I will not bother to add anything. don’t suppose you would care to take this outside or to the proper forum, where the translation issue is discussed ad nauseum.
M
MikeDunphy
Guest
Obviously, he meant pro omnibus.
M
MikeDunphy
Guest
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.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Strictly speaking, since Latin is the official language of the Church, anything we discuss in English having to do with Church documents or texts is a translation issue. Est quod est.
BTW, it’s ad nauseam.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Indeed. I’m sure you’ll even find some writers who will continue to say that “for many” is wrong.
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”?
P
ProVobis
Guest
Indeed. I’m sure you’ll even find some writers who will continue to say that “for many” is wrong.
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.
- Status