In Africa: The Pope Celebrates Mass in Extraordinary Form

[YoungTradCath]

Okay, it looks like I was wrong. Maybe the mods can remove this thread, so that it doesn’t cause confusion.

No, I think it’s good to leave this up, to discuss papal masses, and how the Pope leads by example.

By the way, this:

youtube.com/watch?v=rlqXGk-RF-M

is a recording of the Credo sung at a papal mass celebrated by John Paul II in the 80s. This is the Ordinary Form.

 

[ssa_trad_cath]

If the Ordinary Form Latin version of the Credo is not exactly the same, word for word, as the Extraordinary Form Credo (Latin is the only one there is), then there is something very illicit going on where you live. The Credo in the 1962 (EF) Missal is exactly the same as the Credo in the 2002 Editio Typica Tertia (OF) Missal.

See previous comments. There may have been a (licit) substitution of the Apostle’s Creed for the Nicene Creed in the OF Masses the original poster has been attending. This is allowed for in the rubrics in certain occasions - it was done in my parish on All Saints.

 

[OraLabora]

If you read the OP, you’ll see that I listened to it on the radio. I have no idea if they bowed or not…

Where I live, the Credo in the OF is not the same as the EF.

As was pointed out the Credo in the 1962 missal and the current missal as well as the current Graduale Romanum are exactly the same. We chant it in Latin at every Sunday OF Mass. Most likely you are used to hearing the Apostles’ Creed in the OF Masses you’ve attended.

You are also illustrating a very important point: when an OF Mass is properly and reverently chanted in Latin, it is very hard for the untrained ear to hear the difference.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Lol, let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Yeah, it was the Ordinary Form.

The Order of Mass is the same in the OF and the EF. By Order I mean the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Credo, the Sanctus and the Agnus Dei. The wording is exactly the same, to the letter. The Order was in Latin. Most papal masses are at least a majority in Latin, from what I’ve seen online and on television.

You got me VERY excited for a minute, then I read your post. That was cruel.

As the world goes forward at the speed of light, People enjoy themselves discussing the OF and the EF.

Meanwhile, Catholics diminish in Europe and America and have growth in Africa, where they care less about the OF and the EF and want to praise God that is what Mass is about with the voice, the hands, the feet, the song, the rythm, with all the soul and the body.

 

[ProVobis]

No, I think it’s good to leave this up, to discuss papal masses, and how the Pope leads by example.

By the way, this:

youtube.com/watch?v=rlqXGk-RF-M

is a recording of the Credo sung at a papal mass celebrated by John Paul II in the 80s. This is the Ordinary Form.

Very beautiful.

There can be no doubt the last two Popes have heavily tried to promote Latin prayers and Latin in the NO/OF. Three if you include Jubilate Deo.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Very beautiful.

There can be no doubt the last two Popes have heavily tried to promote Latin prayers and Latin in the NO/OF. Three if you include Jubilate Deo.

I don’t think any pope within the last thousand years has ever wanted to go away from Latin. I’ve seen countless videos of masses celebrated by the popes of the last century, and not one of them didn’t have at least the Order in Latin.

 

[JReducation]

Just a few points of clarification. The mass was in the Ordinary Form.

The Credo in Latin is the same in either form. There are two versions of the Credo: Nicene and Apostles Creed.

The pope does not have to subvocalize the canon (Eucharistic Prayer). He can say it audibly. It is one of several forms of the EF. Saying it out loud is usually reserved for friars and monks. But the pope is not bound to this rule, since he is the major superior of every religious order, he can borrow from them. Pope John Paul often borrowed from the Carmelites, because he was a Carmelite.

The pope generally uses a lot of Latin at his masses, unless those concelebrating with him do not know enough Latin. Then he may reduce the amount of Latin to allow the concelebrants to say their parts.

If you observed the mass, there were concelebrants. This is not done in the EF. The priests present were concelebrating from their seats along the front. At one point during the consecration, the camera panned just as they extended their hand toward the altar at the words of consecration. The altar was very small. There was no room for a lot of people.

The Vatican also has a practice, which I won’t call a policy, because I don’t think that it is. It has a practice that when the pope goes to a European country or one where European culture is prevalent, to use more of the dominant European language. In Africa, even though many countries have French, Portuguese or English as the official language, it is really the language of government, not the language of the people. The people may have many local languages. Very often, the common man does not speak the European language. In this case, it was French. The congregation often has a greater amount of less educated people who may not speak the European language at all or not well enough. It really makes no difference to them whether the mass is in French or Latin. They’re not holding missalettes with the translation.

Finally, the Latin Rite is not called Latin, because of the language, but because of its origins in Roman or Latin culture, just as the other rites are named after their respective cultures, not languages. There are the Mozarabic rite and the Carmelite rite. Both are Latin rites. The Carmelite Rite was always celebrated in Latin and the Mozarabic was celebrated in a dialect of Gallican Arabic. But they are part of the Latin world. We often associate the term Latin Rite with the Latin Language. I believe the Church tries to create the distinction by often referring to the Roman Rite of the Latin Church This actually makes sense. Observe the title of the missal, The Roman Missal.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[MontChevalier]

I saw the video on youtube. It was good to see the Pope speaking in Latin. He seemed quite happy.

I’ve been keeping track of the Pope. He’s a busy guy. Everyday he’s always saying something about “Peace” and “Dialogue”. And hey, that’s not bad, but considering that the world is growing more bitter and bitter, peace and dialogue are starting to look like just words. Of course, they are the words that need to be said these days, especially, with so many people so upset.

God bless you Pope Benedict XVI for all you’ve done, by the grace of God.

-MontChevalier

 

[Denise1957]

As was pointed out the Credo in the 1962 missal and the current missal as well as the current Graduale Romanum are exactly the same. We chant it in Latin at every Sunday OF Mass. Most likely you are used to hearing the Apostles’ Creed in the OF Masses you’ve attended.

You are also illustrating a very important point: when an OF Mass is properly and reverently chanted in Latin, it is very hard for the untrained ear to hear the difference.

I do apologise about being wrong about the Papal Mass being the EF, but the Credo in the OF is not the same as the EF. They say basically the same thing, but not with the same words. This next Sunday, the first Sunday of Advent, the new missal translation takes effect here in the U.S. The new translation of the Credo more closely resembles the EF form.

Here’s the Credo from the 1962 missal (Baronius Press edition):

I believe in one God, the Father almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things, visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only
begotten Son of God.

And born of the Father, before all ages.

God of God: Light of Light: true God of true God.

Begotten, not made, consubstantial with
the Father, by whom all things were made

Who, for us men, and for our salvation,
came down from heaven.

(Here kneel down)

AND BECAME INCARNATE BY THE HOLY GHOST OF THE VIRGIN MARY: AND WAS
MADE MAN.

He was crucified also for us, suffered under
Pontius Pilate, and was buried.

And the third day He rose again according
to the scriptues.

And ascended into heaven, and sitteth at
the right hand of the Father.

And He hall come again with glory
to judge both the living and the dead, of whose
kingdom there shall be no end.

And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver
of life, who proceeds from the Father and the
Son.

Who, together with the Father and the
Son, is adored and glorified: Who spoke by
the prophets.

And in one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I confess one baptism for the remission of sins.

And I look for the resurrection of the dead.

And the life of the world to come.​

By the way, a priest in our diocese was very much against the new transaltion, as he felt it was an affront against Vll. However, he has relented (bless his heart) and is now going along with it in obedience, thankfully.

 

[OraLabora]

As others have pointed out you’re still wrong about the Credo. First of all you can’t compare a 1962 English translation to the current translation. There was no official translation of the Latin into English for the 1962 Missal. Any translation was not intended for liturgical use but rather to aid comprehension.

The Latin versions are identical. We still use the Latin version at our OF Mass. Some parishes use the apostle’s creed by indult in the OF mass but the Nicene is also used.

The current or rather upcoming translation of the Nicene Creed is meant to be a faithful translation of the Latin. Again in the 1962 Missal the translation is NOT official for liturgical use. There is so much misinformation driving the OF vs EF debate!

 

[YoungTradCath]

I do apologise about being wrong about the Papal Mass being the EF, but the Credo in the OF is not the same as the EF. They say basically the same thing, but not with the same words. This next Sunday, the first Sunday of Advent, the new missal translation takes effect here in the U.S. The new translation of the Credo more closely resembles the EF form.

Denise, the Ordinary Form Credo in Latin is exactly the same as the Extraordinary Form Credo, which is only in Latin. The words are exactly the same.

If you look at the Typical Edition (which is the Latin original edition from which come all the translations, and which is celebrated in some parishes) of the Ordinary Form missal, the Credo is exactly the same as the Credo in Extraordinary Form missal.

I can’t prove this by showing it to you, because I don’t have a copy of the Typical Edition of the Ordinary Form missal and there is no copy of it online as far as I know, but I will try to illustrate this.

The following link is a video showing the Credo being sung (extraordinarily beautifully, might I add) by the Vienna Philharmonic in 1985 in the context of a Papal Mass inside St. Peter’s in Rome, celebrated by His Holiness, John Paul II. I can assure you that this is an Ordinary Form mass.

youtube.com/watch?v=rlqXGk-RF-M

Clear subtitles are provided. Now compare these subtitles of what is being sung to page 301 (in the PDF console itself) of the following link, which is a PDF of the Extraordinary Form missal. That page shows the Credo in the Extraordinary Form missal. When you compare the subtitles in the Ordinary Form video to the text in the PDF of the Extraordinary Form missal, you will see that the words are exactly the same in the Latin version of the Ordinary Form as they are in Latin in the Extraordinary Form.

sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books-1962/missale-romanum-1962.pdf

 

[Denise1957]

Denise, the Ordinary Form Credo in Latin is exactly the same as the Extraordinary Form Credo, which is only in Latin. The words are exactly the same.

If you look at the Typical Edition (which is the Latin original edition from which come all the translations, and which is celebrated in some parishes) of the Ordinary Form missal, the Credo is exactly the same as the Credo in Extraordinary Form missal.

I can’t prove this by showing it to you, because I don’t have a copy of the Typical Edition of the Ordinary Form missal and there is no copy of it online as far as I know, but I will try to illustrate this.

The following link is a video showing the Credo being sung (extraordinarily beautifully, might I add) by the Vienna Philharmonic in 1985 in the context of a Papal Mass inside St. Peter’s in Rome, celebrated by His Holiness, John Paul II. I can assure you that this is an Ordinary Form mass.

youtube.com/watch?v=rlqXGk-RF-M

Clear subtitles are provided. Now compare these subtitles of what is being sung to page 301 (in the PDF console itself) of the following link, which is a PDF of the Extraordinary Form missal. That page shows the Credo in the Extraordinary Form missal. When you compare the subtitles in the Ordinary Form video to the text in the PDF of the Extraordinary Form missal, you will see that the words are exactly the same in the Latin version of the Ordinary Form as they are in Latin in the Extraordinary Form.

sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books-1962/missale-romanum-1962.pdf

If the words of the Credo are exactly the same in the EF as the OF, then why are the words of the Credo being changed in the new translation of the OF?

I found a comparison of the old and new translations of the Credo in the OF. Scroll down about one-third of the way down the page to see a side-by-side comparison of the old and new translations of the Credo. I hope this link works:

blessed-sacrament.org/liturgy.pdf

 

[jilly4ski]

If the words of the Credo are exactly the same in the EF as the OF, then why are the words of the Credo being changed in the new translation of the OF?

I found a comparison of the old and new translations of the Credo in the OF. Scroll down about one-third of the way down the page to see the Credo. I hope this link works:

blessed-sacrament.org/liturgy.pdf

because the original language for both the OF and the EF is Latin. Which is the same for both. It is only translations which are being changed. Like someone said before, the translations for the 1962 missal were unofficial and probably were different depending on which hand missal you had. Then there was an official translation which is what we are familiar with now. But next week (in the US) a new translation is being implemented. But this did not change the actual words of the credo which are “properly” in Latin, just how we translate that Latin into English.

 

[JReducation]

Actually, the Credo is exactly the same in the EF and OF when you use the Latin edition.

Observe.

Creed as used in the EF

Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipoténtem, factórem cæli et terræ, visibílium ómnium et invisibílium.
Et in unum Dóminum Jesum Christum, Fílium Dei unigénitum. Et ex Patre natum ante ómnia sæcula. Deum de Deo, lumen de lúmine, Deum verum de Deo vero. Génitum, non factum, consubstantiálem Patri: per quem ómnia facta sunt. Qui propter nos hómines et propter nostram salútem descéndit de cælis

Et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto ex María Vírgine: Et homo factus est.

Crucifíxus étiam pro nobis: sub Póntio Piláto passus, et sepúltus est. Et resurréxit tértia die, secúndum Scriptúras. Et ascéndit in cælum: sedet ad déxteram Patris. Et íterum ventúrus est cum glória judicáre vivos et mórtuos: cujus regni non erit finis.

Et in Spíritum Sanctum, Dóminum et vivificántem: qui ex Patre, Filióque procédit. Qui cum Patre, et Fílio simul adorátur , et conglorifícatur: qui locútus est per Prophétas. Et unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam. Confíteor unum baptísma in remissiónem peccatorum. Et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum. Et vitam + ventúri sæculi. Amen.

Creed as used in the OF

Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, factorem caeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium.

Et in unum Dominum Iesum Christum, Filium Dei unigenitum, et ex Patre natum ante omnia saecula. Deum de Deo, lumen de lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero, genitum, non factum, consubstantialem Patri: per quem omnia facta sunt. Qui propter nos homines et propter nostram salutem descendit de caelis.

Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine, et homo factus est.

Crucifixus etiam pro nobis sub Pontio Pilato passus et sepultus est. Et resurrexit tertia die, secundum Scripturas, et ascendit in caelum, sedet ad dexteram Patris. Et iterum venturus est cum gloria, iudicare vivos et mortuos, cuius regni non erit finis.

Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem: qui ex Patre Filioque procedit. Qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur: qui locutus est per prophetas. Et unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam. Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum. Et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum, et vitam venturi saeculi. Amen.

The problem with the English translations are several.

1. At some point, the English translation became influenced by German and Holy Ghost was used instead of Holy Spirit. There is a Latin word for ghost, but that’s not the word used here.
2. Spoke through the prophets or by the prophets gets tricky, because in Latin and its daughter languages the word “per” can mean both. “The book was written by the boy (per puer)” or “She went through the school (per scola)” The speaker of a Latin language understands the difference by context.
3. The kneeling and bowing was added. It is not part of the Profession of Faith. We can see this when we observe the ancient religious orders that existed prior to Trent. They neither bow nor kneel during the Creed, unless they adopted the Roman Missal. Those that keep their own missals stand right through it. The kneeling was introduced by St. Francis of Asisis and was carried all over Europe by his friars. It was later incorporated into the Roman Missal. The other orders that are older, don’t use it when they use their own missals. I’m not sure about the other Latin Rites: Ambrosian, Dominican, Carthusian, Carmelite, Gallican and Mazarabic, whether they kneel, bow or just stand.

The point is if you’re hearing the Creed in Latin, there is only one version of the Nicene and one of the Apostles Creed.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Denise1957]

because the original language for both the OF and the EF is Latin. Which is the same for both. It is only translations which are being changed. Like someone said before, the translations for the 1962 missal were unofficial and probably were different depending on which hand missal you had. Then there was an official translation which is what we are familiar with now. But next week (in the US) a new translation is being implemented. But this did not change the actual words of the credo which are “properly” in Latin, just how we translate that Latin into English.

I understand what you are saying. What I was trying to get, and not being very clear about, is that the actual words said at Mass, for the Credo, is not the same for the OF and EF. I was veering off topic, I guess.

I understand now that the Credo said at the Mass that the pope celebrated in Africa was the same as the EF version. Never having seen an OF in Latin, I didn’t know that this was the case. I appreciate being informed as to how it works.

 

[jilly4ski]

I understand what you are saying. What I was trying to get, and not being very clear about, is that the actual words said at Mass, for the Credo, is not the same for the OF and EF. I was veering off topic, I guess.

I understand now that the Credo said at the Mass that the pope celebrated in Africa was the same as the EF version. Never having seen an OF in Latin, I didn’t know that this was the case. I appreciate being informed as to how it works.

So are you asking why translations are funky? Because translation is a difficult thing to get the exact words and meaning across by just translating word for word.

Or are you asking why we don’t say the credo in Latin for the OF Mass? That would be because of the wide allowance for using the vernacular in the OF Mass, where there is no such permission for the EF.

 

[YoungTradCath]

If the words of the Credo are exactly the same in the EF as the OF, then why are the words of the Credo being changed in the new translation of the OF?

I found a comparison of the old and new translations of the Credo in the OF. Scroll down about one-third of the way down the page to see a side-by-side comparison of the old and new translations of the Credo. I hope this link works:

blessed-sacrament.org/liturgy.pdf

Madam, because it’s just that, a translation. I can take a Latin sentence and translate it twenty different ways into English, just as I can take a sentence in any language and translate it twenty different ways into English.

Our translation is changing, but the underlying Latin is not.

For example, the word “calix” is used in the consecration during the EF mass and in the Latin version of the OF mass. Some people say “calix” translates as “cup.” Some people say “calix” translates more faithfully as “chalice.” The word in Latin is still “calix” and it’s not changing. But the translation is changing, from “cup” to “chalice.”

When someone changes a translation of something, they aren’t changing the underlying original language, but the translation of it. To change a translation does not mean to change the original.

You’re right with the link. The translations of several things are changing, but the underlying Latin is not. For example:

The incipit (first few words) of the Gloria in Latin is, “Gloria in excelsis Deo, et in terra pax hominibus, bonae voluntatis.”

The old translation, based off that original, is, “Glory to God in the highest, and peace to his people on earth.”

The new translation, still based off that original, is, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to people of good will.”

You see, the translation is changing, but the original Latin remains the same. The translation is just that, an imperfect interpretation. To change a translation does not mean to change the original.

With the new missal, the Latin is exactly the same as it was. We’re just getting a new translation.

 

[JReducation]

Madam, because it’s just that, a translation. I can take a Latin sentence and translate it twenty different ways into English, just as I can take a sentence in any language and translate it twenty different ways into English.

Our translation is changing, but the underlying Latin is not.

For example, the word “calix” is used in the consecration during the EF mass and in the Latin version of the OF mass. Some people say “calix” translates as “cup.” Some people say “calix” translates more faithfully as “chalice.” The word in Latin is still “calix” and it’s not changing. But the translation is changing, from “cup” to “chalice.”

When someone changes a translation of something, they aren’t changing the underlying original language, but the translation of it. To change a translation does not mean to change the original.

You’re right with the link. The translations of several things are changing, but the underlying Latin is not. For example:

The incipit (first few words) of the Gloria in Latin is, “Gloria in excelsis Deo, et in terra pax hominibus, bonae voluntatis.”

The old translation, based off that original, is, “Glory to God in the highest, and peace to his people on earth.”

The new translation, still based off that original, is, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to people of good will.”

You see, the translation is changing, but the original Latin remains the same. The translation is just that, an imperfect interpretation. To change a translation does not mean to change the original.

With the new missal, the Latin is exactly the same as it was. We’re just getting a new translation.

Actually, this translation is not new. It’s older than the one that we have been using. It was used in the 1960s and early 70s. It was translated again, because it sounded clunky.

As you correctly point out, in an effort to make it sound smoother, words were replaced, for example, cup replaced chalice. However, chalice has a very different meaning In Jewish culture, a chalice was a sacred cup. Physically, it was a cup, but functionally it served a very different purpose. It was not what you used to drink out of on a daily basis.

The same with the term “pro multis”. It always meant “for all”. However, in Hebrew, the term “for the many” meant for all who would accept the gift. The gift was for all, but it was understood that many would accept it and some would not. When it was replaced with “for all” that whole idea of mean accepting salvation is lost. It makes man sound like a passive receiver who has to do nothing.

While the second edition of the Roman Missal sounded smoother, it also sacrificed the layers of meaning in the original words, especially when you went from Latin to a non Latin language, such as English.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Denise1957]

So are you asking why translations are funky? Because translation is a difficult thing to get the exact words and meaning across by just translating word for word.

Or are you asking why we don’t say the credo in Latin for the OF Mass? That would be because of the wide allowance for using the vernacular in the OF Mass, where there is no such permission for the EF.

No, I’m not asking or even saying that the translations for the OF Credo are funky. I’m saying that the OF translation is different from the 1962 translation. DIFFERENT. They are different. I’m not sure how many ways I can try to say this so that it’s understood.

And no, I’m not asking why you don’t say the Credo in Latin in the OF.

I understand that it’s difficult to translate the Latin into English. Have you ever studied Latin? It’s a pain in the neck to understand.

Permission for use of the vernacular for the EF Credo isn’t an issue since it’s always said in Latin in the EF. It just doesn’t apply.

I’ll back out of this thread now, since everyone disagrees with what I’m saying. No use in further discussion on my part.

 

[ProVobis]

As others have pointed out you’re still wrong about the Credo. First of all you can’t compare a 1962 English translation to the current translation. There was no official translation of the Latin into English for the 1962 Missal. Any translation was not intended for liturgical use but rather to aid comprehension.

This is very true. And upon careful examination, the attempted translations varied from handmissal to handmissal, some even resembled the Anglican Mass, and perhaps that was one of the reasons the ICEL went to a more dynamic translation. But that’s my guess.

In any case, one can pretend all he wants to, but he just can’t have the Latin Mass (or an Italian opera, for that matter) in English. English has its own purposes, nuances, meanings, sounds, and other characteristics. English words may be partly morphed from the Latin but they aren’t Latin any more than Old English is Modern English.