Is the Liturgy/Missal changing?

[MarkThompson]

Is that not a bit excessive, Mark ? If the prayers require a better translation, then it stands to reason that - being better translated - the full meaning of those prayers are now able to be better understood. Granted, some who know ecclesiastical Latin may have and study the Latin originals, and thus already understand and appreciate the prayers fully, but the vast majority, hearing new words (whether added or replaced) ought to be better able to appreciate and understand them ; moreover, those who - owing to deficiencies in the old translation - were unable to grasp the meaning of the prayers, would now, theoretically, be able to better understand them ; that is, understand them anew. It appears perfectly fine to say that some prayers, being newly translated to better reflect their intended meaning, will, therefore, be new.

People will naturally say these prayers are new, for they have not heard them thus articulated before. People speak of movies, for example, being “newly remastered,” and owing to such work, are now better able to appreciate it (at least such is the goal). It would appear almost violent to demand people suppress such speech (calling them “new”) owing to a technicality.

Pax Christi,
Tim

I was trying to answer the question being asked: m8g8 asked the simple matter of whether there are going to be new prayers, not, vaguely, whether the current prayers might seem “new” due to clearer translation. People may speak of movies being “newly remastered,” but they do not call them “new movies.” The prayers in the new translation may seem “new,” but they will not be new.

It is my strong, strong hope, as the date approaches for the implementation of the new translations and new posters join to ask questions, that people will answer straightforward questions with straightforward answers (e.g., “So does this mean we are going back to Latin?” / “No.”) rather than with confusing metaphorical answers (“We are returning to the Latin roots of the Mass”), non-answers (“The Mass was already in Latin”), or the respondent’s own unhelpful interpretations and pipe dreams (“The Pope has made it clear that he wants the Latin Mass in every parish!”).

Seriously, please. A lot of people have only the barest idea what is going on with the changes, and those types of answers are going to breed a lot of confusion. (I’ve seen it quite a few times already on this forum.) Just answer straightforward questions from new or infrequent posters with straightforward answers. I don’t think that’s an “excessive” wish at all, Tim.

 

[ProVobis]

If the prayers require a better translation, then it stands to reason that - being better translated - the full meaning of those prayers are now able to be better understood. Granted, some who know ecclesiastical Latin may have and study the Latin originals, and thus already understand and appreciate the prayers fully, but the vast majority, hearing new words (whether added or replaced) ought to be better able to appreciate and understand them ; moreover, those who - owing to deficiencies in the old translation - were unable to grasp the meaning of the prayers, would now, theoretically, be able to better understand them ; that is, understand them anew. It appears perfectly fine to say that some prayers, being newly translated to better reflect their intended meaning, will, therefore, be new.

People will naturally say these prayers are new, for they have not heard them thus articulated before. People speak of movies, for example, being “newly remastered,” and owing to such work, are now better able to appreciate it (at least such is the goal). It would appear almost violent to demand people suppress such speech (calling them “new”) owing to a technicality.

Good post. There will always be a different meaning every time you change as little as one word. And it will always be “new.” (Removal of “men” in the “all men” consecration, for example, was a big deal to the feminist.) Also very seldom do you convey the same meaning as many words have several meanings. There are possible exceptions, such as “invisible” for “invisibilium” and “consubstantial” for “consubstantialem” but these are cognates. Where things get tricky with the English is the questionable insertion of subjunctives and articles. That can change the theology. For example, the words of consecration will be changed from “for you and for many” but watch the critics jump out (if they haven’t already) and try to say “for you and for THE many” instead. Big difference in meaning.

 

[ProVobis]

Personally, I believe heads ought role at ICEL for this… That’s just incredibly incompetent.

I don’t know if the ICEL can be entirely blamed for this. It’s the nature of translations. There have been very many attempts to translate the Bible into English over many centuries. And it seems each very version was supposed to be better than the one before it. Some translators paid a big price for their efforts.

Check out the timeline on these translations:

agards-bible-timeline.com/q2_bible_english.html

 

[Santi2]

I heard that it is and that a new missal will be released.

Does anyone know when? I need to buy a missal, but if it will change, I’ll wait.

Also, will the change be nation-wide?

Hope this helps.

liturgyoffice.org.uk/Missal/Resources/IntroductionFAQ.shtml

"When will the full text be used?

The full text will be used when it has been published. The Bishops have received the text of the Missal with the recognitio of the Holy See. However, some texts which are to be included in the Missal and are proper to England and Wales, i.e. the National Propers, are (January 2011) still awaited. Until all the texts have been received it is not possible to give a date for publication. The earliest it is likely to be is for Advent 2011 but it may be later than that."

 

[Timothy17]

I don’t know if the ICEL can be entirely blamed for this. It’s the nature of translations. There have been very many attempts to translate the Bible into English over many centuries. And it seems each very version was supposed to be better than the one before it. Some translators paid a big price for their efforts.

Check out the timeline on these translations:

agards-bible-timeline.com/q2_bible_english.html

ProVobis,

Compare the KJV to the Douay-Rheims at times. Very often they were looking at different manuscripts and versions of the Scriptures ; nonetheless, the biggest difference throughout is arguably in style. Here and there you see huge differences owing to certain critical words in sentences. That, in my opinion, is forgiveable ; however, could you imagine a translation, for example, of the Ten Commandments that rendered even one of those Commandments ambiguous or outright different ?

I do not believe for a moment that the current translation even warrants the name translation. It’s an interpretation given in English. As I showed, some of the prayers were unquestionably suppressed in the “translation.” Translators are not supposed to suppress anything contained or conveyed in the original, they are supposed to do their best to convey that information.

Victorious produced another stunning example of this :

*(Current)
Father,
keep before us the wisdom and love
you have revealed in your Son.
Help us to be like him
in word and deed.

(Revised)
Grant, we pray, almighty God,
that, always pondering spiritual things,
we may carry out in both word and deed
that which is pleasing to you.*

The ICEL must have went through a lot of white-out in creating their interpretation of the OF. Not only did ICEL eliminate words, but notice how neither the words “Father” or “Son” even appear in the revised version. It stands to reason that is because these words were not in the original at all. Source.

Pax Christi,
Tim

 

[ProVobis]

I do not believe for a moment that the current translation even warrants the name translation. It’s an interpretation given in English.

I’ll agree with you there.

It’s difficult enough matching the same idea in a different language using phrases which are understandable; but when prayers are removed or added in the process and then this new interpretation is used as a basis for expanding into more vernaculars, then one can say things have completely gotten out of control. I’m sure the Vatican II fathers did not envision a totally distorted and controversial view of the Mass when they allowed some vernacular into the Mass.

The Council of Trent in Session 22 under the term “Doctrine” stated that it is best not to translate the Mass into all-vernacular. It did specify that the liturgy should be explained without limitation. Big difference between a translation and an explanation.

 

[Joannm]

Beyond a reasonable doubt there was serious abuse by the original translators. Obviously a license was taken wherein the translators believed their job was not to translate but to determine and interpret the text.

Personally, I believe heads ought role at ICEL for this… That’s just incredibly incompetent.

There was no abuse. The translators at the time (ICEL) were simply using the directives given to them by the Vatican for translating texts. That instruction Comme le prevoit issed in 1969, included the criteria for translation, which, at the time, was dynamic equivilance. It stated "the language chosed should be that in “common” usage, that is, suited to the greater number of the faithfuyl who speak it in everyday use, even “children and persons of small education.”(#15a) It allowed for adaptation and changes in expression and speech.

Presently, we have now gone to formal Equivilance, or a more exact translation, as directed in the document Liturgiam Autenticam. Different directives, different guidelines for translation. So, no, it was not an abuse and they were not incompetent, just acting in accord with directives for translation they were given at the time. Could they have been better? Yes, and they attempted to improve it in 1998 but by then a new revision of the Latin text was announced so the revision was scrapped.

 

[laszlo]

I would like to thank everyone again for your explanations.

Personally, I do prefer ‘we’ in stead of ‘I’. It reminds you that you’re all together for the same thing. ‘I’ makes it feel like you’re only considering yourself.

As far as I understood the theological difference between the ‘we belive’ (previous ICEL translation) and the ‘I believe’ (new translation and the original form of the Creed) is what makes us living member of the Church.

The ‘we believe’ indicates that the baptism made us members of the Church, and we remain living members, no matter what. The ‘I believe’ indicates that each of us need continuous, repeatedly renewed adherence by confessing the faith and keeping the commandments, and without this no one is living member of the Church.

In the Old Testament God’s people were a birthright community, the individuals were crying of laughing with the Nation. In the New Testament the people of God belong not by birthright, but by their individual decisions, each individual is responsible for himself whether to receive God’s grace or not.

 

[benedictgal]

There was no abuse. The translators at the time (ICEL) were simply using the directives given to them by the Vatican for translating texts. That instruction Comme le prevoit issed in 1969, included the criteria for translation, which, at the time, was dynamic equivilance. It stated "the language chosed should be that in “common” usage, that is, suited to the greater number of the faithfuyl who speak it in everyday use, even “children and persons of small education.”(#15a) It allowed for adaptation and changes in expression and speech.

Presently, we have now gone to formal Equivilance, or a more exact translation, as directed in the document Liturgiam Autenticam. Different directives, different guidelines for translation. So, no, it was not an abuse and they were not incompetent, just acting in accord with directives for translation they were given at the time. Could they have been better? Yes, and they attempted to improve it in 1998 but by then a new revision of the Latin text was announced so the revision was scrapped.

Actually, Joanm, it was not that another revision of the Latin text came into being; rather, the CDWDS outright denied recognitio to the 1998 text, along with the translation of the Rite of Ordination. All of this prompted the formulation of the Vox Clara commission and a restructuring of ICEL, as well as the promulgation of Liturgiam Authenticam.

 

[Joannm]

Actually, Joanm, it was not that another revision of the Latin text came into being; rather, the CDWDS outright denied recognitio to the 1998 text, along with the translation of the Rite of Ordination. All of this prompted the formulation of the Vox Clara commission and a restructuring of ICEL, as well as the promulgation of Liturgiam Authenticam.

I have formally studied enough liturgical history to know the story. In fact I do know several people who were members of ICEL at the time. But, below is what the USCCB Committee for Divine Worship has on their website regarding the 1998 translation. Yes, there were some questions, but that is not why it was not approved. Knowing a new third typical edition was coming they just stopped the process and did not give the recognito. Why would they knowing a new text was in process for the millenium? It would not make sense to give its approval only to have it change again.

“After nearly ten years of extensive study, consultation, and review, the texts prepared by ICEL, along with a number of particular adaptations for the Dioceses of the United States, were approved by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. The Holy See raised a number of questions about the work, but ultimately never approved the text because of its intention to promulgate a third edition of the Missale Romanum in observance of the Jubilee Year.”

 

[benedictgal]

I have formally studied enough liturgical history to know the story. In fact I do know several people who were members of ICEL at the time. But, below is what the USCCB Committee for Divine Worship has on their website regarding the 1998 translation. Yes, there were some questions, but that is not why it was not approved. Knowing a new third typical edition was coming they just stopped the process and did not give the recognito. Why would they knowing a new text was in process for the millenium? It would not make sense to give its approval only to have it change again.

“After nearly ten years of extensive study, consultation, and review, the texts prepared by ICEL, along with a number of particular adaptations for the Dioceses of the United States, were approved by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. The Holy See raised a number of questions about the work, but ultimately never approved the text because of its intention to promulgate a third edition of the Missale Romanum in observance of the Jubilee Year.”

Nonetheless, Joanm, that still does not change the fact that the 1998 translation had some serious problems. I think we can agree on that.

 

[Joannm]

Nonetheless, Joanm, that still does not change the fact that the 1998 translation had some serious problems. I think we can agree on that.

I will agree, but it was a far better translation than the one we are currently using now.

 

[Victorious]

The Council of Trent in Session 22 under the term “Doctrine” stated that it is best not to translate the Mass into all-vernacular. It did specify that the liturgy should be explained without limitation. Big difference between a translation and an explanation.

I don’t think what we got was even an explanation. In so many ways, it was an obfuscation.

 

[Timothy17]

There was no abuse. The translators at the time (ICEL) were simply using the directives given to them by the Vatican for translating texts. That instruction Comme le prevoit issed in 1969, included the criteria for translation, which, at the time, was dynamic equivilance. It stated "the language chosed should be that in “common” usage, that is, suited to the greater number of the faithfuyl who speak it in everyday use, even “children and persons of small education.”(#15a) It allowed for adaptation and changes in expression and speech.

If the rule was only to be dynamic, than I might say there was no abuse, but seeing as the word equivalence is still there, than it follows it ought to be equivalent. Dynamic equivalence, then, meant simply nothing, because the “equivalence” could also be sacrificed for the sake of the “dynamic,” which is exaclty what happened.

I see this instruction is from the Consilium, which explains not a few things. I further see, from reading the document, that the responsibility was delegated to episcopal conferences, and if nations shared a common language, than the respective conferences were directed to establish an international commission to produce a common translation :

1. In accordance with art. 36 of the Constitution [a] and no.40 of the Instruction of the Congregation of Rites <Inter Oecumenici,>** the work of translation of liturgical texts is thus laid down: It is the duty of the episcopal conferences to decide which texts are to be translated**, to prepare or review the translations, to approve them, and “after approval, that is, confirmation, by the Holy See” to promulgate them.

**When a common language is spoken in several different countries, international commissions should be appointed by the conferences of bishops **who speak the same language to make one text for all (letter of Cardinal Lercaro to the presidents of episcopal conferences, dated 16 October 1964).[c]

This commanded translation responsibility from the Holy See to the Bishops, then immediately to delegates at a commission. You might as well have sent it to the U.N. for translating. Seeing as the Consilium itself was familiar with all the liturgical experts at the Second Vatican Council, and that it drafted the N.O, it would follow they [the Consilium] would be consulted as to credentials and experts on the matter of their work, the N.O., for the purpose of translating it.

I’m going to go out on a whim and say what we are seeing here is the* dynamic equivalent* of a game of musical chairs, or the *formal Equivalence *of Tag, with the Consilium as it.

I particularly like how the document appears unsigned. I suppose the game has changed again, and now we are playing hide and seek.

Pax Christi,
Tim

 

[ProVobis]

There was no abuse. The translators at the time (ICEL) were simply using the directives given to them by the Vatican for translating texts. That instruction Comme le prevoit issed in 1969, included the criteria for translation, which, at the time, was dynamic equivilance. It stated "the language chosed should be that in “common” usage, that is, suited to the greater number of the faithfuyl who speak it in everyday use, even “children and persons of small education.”(#15a) It allowed for adaptation and changes in expression and speech.

Part of those directives were to keep the translations ecumenical as well. Since the 60’s the Lutherans and Anglicans and other denominations have been using them as well. I don’t know to what extent the new English translations will be extended to the Protestant faiths.

 

[Joannm]

Part of those directives were to keep the translations ecumenical as well. Since the 60’s the Lutherans and Anglicans and other denominations have been using them as well. I don’t know to what extent the new English translations will be extended to the Protestant faiths.

I am sure that if any Protestant communities would want to adopt the revised texts they would be welcome to it. Given that for the most part there is no central governing body and many communities are independent, I don’t think there would be a big clammer to go for it. I would be more interested in the Lutherans and Episcopalians whose liturgical texts are very close to ours.