"Ite missa est": The Dismissal of the Mass

[Aureole]

Does anyone know the reason “Ite missa est”, the dismissal of the Latin liturgy, was translated as it was into “the Mass is ended, go in peace”? Apparently a rough translation of “Ite missa est” is “the dismissal is made” (Link) - I don’t understand Latin so I’ll have to take Dr. Dragani’s word for it.

If what he says is true then there is a problem already in the translation. “The dismissal is made” carries quite a different meaning than “the Mass is ended, go in peace”. Furthermore, there is a theological problem with “the Mass is ended, go in peace” since the Mass doesn’t end. To say that the Mass ends is to suggest that it is within time, however it is clear teaching that the liturgy is outside of time. This is why the sacrifice at the altar is the same sacrifice as the Cross - it is Calvary. We are participating in the heavenly worship at the Mass, so how can it “end”?

Could someone cast light onto these problems for me? Perhaps I’m making too much of it, but really it does not seem that way. Language is essential to the understanding of everything, especially nuances like this. Or perhaps I’m incorrect in my belief on the liturgy transcending time? Does anyone have an explanation?

 

[palmas85]

Does anyone know the reason “Ite missa est”, the dismissal of the Latin liturgy, was translated as it was into “the Mass is ended, go in peace”? Apparently a rough translation of “Ite missa est” is “the dismissal is made” (Link) - I don’t understand Latin so I’ll have to take Dr. Dragani’s word for it.

If what he says is true then there is a problem already in the translation. “The dismissal is made” carries quite a different meaning than “the Mass is ended, go in peace”. Furthermore, there is a theological problem with “the Mass is ended, go in peace” since the Mass doesn’t end. To say that the Mass ends is to suggest that it is within time, however it is clear teaching that the liturgy is outside of time. This is why the sacrifice at the altar is the same sacrifice as the Cross - it is Calvary. We are participating in the heavenly worship at the Mass, so how can it “end”?

Could someone cast light onto these problems for me? Perhaps I’m making too much of it, but really it does not seem that way. Language is essential to the understanding of everything, especially nuances like this. Or perhaps I’m incorrect in my belief on the liturgy transcending time? Does anyone have an explanation?

Welcome to the land of erroneous Latin translations!!!

Gloria en excelsis deo et en terra pax hominibus bonae volantatis

Glory to God in the highest and peace to his people on earth
Not even close
It actually means peace to men of good will.

**Credo en unum Deum
**
We believe in One God

Credo is singular,and is I believe, not we believe but the meaning at least is close

And of course the infamous pro multis
Which cannot be translated as or even mistaken for the phrase for all, yet is so translated…

Of course there are others apart from the Mass, Subsistit comes to mind. It does not mean to subsist as in English but rather to exist or is to be found… So in the translation of a certain Vatican Document where it says the fullness of truth subsists in the Catholic Church, thus implying it can exist in others, it really means the truth exists in the Catholic Church or** is found in** the Catholic Church. It does not in any way imply that it can be found in others and in fact effectively denies that concept.

See what a difference a single word can make when mistranslated?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Does anyone know the reason “Ite missa est”, the dismissal of the Latin liturgy, was translated as it was into “the Mass is ended, go in peace”? Apparently a rough translation of “Ite missa est” is “the dismissal is made” (Link) - I don’t understand Latin so I’ll have to take Dr. Dragani’s word for it.

If what he says is true then there is a problem already in the translation. “The dismissal is made” carries quite a different meaning than “the Mass is ended, go in peace”. Furthermore, there is a theological problem with “the Mass is ended, go in peace” since the Mass doesn’t end. To say that the Mass ends is to suggest that it is within time, however it is clear teaching that the liturgy is outside of time. This is why the sacrifice at the altar is the same sacrifice as the Cross - it is Calvary. We are participating in the heavenly worship at the Mass, so how can it “end”?

Could someone cast light onto these problems for me? Perhaps I’m making too much of it, but really it does not seem that way. Language is essential to the understanding of everything, especially nuances like this. Or perhaps I’m incorrect in my belief on the liturgy transcending time? Does anyone have an explanation?

Actually, I always thought it meant “Go ye, sent are ye” or, in more modern English, “Go, you are sent.”

 

[SnorterLuster]

In the St. Pius X Daily Missal it is translated, “Go, you are dismissed.” (1961)

In the Father Stedman’s My Sunday Missal it is translated, “Go, you are sent forth.” (1958)

In neither translation, is the mass mentioned or the word peace found.

 

[G_S]

Actually, the word Mass (Missa) is based on the dismissal. I believe that all but the Celtic languages derive their word for the Mass from Missa. Irish Gaelic has aifreann which is derived from offerans, the offering. Missa est is a perfect passive participle from the verb mittere, to send. A literal translation would be, Go (in its plural form, as in go ye) it is sent. Or, Go, it has been sent. What is the “it?” Well, it’s singular and the best opinion is that it refers to the particle of the Host from the bishop’s Mass which was carried by deacons to Masses celebrated elsewhere in the city by priests in the presbyteral rather than episcopal order. The particle would then be placed into the priest’s chalice thereby linking the Mass he was offering with the Mass offered by the bishop. [We can add here that many early writers, and theologians did not consider the Eucharist valid otherwise.] The congregation would not leave until the deacons had left and they were told, “go, it has been sent.” We are left with an ancient phrase whose original meaning does not relate to the way we celebrate the Mass – or at any time in quite a few centuries.

 

[jbuck919]

I have to think that the basic problem lies with the prosaic meaning of “Ite missa est,” which can be translated various ways, none of which is more inspiring than “Go, you are dismissed.” Doesn’t sound much like a very worthy conclusion to “the most beautiful thing this side of heaven,” does it? I don’t know for a fact, but I assume it was the signal in the Middle Ages to tell the great unwashed who could not tell what was going on in the Mass (except for the consecration–when a bell sounds we kneel, even though we’re not exactly sure why) that it was time to get their rear ends out of there

I am generally a literalist about translation, but it is never an easy issue. For instance, I do not understand why the proposed new English translation still does not say “Begotten of the Father before all ages,” a perfectly understandable, reasonable, and theologically correct translation of “Ex Patre natum ante omnia saecula.” But then I don’t understand reverting to “and with your spirit,” when “et cum spiritu tuo” was just a conventionalized way of saying something like “you too” (just as “per omnia saecula saeculorum” would and should never be rendered “for all the ages of ages.”)

So do I have a good solution for “Ite, missa est?” Not really. It could have just been dropped, as so much else from the TLM was, and the Mass concluded with the benediction. (This historically was the solution of the Protestant denominations that still retain, more or less, a version of the Roman liturgy.) But given a choice between telling people that they are dismissed and a rather beneficial modification such as “The Mass is ended; go in peace,” I can’t seriously object to the latter…

 

[Aureole]

Thanks for the replies everyone, I’ve learned quite a bit so far. However, no one but jbuck919 really answered my questions. I realise the translation is off and while it’s interesting to read through different translations of “ite missa est” it doesn’t address the why it was translated as “the Mass is ended, go in peace”.

But given a choice between telling people that they are dismissed and a rather beneficial modification such as “The Mass is ended; go in peace,” I can’t seriously object to the latter…

There wouldn’t be anything wrong with saying “go in peace” or some other such thing, what I have a problem with is “the Mass is ended”. I’ve already explained that above, so I won’t go back into it.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I was told some 60 years ago that Ite missa est was the traditional phrase to close meetings in ancient Rome. The Church picked it up from the secular culture of the time.

As I recall the literal translation is Go, the meeting is (implying finished or complete).

It is said by the deacon because the deacon inherited the secular role of keeping order in the meeting.

This is just what I remember; I don’t have a reference.

 

[Vox_Borealis]

There wouldn’t be anything wrong with saying “go in peace” or some other such thing, what I have a problem with is “the Mass is ended”. I’ve already explained that above, so I won’t go back into it.

Since ‘mass’ derives from missa (from mittere), a litteral translation in context could be: ‘go, it has been massed.’ But since ‘massed’ is the thing that is ‘missa’ (sent, dismissed, etc.), ‘the mass is ended’ actually captures the ancient and somewhat obscure Latin phrase pretty well.

I have no problem with 'Go, the mass is ended" (which I believe will be the new translation, whenever that is implemented). I do find, however, the never ending additions superfluous and annoying:

The mass is ended, go in peace → The mass is ended, go in peace to serve the lord → The mass is ended, go in peace to love and serve the lord AND one another → (and my personal ‘favorite’) the mass NEVER ends, it must be love, so go forth to love and serve the lord and one another.

Hoo boy.

 

[Vox_Borealis]

Furthermore, there is a theological problem with “the Mass is ended, go in peace” since the Mass doesn’t end. To say that the Mass ends is to suggest that it is within time, however it is clear teaching that the liturgy is outside of time. This is why the sacrifice at the altar is the same sacrifice as the Cross - it is Calvary. We are participating in the heavenly worship at the Mass, so how can it “end”?

Aha, I have re-read your original post. Someone more theological articulate will likely correct me, but shouldn’t we make a distinction between the transcendant quality of the mass (which you correctly point out is outside of time) and the reality that our human experience of the mass exists within time? I mean, the church requires that we go to mass on Sunday–but if the mass exists outside of time, how can we identify on what ‘mass’ happens, and when we should go?

Clearly we are ‘in church’ for some period of human time, and the sacrifice of Calvary is made real for us through a series of words and phrases that begin and end in human time, while still existing outside of time for all time.

Thus, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that ‘the mass is ended’ (the ‘mass’ being the ‘it’ of ‘it has been massed’) refers in our inadequate human language to the series of words and gestures that encompass the human (and temporally bound) experience of the sacrifice–of that 50 minutes when we are ‘in church’ in human time and space.

To say that this thing, which we commonly call ‘the mass’ has ‘ended’ in human terms causes no theological problem, so long as we realize that the sacrifice of Cavalry exists outside of time.

 

[Trevelyan]

Does anyone know the reason “Ite missa est”, the dismissal of the Latin liturgy, was translated as it was into “the Mass is ended, go in peace”? Apparently a rough translation of “Ite missa est” is “the dismissal is made” (Link) - I don’t understand Latin so I’ll have to take Dr. Dragani’s word for it.

If what he says is true then there is a problem already in the translation. “The dismissal is made” carries quite a different meaning than “the Mass is ended, go in peace”. Furthermore, there is a theological problem with “the Mass is ended, go in peace” since the Mass doesn’t end. To say that the Mass ends is to suggest that it is within time, however it is clear teaching that the liturgy is outside of time. This is why the sacrifice at the altar is the same sacrifice as the Cross - it is Calvary. We are participating in the heavenly worship at the Mass, so how can it “end”?

Could someone cast light onto these problems for me? Perhaps I’m making too much of it, but really it does not seem that way. Language is essential to the understanding of everything, especially nuances like this. Or perhaps I’m incorrect in my belief on the liturgy transcending time? Does anyone have an explanation?

The Mass does end and the Liturgy is not outside of time: it is the sacrifice of Christ that never ends and the heavenly Liturgy is outside of time - both of which are made present IN time and place in the Liturgy/Mass. The Liturgy is an action that the members of the Church perform/take part in - IN time and place and in a human way - sight smell touch taste etc etc. It has a clear begining and end as an action which we perform.

As for Ite, Missa est: It could be translated Go, it has been sent or Go, it is the dismissal (depending on whether missa is translated as the perfect participle of the verb mittere [sent/having been sent] or is taken as a noun meaning ‘sending forth/dismissal’).

 

[Aureole]

Thanks for the information Joe Kelley. Now that you mention it I can recall much discussion on how the Mass is close to Roman meetings. The translation also makes a lot of sense, though I’m sure many would be confused if a priest said that.

Vox Borealis, thank you for your responses as well. I’ll get back to you sometime tomorrow, it’s rather late now else I would do it tonight.