Latin Missal Translation

[Brother_John]

On several threads, I’ve read that one of the perceived problems with Mass in the vernacular is that the Latin was not “properly translated”.

But on other threads, those preferring TLM state that it is not difficult to follow if you just use the missal with the English and Latin side by side.

If the missal translation is of good enough quality for us to follow along a Latin Mass, why is the translation not good enough for a “quality” Mass in the vernacular?

 

[James0235]

On several threads, I’ve read that one of the perceived problems with Mass in the vernacular is that the Latin was not “properly translated”.

But on other threads, those preferring TLM state that it is not difficult to follow if you just use the missal with the English and Latin side by side.

If the missal translation is of good enough quality for us to follow along a Latin Mass, why is the translation not good enough for a “quality” Mass in the vernacular?

Because there is no Missal available with an accurate translation of the Ordinary Form of Mass.

If you are suggesting using a Missal designed for the TLM while attending the NO it would be a bit problematic. Many prayers are the same. But, many are different as well. The readings are different. And there are options in the NO that would not be in missals for the TLM. It would however most likely offer really good translations of the prayers the the 2 forms of the Roman Rite have in common.

James

 

[Brother_John]

I guess what I’m getting at, is that TLM fans often state the the OF is unacceptable to them because it isn’t properly translated, and that certain meanings are lost.

But if translations “lose” meaning, etc…how can a 1962 missal with side by side languages be acceptable, while the current OF is NOT?

The positions seem contradictorary. Or maybe I’m missing something…(ok, insert sarcastic comment here)

 

[ProVobis]

“If the missal translation is of good enough quality for us to follow along a Latin Mass, why is the translation not good enough for a “quality” Mass in the vernacular?”

The Mass in the vernacular was created by the ICEL, which didn’t exactly follow Latin grammar books in translations of readings or the Mass texts. It was criticized even before the New Mass was promulgated.

Although most missals have a very beautiful translation of the Tridentine Mass, the 1962 handmissal translation is nevertheless only a guide for the user; there is no official translation of the 1962 Missal. I would think, however, if the ICEL were to ever attempt to translate the 1962 Missal for official use, it too would get severely criticized. But no translation, no criticism.

 

[Brother_John]

“If the missal translation is of good enough quality for us to follow along a Latin Mass, why is the translation not good enough for a “quality” Mass in the vernacular?”

The Mass in the vernacular was created by the ICEL, which didn’t exactly follow Latin grammar books in translations of readings or the Mass texts. It was criticized even before the New Mass was promulgated.

Although most missals have a very beautiful translation of the Tridentine Mass, the 1962 handmissal translation is nevertheless only a guide for the user; there is no official translation of the 1962Missal. I would think, however, if the ICEL were to ever attempt to translate the 1962 Missal for official use, it too would get severely criticized.

Ok, so the side by side missals are admittedly, a “guide” as opposed to a “pure” translation? Thanks for clearing that up.

So, in attending a TLM, there ARE things that even with the missal, I wouldn’t understand or be able to “fully” translate?

 

[James0235]

I guess what I’m getting at, is that TLM fans often state the the OF is unacceptable to them because it isn’t properly translated, and that certain meanings are lost.

But if translations “lose” meaning, etc…how can a 1962 missal with side by side languages be acceptable, while the current OF is NOT?

The positions seem contradictorary. Or maybe I’m missing something…(ok, insert sarcastic comment here)

I think that when you translate something from one language to another you almost always seem to lose something it that translation. So, no translation is ever going to be perfect. But, some are bound to be better than others.

ICEL really botched our English language translation of the Mass. I would not say that it makes the OF unacceptable. But, I think it is an impoverishment. If the way we pray effects what we beleive (lex orandi, lex credendi) then I think that the upcoming re-translation of the Missal can only have a positive effect on the people attending. In some cases we will finally be praying the actual prayers rather than stripped down and truncated versions.

The difference between ICEL’s Mass translation and all of the various translations that appeared over the years in various TLM hand missals seems to be that the producers of these missal were actually concerned with faithfulness to the original texts.

I noticed years ago that my missal for the TLM translated “Et cum spiritu tuo” as “and with your spirit” whereas my missal for the NO translated it as “and also with you”. I am far from a Latin scholar but back then I realized that something was missing from ICEL’s version.

I don’t know about anyone else but I am very excited about the new Mass translation - probably as excited as I was about the rumored “universal indult” for the TLM. As much as I love the TLM I believe that the new translation could having an even greater positive influence on the Church. More Catholics will be immediately exposed to it than the EF of Mass.

James

 

[ProVobis]

“So, in attending a TLM, there ARE things that even with the missal, I wouldn’t understand or be able to “fully” translate?”

Perhaps, that’s why I think one can get more from the Mass from readings in both Latin and the vernacular. Two (name removed by moderator)uts (or even three) can’t be bad.

 

[James0235]

Ok, so the side by side missals are admittedly, a “guide” as opposed to a “pure” translation? Thanks for clearing that up.

So, in attending a TLM, there ARE things that even with the missal, I wouldn’t understand or be able to “fully” translate?

I don’t think so. It is all in there. If you compare various missals for the TLM they all tend to be very, very similar - even identical in places. But, the Church has not declared any particular translation as official.

James

 

[ProVobis]

“I think that when you translate something from one language to another you almost always seem to lose something it that translation. Os, no translation is ever going to be perfect. But, some are bound to be better than others.”

Actually it doesn’t even have to be two entirely different languages. Shakespeare, for example, needed to be rephrased a few times before the modern reader can read it. But if the reader is only going to read the modern version such as Cliff’s notes, he is not really reading Shakespeare.

 

[Brother_John]

“I think that when you translate something from one language to another you almost always seem to lose something it that translation. Os, no translation is ever going to be perfect. But, some are bound to be better than others.”

Actually it doesn’t even have to be two entirely different languages. Shakespeare, for example, needed to be rephrased a few times before the modern reader can read it. But if the reader is only going to read the modern version such as Cliff’s notes, he is not really reading Shakespeare.

I am too young to really remember Vatican II, but I vividly remember the changes in the Mass in 1969. I lived through that on just fine, and I suspect when the new translation comes I’ll be fine with that too.

 

[Brother_John]

“I noticed years ago that my missal for the TLM translated “Et cum spiritu tuo” as “and with your spirit” whereas my missal for the NO translated it as “and also with you”. I am far from a Latin scholar but back then I realized that something was missing from ICEL’s version”

Hmmm. I remember “And with your Spirit” in English after V2, but it changing to “And also with You” in '69? But, yes, there is a very different meaning to those two phrases if you look at it.

Smarter men than I wrote it though…and smarter men than I will do the next translation. Guess we’ll see what comes.

 

[James0235]

Hmmm. I remember “And with your Spirit” in English after V2, but it changing to “And also with You” in '69? But, yes, there is a very different meaning to those two phrases if you look at it.

Smarter men than I wrote it though…and smarter men than I will do the next translation. Guess we’ll see what comes.

I believe it was “And with your spirit” when English first began to be used in the Mass in 1965 until the NO was released in 1970.

ICEL’s translation was issued in 1973. And I have no idea what translation was used from 1970-7973.

James

 

[ProVobis]

“I am too young to really remember Vatican II, but I vividly remember the changes in the Mass in 1969. I lived through that on just fine, and I suspect when the new translation comes I’ll be fine with that too.”

That’s good but I’m sure there’ll be quite a few that will get freaked out when they hear those around them respond “And with thy spirit.” Or hear the true words of Consecration from the priest.

 

[Brother_John]

I believe it was “And with your spirit” when English first began to be used in the Mass in 1965 until the NO was released in 1970.

ICEL’s translation was issued in 1973. And I have no idea what translation was used from 1970-7973.

James

OK, I’m confused. Maybe I don’t fully grasp what all the initals concerning different types of Mass are. Can someone do a run-down? TLM, EF, OF, NO, etc…TIA

 

[James0235]

OK, I’m confused. Maybe I don’t fully grasp what all the initals concerning different types of Mass are. Can someone do a run-down? TLM, EF, OF, NO, etc…TIA

Sorry.

Novus Ordo Mass (NO) now often referred to as the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite (OF)

Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) now often referred to as the Extraordianry Form of the Roman Rite (EF)

James

 

[Brother_John]

Sorry.

Novus Ordo Mass (NO) now often referred to as the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite (OF)

Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) now often referred to as the Extraordianry Form of the Roman Rite (EF)

James

So what were we doing from 65 to 70 ?

 

[Caesar]

So what were we doing from 65 to 70 ?

Transitional Mass. It was the 1962 Roman Missal (the “Extraordinary Form”) but with gradual introduction of vernacular, multiple Canons, the elimination of elements such as the Last Gospel, and other similar changes to affect a transition into the Novus Ordo.

 

[James0235]

So what were we doing from 65 to 70 ?

Beginning in 1965 the Vatican took the 1962 Roman Missal (the same one used for the TLM now) and made a few changes. The texts of the Mass were kept exactly the same but some of the priest’s rubrics were simplified. And the vernacular was permitted to be used for certain prayers of the Mass.

This is commonly called the 1965 Missal but that is not really accurate as it wasn’t really a new missal. It was still the 1962 Missal but with a new Order of Mass rather than a new typical edition.

The text and more info here:

coreyzelinski.8m.com/1965_Mass/

The “1965 Missal” was officially replaced by the Nous Ordo Mass in 1970 - actually the 1st Sunday of Advent 1969.

James

 

[Brother_John]

Beginning in 1965 the Vatican took the 1962 Roman Missal (the same one used for the TLM now) and made a few changes. The texts of the Mass were kept exactly the same but some of the priest’s rubrics were simplified. And the vernacular was permitted to be used for certain prayers of the Mass.

This is commonly called the 1965 Missal but that is not really accurate as it wasn’t really a new missal. It was still the 1962 Missal but with a new Order of Mass rather than a new typical edition.

The text and more info here:

coreyzelinski.8m.com/1965_Mass/

The “1965 Missal” was officially replaced by the Nous Ordo Mass in 1970 - actually the 1st Sunday of Advent 1969.

James

To be honest, I LIKED the 1969 changes…but if it’s changed again, I’ll follow along

I wonder, (and I’m NOT mocking traditionalists), if there will be pockets of Catholics who will seek out the 1970 Mass? People of all ages resist change, ya know…

 

[James0235]

To be honest, I LIKED the 1969 changes…but if it’s changed again, I’ll follow along

What in particular do you prefer?

I wonder, (and I’m NOT mocking traditionalists), if there will be pockets of Catholics who will seek out the 1970 Mass? People of all ages resist change, ya know…

I guess I could picture the SSLJ being formed in the future - The Society of the Saint Louis Jesuits.

James