MASS in 2011

[Phemie]

No, nothing big for 5 years, at least. (And the second Confiteor won’t be coming back to either form, sorry). There are locales that have put off RS waiting for this translation.

Canada put off implementing the GIRM arguing that, technically, it doesn’t come into effect until the Missal does since it is specific to the third edition.

Haven’t heard anything on Redemptionis Sacramentum either: the basilica still uses glass chalices and ciboria, the Precious Blood is still being poured, etc. and while I was on holidays I saw the Host being fractured at the words 'he took bread, broke it…"

 

[CDNowak]

Canada put off implementing the GIRM arguing that, technically, it doesn’t come into effect until the Missal does since it is specific to the third edition.

Haven’t heard anything on Redemptionis Sacramentum either: the basilica still uses glass chalices and ciboria, the Precious Blood is still being poured, etc. and while I was on holidays I saw the Host being fractured at the words 'he took bread, broke it…"

That’s probably what I had heard about.

 

[corsair]

At first I was pretty excited about the New OF but after due consideration, I think I’ll reserve my opinion until after seeing how the Bishops and priests apply the new translations. Until then its going to be me and my favorite FSSP parish.

 

[dhomoney]

I guess I am really bless. In the diocese of Tulsa, under the leadership of Bishop Slattery, we have the liturgies followed. Our priests, teach the flock, from the pulpit, and they teach the true teachings of the Church. I know that at St. Joseph, in Muskogee, OK, Fr. Brooks is a wonderful priest. Last week during his homily during the Feast of the Trinity, he spent quite some time talking about the mystery of the Trinity, passing on the best example out there, the one proffered by the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen of H2O and its three persons/relationships while still always being H2O.

He also discussed this as the foundational belief of Christianity and how the JW and LDS don’t believe that. It was one of the best homilies I have ever been apart of. So, from what I have been reading on here, and hearing about from all over, I should consider myself lucky. I know that in Tulsa we also have the Parish of St. Peter, which is run by the FSSP and is an entire latin mass community. Fr. van der Putten is also a very good priest.

In the discussion of the 2011 Mass, I have read about it and read the missal up on the USCCB website, and I have noticed that Fr. Brooks is already implementing portions of it. I like the updates. They are more reverent, but in all reality, what would be best, in my opinion, would be the Mass, being a direct English translation of the Latin (1962) missal. Word for word, action for action. That would be a wonderful thing. The Novus Ordo doesn’t contain the reverence it should, at least in my not so humble opinion.

Growing up, when we would visit my grandparents, I would go to Mass with them at an Orthodox Church, as they were Orthodox. I loved their Mass. There was great reverence, tradition, and ritual. They hadn’t (1980s) ripped out the prayer rail. They still used incense in every Mass. That was a mystique that the NO Mass just doesn’t have. I have a feeling the Byzantine Rite Mass is on par with the Orthodox. Sadly, the 2011 doesn’t get us there, but it is a good step in the right direction.

 

[Phemie]

I guess I am really bless. In the diocese of Tulsa, under the leadership of Bishop Slattery, we have the liturgies followed. Our priests, teach the flock, from the pulpit, and they teach the true teachings of the Church. I know that at St. Joseph, in Muskogee, OK, Fr. Brooks is a wonderful priest. Last week during his homily during the Feast of the Trinity, he spent quite some time talking about the mystery of the Trinity, passing on the best example out there, the one proffered by the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen of H2O and its three persons/relationships while still always being H2O.

I’m lost. What does water have to do with the Trinity?

 

[Lormar]

I guess I am really bless. In the diocese of Tulsa, under the leadership of Bishop Slattery, we have the liturgies followed. Our priests, teach the flock, from the pulpit, and they teach the true teachings of the Church. I know that at St. Joseph, in Muskogee, OK, Fr. Brooks is a wonderful priest. Last week during his homily during the Feast of the Trinity, he spent quite some time talking about the mystery of the Trinity, passing on the best example out there, the one proffered by the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen of H2O and its three persons/relationships while still always being H2O.

He also discussed this as the foundational belief of Christianity and how the JW and LDS don’t believe that. It was one of the best homilies I have ever been apart of. So, from what I have been reading on here, and hearing about from all over, I should consider myself lucky. I know that in Tulsa we also have the Parish of St. Peter, which is run by the FSSP and is an entire latin mass community. Fr. van der Putten is also a very good priest.

In the discussion of the 2011 Mass, I have read about it and read the missal up on the USCCB website, and I have noticed that Fr. Brooks is already implementing portions of it. I like the updates. They are more reverent, but in all reality, what would be best, in my opinion, would be the Mass, being a direct English translation of the Latin (1962) missal. Word for word, action for action. That would be a wonderful thing. The Novus Ordo doesn’t contain the reverence it should, at least in my not so humble opinion.

Growing up, when we would visit my grandparents, I would go to Mass with them at an Orthodox Church, as they were Orthodox. I loved their Mass. There was great reverence, tradition, and ritual. They hadn’t (1980s) ripped out the prayer rail. They still used incense in every Mass. That was a mystique that the NO Mass just doesn’t have. I have a feeling the Byzantine Rite Mass is on par with the Orthodox. Sadly, the 2011 doesn’t get us there, but it is a good step in the right direction.

You give your Bishop Slattery a big hug for Lormar! You’re very blessed to have him.

 

[Joannm]

I .

In the discussion of the 2011 Mass, I have read about it and read the missal up on the USCCB website, and I have noticed that Fr. Brooks is already implementing portions of it. I like the updates.

.

No none is authorized to use any of the new translations until they are promulgated by our bishops, who have not even received the final form yet from Rome.

 

[Vico]

I was talking with one of the pastors I know today about GIRM. He said the revision will begin Advent 2011, which is about a year from now. He said mostly the priests portions change. But, I remember the English Mass from 1965-1970 and this will return:

V: “The Lord be with you.” (Dominus vobiscum.)
R: “And with your spirit.” (Et cum spiritu tuo.).

We are going back to “And with your spirit” response instead of “And also with you”.

I am wondering if the New American Bible fourth edition (2010) along with the revised Grail Psalms, that were recently approved, will be used in conjunction with the GIRM, for the Lectionary and Hours?

Also there are new celebrations (I think 18) including many for additional Saints, so the liturgical calendar will also be augmented.

 

[ProVobis]

But it looks like “Lift up your hearts. We lift them up to the Lord” remains, even though “lift” isn’t in the Latin. One of my pet peeves even with my old handmissal. (Ever heard of “lift down”?)

But then I could find fault with any translation.

 

[Vico]

But it looks like “Lift up your hearts. We lift them up to the Lord” remains, even though “lift” isn’t in the Latin. One of my pet peeves even with my old handmissal. (Ever heard of “lift down”?)

But then I could find fault with any translation.

V: Sursum corda.
R: Habemus ad Dominum.

The Mozarabic Mass uses the phrase “Levemus ad Dominum” instead of “Habemus ad Dominum,” more like Lamentations, and “lift up” is used in Douay Rheims. This is probably the reason it is translated with “lift up” in the Mass.

Lamentations 3:41 (Clementine Vulgate):

NUN. Levemus corda nostra cum manibus ad Dominum in cælos.

Douay Rheims (Challoner) translation:

Nun. Let us lift up our hearts with our hands to the Lord in the heavens.

Haydock commentary:
*

Up.

This posture “is the testimony of a soul naturally Christian.” Tert. Apol. — Our heart must accompany our hands. 1 Tim. ii. 8. C. *

 

[ProVobis]

V: Sursum corda.
R: Habemus ad Dominum.

The Mozarabic Mass uses the phrase “Levemus ad Dominum” instead of “Habemus ad Dominum,” more like Lamentations, and “lift up” is used in Douay Rheims. This is probably the reason it is translated with “lift up” in the Mass.

Thanks but which came first? It seems hearts should be addressed, not the “we” per se but that’s my opinion. Upwards, hearts, yes to our Lord, for example. It seems better in the Polish, W gore serca, mamy je ku Panu.

 

[Vico]

Thanks but which came first? It seems hearts should be addressed, not the “we” per se but that’s my opinion. Upwards, hearts, yes to our Lord, for example. It seems better in the Polish, W gore serca, mamy je ku Panu.

English and Polish word order is subject, verb, object, but in Polish a phrase can be moved for emphasis to the front of the sentence. If Polish is the native language, English may sound odd.

 

[Phemie]

Thanks but which came first? It seems hearts should be addressed, not the “we” per se but that’s my opinion. Upwards, hearts, yes to our Lord, for example. It seems better in the Polish, W gore serca, mamy je ku Panu.

Interesting.
The French translation is
Élevons notre coeur. (Let us raise our heart.)
Nous le tournons vers le Seigneur. (We turn it toward the Lord.)

 

[ProVobis]

English may sound odd.

I’ve noticed that in a lot of literal translations. That’s perhaps why the reluctance to accept the new English translation from a few. People are conditioned so that everything “sounds right” but can’t accept that this is the best the translators can do, and not realizing so much is lost in making it “sound right.” The amount lost differs from vernacular to vernacular, culture to culture.

For your reading pleasure, perhaps this gives a little more appreciation for the work that’s been done on translations by the Vatican from Cardinal Arinze:

it is not difficult to envisage how demanding and delicate the work of translation must be. Even more difficult is the question of adaptation and inculturation especially when we think of the sacredness of the sacramental rites, the centuries-old tradition of the Latin Rite, and the close link between faith and worship encapsuled in the old formula: lex orandi, lex credendi.
We turn now to the thorny question of translations into the vernacular in the liturgy.

1. On Translations into the Vernacular

The translation of liturgical texts from the Latin original to the various vernaculars is a very important consideration in the prayer life of the Church. It is a question, not of private prayer, but of the public prayer offered by holy Mother Church, with Christ as the Head. The Latin texts have been prepared with great care as to sound doctrine, exact wording “free from all ideological influence and otherwise endowed with those qualities by which the sacred mysteries of salvation and the indefectible faith of the Church are efficaciously transmitted by means of human language to prayer, and worthy worship is offered to God the Most High” (Liturgiam Authenticam, n. 3).

The words used in the sacred liturgy manifest the faith of the Church and are guided by it. The Church, therefore, needs great care in directing, preparing and approving translations, so that not even one unsuitable word will be smuggled into the liturgy by an individual who may have a personal agenda, or who may simply not be aware of the seriousness of the rites.

Translations should, therefore, be faithful to the original Latin text. They should not be free compositions. As Liturgiam Authenticam, the major Holy See Document that gives directives on translations, insists: “The translation of the liturgical texts of the Roman Liturgy is not so much a work of creative innovation as it is of rendering the original texts faithfully and accurately into the vernacular language” (n. 20).

The genius of the Latin Rite should be respected. The triple repetition is one of its characteristics. Examples are “mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa”; “Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, Kyrie eleison”; “Agnus Dei qui tollis…”, three times. A close study of the “Gloria in Excelsis Deo” also shows “triplets”. Translations should neither kill nor flatten out such a characteristic.

The Latin liturgy expresses not only facts but also our feelings, our sentiments, for example, in front of God’s transcendence, majesty, mercy and boundless love (cf. Liturgiam Authenticam, n. 25). Expressions like “Te igitur, clementissime Pater”, “Supplices te rogamus”, “Propitius esto”, “veneremur cernui”, “Omnipotens et misericors Dominus”, “nos servi tui”, should not be deflated and democratized by some translating iconoclast.

Some of these Latin expressions are difficult to translate. The best experts in liturgy, classics, patrology, theology, spirituality, music and literature are needed so that translations beautiful on the lips of holy Mother Church can be worked out. Translations should reflect that reverence, gratitude and adoration before God’s transcendent majesty and man’s hunger for God which are very clear in the Latin texts.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20061111_gateway-conference_en.html

 

[JMJ_coder]

I’ve noticed that in a lot of literal translations. That’s perhaps why the reluctance to accept the new English translation from a few. People are conditioned so that everything “sounds right” but can’t accept that this is the best the translators can do, and not realizing so much is lost in making it “sound right.” The amount lost differs from vernacular to vernacular, culture to culture.

Translation is an art not a science. 100% literal translations are always a complete failure because (if for nothing else) grammatical structures are different in different languages and communication thought also differs between languages. 100% literal translations also don’t take into account idiomatic expressions either in the source or target languages.

(please note that I am absolutely not in the school of thought of dynamic equivalence, a.k.a paraphrase and close enough).

 

[Brian777]

No, nothing big for 5 years, at least. (And the second Confiteor won’t be coming back to either form, sorry). There are locales that have put off RS waiting for this translation.

you are already wrong, many priests use the second confiteor in the EF, in fact the vast majority (not all) of them. the Ecclesia Dei commision approved adding it back in…now if they’d only reprint the old missal to include it…

so i could see a precedent for adding into the OF as well…although it may seem awkward at first, they’d need to place it just right.