Mass is changing for good?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jasev
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jasev

Guest
On the front page of catholic.com there is a link to the article that the Mass is Changing for Good.

I’m not sure I’m clear on what is changing or what is wrong with the current Mass.

Does anyone know… or has this not been communicated yet?

I’m guessing there is probably already a thread on this here… if so, please feel free to point me in that direction.

Thanks.
 
If you want to see what’s been changed with a little explanation, the USCCB has a website for that. Mostly, it’s an updated and better translation from the Latin into English.
 
jasev said:
On the front page of catholic.com there is a link to the article that the Mass is Changing for Good.

I’m not sure I’m clear on what is changing or what is wrong with the current Mass.

Does anyone know… or has this not been communicated yet?

I’m guessing there is probably already a thread on this here… if so, please feel free to point me in that direction.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
The change is a most welcome one and a most needed one. It pertains to the English-language translation. The new translation brings our prayers closer in line with the Latin original. The language is beautiful, solemn and befitting the majestic nature of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

You can find out about it more by following this link:

usccb.org/romanmissal/

The Ordinary of the Mass, including the Gloria, the Sanctus, etc, has already been out for almost two years. This was supposed to have given composers ample time to write new settings for the translations. The great news is that composers are prohibited from paraphrasing the parts of the Mass. The music must fit the text and not the other way around.
 
I believe a new missal is supposed to be coming out. I hope it includes more solemnity than the current one. The current Liturgy has allowed many abuses to occur and in my opinion has lost a great deal of the awe that the older liturgies have.
Compare this:

youtube.com/watch?v=vMJaDU7x_Xo

to this:

youtube.com/watch?v=snNZwZHxS20

Which of the two is more revrent towards God? I hope that the Eastern Churches follow suit and return to their patrimony. What makes the second one worse, is that there is young women dancing around in TIGHT clothes which makes it an occason of sin for any man struggling with temptation already.
 
my question here is, since the new translation is in English, would it be up to each country or localle to translate it further into another language? or should i say, up to the local Bishops Conference to translate it further.

i notice the Philippines being part of the group there. and while 75% of the masses are in English, there’s still a good deal of masses in Filipino (Tagalog) or the local dialect

same for Canada, which would have French and in some parishes, Chinese (Cantonese or Mandarin)
 
choy said:
my question here is, since the new translation is in English, would it be up to each country or localle to translate it further into another language? or should i say, up to the local Bishops Conference to translate it further.

i notice the Philippines being part of the group there. and while 75% of the masses are in English, there’s still a good deal of masses in Filipino (Tagalog) or the local dialect

same for Canada, which would have French and in some parishes, Chinese (Cantonese or Mandarin)
Click to expand...
The Mass in each language is translated from the Latin. The Mass does not get translated through an intermediate language.

The change happening now will affect all English speaking countries but only their English Masses. I don’t know if there is an ongoing update to the translations into Tagalog, French or any other language. Since the Missal came out in 1969, the English translation was one of the worst (if not THE worst). This has been a long time coming and much needed. 🙂

While there has been some talk of changing the Missal itself, the changes alluded to on the CA home page are language only. Nothing will be changing for most of us other than the prayers and responses. There are some diocese, however, that never really got around to implementing the GIRM or Redemptionis Sacramentum. Some of those diocese, I believe, are talking about making all the changes at once.
 
This is the third edition of the Missal since the revised liturgy. I doubt they will be revising it again any time soon. The third edition was promulgated, as all have been, in Latin. The revision we will be seeing is only a revision of the English version of the Latin text. It also affects more than those 13 or 14 conferences that have English as the official language of the liturgy. Some languages cannot translate well from the Latin and rely on the English to translate into their language. The revision will not affect the GIRM or any other aspect of the Mass, only the English translation.
 
My wife and I asked the Deacon who runs my RCIA class about the new translation. He had mentioned that it came about because of the previous translations coming directly from French by way of the Latin original. To clarify saying that they translated the French translation to English rather than English directly from Latin. He gave a couple of examples of where it falls short of the new translation but I forgot the specifics.
 
Justin1982 said:
My wife and I asked the Deacon who runs my RCIA class about the new translation. He had mentioned that it came about because of the previous translations coming directly from French by way of the Latin original. To clarify saying that they translated the French translation to English rather than English directly from Latin. He gave a couple of examples of where it falls short of the new translation but I forgot the specifics.
Click to expand...
It’s calledl Dynamic Equivalence. What this means is that the translation is not literal. It’s more of an interpretive translation than an accurate one. The new translation is based on the Latin original and is done under the guidelines of Liturgiam Authenticam, the authoritative document of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments which was promulgated by the Venerable Pope John Paul II back in 2001.
 
There are three changes: 1) there is a third edition of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (from 2000), 2) there is a third edition of the Roman Missal (from 2000), and 3) this third edition of the Roman Missal is being translated into English.

The new English translation will be used universally, that is, it is the de facto English translation to be used wherever the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite is celebrated in English.
 
japhy said:
The new English translation will be used universally, that is, it is the de facto English translation to be used wherever the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite is celebrated in English.
Click to expand...
Have the other English-speaking countries outside the US adopted the new translations yet?
 
JMJ_coder said:
Have the other English-speaking countries outside the US adopted the new translations yet?
Click to expand...
South Africa has, but, they jumped the gun. Now, I was paying careful attention to the celebration of the Papal Mass during Pope Benedict’s visit to Malta. Unfortunately, what was used was the current translation. There is talk that the new translation would be ready for him to use when he goes to England. Hopefully Cardinal Pell and Vox Clara can get things moving, if the Holy Father hasn’t already started putting some feet to the proverbial fire.
 
choy said:
my question here is, since the new translation is in English, would it be up to each country or localle to translate it further into another language? or should i say, up to the local Bishops Conference to translate it further.

i notice the Philippines being part of the group there. and while 75% of the masses are in English, there’s still a good deal of masses in Filipino (Tagalog) or the local dialect

same for Canada, which would have French and in some parishes, Chinese (Cantonese or Mandarin)
Click to expand...
The French has already been translated – much easier to do that from Latin. I don’t know for sure but I would suspect that it would be cheaper for the CCCB to allow an approved Missal translation from China to be used for those parishes that celebrate in Cantonese or Mandarin than to go ahead with its own translation.
 
JMJ_coder said:
Have the other English-speaking countries outside the US adopted the new translations yet?
Click to expand...
The new translation has not yet been given the final approval for use. It will probably not be used until Advent of 2011.
 
Phemie said:
The French has already been translated – much easier to do that from Latin.
Click to expand...
Indeed, and the current French translation has been around for quite a while. It has never been as controversial as the English translation, as you note going from Latin to French is easier. There are few minor quibbles: one example, after the 1st and 2nd readings, when the lector says “Verbum Domini” , the faithful, in Latin, respond “Deo gratias”, but in French the lector says “Parole du Seigneur” (correct) and the faithful respond “nous rendons gloire à Dieu” (incorrect). If literal had been used French should be “nous rendons grâce à Dieu”.

At the concluding rite, when the priest says “Ita missa est” the response “Deo gratias” is correctly translated into French as “nous rendons grâce à Dieu”. And “Ita missa est” is replaced with “Allez dans la paix du Christ”, which isn’t exactly a literal translation either.

But for the rest, the French translation is much better than the ICEL English.

Translation is not, unfortunately an exact science. As someone who has been struggling for several years with internationalization of software, and with experience in technical translation, I have found that you can have a translation that is literally correct but conveys the wrong meaning (for example a literal translation can be “insulting” in the way the statement is delivered).
 
OraLabora said:
Translation is not, unfortunately an exact science. As someone who has been struggling for several years with internationalization of software, and with experience in technical translation, I have found that you can have a translation that is literally correct but conveys the wrong meaning (for example a literal translation can be “insulting” in the way the statement is delivered).
Click to expand...
This is pretty much what Pope John XXIII said in Veterum Sapientia:
Immutable
Click to expand...
Furthermore, the Church’s language must be not only universal but also immutable. Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority. Thus if the truths of the Catholic Church were entrusted to an unspecified number of them, the meaning of these truths, varied as they are, would not be manifested to everyone with sufficient clarity and precision. There would, moreover, be no language which could serve as a common and constant norm by which to gauge the exact meaning of other renderings.
Click to expand...
But Latin is indeed such a language. It is set and unchanging. it has long since ceased to be affected by those alterations in the meaning of words which are the normal result of daily, popular use. Certain Latin words, it is true, acquired new meanings as Christian teaching developed and needed to be explained and defended, but these new meanings have long since become accepted and firmly established.
Click to expand...
 
jasev said:
On the front page of catholic.com there is a link to the article that the Mass is Changing for Good.

I’m not sure I’m clear on what is changing or what is wrong with the current Mass.

Does anyone know… or has this not been communicated yet?

I’m guessing there is probably already a thread on this here… if so, please feel free to point me in that direction.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
The current Mass omits the cup .See 1Cor.11:25-29

bluelake
 
Corki said:
:confused: What do you mean? The cup is consecrated as it always has been.
Click to expand...
I don’t want to type words into the person’s post, but, I think what he is trying to say is that the word “cup” has now been replaced with “chalice”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top