New Liturgy Questions

[Catholic2020]

I’m a bit confused about everything. When do we start using the new translation? And why is the Mass changing? Everyone keeps talking about it. Do you know where I can get more information about everything thats happening? thanks a lot

 

[patrickp200]

I felt the same way. It’s all a bit confusing. The actual Mass isn’t changing it’s how it’s celebrated that’s changing. We will start using it Nov 27th. I found the Guide to the New translation of the Mass booklet helped me out a lot. It answers all the questions about the new translation and on the back it has a cool flap that folds out with the new texts. I hope that helped.

here’s the link to the booklet I’m talking about. I was so happy it’s only 2 bucks…I’m soo cheap hahaha

sunrisemarian.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Store_Code=sun&Screen=PROD&Product_Code=BWALK-gd

 

[ErrolXavierLobo]

Firstly, the Mass is not “changing”. Beginning 27th November 2011, we will begin to implement the Revised Missal which is ‘updated’ translations of existing texts which means greater fidelity to the Original Latin texts and prayers.

I recommend beginning with the FAQs section of the USCCB website.

 

[YoungTradCath]

The mass really isn’t changing. The translation of the mass is changing. It will go fully into effect on Sunday, November 27, the First Sunday of Advent.

The “master copy” of the mass, so to speak, is written in the Latin language. It is the standard (typical) edition of the mass, and it was released in 1970 by Pope Paul VI. From this Latin version comes the masses in the other languages, like English, German, Russian, etc. Groups of people assigned to a specific language get a copy of the Latin version and translate it into their language.

In the early 1970s, the first vernacular translations came out. There is a group, called the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL), that is responsible for translating the Latin original into English. So they did. But translation methods differ.

There are two main translation theories: formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence.

The formal equivalence theory tries to preserve as much of the original content as possible. Think of it as being a word-for-word translation method. The formal equivalence theory is a direct translation method. It tries to present in the new language, with as little correction/addition/removal as possible, exactly what is said in the original language, even if it sounds a tad bit odd. Translations following this method usually are somewhat complex, at least compared to dynamic equivalence translations.

The dynamic equivalence theory tries to present the idea of what the translator thinks is being conveyed in the original language. Think of it as being an idea-for-idea translation method. The dynamic equivalence theory is a more indirect translation method. It tries to present in the new language, with usually many corrections/additions/removals, the “gist” of what is being said in the original language, usually overlooking exactness. Translations following this method usually are somewhat simple, at least compared to formal equivalence translations.

Back in the day (time frame noted above), the powers-that-be in the Vatican issued an instruction that translations from the Latin original to the various languages follow the dynamic equivalence theory of translation. The Vatican favored this method, because bishops of the world expressed their wish that the translations be somewhat simple. So, ICEL translated the Missale Romanum into English. It was in the year 1973 that the final product came out.

There were many criticisms of this and other translations of the Roman Missal, but most notably the English edition. Most of them centered around the fact that many people found the wording too simple. They noticed that if you compared the Latin prayers to the English prayers, the English often did a very poor job at expressing what the Latin expressed. They found that the poetic nature of the Latin original was not captured or was captured very poorly in the English translation.

Two things, then, were blamed for this: the method of translation itself (dynamic equivalence theory, which does not stress exactness) and the very short amount of time the translation took (1970-1973).

Therefore, in the year 2001, a document was released by Pope John Paul II called Liturgiam authenticam, which means “authentic liturgy.” In it, the Pope ordered that the translations be as exact as possible, and that they preserve as much of what the Latin says as possible. Naturally, a new translation of the English version of the Roman Missal was needed. It was originally translated using the dynamic equivalence theory, and it was to be re-translated, because of Liturgiam authenticam, using the formal equivalence theory.

So, ICEL met up again, and they began to retranslate the missal. I’m not going to explain the whole process of how they did it, because I don’t think it’s important here. Anyways, they finished this translation in 2008; it took them seven years. The Vatican approved the translation. The Bishops’ Conferences of the English-speaking countries decided (with a few exceptions) that the new translation was to be implemented on November 27, 2011, and that date is now rapidly coming upon us. You will find that, starting that Sunday, the language of the mass, both yours and the priest’s, will be very much elevated in formality and eloquence over what we have been using for the past forty years.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I’m a bit confused about everything. When do we start using the new translation?

First Sunday of Advent, 27th November 2011.

And why is the Mass changing?

The Mass is not changing. The translation of the original Latin to English has been revised and improved. Other than the translation the Mass is staying the same. Of course, new music is also being composed for it.

Everyone keeps talking about it. Do you know where I can get more information about everything thats happening? thanks a lot

Yes, you should be able to get this from your parish!

 

[Church_Militant]

This thread might help you out. I found an excellent guide to the Mass Translation!

 

[promethius]

The mass really isn’t changing. The translation of the mass is changing. It will go fully into effect on Sunday, November 27, the First Sunday of Advent.

The “master copy” of the mass, so to speak, is written in the Latin language. It is the standard (typical) edition of the mass, and it was released in 1970 by Pope Paul VI. From this Latin version comes the masses in the other languages, like English, German, Russian, etc. Groups of people assigned to a specific language get a copy of the Latin version and translate it into their language.

In the early 1970s, the first vernacular translations came out. There is a group, called the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL), that is responsible for translating the Latin original into English. So they did. But translation methods differ.

There are two main translation theories: formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence.
The formal equivalence theory tries to preserve as much of the original content as possible. Think of it as being a word-for-word translation method. The formal equivalence theory is a direct translation method. It tries to present in the new language, with as little correction/addition/removal as possible, exactly what is said in the original language, even if it sounds a tad bit odd. Translations following this method usually are somewhat complex, at least compared to dynamic equivalence translations.
The dynamic equivalence theory tries to present the idea of what the translator thinks is being conveyed in the original language. Think of it as being an idea-for-idea translation method. The dynamic equivalence theory is a more indirect translation method. It tries to present in the new language, with usually many corrections/additions/removals, the “gist” of what is being said in the original language, usually overlooking exactness. Translations following this method usually are somewhat simple, at least compared to formal equivalence translations.
Back in the day (time frame noted above), the powers-that-be in the Vatican issued an instruction that translations from the Latin original to the various languages follow the dynamic equivalence theory of translation. The Vatican favored this method, because bishops of the world expressed their wish that the translations be somewhat simple. So, ICEL translated the Missale Romanum into English. It was in the year 1973 that the final product came out.

There were many criticisms of this and other translations of the Roman Missal, but most notably the English edition. Most of them centered around the fact that many people found the wording too simple. They noticed that if you compared the Latin prayers to the English prayers, the English often did a very poor job at expressing what the Latin expressed. They found that the poetic nature of the Latin original was not captured or was captured very poorly in the English translation.

Two things, then, were blamed for this: the method of translation itself (dynamic equivalence theory, which does not stress exactness) and the very short amount of time the translation took (1970-1973).

Therefore, in the year 2001, a document was released by Pope John Paul II called Liturgiam authenticam, which means “authentic liturgy.” In it, the Pope ordered that the translations be as exact as possible, and that they preserve as much of what the Latin says as possible. Naturally, a new translation of the English version of the Roman Missal was needed. It was originally translated using the dynamic equivalence theory, and it was to be re-translated, because of Liturgiam authenticam, using the formal equivalence theory.

So, ICEL met up again, and they began to retranslate the missal. I’m not going to explain the whole process of how they did it, because I don’t think it’s important here. Anyways, they finished this translation in 2008; it took them seven years. The Vatican approved the translation. The Bishops’ Conferences of the English-speaking countries decided (with a few exceptions) that the new translation was to be implemented on November 27, 2011, and that date is now rapidly coming upon us. You will find that, starting that Sunday, the language of the mass, both yours and the priest’s, will be very much elevated in formality and eloquence over what we have been using for the past forty years.

Very eloquently and respectfully stated.

 

[Joe_5859]

The mass really isn’t changing. The translation of the mass is changing. It will go fully into effect on Sunday, November 27, the First Sunday of Advent.

You gave a great, succinct history, but the one thing missing is that this new translation is actually of the new third edition of the Roman Missal. The translation we’re using now is from the 1970 first edition.

So the new translation is not a re-translation of the same 1970 text. It is actually the first English translation of the third edition of the Missal.

 

[YoungTradCath]

You gave a great, succinct history, but the one thing missing is that this new translation is actually of the new third edition of the Roman Missal. The translation we’re using now is from the 1970 first edition.

So the new translation is not a re-translation of the same 1970 text. It is actually the first English translation of the third edition of the Missal.

True, and I debated addressing that, but meh. The 1970 and 2000 text aren’t very different.

 

[ProVobis]

You gave a great, succinct history, but the one thing missing is that this new translation is actually of the new third edition of the Roman Missal. The translation we’re using now is from the 1970 first edition.

Is there somewhere we can compare the 1970 vs 2002 Latin? Semantically, maybe the Anglophones are getting a new liturgy.

 

[EasterJoy]

As an aside:

I just brought out a recording of two Masses by Palestrina, in Latin of course, but with the literal English translation in the liner notes. The Kyrie, the Gloria, the Credo, all of it. There it is, the fullness that the new translation is bringing back. Just lovely.

We have practiced the musical settings we’ll be using for the re-translation. I assume it was the liturgy committee and not just the music director, but the parish is using a re-working of an old setting that we all know. It isn’t totally awful, but I hope there will be something else before long, because the melody sounds awkward and forced.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Is there somewhere we can compare the 1970 vs 2002 Latin? Semantically, maybe the Anglophones are getting a new liturgy.

Ouch. That might be hard to find.

 

[EasterJoy]

The mass really isn’t changing. The translation of the mass is changing. It will go fully into effect on Sunday, November 27, the First Sunday of Advent.

The “master copy” of the mass, so to speak, is written in the Latin language. It is the standard (typical) edition of the mass, and it was released in 1970 by Pope Paul VI. From this Latin version comes the masses in the other languages, like English, German, Russian, etc. Groups of people assigned to a specific language get a copy of the Latin version and translate it into their language.

In the early 1970s, the first vernacular translations came out. There is a group, called the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL), that is responsible for translating the Latin original into English. So they did. But translation methods differ…

I clipped most of it off, but…Great summary! When you read the concrete content that was left out in the name of “dynamic equivalence”, it can be rather shocking. The heightened formality might take awhile to get used to, but the increased content is wonderful.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I clipped most of it off, but…Great summary! When you read the concrete content that was left out in the name of “dynamic equivalence”, it can be rather shocking. The heightened formality might take awhile to get used to, but the increased content is wonderful.

Right, and I think it’s very plausible to say that increased content can’t be expressed fully without increased formality. Banal language, by its very nature, can’t express ideas as well as can formal language.

 

[malphono]

Is there somewhere we can compare the 1970 vs 2002 Latin?

While I could very well be wrong, I seem to think that the differences in the typical editions are not textual as such, but rather concern the IGMR and the calendar. I haven’t seen Benedictgal around recently, but perhaps FrDavid can supply some further detail

 

[ProVobis]

When you read the concrete content that was left out in the name of “dynamic equivalence”, it can be rather shocking.

Not to challenge you, but what is the problem of dynamic equivalence when it better conveys the meaning? Not that it necessarily does in this case, but in general. More importantly, did the Church err in the 60’s by not using any of the traditional handmissal versions? It seems people lost interest in those handmissal versions by 1967, IMO.

 

[CharlesG]

The changes to the Latin text in the third edition from the second and first editions of the Roman Missal are not major. Here is what specialist Fr. Paul Turner had to say about them:

“There are some changes to the content, though these will be unrecognizable by all but
specialists in the field. For example, the liturgical calendar now includes additional saints’
days that affirm a more global and intergenerational witness to the faith. There are some
editorial changes to votive masses, some enhancements to the rubrics of Holy Week, and
improved sense lines for proclamation of the texts. Most of these emendations will go
unnoticed; the changes from the second to the third edition of the missal are small, but there are quite a number of them. One reason, then, that the English-speaking Roman Catholic Church is coming out with a replacement for the missal we have been using is that its contents have undergone a development.”

The above is from the following linked article:

paulturner.org/pdf_files/Translation%20Missale%20Romanum%20Worship%20changes.pdf

 

[YoungTradCath]

Not to challenge you, but what is the problem of dynamic equivalence when it better conveys the meaning? Not that it necessarily does in this case, but in general. More importantly, did the Church err in the 60’s by not using any of the traditional handmissal versions? It seems people lost interest in those handmissal versions by 1967, IMO.

But does it necessarily, and in this case particularly, convey better the meaning?

 

[EasterJoy]

Not to challenge you, but what is the problem of dynamic equivalence when it better conveys the meaning? Not that it necessilary does in this case, but in general. More importantly, did the Church err in the 60’s by not using any of the traditional handmissal versions? It seems people lost interest in those handmissal versions by 1967, IMO.

That’s just it…I don’t think it did. It may have been an attempt to crystalize the meaning, I don’t challenge the translator’s motives, but I think it condensed with loss of both meaning and effect. To be fair, they had less than half the time to do the translation and no experience of years with anyone else’s attempted translation concerning the catechetical effect of the translation. And yes, time will tell if this translation has an effect that is any better. Theory says it will, but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

Here’s one instance of what I think is a changed thought:
“In communion with those whose memory we venerate, especially the glorious ever-Virgin Mary, Mother of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ, and blessed Joseph, Spouse of the same Virgin…” came out as
“In union with the whole Church, we honor Mary, the ever-virgin mother of Jesus Christ our Lord and God. We honor Joseph, her husband…”

In the first, we are in communion with those whom we venerate, while in the second we are in communion with the whole Church in the act of honoring those saints. IMHO, it came out as a different thought, not a different way of expressing the same thought.

In the people’s parts, we see repetition for effect dropped…why? That technique is used in English poetry all of the time. There are adjectives dropped…why? For instance:

In the pentitential rite, we have “sinned” instead of “greatly sinned”, and “through my own fault” instead of “through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault”

I also don’t get the same sense from “we worship you, we give you thanks, we praise you for your glory” as I do from “We praise you, we bless you, we adore you, we glorify you, we give you thanks for your great glory”.

The attempt was to crystalize, that is a fair defense of the old translation, but IMHO the effect was diluted, instead.

Honestly, if you compare catechisms for children from the earlier times to the later, I think you see the same thing. The intent was to crystalize, to use clearer language, but the effect was too often dilute what was being said. The texts were easier to learn from, but when all was said and done, you hadn’t learned as much. There was real content lost in the condensation.

If that wasn’t true, if this was only a matter of two merely different ways of saying the same thing, I think this whole effort would have been pointless. As it is, I think there is a payoff that justifies the increased level of the language. IMHO, there is greater intensity of both thought and effect that justify using the original repetition and all of those ten-dollar words, and the difference between the old and new in terms of the both the ritual and the catechetical effect of the liturgy is substantial.

Since this change is not going to be cheap, let’s hope the changes prove in use to be all that is hoped they would be in theory!

 

[ProVobis]

But does it necessarily, and in this case particularly, convey better the meaning?

That’s somewhat subjective. Everyone who still went to Mass in 1970 said they understood the Mass more. Of course there is no evidence that anyone really did understand the Mass better in any English; they just didn’t want to study any more Latin.