New Liturgy Questions

[ProVobis]

Translating according to dynamic equivalence leaves things out and overly simplifies them.

It doesn’t make any difference in the courtroom. If a lawyer uses the term ad hoc, he doesn’t have to translate it for the judge. It only means one thing. He isn’t going to try to say the literal translation is “to this” because that would be almost meaningless or totally vague. (It actually means more along the line “for a specific purpose” which would be considered its dynamic equivalent.) Same for expressions like corpus habeas, literally “may you have the body”, dynamically, “bring a person before a court.” Or de facto (“from the fact” vs “in reality”) and so forth. Literal translations have some value but one needs to think about it before he captures the meaning, whereas a lawyer only has to think “ad hoc” or “habeas corpus” to know what’s before him.

In the Latin Hoc est corpus meum means only one thing, that a sacred consecration has taken place. In the English “This is my Body” can mean a whole ton of things, a woman screaming for her rights, a child screaming for more candy, or a consecration. To know that it’s literal or dynamic doesn’t affect the meaning and that’s all I’m going to say on this thread.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

But these changes were never adopted, and besides they weren’t a new translation: it still used the same traditional language of the 1662 prayer book with some adjustments to the shape and the rubrics. Textual revision only took place after 1966.

Having read ProVobis’s reply though I agree with the general point he was making about translations, but am adament that the CofE Liturgy has not been subject to many translations. But there are, of course, different liturgies across the Anglican Communion.

To say these changes were never adopted is factually incorrect. The CofE deposited a proposed “new” Prayer Book to Parliament in 1927 and Parliament refused to approve it. (Why the CofE needs approval, as it did then, from the British Parliament to change its liturgy is a different argument.) The CofE made amendments and sought approval again in 1928, which was also refused. However, the 1928 version was widely adopted and used despite its lack of official approval.

I seem to have misunderstand the main thrust of your original point. I would agree that the form of English used wasn’t changed until the 1960’s.

 

[KevinKuck]

I just found a great resource, that outlines the changes in the people’s parts that begin on the 27th at this link:

old.usccb.org/romanmissal/samples-people.shtml

Also, I came across a PDF of the annotated mass, and if anyone else has read all four of the eucharistic prayers specifically, I’d love to know what you think. I can see the first eucharistic prayer being a great challenge to Catholicism in America while number four seems most palpable. Admittedly, I like the second and third ones best, but I guess as always, this will be at the discretion of the priest.

 

[TheMc]

I just found a great resource, that outlines the changes in the people’s parts that begin on the 27th at this link:

old.usccb.org/romanmissal/samples-people.shtml

Also, I came across a PDF of the annotated mass, and if anyone else has read all four of the eucharistic prayers specifically, I’d love to know what you think. I can see the first eucharistic prayer being a great challenge to Catholicism in America while number four seems most palpable. Admittedly, I like the second and third ones best, but I guess as always, this will be at the discretion of the priest.

I prefer 1.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I just found a great resource, that outlines the changes in the people’s parts that begin on the 27th at this link:

old.usccb.org/romanmissal/samples-people.shtml

Also, I came across a PDF of the annotated mass, and if anyone else has read all four of the eucharistic prayers specifically, I’d love to know what you think. I can see the first eucharistic prayer being a great challenge to Catholicism in America while number four seems most palpable. Admittedly, I like the second and third ones best, but I guess as always, this will be at the discretion of the priest.

I’ve never actually ever even heard the Fourth Eucharistic Prayer at any mass :/.

I prefer the Roman Canon. Why do you say that it will be a great challenge in America? Because it might… actually… instill a little… guilt… gasp… into the congregation?

 

[KevinKuck]

I do think the new Eucharistic Prayer 1 is quite beautiful, but it so heavily traditional compared to the other 3 that I can imagine a lot of parishes in America opting not to use it. In contrast, I believe the new eucharistic prayer 4 represents its opposite in that regard. But I suppose that’s the great thing about having four options. Just from a pure linguistic and poetic approach, I think #2 is the most beautiful. Currently, at my own parish, the priest tends to alternate quite regularly between all eucharistic prayer options, so I am used to hearing all the options.

 

[Phemie]

I do think the new Eucharistic Prayer 1 is quite beautiful, but it so heavily traditional compared to the other 3 that I can imagine a lot of parishes in America opting not to use it. In contrast, I believe the new eucharistic prayer 4 represents its opposite in that regard. But I suppose that’s the great thing about having four options. Just from a pure linguistic and poetic approach, I think #2 is the most beautiful. Currently, at my own parish, the priest tends to alternate quite regularly between all eucharistic prayer options, so I am used to hearing all the options.

How many parishes do you know that use EP 1 now? I don’t think I’ve heard it in 10 years.

 

[FrDavid96]

I just found a great resource, that outlines the changes in the people’s parts that begin on the 27th at this link:

old.usccb.org/romanmissal/samples-people.shtml

Also, I came across a PDF of the annotated mass, and if anyone else has read all four of the eucharistic prayers specifically, I’d love to know what you think. I can see the first eucharistic prayer being a great challenge to Catholicism in America while number four seems most palpable. Admittedly, I like the second and third ones best, but I guess as always, this will be at the discretion of the priest.

Eucharistic Prayer I is my favorite, by far. I always use it at the solemn Mass on Sundays, major feast days, and saints who are mentioned in the canon.

I don’t see how it’s “a challenge to Catholicism.” On the contrary, it’s a great benefit.

Personally, I don’t like IV–nothing but a personal preference. I have looked at the new version of IV, and I might be trying it at least once when the time comes.

I can’t actually say what I don’t like about IV, because I’ve struggled to put it into words. I can’t describe why, but I just don’t feel comfortable using it. I won’t know about the new translation of IV until I actually use it at Mass.

It’s nice to have II available for daily Masses.

 

[FrDavid96]

How many parishes do you know that use EP 1 now? I don’t think I’ve heard it in 10 years.

It’s quite popular here in the US.

 

[Dirt]

I do think the new Eucharistic Prayer 1 is quite beautiful, but it so heavily traditional compared to the other 3 that I can imagine a lot of parishes in America opting not to use it. In contrast, I believe the new eucharistic prayer 4 represents its opposite in that regard. But I suppose that’s the great thing about having four options. Just from a pure linguistic and poetic approach, I think #2 is the most beautiful. Currently, at my own parish, the priest tends to alternate quite regularly between all eucharistic prayer options, so I am used to hearing all the options.

The development of alternative Eucharistic Prayers after V-II have, imho, led to much of the loss of sacredness in the Mass as it exists today. The Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer #1) IS the Prayer of the Church. This Prayer, in it’s many parts is second only to the Creed in stating what we believe. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi! For those who have never been exposed to the EF, please go to one of the many websites that have the rite in english and read the Canon. I cannot read/here this prayer without being imeidiatly drawn to God! Just my opinion.

Pax Christi

 

[YoungTradCath]

It’s quite popular here in the US.

Really?

 

[ProVobis]

I cannot read/here this prayer without being imeidiatly drawn to God! Just my opinion.

Pax Christi

I will do it for you then. This part seems to sum it up. It’s hard not to see/hear the Holy Sacrificial Victim here.

…
Supra quæ propitio ac sereno vultu *
Upon which gracious and serene face
*
respicere digneris:
to look may You grant:

*et accepta habere, sicuti accepta habere dignatus es *
and accept to have, just as accepted to have you granted

munera pueri tui justi Abel,
gifts of servant Your just Abel,

*et sacrificium Patriarchæ nostri Abrahæ: *
and sacrifice of Patriarch our Abraham:

et quod tibi obtulit summus sacerdos tuus Melchisedech,
and which to You were offered by most high priest Your Melchisedech,

sanctum sacrificium, immaculatam hostiam.
holy sacrifice, immaculate victim.

*Supplices te rogamus, omnipotens Deus: *
Humbly You we beseech, almighty God:

*jube hæc perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui *
command these to be brought by hands of holy Angel Your

*in sublime altare tuum, *
to sublime altar Your,

in conspectu divinæ majestatis tuæ;
in presence of divine majesty Your;

*ut quotquot, ex hac altaris participatione *
that however many, from this altar participation

sacrosanctum Filii tui Corpus et Sanguinem sumpserimus,
most sacred of Son Your Body and Blood receive,

omni benedictione cælesti et gratia repleamur.
every blessing heavenly and grace may be filled.

rickmk.com/Mass/masstext.html

 

[Dirt]

Agreed, ProVobis. Thanks for the link.

Pax Christi

 

[ProVobis]

Agreed, ProVobis. Thanks for the link.

Pax Christi

A couple of small details need to be changed. In the line:

sacrosanctum Filii tui Corpus et Sanguinem sumpserimus,

the verb is future perfect, so the literal interpretation would be “we will have received [the most sacred Body and Blood of your Son]”

And in the line:

omni benedictione cælesti et gratia repleamur,

it’s “we may be filled [with] every heavenly blessing and grace.”

Or use the new translation if it doesn’t agree with mine.

 

[KevinKuck]

How many parishes do you know that use EP 1 now? I don’t think I’ve heard it in 10 years.

I don’t know about other parishes, but my priest (I had a delightful conversation with him this weekend) hasn’t used it it in many years and I now know he will not be using the new #1 at all. He will be using #2 and #3 alternately. He did say #4 was too long.

 

[Dirt]

I don’t know about other parishes, but my priest (I had a delightful conversation with him this weekend) hasn’t used it it in many years and I now know he will not be using the new #1 at all. He will be using #2 and #3 alternately. He did say #4 was too long.

sad

 

[YoungTradCath]

Yeah, sad. The aversion, I think, to the Roman Canon is that it contains guilt-inducting language. God forbid we feel sorry for our sins!

 

[TheMc]

Yeah, sad. The aversion, I think, to the Roman Canon is that it contains guilt-inducting language. God forbid we feel sorry for our sins!

LOL! What a great response.

 

[EasterJoy]

Yeah, sad. The aversion, I think, to the Roman Canon is that it contains guilt-inducting language. God forbid we feel sorry for our sins!

Some people do not understand that there is a difference between guilt and shame. If they did, then I don’t think guilt would have such a bad name.

 

[EasterJoy]

I don’t know about other parishes, but my priest (I had a delightful conversation with him this weekend) hasn’t used it it in many years and I now know he will not be using the new #1 at all. He will be using #2 and #3 alternately. He did say #4 was too long.

Too long? Most priests I know are very saddened when the only objection that makes someone reject a liturgical prayer is that it is “too long.”

I’ve been hearing #1 with some regularity since childhood.