New Liturgy?

[ProVobis]

This was somewhat reinforced at Session XII:

Correction: Session VII.

Also, ad nauseum s/b ad nauseam. (We can’t allow error in the Latin. )

 

[pro_multis]

Thus, regardless of the music, the Mass is not supposed to have any variations to it.

Obviously this is not happening.

Disclaimer: I have never heard of the GIRM until a few days ago when it was mentioned on this message board.

What controlling authority is this document supposed to have? I perceive that it is to govern masses in the US, but I read through parts of it and traditional priests commit numerous violations. It is apparant that many parts are ignored in the N.O. as well.

 

[CDNowak]

Obviously this is not happening.

Disclaimer: I have never heard of the GIRM until a few days ago when it was mentioned on this message board.

What controlling authority is this document supposed to have? I perceive that it is to govern masses in the US, but I read through parts of it and traditional priests commit numerous violations. It is apparant that many parts are ignored in the N.O. as well.

The GIRM is particular to the Missal for which it was released (the OF/N.O./Pauline). It is fully part of the Church’s liturgical law for that rite, carrying as much weight as the Missal itself. For the most part the GIRM applies everywhere to the Latin Rite, but each country has approved adaptations (which were inserted into the text).

 

[stephraim]

Thus, regardless of the music, the Mass is not supposed to have any variations to it.

Exactly. The Fathers chose the most suitable texts, usually biblical, as appropriate antiphons and psalms for each liturgy. This is similar in the Eastern Rite Divine Liturgies where the troparia and kontakia are usually liturgy-specific. Most parishes, unfortunately, take advantage of option IV and sing ‘a suitable hymn’ too often. Some of that is due to ignorance of Propers and difficulty of Franco-Roman “Gregorian” chant. Some Old-Roman chant is slightly less difficult, though much is more so. Perhaps hymns should be composed for the English Propers (a project I’m working on, as well as setting them to my own chant compositions). Still, I doubt that would solve many of the current issues. Three cheers for a good trained schola.

 

[Phemie]

Obviously this is not happening.

Disclaimer: I have never heard of the GIRM until a few days ago when it was mentioned on this message board.

What controlling authority is this document supposed to have? I perceive that it is to govern masses in the US, but I read through parts of it and traditional priests commit numerous violations. It is apparant that many parts are ignored in the N.O. as well.

The GIRM is part and parcel of the Roman Missal, it’s its introduction. Known in Latin as **"Institutio Generalis Missale **Romanum" (IGMR), it applies to everyone although Bishops’ Conferences have some latitude in adapting specific items for their flock (posture, for example). The GIRM you find on the USCCB & Vatican websites is the US version with adaptations included in the body.

Some Conferences print the universal GIRM with an addendum for the adaptations specific to the Conference. I usually go a UK Conference website if I want to see what the universal norm is for a specific item. Then I compare with the French & US and Latin (all of which are on the Vatican website (vatican.va)

 

[japhy]

The Council of Trent tried to correct all the heresies brought upon by the Reformists. And how did the Reformists (Luther et al) sell their heresies? By changing them to the vernacular for starters. No doubt the theology changes when you fill in verbs (We have **lifted **them up, May God be with you, etc.) which aren’t there in the Latin.

Right, which is why a knowledgeable and accurate translation in the vernacular is necessary to explain the liturgy to anyone. Even if the person knows Latin, they do not necessarily know what verbs are implied in every given sentence! Looking back to the older liturgies, whether in Greek, Latin, Aramaic, etc., help us understand what is meant in cases of ambiguity.

I think Vatican II (and maybe Trent implied it) allowed the vernacular to the extent that the benefit would exceed the cost of the risk of introducing error into the liturgy. But do we know in all cases that error has not been introduced in the English? We have only had the Vatican’s word for it up to this point. But since they now they are changing it again, somehow the credibility and this “expediency” appear to have fallen short of their goals.

What Vatican II said should happen, and what did happen, are sadly very often two different things. (And yet, Vatican II said the books should be revised as soon as possible!) These translations are only as good as the ideology and scholarship and leadership behind them, and those appear to have been lacking (or errant) back in the 60’s. There is clearly a new approach to translation today.

There are problems (errors, even) in the current English translation which lead people to erroneous (heretical, even) ideas about the Church, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, God… you name it. The hierarchical leadership in the Church missed these, or underestimated them, or was slow to act on them, until recently.

Couldn’t all this have been avoided then or be avoided now by just sticking to the Latin?

If there is a correct way to teach the faithful what the liturgy means in their vernacular, it follows there should be a correct vernacular translation of the liturgy. It then becomes a matter of: do the benefits of using this correct vernacular translation outweigh the potential hazards it introduces? What are the hazards introduced by a correct translation? (I’m not asking that as if I think there are none – I’d like to hear answers from others before I offer my own.)

 

[phrederik]

There are problems (errors, even) in the current English translation which lead people to erroneous (heretical, even) ideas about the Church, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, God… you name it. The hierarchical leadership in the Church missed these, or underestimated them, or was slow to act on them, until recently.

can you give examples please of these errors, especially of heresy, in the Mass?

 

[japhy]

can you give examples please of these errors, especially of heresy, in the Mass?

Let’s be clear: I didn’t say there are heresies in the English translation of the Mass, nor in the Latin text of the Ordinary Form. But there are errors in the current English translation that can lead people to heretical conclusions.

Here are two examples from the Nicene Creed. First, remember that everything we say in the Creed is there for a reason: it is defining and defending catholic faith against various heresies that came up challenging it.

1. We currently say that God is the “maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.” That is an inaccurate translation of the Latin "… visibílium … et invisibílium. By saying visibilum in the Latin text, we mean all of physical creation, even that which is visible but yet unseen by us (like the farthest reaches of space), and by invisibilum, we mean all the spiritual realm, even that which sometimes manifests itself to us in ways we can detect, even with our eyes. The invisible includes, first and foremost, angels and souls.

The belief that the same God created both the physical and the spiritual attacks one of the early heresies which plagued the Church, Gnosticism (and specifically, Manichaeism). The Gnostic viewpoint generally considered the flesh and all material, physical things as evil (as opposed to “good” and “very good” as God declares them in Genesis 1), the product of an evil god, while the spiritual and non-corporeal things were created by a good god. To advance this heresy, the Gnostics taught that the god of the Old Testament was an evil corruptor who captured pure spiritual beings in bodies of flesh and subjected them to laws and statutes, and that Jesus defeated this demon and revealed the true god in the New Testament.

The faith of the Church, contrary to the Gnostic heresy, testifies that the God Who revealed Himself to Israel and the God Whom Jesus revealed to His disciples are one and the same God. This means that there is a unity in the Scriptures, because this one God is the divine Author of both the Old and New Testaments.

A person could conceivably believe God created all that is “seen and unseen” without actually meaning he or she thinks God created the spiritual realm – he or she could deny the existence of angels, for example.

1. In the current translation of the Creed, we say Jesus was “born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.” That is an inaccurate translation of the Latin incarnátus est … ex María Vírgine, et homo factus est.

In the old translation of the Creed, the phrase “incarnatus est” was translated as “he was born” instead of “he was incarnate.” By saying “he was born (natus est) of the Virgin Mary and became man,” one might assume that He only “became man” at His birth. This is contrary to the true text of the Creed, and also to the faith of the Church concerning the humanity of the unborn: at the moment of conception, there is a living human being, a person. Jesus became man at the moment He received His flesh, at His conception, not at His birth.

So those are two mistranslations that can lead to people believing heresy and thinking that it’s actually the faith of the Church!

 

[ProVobis]

Right, which is why a knowledgeable and accurate translation in the vernacular is necessary to explain the liturgy to anyone. Even if the person knows Latin, they do not necessarily know what verbs are implied in every given sentence! Looking back to the older liturgies, whether in Greek, Latin, Aramaic, etc., help us understand what is meant in cases of ambiguity.

Here’s an excerpt of what Pope John XXIII wrote in Veterum Sapientia just a few months before he convened the Vatican II council:

…
[8] 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 that could serve as a common and constant norm by which
to gauge the exact meaning of other renderings.

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.

[9] Finally, the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of
every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is
altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble
and majestic, and non-vernacular.

…

PS. Pope John XXIII never signed any of the council documents.

 

[japhy]

Here’s an excerpt of what Pope John XXIII wrote in Veterum Sapientia just a few months before he convened the Vatican II council…

Yes, I’ve read VS, and I wish it had been taken more seriously in the years during and following the Council.

But the fact remains that in order to teach someone the faith accurately, the student must either learn Latin or receive an accurate translation into the vernacular of the doctrines of the Church. Catechisms have been translated accurately into the vernacular for centuries! The liturgy can be translated accurately too.

Whether the liturgy should be celebrated in the vernacular is another matter. (It’s one thing to have a personal missal that has Latin on one page and a decent translation on the next; it’s another to celebrate the liturgy in the vernacular.) I think there is a place for the vernacular in the liturgy, but I don’t think the whole liturgy should be celebrated in the vernacular. I’m much more in favor of a Latin-vernacular “hybrid” liturgy.

 

[malphono]

Yes, I’ve read VS, and I wish it had been taken more seriously in the years during and following the Council.

Apparently it’s very existence was quite inconvenient for certain parties, so it ended up as one of those Encyclicals that was conveniently forgotten. Another example of the “spirit of Vatican II” at work.

Whether the liturgy should be celebrated in the vernacular is another matter. (It’s one thing to have a personal missal that has Latin on one page and a decent translation on the next; it’s another to celebrate the liturgy in the vernacular.) I think there is a place for the vernacular in the liturgy, but I don’t think the whole liturgy should be celebrated in the vernacular. I’m much more in favor of a Latin-vernacular “hybrid” liturgy.

The mixing of liturgical and vernacular languages is nothing new in the East and Orient: actually it’s a rather common practice and seems to work quite well.

The same was, of course, tried in the Roman Rite in the "interim Missal of 1965 which was, unfortunately, both short-lived and ill-fated. Perhaps it might be more successful now if that missal were resurrected. But, that was the “modified” EF. IMO, the OF as it is (not to mention the lingering adherence to the dreaded "spirit of Vatican II) complicates matters significantly.

 

[phrederik]

We currently say that God is the “maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.”

this seems very clear to me, God made everything, from heaven to earth, the things i can’t physically experience, to the ones i can

A person could conceivably believe God created all that is “seen and unseen” without actually meaning he or she thinks God created the spiritual realm – he or she could deny the existence of angels, for example.

if i state, and believe what i’m stating, that God created all that is seen and unseen, how does that leave room for anything contrary. God is the Creator, by denying His creation i am denying Him and as a believer i won’t deny God

By saying “he was born (natus est) of the Virgin Mary and became man,” one might assume that He only “became man” at His birth.

but i wouldn’t assume that as i know life begins at conception, and if another did assume this they either haven’t been taught, or deny what they’ve been taught

it is clear from my posts that i have no problem with the Mass as it is, my problem is with people who don’t understand what happens at the Mass, and i doubt tweeking the words, or using latin will help these people. education in the faith is necessary. in the interest of my understanding the perspective of posters who say the current translation is inacurrate, are you latin scholars, and / or what is your source of information which leads you to this opinion?

thank you and may the peace of Christ be with you!

 

[japhy]

if i state, and believe what i’m stating, that God created all that is seen and unseen, how does that leave room for anything contrary.

A galaxy a billion light years away is unseen, but it is still visible. The terms “seen” and “unseen” do not have the accuracy that the terms “visible” and “invisible” have. These words visibilum and invisibilum in the Creed are addressed specifically at the physical and spiritual realms of creation.

but i wouldn’t assume that as i know life begins at conception, and if another did assume this they either haven’t been taught, or deny what they’ve been taught

But another person who doesn’t believe that life begins at conception could support their position from this line of the Creed, and teach other people from it. There are “Catholics” who believe and teach others that life does not begin at conception.

my problem is with people who don’t understand what happens at the Mass…

I share your concern for those who don’t understand what happens at Mass, which is why I wrote a book explaining the prayers of the Mass (especially with the new translation).

and i doubt tweeking the words, or using latin will help these people. education in the faith is necessary.

Why not tweaking the words (that is, using a more accurate translation) and educating them in the faith? Both approaches together. Use of Latin is another matter, but one which the Church encourages (even at Vatican II).

in the interest of my understanding the perspective of posters who say the current translation is inacurrate, are you latin scholars, and / or what is your source of information which leads you to this opinion?

I am not a Latin scholar, but I trust the judgment of the Church in this matter, that the current English translation of the Latin is inaccurate.

But, even though I am not a Latin scholar, I have enough knowledge to recognize deficiencies in the translation. The second example I gave you (“incarnatus est”) is one simple case. The phrase “natus est” means “was born”, but “natus est” is not in the Nicene Creed; the phrase “incarnatus est” is used, and it means “was incarnate” or “was made flesh”.

Another example: we currently say right before the Eucharistic prayer, “May the Lord accept this sacrifice at your hands, for our good, and for the good of all his Church.” That’s not what the Latin says; the translation omitted a whole word, “sanctae”: “… for the good of all his holy Church.” Why omit that word? It’s in the Latin text for a reason… one imagines it was omitted from the translation for a reason too.

 

[stephraim]

in the interest of my understanding the perspective of posters who say the current translation is inacurrate, are you latin scholars, and / or what is your source of information which leads you to this opinion?!

Read* Liturgiam authenticam*. It explains it all.

The current translations use a method called dynamic equivalence which states that the concept, or sense, of a source text must be translated, at the expense of literalness, original word order and grammatical voice. The new translations use formal equivalence which requires that exact words must be translated as close as possible to the original, even at the expense of natural expression in the target language.

Let’s compare the Collect (Opening Prayer) for the 1st Sunday of Lent:

Current Translation
Father,
through our observance of Lent,
help us to understand
the meaning of your Son’s death and resurrection
and teach us to reflect it in our lives.

New Translation
Grant us, almighty God, through our yearly exercises in the holy
season of Lent,
to grow in understanding of the riches hidden in Christ,
and to pursue their effects
by a worthy way of life.

Now, the first translation actually comes close to semi-Pelagianism, a heresy condemned by the Church. It implies that after God helps us, we no longer need Him. Similarly, after He teaches us to reflect Christ’s death in our lives, we no longer need Him.

The second translation specifically asks God to grant us understanding and to grant us to pursue the effects of the riches hidden in Christ. It implies God’s continual help.

Further, while the first translation specifies Christ’s death and resurrection, it leaves out other “riches hidden in Christ”, such as His incarnation, hypostatic union, etc.

This is merely one example.

 

[phrederik]

Read* Liturgiam authenticam*. It explains it all.

is this a vatican document?

Let’s compare the Collect (Opening Prayer) for the 1st Sunday of Lent:

Current Translation
Father,
through our observance of Lent,
help us to understand
the meaning of your Son’s death and resurrection
and teach us to reflect it in our lives.

New Translation
Grant us, almighty God, through our yearly exercises in the holy
season of Lent,
to grow in understanding of the riches hidden in Christ,
and to pursue their effects
by a worthy way of life.

Now, the first translation…implies that after God helps us, we no longer need Him. The second translation…implies God’s continual help.

“implies” is subjective and open to interpratation, i fail to see how the current translation implies we no longer need God, anymore than the new one implies God’s continual help. both prayers ask God to bring us to a greater understanding of Jesus’ ministry and how to use that understanding to improve our lives. i think you’re seeing what you want to see

 

[japhy]

is this a vatican document?

Yes, Liturgiam Authenticam is the 2001 Instruction on translation of liturgical texts from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

 

[Genesius]

You can see all the changes to the celebration of Mass here, side by side with what it done now: usccb.org/romanmissal/examples.shtml

It also says:
“Among other things, the revised edition of the Missale Romanum contains prayers for the observances of recently canonized saints, additional prefaces for the Eucharistic Prayers, additional Votive Masses and Masses and Prayers for Various Needs and Intentions, and some updated and revised rubrics (instructions) for the celebration of the Mass.”

I don’t think ad orientum/ad populum instructions are part of the changes.

Thank you so much for that link. That is a good base. I thought I could submit my own changes to the USCCB and maybe even the Holy See himself.

Of course, I am being somewhat sarcastic. Since converting I have noticed a lot of Catholics acting as if our Catholic structure is a democracy vs. a papacy. I am only too happy to assent to the changes, even if some of them don’t seem to make much sense to me. Wait a minute…don’t they know who I am?!!

 

[phrederik]

Since converting I have noticed a lot of Catholics acting as if our Catholic structure is a democracy vs. a papacy. I am only too happy to assent to the changes, even if some of them don’t seem to make much sense to me. Wait a minute…don’t they know who I am?!!

i sense a dig, maybe it’s paranoia, or perhaps good old fashioned Catholic guilt…however, as a good Catholic i’ll assent to the liturgy changes and any others the church may make. my voicing disagrement is as simple as that, my opinion, an exercise of God given intellect, not disobedience

 

[Genesius]

i sense a dig, maybe it’s paranoia, or perhaps good old fashioned Catholic guilt…however, as a good Catholic i’ll assent to the liturgy changes and any others the church may make. my voicing disagrement is as simple as that, my opinion, an exercise of God given intellect, not disobedience

Oh, I didn’t mean it as a dig to anyone but myself. My ornery sense of humor is all, meant with a deep sense of humility.

P.S. I never brag…that’s why I’m so great! LOL.

 

[Genesius]

i sense a dig, maybe it’s paranoia, or perhaps good old fashioned Catholic guilt…however, as a good Catholic i’ll assent to the liturgy changes and any others the church may make. my voicing disagrement is as simple as that, my opinion, an exercise of God given intellect, not disobedience

Btw, Catholic guilt is kind of alien to me since I am a convert. I don’t believe in the guilt trip thing. I just think that we can all (myself included) use a good dose of humility from time to time. If I sincerely love the Lord and am truly seeking to grow in holiness I don’t see where guilt even has much of a place, unless it is invoked(?) by the Holy Spirit.

Having said that, I find that just from my own personal experience as a convert, I have had to put to death my sense of ‘comfort zone’ for the sake of truth. For me, truth anymore seems to hold more weight than my own personal feelings about how I think things should be. I have had to learn to trust the decisions of the Magisterium lead by the Holy Spirit in lieu of what ‘makes sense to me’ based on my own private interpretations of not just Scripture, but even Sacred Tradition and Historical facts.

That is what drives me even now on internal matters as well. I always try to find out what the official teaching or practices are before assuming or questioning them. But again, God’s grace and mercy is constant. If it doesn’t make sense to me I realize it doesn’t always have to. After all, in John 6 Peter responded in much the same way. Although he couldn’t fully comprehend the mystery of transubstantiation in the Eucharist he knew he had to accept it and he fully trusted Christ in His teaching.

Okay, now I’m just rambling. Sorry.