New Liturgy?

[japhy]

I don’t know if I would call it “new.” I looked at the translation and the Gloria, Creed, and common responses are very close to the English that is printed in my Fr Lasance’s Latin-English Missal of 1945.

It’s “new” to many of the people today; perhaps a better term would be “revised”. But then, there are parts of the translation which are new. But this is a quibble.

 

[japhy]

Hmmm…the cannon of the mass is not said audibly, yet the yet nearly all of the people intenesly follow along in their missals. Very different from the vacuous stares that the priest encounters during the novus ordo liturgy.

If you’re going to make insulting generalities like that, could you at least spell the word “canon” properly? I’d think that if you “intenesly” [sic] follow along in your missal, you’d know how to spell the word.

 

[ProVobis]

It’s “new” to many of the people today; perhaps a better term would be “revised”. But then, there are parts of the translation which are new. But this is a quibble.

Quibble? The title of the thread is “New Liturgy.” Okay, it’s “new” to many people.

So which parts of the translation are really new?

Not to quibble more, but I see that “Sursum corda” is still being translated as “Lift up your hearts” as it was in 1945. Did it not occur to anyone the literal (and perhaps more emphatic) translation is “Upwards, hearts!” The “lift” part is already in the response.

 

[ProVobis]

Excepting that people are accustomed to seeing the face of a person they are listening to, the only reason I can see arguing in favor * ad populum* is practical. In some places (rarer and rarer, now) the lack of a sound system makes it impossible, particularly for the hard of hearing, to hear most priests unless the priest is facing the person trying to listen. This, even though the prayers being offered are currently meant to be audible to all. When the prayers are not audible, people are even more tempted to let their minds wander off to other things. That would have the practical effect that a lot of people would not be meditating on what is being said as it was being said, which would be unfortunate, to say the least. We are a people with a lot of useless words streaming through our minds these days. It seems clear to me that this problem is much more prevalent than it could possibly have been in the days before broadcast communications were invented. It can never have been worse than it is now.

While you make some good points on mind wanderings, nevertheless for your information highly audible words are violations of one of the canons of the Council of Trent. Just saying.

CANON IX.–If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which **a part of the canon and the words of consecration **are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.

 

[japhy]

Quibble? The title of the thread is “New Liturgy.”

I can’t control what the OP titled the thread.

So which parts of the translation are really new?

Well, the parts that don’t exist in the E.F. of the Missal, like Eucharistic Prayers II, III, IV, etc.

Did it not occur to anyone the literal (and perhaps more emphatic) translation is “Upwards, hearts!”

Yeah, to Fr. Z, and it rubbed off on me, too:
The Latin is more succinct than the English: the priest says “Sursum corda,” which, according to the translation of Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, can be read as an enthusiastic “Hearts up!” or “Raise your hearts on high!” Our response is literally, “We have [them] present to the Lord.” The Latin word cor (“heart”) means more than just the literal heart; it can also mean “mind, soul, spirit;” in other words, it means the core of the person. It is not just our hearts that we present to God: the priest is calling us to put our whole being in the presence of the Lord.

Praying the Mass: The Prayers of the People, p. 116​

I’ll develop that more in my second book, on the priest’s prayers.

The “lift” part is already in the response.

It’s explicit in the English translation, but it’s only implied in the Latin: habemus ad Dominum doesn’t explicitly mention lifting.

 

[ProVobis]

Well, the parts that don’t exist in the E.F. of the Missal, like Eucharistic Prayers II, III, IV, etc.

I forgot about those. But I thought the OF was going to push the EP1 more.

It’s explicit in the English translation, but it’s only implied in the Latin:

Same for Dominus vobiscum. The subjunctive verb is implied. (as it was in the handmissals prior to Vatican 2.)

 

[japhy]

… highly audible words are violations of one of the canons of the Council of Trent. Just saying.

CANON IX. – If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only …]; let him be anathema.

No, “highly audible words” are not violations of that canon; neither is Mass in the vernacular. What is a violation of that canon from Trent is the opinion that the praying of “a part of the canon and the words of consecration … in a low tone is to be condemned.” Similarly, it is a violation of that canon from Trent is the opinion that the Mass ought to be celebrated only in the vernacular. If someone were to say that the Mass should not be prayed in Latin at all, that’s a violation of that canon from Trent.

 

[japhy]

I forgot about those. But I thought the OF was going to push the EP1 more.

I’d hope so…

Same for Dominus vobiscum. The subjunctive verb is implied.

Ah, but why is the implied verb in the subjunctive? That’s the trick: “Dominus vobiscum” could mean “may the Lord be with you” as well as “the Lord is with you”.

I’m curious why pax vobis is still rendered as “peace be with you”, rather than “peace be to you”. If it were vobiscum, I could understand it, but it’s not.

 

[bkovacs]

OK… so this is probably a dumb question, and has been answered on here a million times already. Will there be a new Liturgy coming out? I’ve seen where some of the wording will change to be a better translation form the Latin. But is anything else changing, like the direction the priest faces, or the chanting responses, etc?

Realistically only the translation will change. Everything else will remain the same. Same abuses that are taking place now will still continue. Same lame music, altar girls, and laity handing out communion. No altar rails, etcc, will not change. Suggest you try to find an Anglican Use parish if you want a reverent vernacular Mass ad orientum or Byzantine Rite.

 

[ProVobis]

What is a violation of that canon from Trent is the opinion that the praying of “a part of the canon and the words of consecration … in a low tone is to be condemned.”

Japhy, with all due respect, it is what it is. I question this translation. Why had it been a Catholic belief for 400 years that the Mass was not to be vernacularized and the words of the Consecration were not to be said in a low tone? And these were not the only anathemas of Trent. The anathemas were written in Latin and preserved in Latin. There were no opinions in Latin or in a doctrinal council. Perhaps when they decided to (mis)translate the canons into English, isn’t it possible that the reasons for the canons (i.e., the spirit of Trent) were not taken into account, and it was a perfect time to find rationalizations for completely vernacularizing the Mass and microphoning the entire Mass?

 

[ProVobis]

Ah, but why is the implied verb in the subjunctive? That’s the trick: “Dominus vobiscum” could mean “may the Lord be with you” as well as “the Lord is with you”.

Exactly. There is no perfect translation to some of the Latin-English. In order to be perfect, I would think that a Latin-English-Latin test be made and it’s just not possible with the Dominus vobiscum unless you take into account its context. But what is the context? Is the Lord with you or isn’t He? Or MAY He just be with you as though He’s not with you yet? I guess many have never questioned it but when you translate you need to be careful of the complete understanding of the prayers, I would think.

 

[Crumpy]

Now, you have to be careful in your terminology here. The official language of the current Mass (the “Ordinary Form”) IS Latin. The old form is more properly known now as the “Extraordinary Form”. Today’s Mass is supposed to be officially said in Latin, but is permitted to be said in vernacular languages on a regular basis. This is done so commonly that you almost never hear the Ordinary Form in Latin. Likewise, Gregorian chant is allowed a pride of place as the most favored musical form of the current Mass, but many other musical options are now allowed.

On EWTN, on the EWTN Live program hosted by Fr. Mitch Pacwa (my mother still wonders if Mitch is his baptismal name – who ever heard of a St. Mitchell?) there was a priest talking – for a whole hour – about Gregorian chant.

Of course, they were saying how wonderful it is.

I had a chance to ask a question by phone, and I pointed out that I can never make out what the lyrics are – it’s very hard to understand. Fr. Mitch and this other priest said that it wasn’t important to be able to know what the words of the songs are.

Gregorian chant “works” in monasteries, where all the monks are singing and they KNOW what they’re singing. But, I think Gregorian chant is **Dead On Arrival ** elsewhere. What is the point of knowing that they’re singing Psalm 87, when you can’t tell that it IS Psalm 87? It’s just all this nasal, puffy, windbag howling, in my opinion.

 

[malphono]

… Fr. Mitch Pacwa (my mother still wonders if Mitch is his baptismal name – who ever heard of a St. Mitchell?)

Not that it has much bearing on the thread, but the name “Mitchell” is a variant of “Michael” (derived from the French “Michel”).

 

[phrederik]

i like, enjoy, and feel fulfilled by the Mass. i understand the prayers, the music is fine, often great depending on the musicians / choir at a particular Mass, and i believe i’m led by the priest in worshiping God…improving the accuracy of translation is valulable, though what i’ve read seems as if its splitting hairs…i don’t want a return of the pre-vatican II liturgy. what we need is a deeper understanding of the Mass, of what we’re doing and why we’re there. we need to be educated in our faith.

peace of Christ!

 

[japhy]

I question this translation. Why had it been a Catholic belief for 400 years that the Mass was not to be vernacularized and the words of the Consecration were not to be said in a low tone? And these were not the only anathemas of Trent. The anathemas were written in Latin and preserved in Latin.

Let’s look again at what Trent said in Session XXII:
Canon IX. — Si quis dixerit, Ecclesiæ Romanæ ritum, quo submissa voce pars canonis et verba consecrationis proferuntur, damnandum esse; aut lingua tantum vulgari missam celebrari debere; aut aquam non miscendam esse vino in calice offerendo, eo quod sit contra Christi institutionem: anathema sit.

Canon IX. — If anyone saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ: let him be anathema.
There are three opinions condemned here. If you want to use a word other than “opinion” (e.g. “belief”, “proposition”, etc.), so be it. Here are the three opinions:

1. 
   *]That the Roman Rite, with most of the Canon spoken in a low tone, is to be condemned.
   *]That the Mass should only be celebrated in the vernacular.
   *]That water should not be mixed with the wine in the Chalice.
   
   Each of these erroneous opinions is contrary to what the Council wrote earlier in that same session:
   Chapter V. And whereas such is the nature of man, that, without external helps, he can not easily be raised to the meditation of divine things; therefore has holy Mother Church instituted certain rites, to wit, that certain things be pronounced in the mass in a low, and others in a louder, tone. …]
   
   Chapter VII. The holy Synod notices, in the next place, that it has been enjoined by the Church on priests, to mix water with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice; …]
   
   Chapter VIII. Although the mass contains great instruction for the faithful people, nevertheless, it has not seemed expedient to the Fathers that it should be every where celebrated in the vulgar tongue. …]
   The Ordinary Form of the Mass, it is true, does not have the Eucharistic Prayer (whether the Roman Canon or not) spoken in a low voice. (Other parts of the Mass are said in a low voice, but that is another matter.) That this is so is not a condemnation of the Extraordinary Form of the Rite where there is a low voice used for the Canon. If others do so condemn the Mass, that is their problem. Pope Benedict is of the opinion that a silent Canon is possible (and maybe preferable?) in the Ordinary Form. (cf. The Spirit of the Liturgy, pp. 214-216)
   
   That the Ordinary Form of the Mass can (and often is) prayed in the vernacular is not a condemnation of Mass prayed in Latin. The Church promulgated the Missal in Latin and it is prayed in Latin. GIRM 12 says that the Second Vatican Council Fathers felt that since, at that time, “no Catholic would now deny the lawfulness and efficacy of a sacred rite celebrated in Latin” (cf. Trent XXII, canon IX), the introduction of the vernacular to the liturgy would not be misinterpreted as a refutation of that canon. For the Tridentine Council Fathers, “it ha[d] not seemed expedient …] that [the Mass] should be every where celebrated in the vulgar tongue” while for the Second Vatican Council Fathers, it seemed that because “use of the mother tongue …] frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended.”
   
   It seems unnecessary to pursue the matter of mixing water with wine; that is unchanged in the Ordinary Form (although when multiple chalices are used, there is not consistent use of water in each chalice… but that’s a whole other matter).
   
   People who condemn the E.F., or the silent canon in particular, and people who condemn a Mass celebrated only in Latin – they are who the Council of Trent anathematizes. The Church herself does not hold such views, even if her discipline in these matters (in the Ordinary Form of her liturgy) has changed. If Trent meant to anathematize the very thought of vernacular in the Mass, the Council Fathers would not have said that “it has not seemed expedient” to them; they would have outright condemned the thought altogether, rather than consider it inexpedient at the time.

 

[japhy]

what we need is a deeper understanding of the Mass, of what we’re doing and why we’re there. we need to be educated in our faith.

The new translation will help serve that need (and, in some ways, increase that need). It presents a new opportunity for catechesis on what the Mass truly is.

 

[bkovacs]

The new translation will help serve that need (and, in some ways, increase that need). It presents a new opportunity for catechesis on what the Mass truly is.

The problem is that the Ordinary Form, unlike the Extra-Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite has to many flexibilities to properly give Catechesis on it. How are you going to contrast the differences between a regular OF Mass, vs a Lifeteen OF Mass. Would be way to confusing. I know for me it would be. Now with the EF Mass the rubrics are strict, with little in flexibility, so learning about it apart from the latin language, would be much easier.

 

[benedictgal]

The problem is that the Ordinary Form, unlike the Extra-Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite has to many flexibilities to properly give Catechesis on it. How are you going to contrast the differences between a regular OF Mass, vs a Lifeteen OF Mass. Would be way to confusing. I know for me it would be. Now with the EF Mass the rubrics are strict, with little in flexibility, so learning about it apart from the latin language, would be much easier.

However, there is really no such thing as a LifeTeen Mass, per se. The Mass is supposed to be celebrated according to the GIRM, not according to a particular movement’s idiosyncracies. Thus, regardless of the music, the Mass is not supposed to have any variations to it. And, even at that, Musicam Sacram governs the music fvor the Liturgy.

The only flexibility granted by Rome will be for the selection of readings during Ordinary Time or when there are wedding and funeral Masses. But, even at that, the readings need to come from the Lectionary. And, even when there is a variance to the Responsorial Psalm, it has to come from an approved source such as the Lectionary, the Grail Psalter or the Roman Gradual, not a song from a song book.

 

[ProVobis]

Let’s look again at what Trent said in Session XXII:
Canon IX. —** Si quis dixerit**, Ecclesiæ Romanæ ritum, quo submissa voce pars canonis et verba consecrationis proferuntur, damnandum esse; aut lingua tantum vulgari missam celebrari debere; aut aquam non miscendam esse vino in calice offerendo, eo quod sit contra Christi institutionem: anathema sit.

Canon IX. — If anyone saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ: let him be anathema.

If you condemn the rite because of A or B, you’re out of here. Thank you.

This was somewhat reinforced at Session XII:

CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.

 

[ProVobis]

If Trent meant to anathematize the very thought of vernacular in the Mass, the Council Fathers would not have said that “it has not seemed expedient” to them; they would have outright condemned the thought altogether, rather than consider it inexpedient at the time.

Good research in your post. I have just this comment to make on it.

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. 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. For 40 years, the “for all” was defended ad nauseum by most in the Vatican, every English-speaking bishop, most priests, canonists, theologians, liturgists, students, and other experts. Now where are these defenders?

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