New Mass Translation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Leon_Bloy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Leon_Bloy

Guest
When I talk with people about the new mass translation, especially non-Catholics, they seem to be quite confused. They think the mass was “changed.”

To me, the best thing to say to them is that the new mass translation is simply much more accurate, for the first time really reflecting closely the Latin language of the original Novus Ordo, than the old one.

Does anybody here have any particularly stark examples of differences between the old and new translations that they could share (i.e. particular prefaces or other prayers)? I know Fr. Z. has written a lot about this.

Please be careful in responding that this not devolve into a conversation about why the OF or EF is better, etc. I am just trying to find good examples to show people what the nature of the differences in the translations are.
 
Leon_Bloy said:
When I talk with people about the new mass translation, especially non-Catholics, they seem to be quite confused. They think the mass was “changed.”

To me, the best thing to say to them is that the new mass translation is simply much more accurate, for the first time really reflecting closely the Latin language of the original Novus Ordo, than the old one.

Does anybody here have any particularly stark examples of differences between the old and new translations that they could share (i.e. particular prefaces or other prayers)? I know Fr. Z. has written a lot about this.

Please be careful in responding that this not devolve into a conversation about why the OF or EF is better, etc. I am just trying to find good examples to show people what the nature of the differences in the translations are.
Click to expand...
It opens up a can of worms, meaning we concede the old way which I greatly preferred and so many others… was wrong in translation.
 
Leon_Bloy said:
When I talk with people about the new mass translation, especially non-Catholics, they seem to be quite confused. They think the mass was “changed.”

To me, the best thing to say to them is that the new mass translation is simply much more accurate, for the first time really reflecting closely the Latin language of the original Novus Ordo, than the old one.

Does anybody here have any particularly stark examples of differences between the old and new translations that they could share (i.e. particular prefaces or other prayers)? I know Fr. Z. has written a lot about this.

Please be careful in responding that this not devolve into a conversation about why the OF or EF is better, etc. I am just trying to find good examples to show people what the nature of the differences in the translations are.
Click to expand...
Changes in the new Roman Missal
 
TraditonRules said:
It opens up a can of worms, meaning we concede the old way which I greatly preferred and so many others… was wrong in translation.
Click to expand...
👍 I agree. I detest the language used to advertise the changes… instead of saying that it was a more “accurate” translation, saying that it was a more “literal” translation would have promoted much more charitable discussion on the subject.
 
promethius said:
👍 I agree. I detest the language used to advertise the changes… instead of saying that it was a more “accurate” translation, saying that it was a more “literal” translation would have promoted much more charitable discussion on the subject.
Click to expand...
I understand your sentiment, but I think “literal” is just as polarizing of a word as “accurate” in its own right.
 
It just doesn’t work with English. The new translation come to new changes such as the single person chanting (quite pleasant with a good voice but might not be so great with certain other voices. It does not roll off the tongue, words like “consubstantial” though might be a better translation are nonetheless unfathomable to many (face it, who in their mind except theologians understand the difference between “same” and "consubstantial:confused:). The only aspect of the change I like is the change in the Confeteo, where it replaces “in what I have done, in what I have failed to do” to “my grievous fault”. Being at a Hispanic Church every sunday and know some Latin, I can see the resemblance there:p
 
For those of us who grew up with the Mass in Latin, and were taught Latin in Parochial School, the new translation of the Mass is a welcome, long sought after change. The former translation, which was shoved down our throats by the liberal left of our Clergy was more like the Epicopalian Book of Common Prayer than it was Roman Catholic. I imagine they thought they could lure Protestants back into the Faith. Instead, as everyone knows it was one of the things that drove away almost half of our bretheren from the Church because it showed that the Mass was not unchangable as had always been taught. And, the fact that these same Clergy mis-stated the intent of Vatican II and falsely prohibited the use of Latin in the US and other English speaking countries did not help either. Despite the best efforts of Blessed JP II, he could not reverse these actions by our churches left-wing zealots because he was afraid of a schism with the English speaking world. It took a very resolute and stubborn German Pope to return us to our Sacred heritage, and the true meaning of the Holy Mass. I can plainly see the hand of the Holy Spirit in this.
 
George_Stegmeir said:
For those of us who grew up with the Mass in Latin, and were taught Latin in Parochial School, the new translation of the Mass is a welcome, long sought after change. The former translation, which was shoved down our throats by the liberal left of our Clergy was more like the Epicopalian Book of Common Prayer than it was Roman Catholic. I imagine they thought they could lure Protestants back into the Faith. Instead, as everyone knows it was one of the things that drove away almost half of our bretheren from the Church because it showed that the Mass was not unchangable as had always been taught. And, the fact that these same Clergy mis-stated the intent of Vatican II and falsely prohibited the use of Latin in the US and other English speaking countries did not help either. Despite the best efforts of Blessed JP II, he could not reverse these actions by our churches left-wing zealots because he was afraid of a schism with the English speaking world. It took a very resolute and stubborn German Pope to return us to our Sacred heritage, and the true meaning of the Holy Mass. I can plainly see the hand of the Holy Spirit in this.
Click to expand...
Just to correct some of your “facts”, the institution of the OF:
  1. “half” our catholic bretheren were not “driven away”. The Vatican estimates that today all of the Tridentine mass adherents total approximately 1 million. In a church of more than a billion, that’s not even close to half.
  2. Latin has never been forbidden in the USofA
  3. The period since Vatican II has overseen the greatest expansion of Catholic numbers in the history of the world, with Catholics DOUBLING their numbers in that time.
  4. John Paul II never attempted to overturn Vatican II, and ascribing a motive to someone while you have NO proof whatsoever is morally flawed.
Finally, your post violates the rules of the forum.
 
I am not going to argue with you, but I had no intention of violating forum rules. I also know that you are totally wrong, at least in the three Dioceses I lived in from the late 1960’s to the present time, one of which is presided by a Cardinal.
 
The way I’ve tried to explain this to people who were confused about why things were changing before we got into what things were changing was to talk about the difference between a dynamic (more thought for thought) and a literal (word for word, correcting for syntax) translation.

Mind you, at this point, most people’s eyes glassed over, but the idea I tried to share wasn’t that one method is better or worse than the other, just different. The Church has asked us to move to this other translation method to be more universal (catholic with the little c).
 
George_Stegmeir said:
I am not going to argue with you, but I had no intention of violating forum rules. I also know that you are totally wrong, at least in the three Dioceses I lived in from the late 1960’s to the present time, one of which is presided by a Cardinal.
Click to expand...
You know that I’m totally wrong? Let’s go through it one by one, shall we?

***1) “half” our catholic bretheren were not “driven away”. The Vatican estimates that today all of the Tridentine mass adherents total approximately 1 million. In a church of more than a billion, that’s not even close to half.
Source:Approx 1 million: Number of EF adherents according to Vatican estimates

***2) Latin has never been forbidden in the USofA
Straight from the horse’s mouth:
Recognizing that the Traditional Latin Mass has never been abolished or forbidden, Pope Benedict XVI affirms in his July 7, 2007 Motu Proprio entitled “Summorum Pontificum” the right of every Catholic priest in the world to offer this Mass.

3) The period since Vatican II has overseen the greatest expansion of Catholic numbers in the history of the world, with Catholics DOUBLING their numbers in that time.

Source: CARA’s numbers which show demographics for the church from 1965 to 2011

***4) John Paul II never attempted to overturn Vatican II, and ascribing a motive to someone while you have NO proof whatsoever is morally flawed.
On this one, I can’t prove a negative. It is up to you to prove your assertions with a source.
 
I have come in late after being away for a long time. However, I am baffled as to why there is a perceived need for this. We are stumbling through it in our parish, but frankly, it has caused lots of confusion and created controversy. I am a 1998 convert, so I know nothing of “the old days”. My wife, however is a cradle Catholic, and she too wonders the same thing? I am a choir member and musician, and from our vewpoint, it appears that it is ill-timed. We are struggling as it is to get participation from the pews, and this makes it even harder. I love the Church, but this I just do not understand. I take it on faith because I know it is what it is. I think is just men satisfying other mens desires. How is it being received elsewhere. I think the comfort we used to feel with the mass has suffered. Perhaps in time . . . .
 
Go to Youtube and type in New translation of the roman missal. You will get some videos. Once we watched one of them at school.
 
I actually like the new translation. Everything Vatican II called for was pretty much done in the 1965 Roman Missal, the Liturgical changes should’ve stopped there.

Here are versions of the 1962 and the 2010 versions of the Confetior. You’ll find the other prayers that have changed in the Third Roman Missal resemble the 1960s versions also, including “And with your spirit”.

1962 Translation

I confess to Almighty God, to Blessed Mary ever Virgin, to Blessed Michael the Archangel, to Blessed John the Baptist, to the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, to all the angels and saints, and to you my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word, deed. Through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault, and I ask Blessed Mary ever Virgin, Blessed Michael the Archangel, Blessed John the Baptist, the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, all the Angels and Saints, and you my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.

2010 ICEL Translation

I confess to almighty God and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have greatly sinned,
in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do,
through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault; therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin, all the Angels and Saints, and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord our God.

The question I have why were are these other changes (i.e. the Ordinary Form mass that has been celebrated for the last 40+ years) made? And before anyone even starts I’m not a conspiracy theorist, I think the Ordinary Form of the mass is valid and I’m 100% faithful to the Holy See.

As far as why is there a Third Roman Missal?

“Pope John Paul II issued the “third typical edition” of the Roman Missal during the Jubilee Year 2000. The Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani (General Instruction of the Roman Missal) had been published in March, 2000 as an introduction to the revised Missal. The ritual text would not be published until March, 2002. Once the full text of the Missale Romanum was available, the work of translating it into various languages would begin.”
 
Old translation: (by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.)
New Translation: (and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.)

The second person of the Blessed Trinity, became man at his conception, at the incarnation, not when He was born of the Virgin Mary, as the old translation reads. This is an important distinction, not only theologically, but also it has ramifications for our understanding of the humanity of the unborn in the womb. All of the changes had reasons for the change. This was just plain poor wording, not a change in our beliefs.
 
I am somewhat new to this forum and don’t want to break any rules by criticizing what was a legitimately approved Church text. I hope I am not doing so. Please inform me if there is any problem. I try to be a good citizen here.

Anyway… my developing understanding as I seek to read more and more about the translation, is that this doesn’t seem really to be about preferences or “dynamic” vs. “literal” translation, but about an apparent gap in the ideas expressed in the Latin matrix of the Novus Ordo, and the former translation. The new translation has closed this, it seems…

Here are some examples from Fr. Z.: the first is his own translation from the Latin, then the old English translation, and finally the new translation. It seems to me that we are only now hearing the fullness of what the prayers say. I find this really fascinating.

LITERAL TRANSLATION
O God, who by the fruitful virginity of Blessed Mary
bestowed upon the human race the rewards of eternal salvation,
grant, we beg, that we may perceive her interceding for us,
through whom we merited to receive Your Son, the author of life.

OBSOLETE DUCK ICEL (1973):
God our Father,
may we always profit by the prayers
of the Virgin Mother Mary,
for you bring us life and salvation
through Jesus Christ her Son…

NEW CORRECTED ICEL (2011):
O God, who through the fruitful virginity of Blessed Mary
bestowed on the human race
the grace of eternal salvation,
grant, we pray,
that we may experience the intercession of her,
through whom we were found worthy
to receive the author of life,
our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son.
 
Leon_Bloy said:
Here are some examples from Fr. Z.: the first is his own translation from the Latin, then the old English translation, and finally the new translation.
…
Click to expand...
Don’t take this the wrong way but without the Latin, they appear to be just paraphrasing one another for different audiences. I have no idea which one I prefer.
 
To me, “fruitfulness” of virginity is a beautiful metaphor - and one that is very useful in our times. That is completely left out in the older translation, though, so the entire message of the prayer is not the same.
 
To me one of the best examples of the need for the new translation is in the Creed.

we use to say of all that is seen and unseen. We now say all that is visable and invisable.

great example of this is right here and now i am unseen to you and you are unseen to me, but non of us are invisable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top