New Mass

[Cristiano]

In the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church: Deacon: Peace be with us.

In the Coptic Liturgy of St. Basil: Priest: Peace be with all; People: And with your spirit.

In the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom: Peace be with all. And with your spirit.

In the Anglican Use: The Lord be with you. And with your spirit.

In the Divine Liturgy of James: Peace be to all. And to your spirit.

My point is that in the Qorbono you have the following dialogue:

Gospel
Deacon: Before the good news of our Savior,
announcing life to us all,
let us offer this incense.
O Lord, we ask for your mercy.

The celebrant burns incense while two ministers hold lighted candles on each side of the Book of Gospels.

Cel: Peace be with you.
Cong: And also with you.
Cel: Let us be attentive to the gospel of life and salvation of our Lord Jesus Christ as recorded by the (evangelist Mark/Luke)(apostle Matthew/John).

Eucharistic Prayer
Dialog
Cel: May the love of God the + Father,
the grace of the only-begotten + Son,
and the unity and indwelling of the + Holy Spirit
be with your, for ever.
Cong: And also with you.

Communion Rite
Blessing
Cel: May the blessing of God the + Father,
and our Savior Jesus Christ,
and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit
be with your, for ever.
Cong: And also with you.

Penitential Rite
Cel: Peace be with you.
Cong: And also with you.

…

Cel: May the grace
of the most Holy Trinity +
eternal and co-equal in essence,
be with you, my brothers and sisters,
for ever.
Cong: And also with you.

Blessing and Dismissal
Cel: Peace be with you
Cong: And also with you.

 

[malphono]

My point is that in the Qorbono you have the following dialogue:
Cel: Peace be with you.
Cong: And also with you. …

The trouble with all of this is that it is NOT a translation, nor even a representation, of the Syriac text (nor, for that matter, even of the Arabic translation of same). The “and also with you” business came into the English-language version of the Maronite liturgy precisely because the Maronite bishop(s) in the US unfortunately went along with the ICEL and its “dynamic equivalence” (or whatever one wants to call it) from the get-go. (I’m not sure about when the bishops in Canada and Australia did this.) Anyway, as with the the forthcoming textual revision in the English-language version of the Roman Mass (back to what it should have always been: “and with your spirit”) so too will the Maronite text revert to the same “and with your spirit” as it should always have been. The Maronite bishops in the US (I’m not sure about the bishop in Canada; AFAIK, the bishop in Australia has already reverted) have delayed the reversion to coincide with the Roman one. Yet another example of Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization.

 

[Cristiano]

The trouble with all of this is that it is NOT a translation, nor even a representation, of the Syriac text (nor, for that matter, even of the Arabic translation of same). The “and also with you” business came into the English-language version of the Maronite liturgy precisely because the Maronite bishop(s) in the US unfortunately went along with the ICEL and its “dynamic equivalence” (or whatever one wants to call it) from the get-go. (I’m not sure about when the bishops in Canada and Australia did this.) Anyway, as with the the forthcoming textual revision in the English-language version of the Roman Mass (back to what it should have always been: “and with your spirit”) so too will the Maronite text revert to the same “and with your spirit” as it should always have been. The Maronite bishops in the US (I’m not sure about the bishop in Canada; AFAIK, the bishop in Australia has already reverted) have delayed the reversion to coincide with the Roman one. Yet another example of Novus Ordo-inspired neo-latinization.

You are not going to hear disagreement from me on this one. I was just making the point that you emphasized: even the Divine Liturgy was not always immune to poor translations.

 

[malphono]

You are not going to hear disagreement from me on this one. I was just making the point that you emphasized: even the Divine Liturgy has not been always immune to poor translations.

OK gotcha … on second reading of your earlier post, now I see what you were getting at. The Byzantines have been fairly immune to the tentacles of the ICEL but, most unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the Maronites. (And BTW, use of the expression “Divine Liturgy” among Maronites is nothing but a Byzantinization, which is no more appealing to me than a latinization. When speaking in English, I’d rather call it “Mass,” as do the Chaldeans. Much simpler and it makes things a lot clearer for everyone. )

 

[CradleCath]

There are changes, they are just very minor and have virtually no effect on what people would notice. A few errors have been corrected, feasts of recently-declared saints have been added, etc. There was a change in the order in which a bishop saying Mass in another diocese mentions the local ordinary and himself. It’s that sort of thing.

I certainly hope that the people will notice. IMO., some of the first translations, from Latin to English involved more than just “language”, but made subtle theological changes. For instance, the repsonse to Dominus Vobiscum (God be with you) was originally Et Cum Spiritu Tuo (& with your SPIRIT). This, of course, is a greeting which can only be made by a Christian assembly TO AN ORDAINED MAN since the reference is to the spirit of holy ordination . Was this mis-translated in order to make the blending of the ordained priesthood & the laity easier?? I don’t know, but “And also with you” seems to have been invented as a translation, and is now justified as such, in order to take away the unique vocation/ordination of the Christian priesthood, perhaps on the basis that “in baptism WE ALL receive all possible ministries in potential.”

Then, of course, there is the Pro-Multi “translation” . Omnibus is the Latin word for “ALL”, while Multi means for many. The translation should have been Christ died for “MANY”. I haven’t made my own decision yet about this, as I believe that Christ died for all men, but some will not accept His sacrifice…yet **know **that the translation of Pro-Multis into “for many” is a mis-translation.
I don’t find this nearly as troubling as the deliberate? mis-translation of Et Cum Spiritu Tuo. I need to study the Pro-Multis thing further, going as far back to the Greek translation, etc. as I can, to try to understand Christ’s words at the Last Supper.

translate.google.com/#la|en|pro-multi

 

[Phemie]

MarkThompson

I think what Mark meant was that the Mass itself, celebrated in Latin, changed very little with the publication of the Third Edition. The changes were so subtle that most wouldn’t notice.

Obviously, the third edition’s translation into English is a different kettle of fish. Nobody can fail to notice the differences there.

 

[MarkThompson]

I think what Mark meant was that the Mass itself, celebrated in Latin, changed very little with the publication of the Third Edition. The changes were so subtle that most wouldn’t notice.

Thank you, yes. I was responding to the question about the 2nd and 3rd editiones typicae, “If no changes were made to these typical editions why were they published?”