J
Jason_Diebolt
Guest
Is the only reason we are changing the Mass is because of the Latin translation?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
J
Jacob21
Guest
To make a long story short, the current translation of the Mass is quite inaccurate. Thus this new translation is supposed to correct the mistranslations.
C
corsair
Guest
You are correct Jacob21. The new translation should help provide more revernce during Mass too.
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
We are not changing the Mass. There is no Latin traslation as is was written in Latin. We Have a new English translation which is being put into use next Advent. This New English Translation is in line with the direct word for word from latin to English.Is the only reason we are changing the Mass is because of the Latin translation?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Also the Mass itself is not undergoing any changes, just new English translations. Other language translations are unaffected.
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
I still don’t accept this is just a new English translation of the Missal. If that were the case then why are we just not doing a better translation of the first typical edition of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite? During his reign Pope John Paul II promulgated the second and third typical editions of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. If no changes were made to these typical editions why were they published?
M
MarkThompson
Guest
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 still don’t accept this is just a new English translation of the Missal. If that were the case then why are we just not doing a better translation of the first typical edition of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite? During his reign Pope John Paul II promulgated the second and third typical editions of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. If no changes were made to these typical editions why were they published?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I think the previous times the GIRM itself was updated. Isn’t the current GIRM less than 10 years old? They are not publishing a new GIRM, just new translations. That is why there is actually no changes to the Mass itself.I still don’t accept this is just a new English translation of the Missal. If that were the case then why are we just not doing a better translation of the first typical edition of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite? During his reign Pope John Paul II promulgated the second and third typical editions of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. If no changes were made to these typical editions why were they published?
P
Phemie
Guest
The Missal they are translating is the Third Edition. They never published a GIRM for the Second Edition. The GIRM the US has now is the one that goes with the Third Edition; Canada is still functioning with the one from 1975.I think the previous times the GIRM itself was updated. Isn’t the current GIRM less than 10 years old? They are not publishing a new GIRM, just new translations. That is why there is actually no changes to the Mass itself.
Other languages are having to translate this Edition too. The French bishops are in the process. They’ve finally translated the GIRM and expect the Missal itself will be ready in 2011 or 2012.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I thought the current one is 2004 or 2002 which is also awating recognitio for Canada?The Missal they are translating is the Third Edition. They never published a GIRM for the Second Edition. The GIRM the US has now is the one that goes with the Third Edition; Canada is still functioning with the one from 1975.
Other languages are having to translate this Edition too. The French bishops are in the process. They’ve finally translated the GIRM and expect the Missal itself will be ready in 2011 or 2012.
P
Phemie
Guest
It’s the 2002 GIRM which is awaiting recognition in Canada.I thought the current one is 2004 or 2002 which is also awating recognitio for Canada?
M
Matthew_Holford
Guest
Other languages, I think, also translated the 2nd typical edition of the Mass. I believe, ICEL did too but the CDWDS rejected it and were instrumental in re-organising ICEL; so, we never got an English translation of the 2nd typical edition.The Missal they are translating is the Third Edition. They never published a GIRM for the Second Edition. The GIRM the US has now is the one that goes with the Third Edition; Canada is still functioning with the one from 1975.
Other languages are having to translate this Edition too. The French bishops are in the process. They’ve finally translated the GIRM and expect the Missal itself will be ready in 2011 or 2012.
A
AlabamaCatholic
Guest
Seems like we’re just putting some ointment on a cancer. There are so many things wrong in the New Mass, they ought to scrap it. If you insist on modifying the Mass of Pius V (against his warning, BTW, and while leaving it in place for those who are attached to it), then make some minor changes.
I don’t see why some “liturgists” think you can just tamper with the Mass so many times in a generation or two. It’s causing Mass Chaos more than anything and people have no idea what’s going on.
Mandate one Eucharistic Prayer (the Canon), put the Mass back in Latin, turn the priest around, bring back altar rails, Communion on the tongue mandatory, get rid of altar girls, etc.
I don’t see why some “liturgists” think you can just tamper with the Mass so many times in a generation or two. It’s causing Mass Chaos more than anything and people have no idea what’s going on.
Mandate one Eucharistic Prayer (the Canon), put the Mass back in Latin, turn the priest around, bring back altar rails, Communion on the tongue mandatory, get rid of altar girls, etc.
P
ProVobis
Guest
There’s nothing that says the New Mass can’t be done this way in your parish, except for a mandatory COTT perhaps. I share your sentiments however.Mandate one Eucharistic Prayer (the Canon), put the Mass back in Latin, turn the priest around, bring back altar rails, Communion on the tongue mandatory, get rid of altar girls, etc.
T
The_Old_Medic
Guest
Keep in mind that the celebration of the Mass has changed many times during the history of the church. The Tridentine Mass (which I still love by the way) only came into existence in the 15th century. That is essentially the Mass that the “conservatives” want to bring back, yet it is far from what the original church celebrated. A true “Conservative” would be pushing for a return to the church as it existed in the first 100 years!
According to records, the early church met in a home, Mass was an informal process, and the local priest (who was married and had a regular job) concecrated the Eucharist for the “Eucharistic Feast”. Any songs, prayers, etc. varied from one celebration to another.
As the church grew, it made the celebration more and more regularized.
The changes to the liturgy are actually very small. It is NOT a “New Mass”, it is just some prayers are made much more consistent with the Latin that was previously used.
As an example, the Latin “Dominus Vobiscum” literally means, “May the Lord be with you”. The Latin response to this is: “Et cum spiritio tuo”, which has been translated as meaning “And also with you”. BUT, that is NOT what those Latin words mean, they literally mean “And with your spirit”. The new prayers use exactly that wording, and not the botched version that has been used for almost 40 years now.
In fact, the new translation gets us back to the words used prior to 1964, just in English instead of in Latin. It is a much more accurate translation, and it emphasizes that words have real meanings, meanings that were somewhat lost in the “feel good 70’s” translations.
According to records, the early church met in a home, Mass was an informal process, and the local priest (who was married and had a regular job) concecrated the Eucharist for the “Eucharistic Feast”. Any songs, prayers, etc. varied from one celebration to another.
As the church grew, it made the celebration more and more regularized.
The changes to the liturgy are actually very small. It is NOT a “New Mass”, it is just some prayers are made much more consistent with the Latin that was previously used.
As an example, the Latin “Dominus Vobiscum” literally means, “May the Lord be with you”. The Latin response to this is: “Et cum spiritio tuo”, which has been translated as meaning “And also with you”. BUT, that is NOT what those Latin words mean, they literally mean “And with your spirit”. The new prayers use exactly that wording, and not the botched version that has been used for almost 40 years now.
In fact, the new translation gets us back to the words used prior to 1964, just in English instead of in Latin. It is a much more accurate translation, and it emphasizes that words have real meanings, meanings that were somewhat lost in the “feel good 70’s” translations.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
The most interesting fact here is that The Divine Liturgy uses the same words, “And with your spirit.” This points that this is indeed the response even in Greek and is universal throughout the Church. So this is not just going back to the Latin, but going back to the Greek and maybe even the Hebrew/Aramaic.As an example, the Latin “Dominus Vobiscum” literally means, “May the Lord be with you”. The Latin response to this is: “Et cum spiritio tuo”, which has been translated as meaning “And also with you”. BUT, that is NOT what those Latin words mean, they literally mean “And with your spirit”. The new prayers use exactly that wording, and not the botched version that has been used for almost 40 years now.
G
Gregory_I
Guest
Medic, a True Conservatice would not be pushing for a return to the earliest forms of WOrship. As Pope Pius XII Prophetically said in Mediator Dei : WRITTEN IN 1947!!!
"61. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world.[52] They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.
"61. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world.[52] They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.
- Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See."
T
Timothysis
Guest
The Pauline Mass is a “cancer” to you?Seems like we’re just putting some ointment on a cancer.
Perhaps you can implement your plan when you are elected pope.Mandate one Eucharistic Prayer (the Canon), put the Mass back in Latin, turn the priest around, bring back altar rails, Communion on the tongue mandatory, get rid of altar girls, etc.
C
Cristiano
Guest
The English version of the Divine Liturgy in the Byzantine Church does that, but I am quite sure that the English version of the Divine Liturgy in the Maronite Church does not!**The most interesting fact here is that The Divine Liturgy uses the same words, “And with your spirit.” ** This points that this is indeed the response even in Greek and is universal throughout the Church. So this is not just going back to the Latin, but going back to the Greek and maybe even the Hebrew/Aramaic.
P
ProVobis
Guest
In the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church: Deacon: Peace be with us.The English version of the Divine Liturgy in the Byzantine Church does that, but I am quite sure that the English version of the Divine Liturgy in the Maronite Church does not!
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.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.