New Order of the Mass... wow!

[benedictgal]

I understand that it comes from the German Geistes. I speak German fluently. But what I don’t understand is the mentality of going from the German to English instead of Latin to English. I’m only speaking about the language of prayer, not conversational English.

To preserve tradition, one must go to the source. The original language of liturgy is Latin, not German.

I’m confused by the mind-set, not the words.

JR

There is also something else to consider: Holy Ghost and other such formal English is also referred to as the King’s (or, in today’s case, the Queen’s) English. So, it’s not so much that we are going from German to Englsh, but from something else.

Now, in the much older translations, it was always Thee, Thou and wilst and comest and hallow. It was very, very formal.

What, I think, the ICEL did back in the 1970s was to de-formalize, if you will, the translation and make it the language of conversation and not the language of lturgy. I have a copy of the 1966 Roman Missal, which was the ICEL’s first stab at translating. The translations in this missal were beautiful. Having read through these, I wonder why we just didn’t keep these in the first place. I suppose that had this language been retained, we would have been on par with the Latin. But, that’s just my opinion.

 

[Phemie]

The bold is mine. I understand that German uses Geistes. But my problem with the traditional English Speaking Catholic who uses Holy Ghost is that he or she is not preserving the Latin term, but a translation from the Latin to the German to English.

If the idea is to preserve tradition, stick to the source. If it was written in Latin, go from Latint to English.

JR

I wonder at what point in the Church’s history we started using “Holy Ghost”.

 

[JReducation]

There is also something else to consider: Holy Ghost and other such formal English is also referred to as the King’s (or, in today’s case, the Queen’s) English. So, it’s not so much that we are going from German to Englsh, but from something else.

Now, in the much older translations, it was always Thee, Thou and wilst and comest and hallow. It was very, very formal.

What, I think, the ICEL did back in the 1970s was to de-formalize, if you will, the translation and make it the language of conversation and not the language of lturgy. I have a copy of the 1966 Roman Missal, which was the ICEL’s first stab at translating. The translations in this missal were beautiful. Having read through these, I wonder why we just didn’t keep these in the first place. I suppose that had this language been retained, we would have been on par with the Latin. But, that’s just my opinion.

I’ve often wondered about that too. There were a few changes made in the Latin later on, which had to be incorporated. But the changes in the Latin were not too many or even very obvious. The translations into English could have been less conspicuous and keep the 1966 version.

Just a thought, because I’m not a liturgist.

JR

 

[JReducation]

I wonder at what point in the Church’s history we started using “Holy Ghost”.

Holy Ghost is not a universal term. The universal term is Holy Spirit. Holy Ghost is a Germanic term.

JR

 

[Phemie]

In the Gloria the Romance languages say “Peace to men of goodwill” not “peace to his people on earth”.

Not all Romance Languages.

In French at Mass we say"Paix aux hommes qu’il aime" which translates to “peace to the (men)people He loves”

Before communion we say “Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof” nor “Lord I am not worthy to receive you”.

In French it’s ‘pas digne de te recevoir’ IOW ‘not worthy to receive you’. But I think ‘recevoir’ has a slightly different connotation in French where it can also mean ‘to entertain’ as in to welcome into your home.

In the Our Father we say “Forgive us our offenses as we forgive those who offend us” and “do not let us fall into temptation” rather than “lead us not into temptation”.

In French it’s ‘ne nous soumet pas à la tentation’ ‘do not subject us to temptation’

We respond to the priest with “And with your spirit.” At the end of the scripture readings or mass we do not say, “Thanks be to God”. We say, “Let us give thanks to God”. It conveys the spirit of community and it invites the community to offer a thankful response to what God has done. The idea of the Romance language translators was to preserve the call to Thanksgiving and Adoration through the liturgy from beginning to end.

When I first heard the English translation of the Our Father, many years ago, I thought it was odd that we prayed that God would not lead is into temptation, as if he would.

I thought it was the cultural way of speaking, until I realized that Americans don’t speak this way. Then I wondered, why do they pray this way?

Well, it’s not just Americans. I learned the Our Father long ago and it’s always been the same.

Oh well, someone will figure it out little by little.

JR

 

[JReducation]

Phemie:
I completely agree that this is not an American problem. It’s a problem of the translation into English. I wouldn’t blame the Americans for this one. That would be unfair.

I’m not even blaming the translators. I just wish I could understand why they translated some things the way they did.

In the end is has no bearing on my holiness or salvation, but I’m a curious person.

JR

 

[Phemie]

Holy Ghost is not a universal term. The universal term is Holy Spirit. Holy Ghost is a Germanic term.

JR

It’s the only English term I ever heard until after Vatican II. It’s certainly the term in older versions of prayers I’ve seen written. Many of the old hymns from the 1800s, such as “Come Holy Ghost” (a translation of Veni, Creator Spiritus), “Firmly I Believe and Truly” by John Henry Newman, and “The Lamb’s High Banquet Called to Share” all refer to the “Holy Ghost”.

 

[JReducation]

It’s the only English term I ever heard until after Vatican II. It’s certainly the term in older versions of prayers I’ve seen written. Many of the old hymns from the 1800s, such as “Come Holy Ghost” (a translation of Veni, Creator Spiritus), “Firmly I Believe and Truly” by John Henry Newman, and “The Lamb’s High Banquet Called to Share” all refer to the “Holy Ghost”.

English uses the Germanic term, rather than the Latin term. That’s why I said that it is not a universal term. Most European languages are of Latin roots and use the Latin term.

Those Christians who were evangelized by the English speaking missionaries will probably use the English term, while others will use the Latin term. If you belong to the Eastern chuches you will also use Spirit instead of ghost, because it’s the term used in the Eastern languages that often refer back to the Greek.

Why the English chose to use the German “ghost” instead of the Latin or Greek, “spirit” is a mystery to me.

JR

 

[pippin]

In old English ghost and spirit had the same meaning. It’s only later that the meaning of ghost changed to mean a dead person.

 

[JReducation]

In old English ghost and spirit had the same meaning. It’s only later that the meaning of ghost changed to mean a dead person.

To preserve the correct meaning it is more appropriate for the ordinary form of the mass to use Holy Spirit.

JR

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

My priest and I got into a discussion about the English (Norvus Ordo) vs. The Tridentine Mass and he told me some of the highlights of the new order that was approved for the Mass. He also told me where to find it and I thought I would share…

usccb.org/liturgy/missalformation/OrdoMissaeWhiteBook.pdf

Notice that the response will no longer be And also with you in the Introductory Rite…

Check out the changes to the pennetintial rite…

And the Gloria is closer to the Latin…

Wow just Wow!!! So many changes!!! What do you guys think???
I love the new responses!!!

I see these changes as counterproductive. They relate to a language of a time long past which does not relate to today. It is stilted, does not flow well and will leave many people confused for quite a while. The current form gets the points across just fine.

 

[lak611]

From Wikipedia:

Holy Ghost was the common name for the Holy Spirit in English prior to the 20th century. It is the name used in the Book of Common Prayer, the Catholic Douay Rheims bible and the King James Version, and is still used by those who prefer more traditional language, or whose religious vocabulary is largely derived from the KJV. The term is still retained in the traditional-language rites of the Anglican Church. The original meaning of the English word ghost closely paralleled the words spirit or soul; only later did the former word come to acquire the specific sense of “disembodied spirit of the dead” and the associated pejorative connotations.

In 1901 the American Standard Version of the Bible translated the name as Holy Spirit, as had the English Revised Version of 1881-1885 upon which it was based. Almost all modern English translations have followed suit. Some languages still use a word that overlaps both English words, such as the German Geist.

In Norfolk, a county in the United Kingdom, Religious Education teachers are told to avoid using “Holy Ghost” as it allegedly “suggests a trivial and spooky element to the third part in the Trinity”.

 

[lak611]

I see these changes as counterproductive. They relate to a language of a time long past which does not relate to today. It is stilted, does not flow well and will leave many people confused for quite a while. The current form gets the points across just fine.

I disagree. All the other languages besides English already have proper translations of the Latin in the Mass. It is embarrassing that the English has not been corrected sooner. With this correction, all languages will have correct translations available.

 

[Aramis]

To preserve tradition, one must go to the source. The original language of liturgy is Latin, not German.

I’m confused by the mind-set, not the words.

JR

In English usage, Ghost and Spirit were generally synonymous. Less so now. However, Ghast/Ghost is proper english, tho base, and Spirit is also proper english, tho of more noble use. The two have been used interchangably in English for centuries.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ghost
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spirit

However, at the times of the Translation, spirit was generally hard liquor in common American parlance. Many laws banning “Spiritous beverage” were present. Using Holy Ghost avoids the connotation of “Holy Liquor.” I suspect that to have been a part of the issue in the early 1900’s translations, which while unofficial, were the commonest use.

 

[JReducation]

In English usage, Ghost and Spirit were generally synonymous. Less so now. However, Ghast/Ghost is proper english, tho base, and Spirit is also proper english, tho of more noble use. The two have been used interchangably in English for centuries.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ghost
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spirit

However, at the times of the Translation, spirit was generally hard liquor in common American parlance. Many laws banning “Spiritous beverage” were present. Using Holy Ghost avoids the connotation of “Holy Liquor.” I suspect that to have been a part of the issue in the early 1900’s translations, which while unofficial, were the commonest use.

That makes sense. I think today the term Holy Spirit would not have the same reference to alcohol. It would be more consistent with other languages and the Latin.

 

[Chuy]

As a matter of fact, it WAS promulgated as the “New Order of the Mass” or “Novus Ordo Missae”.

Actually the Church does not call the Mass of Pope Paul VI the “Novus Ordo Missae.”

The Missale Romanum has never called it that nor was it “promulgated” as such. Yes, the forthcoming (at that time) Mass had been unofficially referred to as the “Novus Ordo Missae” but that was a long time ago (the Church has not used the moniker since) and it never was the Mass’ official name.

It more of a slur than anything today – particularly the “NO” abbreviation.

 

[lak611]

“Spirituous liquor” is still the official term in the law books. For instance, from the Ohio Department of Commerce Division of Liquor Control:

A3 $ 3,906 ORC 4303.04 Manufacture, import and sell alcohol and spirituous liquor

 

[benedictgal]

I see these changes as counterproductive. They relate to a language of a time long past which does not relate to today. It is stilted, does not flow well and will leave many people confused for quite a while. The current form gets the points across just fine.

However, these changes are necessary. The Mass takes us out of the ordinary into the presence of the Divine Majesty of God. The language needs to reflect that. It is not about us; it is about the Lord. Furthermore, Liturgicam Authenticam, the document which is driving this translation, notes that:

1. The words of the Sacred Scriptures, as well as the other words spoken in liturgical celebrations, especially in the celebration of the Sacraments, are not intended primarily to be a sort of mirror of the interior dispositions of the faithful; rather, they express truths that transcend the limits of time and space. Indeed, by means of these words God speaks continually with the Spouse of his beloved Son, the Holy Spirit leads the Christian faithful into all truth and causes the word of Christ to dwell abundantly within them, and the Church perpetuates and transmits all that she herself is and all that she believes, even as she offers the prayers of all the faithful to God, through Christ and in the power of the Holy Spirit.19

1. The Latin liturgical texts of the Roman Rite, while drawing on centuries of ecclesial experience in transmitting the faith of the Church received from the Fathers, are themselves the fruit of the liturgical renewal, just recently brought forth. In order that such a rich patrimony may be preserved and passed on through the centuries, it is to be kept in mind from the beginning that the translation of the liturgical texts of the Roman Liturgy is not so much a work of creative innovation as it is of rendering the original texts faithfully and accurately into the vernacular language. While it is permissible to arrange the wording, the syntax and the style in such a way as to prepare a flowing vernacular text suitable to the rhythm of popular prayer, the original text, insofar as possible, must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses. Any adaptation to the characteristics or the nature of the various vernacular languages is to be sober and discreet.20

Some of what is in the current translation is paraphrased and not even a close approximation of what is in teh original Latin, let alone what is in Scripture. A good example of this is the prayer that we recite after the Agnus Dei:

Latin:

Dòmine, non sum dignus, ut intres sub tectum meum, sed tantum dic verbo et sanàbitur ànima mea.

Current ICEL:

Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.

New ICEL

Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

This last one is actually closer to what the centurion told our Lord when he beseeched Jesus not to go to his house but to only give the command that his servant would be healed. It is also an accurate translation of what is found in the Latin Roman Missal.

 

[BlestOne]

However, these changes are necessary. The Mass takes us out of the ordinary into the presence of the Divine Majesty of God. The language needs to reflect that. It is not about us; it is about the Lord. Furthermore, Liturgicam Authenticam, the document which is driving this translation, notes that:

Some of what is in the current translation is paraphrased and not even a close approximation of what is in teh original Latin, let alone what is in Scripture. A good example of this is the prayer that we recite after the Agnus Dei:

Latin:

Current ICEL:

New ICEL

This last one is actually closer to what the centurion told our Lord when he beseeched Jesus not to go to his house but to only give the command that his servant would be healed. It is also an accurate translation of what is found in the Latin Roman Missal.

Exactly!!! This was one of my biggest stumbling blocks was this response in particular… there is so much meaning behind the proper translation that you miss with just “Lord I am not worthy to receive you…”

 

[Contarini]

My priest and I got into a discussion about the English (Norvus Ordo) vs. The Tridentine Mass and he told me some of the highlights of the new order that was approved for the Mass. He also told me where to find it and I thought I would share…

usccb.org/liturgy/missalformation/OrdoMissaeWhiteBook.pdf

Notice that the response will no longer be And also with you in the Introductory Rite…

Check out the changes to the pennetintial rite…

And the Gloria is closer to the Latin…

Wow just Wow!!! So many changes!!! What do you guys think???
I love the new responses!!!

The changes seem overly literal in places, and while they are often more dignified than the earlier forms, they are if possible even less elegant.

An example: “and lead us, with our sins forgiven, to eternal life.” Is there really any good reason to substitute this for “forgive us our sins, and lead us”? It strikes me as the same idea, but the earlier wording follows normal modern English sentence structure rather than trying to imitate the Latin (a practice that worked much better 500 years ago than it does now).

There are a number of places, particularly in the translation of the Roman Canon itself, where the new version restores traditional language that works much better than the rather dumbed-down previous version (“Catholic and apostolic faith,” “faith and devotion,” “holy and venerable hands”). But there are some other choices that are just astonishingly bad: “we offer you this sacrifice of praise
or they offer it for themselves,” for instance. Or? In the middle of the most sacred act of the Church you want to say “or”? This completely breaks the sense of the transcendent. Yes, I know “vel” is in the original, and “or” is the most literal translation of “vel.” I am not a good enough Latinist to know if “vel” would have the same feel to a native speaker. I have no great brief for the Roman Canon anyway, marvelous as some of its parts are–to me it seems markedly inferior to the other ancient Eucharistic Prayers I know of, and I sometimes wonder if many of the historical problems of Western Christianity don’t stem from the rather odd, truncated, and one-sided nature of this very important text. So if you could prove to me that “vel” really did convey the same meaning to sixth-century Romans as “or” does to me, it wouldn’t change my mind. Whatever the case in Latin, “or” has no place here. It sounds too hesitant at a time when dignity and humble confidence are called for. I think “and those who” would be much better and would be justifiable as a translation. In the Mass we approach God as one Church, not as a bunch of different groups not quite sure which group is speaking at the moment.

I did a translation of the Canon myself years ago (yes, I translate Latin for fun!), and I remember really struggling with this particular passage. But I rejected the literalistic option taken by the White Book out of hand. It astounds me that learned men (or are there some women involved?) with presumably lots of time and financial support at their disposal can’t come up with anything better than this.

Edwin