New Order of the Mass... wow!

[benedictgal]

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

But, Edwin, ICEL is working out of the document called Liturgicam Authenticam. You might want to take a look at this by following this lnik:

adoremus.org/liturgiamauthenticam.html

The Holy See deemed that the current translation had some flaws and needed to be brought into conformity to render it an authentic translation of the original Latin version of the Roman Missal. That is why the document used in the translation is called Liturgicam Authenticam.

I ran into my bishop at a fast-food place. While we were waiting for our order, we talked about the developments in the translation drama over at the USCCB. I think he was a little amused that his brother bishops were having an issue with “gibbet”; but, as he noted, there were some other words that also came into the frey. He is hopeful that they will get through this soon.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

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 agree.

At the time the commission was hammering out the new liturgy, there was a tug of war between traditionalist, liberals and moderates. The compromises were sometimes a literal translation of the Latin into English. Hence instead of “and also with you,” we have, “and with your spirit,” which makes no sense in today’s English speaking cultures.

Then we have, “it is right to give God, thanks and praise.” changing to “it is right and just.” This was a compromise to the inclusive language crowd, who were fighting to remove all male references of God.

Jim

 

[Frosty]

Regarding refering to the third person of the Holy Trinty as Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit. My first missal was a Sunday Missal issued by the Catholic Press in 1954. It is entirely in English, no Latin whatsoever. In every instance the name Holy Ghost is used. The next two missals I owned were both St. Joseph Daily Missals. One issued in 1959 and the second in 1962. The name used in both of these is Holy Spirit. I wonder why the difference in just five years? There are also several other differences in translation between the two missals.
For instance, in the Catholic Press Missal, the reponse to Introibo ad altare Dei is translated as “To God,the joy of my youth”, whereas in the St. Joseph Missal it is “The God of my gladness and joy”. In the CPM. Psalm 42 reads, “Give judgement for me, O God, and decide my case against an unholy people; from unjust and deceitful men deliver me”. The SJDM reads, “Do me justice, O God, and fight my fight against a faithless people; from the deceitful and impious man rescue me.” These are only two examples of the many differences in translation between the missals.
These variances leads me to wonder if other missals of the Latin Rite printed pre Vatican II had differing translations as well. If so, the faithful following along with whatever version of the missal they had were not all praying exactly the same words. Of course I know that the prayer in Latin was the same but to the faithful, the meaning of the prayer would have had suble differences.
While the wording of some of the newer translations put out by the ICEL could certainly be improved on to be more faithful to the original Latin, I think just the fact that there is now a single approved English translation is a big step forward.

 

[Rolltide]

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.

Language is a funny thing, and it’s vitally important to be as precise as possible when dealing with it in Catholicism. Have you ever studied the history of the Nicene Creed? Every single word in the Creed was carefully debated and was inserted to explain a certain truth or counter a specific heresy. Imprecise meanings, or disputes that seem almost trivial, have at times crippled Christianity.

For example, the “filoque” phrase, asserting that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Father “and the Son” has been one of the few dividing points between Catholics and Orthodox for almost 1000 years. THREE WORDS have crippled our relations.

What about the word “pray”? Protestants often accuse us of worshiping saints, but we use the word “pray” in the same sense that Shakespeare did, “pray tell”. Five hundred years ago, “pray” simply meant “to ask”. So, when Catholics use the term “praying to saints”, we simply mean we are asking for their intercession, just as we would ask those in a congregation to pray for us. We are not worshiping them. And yet, this terminology serves to confirm the worst fears of Protestants, and hinders understanding and dialogue between the two groups.

The words of the Mass were selected for very specific reasons. As language changes over time, translations need to be reworked to convey the most precise possible meaning so as to avoid doctrinal confusion. The previous translation was quite poor in this regard. The new translation is a vastly more accurate improvement.

 

[JPUSC]

I don’t think the changes are drastically different from the current Mass. People shouldn’t have any trouble adjusting as some of the news media have said.

Though, it would’ve been nice if they had incorporated some of the Tridentine elements, such as the Judica Me, Last Gospel or even the Leonine Prayers.

 

[The_Prodigal]

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

This line of reasoning doesn’t really hold up under scrutiny. “Holy” itself is of Germanic (not German) origin. If we insist on latinizing, wouldn’t consistency dictate latinizing the whole phrase ?

Perhaps “Sanctified Spirit” or “Sanctifying Spirit” would fit the bill.

But then we must remember that spiritus translates an originally Greek expression pneuma.

As long as the essential meaning is maintained, there really is nothing with translating using good old Germanic roots.

However your point is well taken that “Holy Ghost” sounds odd to the modern ear, although it must have sounded just fine centuries ago. Some traditionalist friends I pray with before Mass say “Holy Ghost” and I find it jarring every time I hear it despite constant repetition.

But there are many other archaisms in our English prayers and liturgical vocabulary.

“Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy Name…”

 

[Harpazo]

I’m very excited for the Latins. Hopefully, this will help get rid of some of the crud that has crept into the Roman Liturgy through the years and inspire more reverence!

Alloho minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[Sam_Maloney]

A very young, reverant priest explained during a retreat a year ago that one of the great issues with ICEL is that all their work is intended for those with an eighth grade understanding of English. Essentially, they pre-supposed stupidity on the part of the people in the pews. He told us changes were coming, and assured us they would be more faithful to the Latin, as well as more correct.

Small wonder much of the power and majesty was lost-- they figuratively tied one hand behind their backs…

 

[Manfred]

Regarding refering to the third person of the Holy Trinty as Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit. My first missal was a Sunday Missal issued by the Catholic Press in 1954. It is entirely in English, no Latin whatsoever. In every instance the name Holy Ghost is used. The next two missals I owned were both St. Joseph Daily Missals. One issued in 1959 and the second in 1962. The name used in both of these is Holy Spirit. I wonder why the difference in just five years? There are also several other differences in translation between the two missals.
For instance, in the Catholic Press Missal, the reponse to Introibo ad altare Dei is translated as “To God,the joy of my youth”, whereas in the St. Joseph Missal it is “The God of my gladness and joy”. In the CPM. Psalm 42 reads, “Give judgement for me, O God, and decide my case against an unholy people; from unjust and deceitful men deliver me”. The SJDM reads, “Do me justice, O God, and fight my fight against a faithless people; from the deceitful and impious man rescue me.” These are only two examples of the many differences in translation between the missals.
These variances leads me to wonder if other missals of the Latin Rite printed pre Vatican II had differing translations as well. If so, the faithful following along with whatever version of the missal they had were not all praying exactly the same words. Of course I know that the prayer in Latin was the same but to the faithful, the meaning of the prayer would have had suble differences.
While the wording of some of the newer translations put out by the ICEL could certainly be improved on to be more faithful to the original Latin, I think just the fact that there is now a single approved English translation is a big step forward.

The earlier missal renderings you cite were, most likely, from the venerable Douay-Rheims (D-R) translation of the Bible, while those in the St Joseph Daily Missal were from the “Confraternity” edition of the Psalms. The latter version, with minor changes, eventually were incorporated into the 1970 New American Bible (NAB). The Psalms in the NAB are translated from the Hebrew.

The D-R Bible is a translation from the Sixto-Clementine Latin Vulgate. St Jerome translated the Psalms into Latin from the Greek (the so-called “Gallican Psalter”), not the Hebrew.

Hence the differences you observed.

 

[Manfred]

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.

You deem the proposed translation on the archaic side, irrelevant, “stilted”, say that it “does not flow well” and will be confusing.

I say the current ICEL translation is banal, shoddy, imprecise, low-brow, uninspiring, hastily done, lackluster, devoid of beauty.

Other than that I have no strong feelings on the matter.

 

[Frosty]

The earlier missal renderings you cite were, most likely, from the venerable Douay-Rheims (D-R) translation of the Bible, while those in the St Joseph Daily Missal were from the “Confraternity” edition of the Psalms. The latter version, with minor changes, eventually were incorporated into the 1970 New American Bible (NAB). The Psalms in the NAB are translated from the Hebrew.

The D-R Bible is a translation from the Sixto-Clementine Latin Vulgate. St Jerome translated the Psalms into Latin from the Greek (the so-called “Gallican Psalter”), not the Hebrew.

Hence the differences you observed.

Thanks for your reply. It does say though in the 1954 Catholic Press Missal that the New Testament texts were reproduced by license of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine taken from the Revision of the Challoner-Rheims Version. I couldn’t find any similar information in the St. Joseph Missals at all.

 

[Manfred]

Thanks for your reply. It does say though in the 1954 Catholic Press Missal that the New Testament texts were reproduced by license of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine taken from the Revision of the Challoner-Rheims Version. I couldn’t find any similar information in the St. Joseph Missals at all.

In 1941, the US bishops’ Confraternity of Christian Doctrine issued a translation of the New Testament, which was a revision of the Challoner-Rheims NT, originally translated from the Vulgate. This same group then began work on the Old Testament, but abandoned the project in 1944, after Pius XII issued his landmark document “Divino Afflante Spiritu”, encouraging biblical translations from the original languages. Thus work began on a new translation based on the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

Vol. I Genesis to Ruth appeared in 1952;
Vol. II Job to Sirach in 1955;
Vol. III Isaiah to Malachi in 1961;
Vol. IV Samuel to Maccabees in 1969.

The New Testament, this time from the Greek, not the Latin, was completed in 1969.

The whole work was aggregated into the New American Bible (NAB) of 1970.

The St Joseph missals used whatever Volumes above had been published at the time.

In 1986, the NAB Revised NT was issued. In 1991, a new translation of the Psalms was published. This edition of the Psalms has NOT been approved for use in the Liturgy due to its excessive gender-inclusive language.

 

[japhy]

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.

The Church is quite convinced that “the current form” does not “get the point across just fine” which is why she has been calling for a re-translation for the better part of a decade now. The language is not “of a time long past”, unless your sense of time informs you that everything older than the middle of the 20th century is “long past”. Finally, if priests and bishops do their job and catechize the faithful about the changes, then the confusion will have been cured before the texts are actually put into use.

 

[japhy]

Though, it would’ve been nice if they had incorporated some of the Tridentine elements, such as the Judica Me, Last Gospel or even the Leonine Prayers.

Well, this was just a re-translation. I’m afraid we’ll have to wait another several years to see a restoration of several of the unwisely excised parts of the Mass to the “Ordinary Form”.

 

[JReducation]

This line of reasoning doesn’t really hold up under scrutiny. “Holy” itself is of Germanic (not German) origin. If we insist on latinizing, wouldn’t consistency dictate latinizing the whole phrase ?

Perhaps “Sanctified Spirit” or “Sanctifying Spirit” would fit the bill.

But then we must remember that spiritus translates an originally Greek expression pneuma.

As long as the essential meaning is maintained, there really is nothing with translating using good old Germanic roots.

However your point is well taken that “Holy Ghost” sounds odd to the modern ear, although it must have sounded just fine centuries ago. **Some traditionalist friends I pray with before Mass say “Holy Ghost” and I find it jarring every time I hear it despite constant repetition.

But there are many other archaisms in our English prayers and liturgical vocabulary.**
“Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy Name…”

The bold is mine.

Of the different languages that I speak, I find Spanish and Italian closest to the Latin rendition. I guess because both languages still preserve in conversation much of the same structure and vocabulary as Latin. More often than not, the pronunciation has evolved or the ending of a word, but the root remains.

For example, in Spanish and Italian you do not say "Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be they name, etc.

The translation is very literal from the Latin. "Our Father who are in heaven, blessed be your name, . . . "

For Spiritus Sanctus, it’s translated as Espiritu Santo, which can mean either the Holy Spirit or the Sanctifying Spirit, because both are said the same way. Spanish and Italian do not have an “ing” form for adjectives. The meaning is taken from the conext.

Another thing that I noticed is during the mass, the words of instead of “Praise to you Lord Jesus Christ” at the end of the Gospel, the Spanish and the Italian would translate into English something like “May Jesus Christ be praised”. It’s an invitation to the community.

This note of invitation is very present through the entire liturgy. Even though in the Ordinary Form the community is much more involved than in the Extraordinary Form, the involvement is always by invitation. There is never an assumption that one has the right to be there. The right is given to us by Christ, not inherent to us. If you know what I mean.

At communion time, Spanish and Italian would say, “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof,” etc as it was said in the scripture. There is a sense of expectation that Jesus will ask us to open the door dispite our sinfulness, because he wants to enter. The initiative is placed in Jesus’ hands. The English translation, sounds much more individualistic. “I am not worthy to receive you, say but the word and I shall be heald”. In the Latin mind the concept of house conjures up the image of family. So that the idea that is brought about is that neither the individual nor the community is worthy. We stand together as sinners before the Lord. This is very strong language, because it convicts all of us together. At the same time, it proclaims us to be one family, since we share one house. The healing that is being sought is for the individual and for all. The ecclesial and personal dimensions are equally emphasized. This is what I like about these translations over the current English translations.

But that’s just my taste and I’m not a liturgist. I can’t really say that they convey exactly what liturgists know they should convey. I’m coming at this from the angle of Mystical Theology. That’s was my area of study in graduate school. I had two very broad theology courses and that was it.

Don’t take my opinion to the bank.

JR

 

[saieditor]

Is this the thread for the Novo Ordo?

Don’t like it.

I cheerfully confess to being a stick-in-the-mud and preferring what I prefer!

 

[JReducation]

Is this the thread for the Novo Ordo?

Don’t like it.

I cheerfully confess to being a stick-in-the-mud and preferring what I prefer!

The term Novus Ordo has been replaced by the Holy Father with Ordinary Form. I guess after 40 years, it’s no longer new. Stop and think an entire generation has been born during that time and many of them are already parents or even grandparents.

I’m not sure what part you do not like, so I would be interested.

I for one like the fact that the new edition of the missal will be closer to the Latin.

Harpazo: I’m very excited for the Latins. Hopefully, this will help get rid of some of the crud that has crept into the Roman Liturgy through the years and inspire more reverence!

Reverence is not just in the language. It’s in the heart of the believer. What the speakers of the Latin languages have is an advantage over the speakers of other languages. It’s easier to translate into the Latin languages.

I was a missionary in South America. We had a Quechua Missal. Quechua (pronounced Ket-chu-ah). The translators worked very hard to get the meaning in as clearly as possible. Quechua is older than Latin and Greek. It’s more than 5,000 years old and is still spoken in all of the Andean nations by the indigenous people, many of whom do not speak Spanish. It has its own grammar, syntax, semantics and pragmatics. It was the language of the Incas and the Mayans. So the people are very proud of their heritage and would not give it up for Latin.

As the indigenous population becomes more educated, they acquire a sense of their own place in world history and refuse to surrender it to the Greeks and the Romans or other cultures from Europe, North Africa, Asia and the Middle East. They insist on having the liturgy in their language.

We saw this when the Holy Father visited Australia, how the indigenous people were integrated into the liturgy through gestures and music. The Church cannot take the risk of losing these people because it wants to impose a European version of liturgy.

This makes translating a very difficult job. I can understand how translating into English would be equally difficult. English is such a blend of Northern European languages, including some Latin too. Then you have the diverse English syntaxes from the many different English speaking countries.

Let’s face it, Indian English, South African English, England’s English, American English and Caribbean English have very different syntax, pronunciation, and nuances for the same words. These are just some samples of the English language.

I can understand how ICEL would have thought that it be best to keep the English at a very elementary level to ensure that as many people as possible would comprehend it.

Sometimes we may be too quick to judge what was meant to be a gesture of good-will.

JR

 

[The_Prodigal]

I for one like the fact that the new edition of the missal will be closer to the Latin.

And:

Reverence is not just in the language. It’s in the heart of the believer. What the speakers of the Latin languages have is an advantage over the speakers of other languages. It’s easier to translate into the Latin languages.

I was a missionary in South America. We had a Quechua Missal. Quechua (pronounced Ket-chu-ah). The translators worked very hard to get the meaning in as clearly as possible. Quechua is older than Latin and Greek. It’s more than 5,000 years old and is still spoken in all of the Andean nations by the indigenous people, many of whom do not speak Spanish. It has its own grammar, syntax, semantics and pragmatics. It was the language of the Incas and the Mayans. So the people are very proud of their heritage and would not give it up for Latin.

As the indigenous population becomes more educated, they acquire a sense of their own place in world history and refuse to surrender it to the Greeks and the Romans or other cultures from Europe, North Africa, Asia and the Middle East. They insist on having the liturgy in their language…

I’m having a hard time reconciling these two opinions that you hold. From what I understand, many people in the Andes are extremely devout; perhaps you found this to be the case. Which goes to show that “Reverence is not just in the language. It’s in the heart of the believer” as you put it. So is it really necessary to latinize the language or make it as close to the original as possible?

Here’s my point of view: I prefer the EF and attend that liturgy exclusively when I’m able to (for the moment, every Sunday). I know Latin so I understand the prayers and responses.

When I attend the OF, it doesn’t bother me one iota that I respond: “Lord I am not worthy to receive you but only say the word and I shall be healed.” instead of a literal, word-for-word translation of “Domine non sum dignus, ut intres…” Sure the meaning is slightly different, but the sentiment in English is just as worthy of expression even if it does not correspond to the centurion’s words.

“Et cum spiritu tuo” has a particular cadence when chanted in Latin that is difficult to duplicate. “And also with you” comes closer to a sung cadence to my ear than “And with thy spirit,” which sounds just plain clunky in English. Maybe that is the problem: the English prayers and responses are typically said in the OF, not sung as in the EF High Mass. Perhaps we ought to sing more in the vernacular Mass, period.

There is no doubt in my mind however, that “for all” needs to be changed to “for many.” I can’t understand any justification for changing the meaning so significantly in this instance.

 

[japhy]

Reverence is not just in the language. …

I don’t think Harpazo was saying anything about the use of Latin in the Mass, JR. Harpazo is an Eastern Catholic; he said “Latins”, meaning “Latin Catholics”. (At least, that’s how I interpreted his remark.)

I can understand how ICEL would have thought that it be best to keep the English at a very elementary level to ensure that as many people as possible would comprehend it. Sometimes we may be too quick to judge what was meant to be a gesture of good-will.

Some of the features of the previous ICEL translation can’t be considered (in my opinion) as “gesture of good-will”. There are many places where things were very simply translated entirely differently, such as Penitential Rite Form B; that mess-up leads some priests to think that Form B includes the Kyrie, so they needn’t follow it with the Kyrie. There are many places where words are simply dropped out, like at the beginning of the Liturgy of the Eucharist, when we say “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands, for the praise and glory of His name, for our good and the good of all His Church.” The translators simply chose not to translate sanctae from totiusque Ecclesiae suae sanctae. What good-will was meant by that blatant omission? (I recall the new Confiteor, which now includes mention of sins of omission…)

 

[The_Prodigal]

The bold is mine.

Of the different languages that I speak, I find Spanish and Italian closest to the Latin rendition. I guess because both languages still preserve in conversation much of the same structure and vocabulary as Latin. More often than not, the pronunciation has evolved or the ending of a word, but the root remains.

For example, in Spanish and Italian you do not say "Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be they name, etc.

The translation is very literal from the Latin. "Our Father who are in heaven, blessed be your name, . . . "

Yes, but the traditional English translation is also very literal!

Pater noster qui es in caelis sanctificetur nomen tuum adveniat regnum tuum… is exactly translated by “Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come …” The roots in the English version up to this point are Germanic, as they ought to be! They form part of the basic vocabulary of English.

There is no innovation of meaning in the English version whatsoever. Art in the first line is an archaic form of “to be” precisely translating es in the Latin. Hallowed be (also archaic nowadays) exactly translates sanctificetur, and so on.

As English speakers, we can’t give up our Germanic roots just for the sake of sounding more like Latin, can we? As long as the meaning is preserved, I can’t see why you object to the English version - except merely as a matter of personal preference in that you like words with Latin roots better because they more resemble the prototype. Am I mistaken?