OF and EF side-by-side

[Bran_Stark]

I have seen several side-by-side comparisons of the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms. Now this is a very helpful resource in understanding the differences between the two liturgies, but they seem to always be presented in a rather distracting manner:

While the English text of the OF is naturally given in the official translation, which uses “contemporary” English, the English text of the EF is in “traditional” English, with thees and thous and all. Now don’t get me wrong, I love archaic language. But it seems kind of unfair to do this, because both are simply translations of Latin texts, and using archaic English for the EF and modern English for the OF creates an unwarranted impression that the EF is more traditional. Furthermore, the EF text often capitalizes pronouns referring to God, making the typographic bias even worse. Now I don’t mean to imply that both forms are necessarily equally traditional, but I do think we should judge between them on level ground.

So, does anyone know of a comparison chart with OF and EF rendered into the same style of modern English?

 

[newyorkcatholic]

I don’t, because EF hand missals always used elevated language whereas those responsible to the OF English translation have refused to do this.

So for a fairer comparison, compare the texts in Latin, using the English as a guide to meaning.

 

[Rich_C]

Don’t get me wrong, I’d be interested to see that too, but why do you see a bias against one form or the other in the differences? The translators both meant to deliver the best product they could and they produced two different styles because they had different goals.

Have you ever seen the missal of 1965, by the way? It was the actual product of VII but turned out to be only a transitional liturgy. It has some of the qualities of both the OF and EF.

 

[GelasianumVetus]

Fr. Thomas Kocik’s book The Reform of the Reform contains an appendix with both forms of Mass. They are not side by side; each is presented in turn, with Latin and English side by side. But the English translations of each have the non-biased qualities you are looking for (things that are the same in the Latin in both have the same English, no archaisms in one that are not in the other, capitalizations are the same in both).

 

[Bran_Stark]

I don’t, because EF hand missals always used elevated language whereas those responsible to the OF English translation have refused to do this.

That doesn’t really matter though, since said translations were never official.

So for a fairer comparison, compare the texts in Latin, using the English as a guide to meaning.

Obviously that’s the ideal… but sadly I don’t know much Latin, and differing styles of translation makes it all the more difficult to use the English as a guide.

Don’t get me wrong, I’d be interested to see that too, but why do you see a bias against one form or the other in the differences? The translators both meant to deliver the best product they could and they produced two different styles because they had different goals.

The bias is that there are cases in which the Latin text of the EF and OF are identical.

Have you ever seen the missal of 1965, by the way? It was the actual product of VII but turned out to be only a transitional liturgy. It has some of the qualities of both the OF and EF.

I have, actually. I found it in a used book sale in my library, and it looked very nice. It retained the one-year-lectionary, as I recall.

Fr. Thomas Kocik’s book The Reform of the Reform contains an appendix with both forms of Mass. They are not side by side; each is presented in turn, with Latin and English side by side. But the English translations of each have the non-biased qualities you are looking for (things that are the same in the Latin in both have the same English, no archaisms in one that are not in the other, capitalizations are the same in both).

Splendid.

By the way, were I actually going to attend a Latin Mass, I’d rather have a missal with traditional English. This request was just for academic study, not devotion.

 

[ProVobis]

So, does anyone know of a comparison chart with OF and EF rendered into the same style of modern English?

A translated Mass is not the EF anymore so what’s the point? Does it really matter if consubstantialem Patri is translated to “one in substance with the Father” or “consubstantial to the Father” if the English is not used in the Mass? I see the English in the handmissal as training wheels, which after a while, you don’t need anymore and only get in the way.

 

[Rich_C]

If I recall, the 1965 missal was almost textually identication to the 1962 (and used its lectionary and liturgical calendar, so you’ll find Septuagesima season, for example), but in the vernacular. However, the rubrics had some big differences, I think.

I’d be interested to hear what you think of the similarities and differences between the OF and the EF. I think the biggest difference is in the text themselves (and how we receive Holy Communion) not in the Latin/vernacular debate.

On a related note, I’ve read that only 16% of the 1962 Propers were retained in the 1970 missal, but that’s not something any of us could easily compare as there are thousands, I suppose.