Opinions On The New Versions Of Mass Hymns

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jerry111
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Curtis C said:
What a disaster. For no good reason the words of the Mass have been changed. You could do the translation twenty times and come up with twenty interpretatons.

Now the music is ruined. And for what?

Aren’t there enough real problems for the church to focus on instead of trying to fix what is not broken? Every time they change the Mass, they take more away from it. Sometimes the church seems to be its own worst enemy.
Click to expand...
I’d argue that the Church is adding back to what was a deformed, insufficient translation. What you have to understand is that the Church doesn’t translate the missal to make whichever parts of it the priest decides to sing sound good around some music. That ruins the translation. The Gloria, for example, isn’t a song. People seem to think it is. It is a prayer, which sometimes (ends up being most of the time) is set to music. The music doesn’t determine the words in this case. The words determine the music, because first and foremost, these things aren’t songs. They’re prayers.

This is where people get mad for no reason, out of ignorance. People think the Gloria and the Agnus Dei (Lamb of God), for example, are “hymns.” They are NOT “hymns.” They are particular parts of the Roman Missal which have, over the years, been recognized for a musical quality which they innately contain, and have been set to music. It’s like if the priest started to sing the Eucharistic Prayer, or if the congregation started to sing the Domine Non Sum Dignus. They aren’t songs. They’re prayers. But hey, if they want to sing them, OK, go ahead. But it’s improper to think that the words should change to fit music.

I think what people are complaining about, the fact that the Church should “focus on more important things,” is a baseless argument. It’s not like there were 2,000 people working on this. There was a rather small, private group, ICEL, composed of a nucleus of people, who worked on it. The translation was asked to be reviewed by all English-speaking bishops, and I estimate there to be no more than 400 English-speaking bishops in the world (there are 192 or so in the US) out of the thousands of bishops of all languages. And it wasn’t even their duty to translate. They just looked the translation over and gave suggestions, and sent them to ICEL, which was a small additional duty amongst their day-to-day operation as bishops. After the translation received recognitio from the Vatican, copies were sent to the publishers, which, themselves, fall outside of the purview of the Church. It’s not like the Church gave tons and tons and tons of resources and people to do this, so I think it’s pretty ridiculous to act like the English translation of the Missale Romanum was on a golden pedestal for ten years and everything else was a secondary goal. Not true.

People act like a translation is a translation. That’s not true. How we pray, the words we hear at mass, do, in fact, contribute largely to our spiritual lives, and in turn, to our lives in general. It’s important to get the translation right. However, I don’t think it’s fair to downgrade its importance by saying the Church should focus on other things, when, frankly, this translation wasn’t exactly a high-priority item to begin with.
 
YoungTradCath said:
It’s important to get the translation right.
Click to expand...
It could be pretty or archaic language and literal (whatever that means) but a translation (or even a paraphrase) is subjective and like the other poster said twenty different translators will come up with twenty different translations, all claiming to be right. (Look at how many English Bibles have been published; no doubt there have been hundreds of others that never made it to publishing.) Your only hope is that somehow out of it you’ll get a consensus of opinion, which means they have to come up with something that everyone within the group can live with. At least until they’re ordered to translate it again.
 
Previously we rotated through several settings o the Gloria, the Sanctus, etc. Now that we’re “practicing,” we’ve been using only one version of the Gloria, and just recently the Sanctus. Neither of them was all that great to begin with (rather unmelodic), but they had to be rewritten to account for the expanded wording, and they’ve gone from not-all-that-great to even-less-so. I’ve studied music, and I write and perform it. I’ve never tried anything like that, but I’m tempted, even if my chances of getting something from “da book” replaced by a something from a manuscript lie somewhere between zero and one.
 
YoungTradCath said:
People act like a translation is a translation. That’s not true. How we pray, the words we hear at mass, do, in fact, contribute largely to our spiritual lives, and in turn, to our lives in general. It’s important to get the translation right.
Click to expand...
I agree with both what you said here and what ProVobis said, though I admit to a bias toward more literal translation in most applications. While “right” might not be totally accurate, it is more important that the translation be a more formal equivalancy, bringing out what the Church wants us to hear. Even if it takes time to understand all the allusions and adjust to the phrases that are stilted, this understanding will prove valuable in years to come.
 
MarkThompson said:
Wow, it’s like the entire last four pages of discussion never happened.
Click to expand...
I had to listen to the poor music again this Sunday, so I am reexperiencing the feelings of my original post.😦

Also, did everyone have to watch that disasterous video on why they changed all the words in Mass last week? The video fast forwarded itself to blur what was being said, only strengthening my conviction - gobbledigook by busybodys.
 
Curtis C said:
Vatican II? I think we may be coming from different directions here.
Click to expand...
I think perhaps you have, like the majority of Catholics, misinterpreted what the documents of Vatican II actually say. I invite you to read them.
 
YoungTradCath said:
I think perhaps you have, like the majority of Catholics, misinterpreted what the documents of Vatican II actually say. I invite you to read them.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I think if anything needs to be retranslated to something more literal, it would be the documents of Vatican II.
 
ProVobis said:
Indeed. I think if anything needs to be retranslated to something more literal, it would be the documents of Vatican II.
Click to expand...
That would be fantastic.

Er… after second thought, I must ask, are the documents in Latin ambiguous? If the problem lies therein, then no translation of the Latin can be made clearer. I am not particularly fluent in Latin, but it might be worthwhile for someone to examine the Latin original of the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy. If that is where the problem lies, then there is nothing wrong with the translation, but the original. Ugh.
 
YoungTradCath said:
That would be fantastic.

Er… after second thought, I must ask, are the documents in Latin ambiguous? If the problem lies therein, then no translation of the Latin can be made clearer. I am not particularly fluent in Latin, but it might be worthwhile for someone to examine the Latin original of the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy. If that is where the problem lies, then there is nothing wrong with the translation, but the original. Ugh.
Click to expand...
No, I don’t believe the Latin texts were ambiguous. Just the English ones. I don’t know about other languages, but, I do think that a new translation, and that new translation being sent to EVERY Anglophone diocese so that it could be then sent to EVERY parish, would be lovely 🙂
 
YoungTradCath said:
Er… after second thought, I must ask, are the documents in Latin ambiguous? If the problem lies therein, then no translation of the Latin can be made clearer.
Click to expand...
I would settle on, perhaps, less biased. For example, haud raro should be literally translated as “not rarely” rather than “frequently.” Or maybe even “vulgar tongue” instead of “mother tongue” would drive the point better, to keep it consistent with Trent’s language. You can see the translator is in control on this.

As far as ambiguity goes, a point could be made that because the document doesn’t contain any anathema sit, that there was nothing very binding, even when a strong Linguae latinae usus, salvo particulari iure, in Ritibus latinis servetur. (“Particular law preserved, the use of Latin language is to be kept in the Latin Rites”) is declared. So maybe a retranslation may not be worth it.
 
ProVobis said:
I would settle on, perhaps, less biased. For example, haud raro should be literally translated as “not rarely” rather than “frequently.” Or maybe even “vulgar tongue” instead of “mother tongue” would drive the point better, to keep it consistent with Trent’s language. You can see the translator is in control on this.

As far as ambiguity goes, a point could be made that because the document doesn’t contain any anathema sit, that there was nothing very binding, even when a strong Linguae latinae usus, salvo particulari iure, in Ritibus latinis servetur. (“Particular law preserved, the use of Latin language is to be kept in the Latin Rites”) is declared. So maybe a retranslation may not be worth it.
Click to expand...
Right. If not everything to the contrary of a declaration is made to anathematize the doer, then the declaration is not Canon.
 
YoungTradCath said:
Right. If not everything to the contrary of a declaration is made to anathematize the doer, then the declaration is not Canon.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you mean by “Canon.” If you had said “dogma,” you’d be right. But, for instance, you will not find at any time in history, before or after Vatican II, a declaration of anathema for anyone who says that priests should be permitted to marry – and yet a canon of the Church is that priests are not permitted to marry!
 
MarkThompson said:
I’m not sure what you mean by “Canon.” If you had said “dogma,” you’d be right. But, for instance, you will not find at any time in history, before or after Vatican II, a declaration of anathema for anyone who says that priests should be permitted to marry – and yet a canon of the Church is that priests are not permitted to marry!
Click to expand...
:confused: phraseology.
 
Interpretation of documents is depressingly political.

Consider Obamacare: for the most part, Conservatives interpret it as unconstitutional, Liberals as constitiutional. Which is it?

How many Catholic translations of the bible are there? Many. Is the Duey-Rheims correct or the New Jerusalem? Point is, both have their place. There is and will be no final, definitive answer.

The damage to the Mass should stop. The New Mass was bad enough. Now this “New Translation.” The Masons seem to be getting just what they want.

In the book, “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance,” this guy had a beautiful, antique motorcycle. It broke down on a ride and he had to take it to a mechanic he didn’t know. The mechanic didn’t know how to fix it, but he kept trying, and kept damaging the bike more. Finally, the owner told him, “Just stop.”

That is my take on the Mass. The New Mass was a terrible change, and now this. Just stop.
 
pnewton said:
:rotfl: Okay, I will be a little more constructive. Here one of several video’s from Jimmy Akin addressing this gripe:

catholic.com/video/why-do-some-people-oppose-the-new-translation-of-the-mass
Click to expand...
Thanks for the video. You’d have to convince me the translation is an improvement and more accurate though. It annoys me when liberals say, don’t worry, everything’s fine. If I need that, I’ll listen to an Obama speech.

Here is a petition if you don’t like the Mass Translation asking them to at least delay it:

whatifwejustsaidwait.org/
 
roadsend said:
Paying publishers for music IMO is a waste of Church money, since there is so much high quality free sacred music available.
Click to expand...
Agree. It’s a very big business.

And Mozart, Bach and Beethoven are definitely no longer on the payroll.
 
Curtis C said:
Thanks for the video. You’d have to convince me the translation is an improvement and more accurate though. It annoys me when liberals say, don’t worry, everything’s fine. If I need that, I’ll listen to an Obama speech.

Here is a petition if you don’t like the Mass Translation asking them to at least delay it:

whatifwejustsaidwait.org/
Click to expand...
Too late.

Just wondering, do you think these kinds of things are decided by petitions?
 
iloveangels said:
Agree. It’s a very big business.

And Mozart, Bach and Beethoven are definitely no longer on the payroll.
Click to expand...
Let’s at least hope that Bach wasn’t ever on the payroll. Great music – the Lutheran Palestrina – but not Catholic.

I think Palestrina is still on the payroll! At least his liturgical music is still profoundly Catholic. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top