Question on wording during consecration

  • Thread starter Thread starter leaner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

leaner

Guest
As I grew up, we were taught to say “Lord, I am not worthy to receive Thee, but only say the word, and my soul shall be healed”

I’ve noticed some parishes say that, and others say “only say the word, and I will be healed” – is there some reason the mention of “soul” was dropped?

Just curious if there was a specific intent with that change or if it’s more of a “morphed without any specific instruction” kind of thing over time…
 
It’s just the translation. I am not sure if the prayer in the Novus Ordo is worded the same way or not. A lot of prayers were ‘simplified’ in 1970.
 
The original prayer in the Tridentine rite, made reference to the centurion’s words when he asked Jesus to heal his child, but said he was not worthy for Jesus to enter his house. Using a military analogy, he asked Jesus to cure her merely by giving a command.

In the liturgy, the prayer was:

Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum; sed tantum dic verbo, et sanabitur anima mea. Which was translated as:

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

I’m not sure why the reference to the soul was dropped in the most recent translation.
 
Answer: the desacralizing, Modernistic “translators” (ICEL=“Insidious Corruptors” of English in the Liturgy, or rather “Incompetent Clowns”…) were careful to remove any reference to the human soul or spirit.

This heretical defect is common throughout the contemporary Litturgy!

In the official Latin, we still say, “and my soul shall be healed”.
 
Dynamic equivalency is the bane of modern translations of all types.

The Latin in the traditional Rite and the NO are exactly the same, as noted above: Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum; sed tantum dic verbo, et sanabitur anima mea.

Personally, I prefer the more accurate, traditional English translation, one of the main reasons being it more accurately reflects the scripture passage it’s based upon.

But the way some people in the Church are screeching about the draft of the new English translation, you’d think we were altering Shakespeare instead of a desultory 1970s text. :nope:
 
40.png
tjmiller:
Answer: the desacralizing, Modernistic “translators” (ICEL=“Insidious Corruptors” of English in the Liturgy, or rather “Incompetent Clowns”…) were careful to remove any reference to the human soul or spirit.

This heretical defect is common throughout the contemporary Litturgy!

In the official Latin, we still say, “and my soul shall be healed”.
Click to expand...
How on earth do you suggest that this is a heresy? It may certainly be far from a literal translation of the Latin, but heresy, c’mon!!

How does the meaning change?
 
40.png
leaner:
As I grew up, we were taught to say “Lord, I am not worthy to receive Thee, but only say the word, and my soul shall be healed”

…
Click to expand...
this prayer is said before communion by the people; the words of consecration are part of the Eucharistic prayer, said by the priest. so your title is inaccurate and misleading. I never learned the prayer with the words “my soul”. What does your missal say?

I would be very, very careful, unless your credentials are very good indeed and you are one of those charged with responsibility for translations of texts used during Mass, with charging “heresy” against these translations. The Church has spoken, we have the Mass as given to us by the Church. Get over it and pray with the Church, not with your personal preferences.
 
The document Liturgiam Authenticam mandates a return to a more traditional translation for many such liturgical-lite renderings. Although the bishops’ committee is dragging its feet, the new translation is already complete and quite good.
 
G&S:
The document Liturgiam Authenticam mandates a return to a more traditional translation for many such liturgical-lite renderings. Although the bishops’ committee is dragging its feet, the new translation is already complete and quite good.
Click to expand...
then when the happy day comes that the new lectionaries, sacramentaries and missals are ready, we will rejoice in this gift of the Church. Until then we will worship with what we have and rejoice in these gifts as well.
 
40.png
puzzleannie:
this prayer is said before communion by the people; the words of consecration are part of the Eucharistic prayer, said by the priest. so your title is inaccurate and misleading. I never learned the prayer with the words “my soul”. What does your missal say?

I would be very, very careful, unless your credentials are very good indeed and you are one of those charged with responsibility for translations of texts used during Mass, with charging “heresy” against these translations. The Church has spoken, we have the Mass as given to us by the Church. Get over it and pray with the Church, not with your personal preferences.
Click to expand...
My word, I asked a simple question if wording had changed for a specific reason or if it had just been a translation thing…people need to read these posts without boxing gloves on, some of us really do have innocent questions, but holy cow, are some of you the most unwelcoming and accusatory individuals I never thought I’d find around these parts. And you wonder why “some people just don’t get it”??? Probably b/c they tried to ask a question and got accused of things they never even considered…you really can’t even ask a simple question in here can you???:rolleyes::hmmm:
 
It seems that some posters assume that all of us on CAForums are as knowledgeable as they are on matters pertaining to Church Doctrine. I know that I am here to learn, and am sometimes afraid to ask questions as I have been made out to be a fool more times than I can count.
 
I was not on attack mode, I mentioned title of OP because you are far more likely to get helpful responses if the title draws people to the topic, I was trying to be helpful rather than critical. My second suggestion was aimed at previous answers who deemed certain changes in the Mass as “heresy”, not at OP. I suggested caution in using such intense language, and it seems we are in agreement, at least, that caution in our choice of words is warranted on this forum. If anyone took offense, please accept an apology. As I have said before, in my responses I try to address the issues and actual content of a post, not the person posting.
 
I think sometimes, especially in the Liturgy and Sacraments subforum, the regular posters are very, very knowledgeable. I read this sub-forum more than any others because of what I can learn from the posters here. Sometimes, though, an “outsider” type poster will ask an innocent question and then will get all kinds of responses that seem to take that poster to task. In this way, some of us who need instruction in some areas, may not ask any more questions. That is why I responded above the way I did. I apologize if I caused anyone to take offense.

Back to the regularly scheduled post about proper wording…
 
I think sometimes, especially in the Liturgy and Sacraments subforum, the regular posters are very, very knowledgeable. I read this sub-forum more than any others because of what I can learn from the posters here. Sometimes, though, an “outsider” type poster will ask an innocent question and then will get all kinds of responses that seem to take that poster to task. In this way, some of us who need instruction in some areas, may not ask any more questions. That is why I responded above the way I did. I apologize if I caused anyone to take offense.
Click to expand...
I would be inclined to agree. However, there are also questions from individuals who come in with the intention of starting a ruckus.
 
40.png
Chatter163:
I would be inclined to agree. However, there are also questions from individuals who come in with the intention of starting a ruckus.
Click to expand...
Yes, but can you not click on a person’s profile and see what else they’ve posted?? Usually, if they’re a newbie or have a history of confrontational posts etc. (such as those titled “why not women priests?” – those would be reasons to suspect a poster’s true intentions, but when someone comes in and asks a question and you automatically assume they are up to no good…perhaps it’s time for those folks to re-look why it is they are on here – is it to discuss and learn or is it to “teach those young dissenters a lesson”

WHatever happened to wanting to spread the word of God and teach those who ask? Why can’t a person just ask a plain old question – even if you suspect them, can you not find a way to answer without staking them to a tree? Just b/c people come in here and stir the pot doesn’t give others the right to treat every new face as a tool of confusion and dissent – that’s all.
 
The Vatican has issued a statement that translating ‘pro multis’ as “for all” is an acceptable translation.

the ‘pro multis’ is an idomatic expression closer to ‘for all’

For example the direct translation of “tout le Monde” in French is “all the World” but in common ussage it means ‘everyone’, so is "everyone’ an acceptable translation, most linguists would say so.

So if the Vatican says ‘for all’ is an acceptable translation, can anyone think of a stronger authority?
 
40.png
leaner:
As I grew up, we were taught to say “Lord, I am not worthy to receive Thee, but only say the word, and my soul shall be healed”

I’ve noticed some parishes say that, and others say “only say the word, and I will be healed” – is there some reason the mention of “soul” was dropped?

Just curious if there was a specific intent with that change or if it’s more of a “morphed without any specific instruction” kind of thing over time…
Click to expand...
The official English translation of the Order of Mass in the 1966 Roman Missal (Sacramentary) approved for use in the United States translates the Domine, non sum dignus as “Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof. Speak but the word and my soul will be healed.”

Apparently, there was a period of time between the Second Vatican Council and the introduction of the current English language Roman Missal that the Church employed some pretty good English versions of the Order of Mass.

Of course, this was prior to the advent of ICEL translations that have ruined the sacral character of the Mass.
 
40.png
Brendan:
So if the Vatican says ‘for all’ is an acceptable translation, can anyone think of a stronger authority?
Click to expand...
Once upon a time, the Holy See accepted lots of translations in the liturgy that it now condemns.

Jesus died for all in the sense that all might be saves, yet his death was efficatious only for the believers. It all depends upon what the focus of the translation is. Both translations, therefore, could be correct, depending on the terminology used.

I believe the most-correct translation of “pro multis” would be “the many”, which is close to “the multitudes.”

If the correct translation (based on the original meaning) for the original latin were “for all”, then the original latin would read “pro omnibus.”
 
40.png
muledog:
Once upon a time, the Holy See accepted lots of translations in the liturgy that it now condemns."
Click to expand...
I agree, that still doesn’t put me in any position of Authority on the matter.

The Holy See is the final abitor on the subject. The Charism of Infalliblity would prevent the promulgation of a Canon that was invalid, so I have little worries there.

It then falls to, which is the best of two valid options. Well, it’s not my personal liturgy, it belongs to the Church and if the Vatican produces a judgement on such matters, I still owe my submission of intellect and will.
 
According to the hierarchy of truths and the corresponding grades of theological certitude, a position can be “heretical” without necessarily also being “heresy”. Every heresy is indeed heretical, but not everything heretical is ipso facto heresy.

The elimination of almost all references to the soul and spirit in the ICEL Liturgy is as it were heretical (as are many other things in the ICEL liturgy!) inasmuch as it amounts to a rationalistic, naturalistic (anti-supernaturalist) denial of the existence of the soul and/or spirit.

There is indeed a difference bewteen “And with your spirit”, and “and also with you”!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top