Recent/pending changes to Mass verbage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nan_S
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Nan_S

Guest
I remember some months back, that authoritative news source, CNN :rotfl:, reported that the USCCB had just announced the first significant changes to the liturgy in some 20 years. The reason given was to bring the American English liturgy more into conformance with the Latin.

Specifically, I recall them saying that the Centurion’s prayer would go back to the way we recited it in the 1970s:

“Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum; sed tantum dic verbo, et sanabitur anima mea.”

which we now recite as:

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

will go back to being:

“Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word and I shall be healed.”

If the change has been put into effect elsewhere, it wasn’t implemented in my diocese (Shreveport, LA). Given that the Vatican accepted the retirement of our bishop effective Dec 21st without naming a replacement, I don’t expect to see it anytime soon either.

Does anyone know if the change was actually implemented, or if the CNN story was even reliable?

Nan
 
I believe that the US Bishops made recommendations for changes to the English translation, however, the Vatican is currently reviewing their recommendations and still needs to approve them (and make their own changes) yet. I would bet it will be a year or more before you see any of the changes happen.

Dave
 
Yes, these changes will bring the Mass fairly close to the 1965 Missal. The new English translation is still under Vatican review. What complicates matters are the amendments that the USCCB bishops made to the generic English translation. I believe that the Holy Father’s change back to “for many” instead of “for all” (which was not in the USCCB recommendations) was a result of that overall process.

I have read in various blogs that the Vox Clara commission which is charge of the English translations throughout the world will meet in early 2007 to finalize the new English language Mass translation to present to the Holy Father.

However, in order to get the support of the USCCB for approval, the rumor is that the bishops will get leeway in the implementation. That could mean that they might be holding out until the entire Roman Missal including the propers is translated, not just the ordinary of the Mass. That could be several years away yet. They may be hoping that in the meantime anything could happen to derail the project.

However, it remains to be seen what pressure the Vatican will place on timely implementation. If the Vatican really pushes to implement as soon as possible, I’ve read that it could be that the Holy Father inagurates the new translation for World Youth Day in Sydney 2008 and it could be implemented at the parish level for the 2009 liturgical year starting in Advent 2008. Of course this is the best case scenario.

You are correct in stating that nothing much has been said in the mainstream Catholic media for the most significant event that could happen to the liturgy in over 40 years. It seems as if the liberal ostriches are sticking their proverbial heads in the sand, and hoping this all goes away.
 
Nan_S said:
“Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum; sed tantum dic verbo, et sanabitur anima mea.”

which we now recite as:

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

will go back to being:

“Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word and I shall be healed.”
Click to expand...
Not “I shall be healed”- but “My soul shall be healed”. This is one of the complaints of Traditionalists- that ICEL purposely midtranslated the Latin word “anima” in order to conform with those who do not believe in a soul.

The new translation to come, doesn’t it read “My soul shall be healed” instead of “I shall be healed”? I thought it did.

Ken
 
kleary said:
Not “I shall be healed”- but “My soul shall be healed”. This is one of the complaints of Traditionalists- that ICEL purposely midtranslated the Latin word “anima” in order to conform with those who do not believe in a soul.

The new translation to come, doesn’t it read “My soul shall be healed” instead of “I shall be healed”? I thought it did.

Ken
Click to expand...
Thank you. That may well be the case; I don’t have a reference.

I was trying to recall the liturgy as it existed when I was a teen, and a CNN news story that is no longer to be found.

I remembered the “roof” part. The rest of it…

Not that I’d trust CNN anyway for accurate reporting about anything Catholic. Look at the number of Catholic priests CNN convicted-without-a-trial while ignoring Protestant ministers who did the same or much worse.

And thank you, Asperges, for the detailed explanation of the current situation. Now I know what to look for and when.

Nan
 
The 1965 Missal?!?!

This translation is for the word of the mass only right?

Or are we going to adopt the 65 missal?!

Doesn’t the 1965 missal have the preist face ad orientum?

IF so YAAAAAY!
 
no one is adopting the 1965 missal, but it did have a better latin to english translation.
 
And note that there is actually no “1965 missal.” The Order of Mass was revised in 1965, but it was only the text of the Order of Mass itself, and not the entire missal, that was revised.

After the 1962 typical edition of the Roman Missal, the next new edition was the 1970 edition, promulgated in 1969. Changes to the Mass texts occurred in 1965, 1966 in the U.S.A., 1967 and 1968.
 
There isn’t? I guess the missal I have must be from a paralell 1965! Off the top of my head, it allowed for the vernacular and it does have english and “new” hymns. Without looking, was it exactly the same as the 1962 missal, just in english?
 
mgy100 said:
There isn’t? I guess the missal I have must be from a paralell 1965! Off the top of my head, it allowed for the vernacular and it does have english and “new” hymns. Without looking, was it exactly the same as the 1962 missal, just in english?
Click to expand...
No it was not.
 
Chatter163 said:
And note that there is actually no “1965 missal.” The Order of Mass was revised in 1965, but it was only the text of the Order of Mass itself, and not the entire missal, that was revised.

After the 1962 typical edition of the Roman Missal, the next new edition was the 1970 edition, promulgated in 1969. Changes to the Mass texts occurred in 1965, 1966 in the U.S.A., 1967 and 1968.
Click to expand...
traditionalromanmass.blogspot.com/
 
Nan_S said:
I remember some months back, that authoritative news source, CNN :rotfl:, reported that the USCCB had just announced the first significant changes to the liturgy in some 20 years. The reason given was to bring the American English liturgy more into conformance with the Latin.

Specifically, I recall them saying that the Centurion’s prayer would go back to the way we recited it in the 1970s:

“Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum; sed tantum dic verbo, et sanabitur anima mea.”

which we now recite as:

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

will go back to being:

“Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word and I shall be healed.”

If the change has been put into effect elsewhere, it wasn’t implemented in my diocese (Shreveport, LA). Given that the Vatican accepted the retirement of our bishop effective Dec 21st without naming a replacement, I don’t expect to see it anytime soon either.

Does anyone know if the change was actually implemented, or if the CNN story was even reliable?

Nan
Click to expand...
From what I understand. Nothing can be changed in a diocese unless absolutely necessary and possibly only with the Archbishops approval that it is a necessary change when the See is vacant. This situation remains until a new Bishop is installed. So even a directive from Rome won’t be implemented in a diocese until the (new) Bishop implements it.
 
Who are these liberals holding back the progress of righteous
worship? Somehow unless some priest or parish goes totally “hog wild” with abuse or has liturgical dance ( which makes me want to puke) I don’t get too excited and I think probably most Catholics don’t. If they can stroll out of the pews, taking their kid to the toilet during the prayers of consecration, they are not aware of why they are even in Church, except because Mom used to say it was important to be there on Sunday.
 
rwoehmke said:
Who are these liberals holding back the progress of righteous
worship? Somehow unless some priest or parish goes totally “hog wild” with abuse or has liturgical dance ( which makes me want to puke) I don’t get too excited and I think probably most Catholics don’t. If they can stroll out of the pews, taking their kid to the toilet during the prayers of consecration, they are not aware of why they are even in Church, except because Mom used to say it was important to be there on Sunday.
Click to expand...
Re: leaving during the consecration–this bothers me too. I hate to sound old and stodgy, but when I was a kid, we would never have thought to leave during Mass for any reason, especially for having to use the restroom. (unless perhaps if you were about to be sick) You went before you left home.
 
4HisChurch said:
Re: leaving during the consecration–this bothers me too. I hate to sound old and stodgy, but when I was a kid, we would never have thought to leave during Mass for any reason, especially for having to use the restroom. (unless perhaps if you were about to be sick) You went before you left home.
Click to expand...
Sometimes you just gotta go. However, I agree, leaving during the consecration is bad form, unless it’s an emergency.
 
4HisChurch said:
Re: leaving during the consecration–this bothers me too. I hate to sound old and stodgy, but when I was a kid, we would never have thought to leave during Mass for any reason, especially for having to use the restroom. (unless perhaps if you were about to be sick) You went before you left home.
Click to expand...
Guess you are not aware that some folks, as they age, are not able to wait that long. Going before they leave home does not always work. Thoughts to ponder.
 
mary_bobo said:
Guess you are not aware that some folks, as they age, are not able to wait that long. Going before they leave home does not always work. Thoughts to ponder.
Click to expand...
You’re right. Thanks for reminding me.
 
There isn’t? I guess the missal I have must be from a paralell 1965! Off the top of my head, it allowed for the vernacular and it does have english and “new” hymns.
Click to expand...
There was no complete missal; as I previously stated, only the Order of Mass itself was revised, and not the rest of the missal. Most of the liturgical documents indicated that a revision of the entire missal was still pending.
 
Just as a point of clarification – the changes that were voted on are about 1/3 of the total changes that are supposed to be coming. From (name removed by moderator)ut I have received, the bishops are continuing to examine the additional 2/3 of the changes and are making “suggestions” on the changes. Part of the problem is that the English language translation is supposed to work for all places that use English! As Winston Churchill once observed, the United States and Great Britan are two countries separated by a common language. There are difficulties in some of the translations because what we accept as perfectly valid English the English do not. This is part of the reason for trying to restore a common “sacred language” where we all agree that a) it’s not everyday English and, b) it accurately reflects the Latin.

At best we will problably not see any of the changes for two to three years since the changes cannot be implemented piecemeal, but must be taken as a whole.

Deacon Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top