Roman Ritual in English

[Revs96]

The Roman Ritual found here has everything in Latin & English. Now, since this is the pre-Vatican II Ritual, the Latin should be used, but how much of the English can be used? There is not only the Sacraments, but various blessings and every manner of ceremony that can be done by a priest. Saying that the English can be used for blessings is one thing, since a priest can usually ad lib a blessing, but it is a different matter to do the Sacraments in the vernacular in the EF, so where do you draw the line? How much of those English texts can be used and how much are just for reference (like the English in a Latin-English 1962 Breviary)?

 

[SenorSalsa]

It is as you say, blessings may be ad libbed, whereas sacraments cannot be.

I would say that certainly none of the sacraments may be done in an English translation of the older texts

I would also say that more “official” blessings could not be either. For example enrollment in a scapular, possibly even the blessing of Holy Water and Salt. These are things that have some norms and rules guiding them.

Things like blessing beer and houses and cats and everything else on the earth, well those you could probably use English translations no problem.

 

[malphono]

There’s a smaller book called the Collectio Rituum which was, as I recall, published for use of priests in the US. From what I recall when its use was explained to me many years ago, whatever is printed in English could have been done in English. The actual forms of the various Sacraments (plus some other prayers) are printed only in Latin. The rubrics were only in Latin.

I have a printed copy of one somewhere, but there is an on-line copy here

 

[corsair]

Thanks Malphono, for reminding me of the Collectio Rituum. I bought one off Ebay a couple of years ago and it was from my old parish, St. Yves mission church. That was a little spooky when I saw where it had come from.

 

[dgj23112]

It is as you say, blessings may be ad libbed, whereas sacraments cannot be.

I would say that certainly none of the sacraments may be done in an English translation of the older texts

I would also say that more “official” blessings could not be either. For example enrollment in a scapular, possibly even the blessing of Holy Water and Salt. These are things that have some norms and rules guiding them.

Things like blessing beer and houses and cats and everything else on the earth, well those you could probably use English translations no problem.

How truly fascinating…you refer to the “ad-libbing” of blessings, but not sacraments. Hence, one may only conclude that texts (including those of 1942 and of the late 1800’s) which have both the Latin and English (yes, thanks to God, the proper/stilted/archaic/King’s English) are, in fact, “ad-libbed”. And, even better, the “ad-libbing” was given the imprimatur of ecclesiastical authority in BOTH cases. So, a bishop can bless. approve, ratify and otherwise give the O.K. to a bunch of “ad-libbing”, BUT, it just ain’t gonna do for use in church…How perfectly absurd. Somehow, so many have managed to conclude that the extrordinarily brilliant chosen few ARE capable of accurately translating, in reverent style, from latin to english, but, yet, not sufficiently accurately enough to pass muster, once we approach the altar. Or, did I miss something???

 

[SenorSalsa]

How truly fascinating…you refer to the “ad-libbing” of blessings, but not sacraments. Hence, one may only conclude that texts (including those of 1942 and of the late 1800’s) which have both the Latin and English (yes, thanks to God, the proper/stilted/archaic/King’s English) are, in fact, “ad-libbed”. And, even better, the “ad-libbing” was given the imprimatur of ecclesiastical authority in BOTH cases. So, a bishop can bless. approve, ratify and otherwise give the O.K. to a bunch of “ad-libbing”, BUT, it just ain’t gonna do for use in church…How perfectly absurd. Somehow, so many have managed to conclude that the extrordinarily brilliant chosen few ARE capable of accurately translating, in reverent style, from latin to english, but, yet, not sufficiently accurately enough to pass muster, once we approach the altar. Or, did I miss something???

its not the latin to english that is ad libbing, its just that a Priest is free, when performing a blessing, to change from the form, whether it means changing the Latin (presuming he is fluent enough to do so) or changing the English.

Neither of the official translations provided in the book would be ad libbing, I am talking about deviating from what is printed in the book. Priests can bless in about any way that is not heretical. This is why a priest feels at liberty to bless objects without having to consult a book first.

 

[ProVobis]

It is as you say, blessings may be ad libbed, whereas sacraments cannot be.

I would say that certainly none of the sacraments may be done in an English translation of the older texts

I would also say that more “official” blessings could not be either. For example enrollment in a scapular, possibly even the blessing of Holy Water and Salt. These are things that have some norms and rules guiding them.

Things like blessing beer and houses and cats and everything else on the earth, well those you could probably use English translations no problem.

I would agree. If the English translation is unofficial it may be heresy for all we know. Even half the ICEL translations are under attack by many. The English or Vietnamese, for that matter, is to be used as a guide, nothing more. The world isn’t Alabama, where they want to use English only.

 

[Mattapoisett64]

I would agree. If the English translation is unofficial it may be heresy for all we know. Even half the ICEL translations are under attack by many. The English or Vietnamese, for that matter, is to be used as a guide, nothing more. The world isn’t Alabama, where they want to use English only.

I happen to have one of the volumes of the Roman Ritual that was linked by the original poster. It is a reprint of the 1946 Rev. Philip Weller Latin / English Ritual with a 1945 Imprimatur by Moyses Kiley, Archbishop of Milwaukee. I had thought the “Weller” edition of the Ritual was considered the definitive Latin/English edition. I’m not sure where you’re coming from in breezily dismissing an English translation as potentially heretical, especially when it bears an Imprimatur from a time when the ICEL folks were still altar boys.

All of that said, I’m not sure the fundamental question has been answered: Assuming use of this copy of the Roman Ritual, why would use of the (approved) English translation of the various Blessings (NOT the Sacraments) be a problem if a priest or deacon wanted to use one of the traditional forms for something like a house blessing, or blessing one of the many other objects provided for in the Ritual? Two of the reasons I love this version of the Ritual is that (a) unlike the current Book of Blessings, the words in the 1946 version make it clear that the object is actually being blessed; and (b) there are so many beautiful item-specific blessings, and not just the generic, vague words in the current Book of Blessings.

 

[ProVobis]

I happen to have one of the volumes of the Roman Ritual that was linked by the original poster. It is a reprint of the 1946 Rev. Philip Weller Latin / English Ritual with a 1945 Imprimatur by Moyses Kiley, Archbishop of Milwaukee. I had thought the “Weller” edition of the Ritual was considered the definitive Latin/English edition. I’m not sure where you’re coming from in breezily dismissing an English translation as potentially heretical, especially when it bears an Imprimatur from a time when the ICEL folks were still altar boys.

Considered by whom? An Imprimatur has the okay of a bishop; it doesn’t have full Church approval. But even with Church approval there is no guarantee there is no heresy. I’m just talking theory here, not accusing anyone of anything, but show me a translation of anything and rest assured I’ll be poking holes in it. I’m one who doesn’t even think “Dominus vobiscum” means the same thing as “Vobiscum Dominus” so watch out.

There is no unanimous consent on any translation, evidenced by the fact we have so many English versions of the Bible and by the fact we’ll be our second version of the English Mass soon. And even the English in the various EF handmissals varies. And more surely to follow. So how can the Truth be known in English?

As for blessings, feel free to bless any way you want. I have no problems there.

 

[Mattapoisett64]

Considered by whom? An Imprimatur has the okay of a bishop; it doesn’t have full Church approval. But even with Church approval there is no guarantee there is no heresy. I’m just talking theory here, not accusing anyone of anything, but show me a translation of anything and rest assured I’ll be poking holes in it. I’m one who doesn’t even think “Dominus vobiscum” means the same thing as “Vobiscum Dominus” so watch out.

There is no unanimous consent on any translation, evidenced by the fact we have so many English versions of the Bible and by the fact we’ll be our second version of the English Mass soon. And even the English in the various EF handmissal varies. And more surely to follow. So how can the Truth be known in English?

You describe a very sad situation for yourself, going through life where nothing can be true for you. Mass must be an agony, for you clearly must doubt even the English Gospel you hear.

 

[ProVobis]

You describe a very sad situation for yourself, going through life where nothing can be true for you. Mass must be an agony, for you clearly must doubt even the English Gospel you hear.

I don’t have a problem because I follow the Latin in the Missal when possible. Get more out of it that way, believe it or not. Can you say “active” participation?

 

[ProVobis]

1. Why pray in Latin or any language unfamiliar to the language of the people who attend?

Simply put, praying in Latin is to pray in what has been a sacred language for the Church. It is a common feature of cultures down through human history that they often prayed in a language other than the language of the home and streets. To pray liturgically is to enter heaven, a world apart from the every day world. To use another and more ancient language is a common way many cultures have underscored this.

At the time of Jesus, the synagogue services and the Temple liturgy used ancient Hebrew. Jesus and his contemporaries did not speak Hebrew at home or in the streets any longer. They spoke Aramaic. But when they prayed they instinctively used the ancient prayers which were Hebrew.

In the early Church it appears that the earliest years saw the use of the Greek language for the Liturgy. It seems to have been used even though many people spoke Latin throughout the empire. But many did not think Latin was suited for the Liturgy which required a more elevated language than what most people spoke. By the 5th Century however Latin came to be introduced in the Western Empire as it became an older and more venerable language to them.

Eventually Latin wholly replaced Greek in the liturgy of the Church in the Western empire (except a few remnants such as the Kyrie). It remained the language of worship until about 1965 when the local languages were allowed. However, it was not the intent of the Church that Latin should wholly disappear as it has largely done. Latin remains for the Church the official language of her worship.

So, why pray in Latin? Why not? It is for us a sacred language of worship and there is an instinct in human culture that liturgy is world apart where we enter heaven. **It is not wrong to pray in the local language but, truth be told, it is not the usual practice in human history… **

calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=de1925d1-8cf4-4b51-b5f6-84f4f8c6f4c1

 

[corsair]

I, too, find myself praying in Latin rather than the vernacular. Its becoming easier each week.