J
JuanCarlos
Guest
Here’s a website I found really interesting, a side-by-side comparison of the TLM and NO.
the-pope.com/missals.html
Just thought I’d share
the-pope.com/missals.html
Just thought I’d share
- Status
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
This site looks to me like it has an agenda, and it doesn’t involve acting in unity with the Church.
J
JuanCarlos
Guest
It doesn’t have any commentary- the documents juxtaposed speaks for itself. I will visit the homepage though to see if it has an agenda
B
BobP123
Guest
Agenda, shpenda. It’s a fair side-by-side comparison. Other than the fact the left column is a unofficial translation of the Latin, what’s the problem? Does the truth hurt?
J
JuanCarlos
Guest
yeah, the site does strike me as being a bit sede…
S
SemperFidelis
Guest
Doesn’t it always, for those who don’t want to hear it?
P
palmas85
Guest
Even if the site is a bit odd, the line by line comparison if the two Rites is great.
Of course, I’m sure there are those who will try to twist the fact that the two rites are so markedly different as being evidence of positive organic growth of the Liturgy.
**After all, today we approach Christ on our own two feet as adult men and women instead of on our knees, as a subservient person or as an unknowing and untaught child.
We are the resurrection people.**
I actually heard a Priest use those sentences in a Homily once.
Of course, I’m sure there are those who will try to twist the fact that the two rites are so markedly different as being evidence of positive organic growth of the Liturgy.
**After all, today we approach Christ on our own two feet as adult men and women instead of on our knees, as a subservient person or as an unknowing and untaught child.
We are the resurrection people.**
I actually heard a Priest use those sentences in a Homily once.
B
BobP123
Guest
A little off-topic but weird. Especially since every knee should drop at the name of Jesus.
P
peregrinator_it
Guest
No, it’s not (a fair comparison.) It’s a comparison two translations, one or both of which may be lousy. If you truly want a comparison, look at the Latin of each rite side-by-side. Much more edifying.
A
AJV
Guest
There are a few typo’s on the page: on the Traditional side (besides a few missing signs of the cross and bows) the response to the collect is “Amen” not “Deo gratias” (Thanks be to God). Likewise for the Epistle, “Verbum Domini” ("The Word of the Lord) is not said in the Traditional Mass. On the NO side, the prayers before the Gospel are missing, and the version supplied for the Intercessions was, I think, the version approved at one time in the UK.
S
St_Isidore
Guest
Its fair, either live with it, deal with it, or like most liberals just pretend it does not exist.
You choose.
Good Luck.
S
somepurpose
Guest
Bold part is true. Always true. True of any translation ever. Trivial. The phrase you need, in order to actually have a point is something like “this (or these) translation(s) is(are) lousy” preferably followed by your account of what makes them lousy.
J
JuanCarlos
Guest
disregarding the fact that almost no one can read Latin fluently enough for it to be a good way to compare…
S
St_Isidore
Guest
The Ordinary of the Mass is in Latin and vernacular on the opposite page. You do not need to know Latin. The only Latin you require is in the Missal and it is not that much (far from knowing the whole language, even though it is not that difficult to learn), but again the vernacular is there anyway!
BTW, it is the official language of the Church.
P
peregrinator_it
Guest
I really don’t have the energy to go through both translations looking for flaws (also, I’m separated from most of my books and don’t have the Latin for the TLM with me) and I don’t think I’m an expert enough Latinist to judge the translation of theological terms, etc. I’d imagine many people aren’t.
However, it doesn’t take a whole lot of Latin to get the gist of the Mass (TLM or Pauline) and a comparison in the original language allows you to see what prayers have actually changed (whereas cruddy translations can decieve you on this point.) And it’s essential to know what has changed in order to make a true comparison at all, even an incomplete one.
P
peregrinator_it
Guest
Interesting. Thanks.
I still think a comparison of the Latin can be instructive. Leaving aside the major “structural” (for lack of a better word) changes (in the Introductory rite & Offertory especially) - I don’t want to deny or downplaying them- I was surprised to find (when I attended the TLM) how little the texts of the prayers had changed (if at all.)
Often, the translations would lead one to believe otherwise.
T
thechrismyster
Guest
That is really a special site you’ve based this post on!!
I especially love the part in his question and answer section where he writes (and this is verbatim):
Why can’t the Novus Ordo be considered acceptible if done without any abuses?
***Because the Novus Ordo intrinsically engenders abuses. It is just like fornication *****(which it is spiritual fornication, since it being false worship, is therefore worshipping a false god).
maybe you can share some thoughts on the N.O. Mass from the church of satan website. 
I especially love the part in his question and answer section where he writes (and this is verbatim):
Why can’t the Novus Ordo be considered acceptible if done without any abuses?
***Because the Novus Ordo intrinsically engenders abuses. It is just like fornication *****(which it is spiritual fornication, since it being false worship, is therefore worshipping a false god).
**
maybe you can share some thoughts on the N.O. Mass from the church of satan website.
B
brotherhrolf
Guest
You’ld do better to look at the hybrid Mass of 1966 when things started to change. Eucharistict Liturgy # 1 is still the Roman canon.
J
JuanCarlos
Guest
Considering probably 90%+ of NO masses are in the vernacular anyway, it is informative to look at the vernacular itself.
One can see that the NO Mass is in essence a shortened TLM, so to say. There are parts of the TLM that are not in the NO, but there are almost no parts of the NO that don’t appear in the TLM. Good, bad, or neutral, that’s what it is.
One can see that the NO Mass is in essence a shortened TLM, so to say. There are parts of the TLM that are not in the NO, but there are almost no parts of the NO that don’t appear in the TLM. Good, bad, or neutral, that’s what it is.
P
pnewton
Guest
Considering the quote in post 17, yeah, you think?
I’ll stick with the Catholic Church thank you and bypass antiCatholic sites.
- Status