Stupid Question: Concluding Dialog after the Gospel

[TheMc]

After all three readings, the dialog in latin is:

1. Verbum Domini. Deo gratias.
2. Verbum Domini. Deo gratias.
   G) Verbum Domini. Laus tibi, Christe

Why is the third Verbum Domini translated as The Gospel of the Lord, while the other two are The word of the Lord, even after the new, more faithful translation?

Am I missing something extremely obvious, or is there more to this?

 

[YoungTradCath]

After all three readings, the dialog in latin is:

1. Verbum Domini. Deo gratias.
2. Verbum Domini. Deo gratias.
   G) Verbum Domini. Laus tibi, Christe

Why is the third Verbum Domini translated as The Gospel of the Lord, while the other two are The word of the Lord, even after the new, more faithful translation?

Am I missing something extremely obvious, or is there more to this?

! I WAS WONDERING THIS TODAY. I watched EWTN mass and I heard the “verbum Domini” dialogue after the Gospel reading, and I was like, “Shouldn’t that be something like ‘evangelium Domini?’”

 

[TheMc]

“Shouldn’t that be something like ‘evangelium Domini?’”

of if the original latin is Verbum Domini, should that have been fixed with the new translation? It’s not. I specifically checked the missal. Maybe I’ll ask my pastor about it.

 

[TheMc]

Forgot to say: It’s not that I mind either way.

Verbum Domini, Evangelium Domini, The Word of the Lord, The Gospel of the Lord.

I don’t mind any of these. But let’s be consistent, especially in light of Liturgiam Authenticam.

 

[Lancer]

I understand your question…on the surface it makes sense…but the key I believe is the incredible…even astounding difference between the Gospel…and all the other readings…whether…OT or NT (letters & epistles)…the Gospel is everything that Jesus personally wanted us to know and have…and thus he he gave to us…through the apostles (The Twelve + all the other faithful apostles), and through his Church…in the Holy Spirit (of Truth)… that we need for our salvation.

Just look at this from the Catechism of Catholic Church:

125 The Gospels are the heart of all the Scriptures “because they are our **principal source for **the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Savior”.98

126 We can distinguish three stages in the formation of the Gospels:

1. The life and teaching of Jesus. The Church holds firmly that the four Gospels, "whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation, until the day when he was taken up."99
2. The oral tradition. "For, after the ascension of the Lord, the apostles handed on to their hearers what he had said and done, but with that fuller understanding which they, instructed by the glorious events of Christ and enlightened by the Spirit of truth, now enjoyed."100
3. The written Gospels. "The sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which had been handed on, either orally or already in written form; others they synthesized or explained with an eye to the situation of the churches, the while sustaining the form of preaching, but always in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus."101

127 The fourfold Gospel holds a unique place in the Church, as is evident both in the veneration which the liturgy accords it and in the surpassing attraction it has exercised on the saints at all times:

There is **no doctrine which could be better, more precious and more splendid than the text of the Gospel**. **Behold and retain what our Lord and Master, Christ, has taught by his words and accomplished by his deeds**.102

[102 St. Caesaria the Younger to St. Richildis and St. Radegunde, SCh 345, 480.]
*
But above all it’s the gospels that occupy my mind when I’m at prayer; my poor soul has so many needs, and yet this is the one thing needful. I’m always finding fresh lights there; hidden meanings which had meant nothing to me hitherto.103
​

[103 St. Thérèse of Lisieux, ms. autob. A 83v.]*

Pax Christi

 

[drforjc]

The same occurs after the Gospel: Latin - Laus tibi, Christe
English - “Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ.”

Now, while I love the Holy Name of Jesus as much as anyone, according to L.A. I would think it should be translated “Praise to you, O Christ.”

 

[TheMc]

The same occurs after the Gospel: Latin - Laus tibi, Christe
English - “Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ.”

Now, while I love the Holy Name of Jesus as much as anyone, according to L.A. I would think it should be translated “Praise to you, O Christ.”

Well, it’s not quite the same thing. In the case of Verbum Domini, it’s a single phrase that is translated 2 different ways in similar contexts. I’ve also wondered about “Laus tibi, Christe” as well.

 

[Chatter163]

This should have been fixed in the new translation.

In the EF (used before VII), there was no announcement by the priest at the end of the epistle or gospel. The response to the epistle or old testament reading was simply Deo gratias after the priest’s last word. The response to the end of the gospel was Laus tibi, Christe (which people’s hand missals, and even the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, translated as Praise be to thee, O Christ.) after the last word.

When the new missal was promulgated in 1969, it included Verbum Domini at the end of the first two readings (one on a weekday), and this was originally translated in English as This is the Word of the Lord. This was changed in 1994 to simply The Word of Lord, and the reason given at that time was to more acurately reflect the original Latin text. The words at the end of the gospel in the revised missal were also Verbum Domini, but in English this was not translated as The Word of the Lord, but as The Gospel of the Lord. The Anglicans used this version when they made their reforms, as did several liturgical Protestant groups. I do not know why the English version was different from the Latin (any more than I can tell you why the eucharistic acclamations in English were so vastly different from the Latin originals), but Rome approved the translation at the time (granted, the translation and approval processes were both extremely rapid).

The response at the end of the gospel in Latin, before and after VII was Laus tibi, Christe, but this was translated as *Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ *in the revised missal, and the new translation have left it that way.

 

[MarkThompson]

After all three readings, the dialog in latin is:

1. Verbum Domini. Deo gratias.
2. Verbum Domini. Deo gratias.
   G) Verbum Domini. Laus tibi, Christe

Why is the third Verbum Domini translated as The Gospel of the Lord, while the other two are The word of the Lord, even after the new, more faithful translation?

Am I missing something extremely obvious, or is there more to this?

You are not missing anything obvious. As I understand it, there are two main reasons for translating the third occurrence of “Verbum Domini” differently: to render especial honor to the Gospel, and to signal to the congregation by the changed versicle that a different response is called for. From what I have heard, it was agreed from the Vatican on down that our system in English is better than what exists in the Latin, which is why no “fixes” were made with the new translation.

FWIW, Spanish changes from “Palabra de Dios” (“The Word of God”) for the lessons to “Palabra del Señor” (“The Word of the Lord”) for the Gospel; Italian from “Parola di Dio” to “Parola del Signore” (same); Portuguese from “Palavra de Deus” to “Palavra da Salvação” (“The Word of the Salvation”). In French and German there isn’t any versicle or response whatsoever after the lessons, and after the Gospel French has “Acclamons la Parole de Dieu” (“We acclaim the Word of God”) and German has “Evangelium unseres Herrn Jesus Christus” (“The Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ”).

I would not be altogether surprised if the next editio typica “fixed” the Latin.

 

[TheMc]

You are not missing anything obvious. As I understand it, there are two main reasons for translating the third occurrence of “Verbum Domini” differently: to render especial honor to the Gospel, and to signal to the congregation by the changed versicle that a different response is called for. From what I have heard, it was agreed from the Vatican on down that our system in English is better than what exists in the Latin, which is why no “fixes” were made with the new translation.

Interesting. Thanks, Mark. I was suspecting something like that.

I would not be altogether surprised if the next editio typica “fixed” the Latin.

Nor would I. I wouldn’t be suprised at all, especially if what you say is true (“it was agreed from the Vatican on down…”).

 

[JGMendes4049]

From what I have heard, it was agreed from the Vatican on down that our system in English is better than what exists in the Latin, which is why no “fixes” were made with the new translation.

For once the English got it right!

 

[japhy]

It was a good question to ask, especially because the new translation is being touted as more accurate, literal, or even word-for-word. But the reality is clear: the new translation does not always reflect the literal text of the Latin prayers. Sometimes additional context is considered, as in the case you’ve highlighted. “Verbum Domini” is translated as “The word of the Lord” or “The Gospel of the Lord” depending on which reading it follows. I tend to think the reason for the difference is twofold: 1) to highlight the Gospel’s pre-eminence among all the rest of Scripture, and 2) to introduce a distinction which would otherwise only be detectable in a sung liturgy, where “Verbum Domini” would be sung differently after the Gospel than after the earlier readings.

Another place where the Latin Order of the Mass is not strictly literally translated is the Preface Dialogue “Sursum corda. / Habemus ad Dominum.” We know that as “Lift up your hearts. / We lift them up to the Lord.” But the Latin is far more terse: “Hearts upward. / We have [them] toward the Lord.”

 

[AJV]

I’m grateful they didn’t change it, for the simple reason that it would have confused everyone who is used to “The Word of the Lord”/ “Thanks be to God” format, with (I think) marginal benefit.

 

[TheMc]

It was a good question to ask, especially because the new translation is being touted as more accurate, literal, or even word-for-word. But the reality is clear: the new translation does not always reflect the literal text of the Latin prayers. Sometimes additional context is considered, as in the case you’ve highlighted. “Verbum Domini” is translated as “The word of the Lord” or “The Gospel of the Lord” depending on which reading it follows. I tend to think the reason for the difference is twofold: 1) to highlight the Gospel’s pre-eminence among all the rest of Scripture, and 2) to introduce a distinction which would otherwise only be detectable in a sung liturgy, where “Verbum Domini” would be sung differently after the Gospel than after the earlier readings.

Here’s what he’s talking about everyone (click the images for audio)

http://i.imm.io/cz5U.jpeg
http://i.imm.io/cz5J.jpeg
http://i.imm.io/cz6t.jpeg

Another place where the Latin Order of the Mass is not strictly literally translated is the Preface Dialogue “Sursum corda. / Habemus ad Dominum.” We know that as “Lift up your hearts. / We lift them up to the Lord.” But the Latin is far more terse: “Hearts upward. / We have [them] toward the Lord.”

Speaking of that, I’ve always loved the word painting that goes on in the latin preface dialog on that line.