The Canon of the Mass and the secret voice

[AJV]

How were they changed. The only change was that the “mystery of faith” was moved to stand alone for the memorial acclamation. But, the words of institution were not changed. This is what the Roman Missal of 1966 says (English translation):

At the risk of sounding a bit pompous, it’s wrong then.

The words in Latin in 1966 for the host were ‘Hoc est enim Corpus Meum’ (For this is my Body) only without ‘quod pro vobis tradetur’ (which will be given up for you) which was added in 1969.

Also the part immediately after the consecration of the chalice was changed from “Haec quotiescumque feceritis, in mei memoriam facietis” to “Hoc facite in meam commemorationem” The 1966 trasnlation you quoted is apparently anticipating this (incorrectly)

Among the other omissions in that translation are the adjectives in the phrasing before the words of consecration. Things like “precious”, “blessed” the syntax of “take this” and so on…

 

[Lazerlike42]

At the risk of sounding a bit pompous, it’s wrong then. The words in Latin in 1966 for the host were ‘Hoc est enim Corpus Meum’ (For this is my Body) only without ‘quod pro vobis tradetur’ (which will be given up for you) which was added in 1969.

Also the part immediately after the consecration of the chalice was changed from “Haec quotiescumque feceritis, in mei memoriam facietis” to “Hoc facite in meam commemorationem”

That doesn’t make anything “wrong,” anymore than the original moving the Mysterium Fidei to its place in the old Roman Rite made it “wrong.” The Church can add words to the rite if She wants… that’s how the Pian Missal developed.

 

[benedictgal]

At the risk of sounding a bit pompous, it’s wrong then.

The words in Latin in 1966 for the host were ‘Hoc est enim Corpus Meum’ (For this is my Body) only without ‘quod pro vobis tradetur’ (which will be given up for you) which was added in 1969.

Also the part immediately after the consecration of the chalice was changed from “Haec quotiescumque feceritis, in mei memoriam facietis” to “Hoc facite in meam commemorationem” The 1966 trasnlation you quoted is apparently anticipating this (incorrectly)

Among the other omissions in that translation are the adjectives in the phrasing before the words of consecration. Things like “precious”, “blessed” the syntax of “take this” and so on…

As I indicated in my previous post, this was probably the root of the damage caused by ICEL. However, my post spoke only to the words of the consecration and nothing else. I, too, miss the old language of this “blessed” chalice and other beaituflful terminology used for the Canon. Maybe the new Roman Missal translation will restore some of it. Of course, with the way the current Roman Missal is, maybe it’s best that some of the Canon be prayed silently.

 

[Lazerlike42]

As I indicated in my previous post, this was probably the root of the damage caused by ICEL. However, my post spoke only to the words of the consecration and nothing else. I, too, miss the old language of this “blessed” chalice and other beaituflful terminology used for the Canon. Maybe the new Roman Missal translation will restore some of it. Of course, with the way the current Roman Missal is, maybe it’s best that some of the Canon be prayed silently.

What in the current OF Missal could possibly be problematic so as to best be celebrated silently?

 

[AJV]

As I indicated in my previous post, this was probably the root of the damage caused by ICEL. However, my post spoke only to the words of the consecration and nothing else. I, too, miss the old language of this “blessed” chalice and other beaituflful terminology used for the Canon. Maybe the new Roman Missal translation will restore some of it. Of course, with the way the current Roman Missal is, maybe it’s best that some of the Canon be prayed silently.

I know…but what I was trying to say that the English translation from your 1966 missal that you posted was not reflective at all of the Latin of the time, which was quite different.

 

[Chatter163]

That doesn’t make anything “wrong,” anymore than the original moving the Mysterium Fidei to its place in the old Roman Rite made it “wrong.” The Church can add words to the rite if She wants… that’s how the Pian Missal developed.

No one said that Church could not add words. The TRANSLATION was called “wrong” because it was inaccurate. The Latin had not changed, and yet some English translations by missal publishers were already modifying their translations to reflect wording that was not promulgated for another three years. That was was indeed “wrong.”

 

[Chatter163]

That doesn’t make anything “wrong,” anymore than the original moving the Mysterium Fidei to its place in the old Roman Rite made it “wrong.” The Church can add words to the rite if She wants… that’s how the Pian Missal developed.

No one said that Church could not add words. The TRANSLATION was called “wrong” because it was inaccurate. The Latin had not changed, and yet some English translations by missal publishers were already modifying their translations to reflect wording that was not promulgated for another three years. That was was indeed “wrong.”

 

[Lazerlike42]

No one said that Church could not add words. The TRANSLATION was called “wrong” because it was inaccurate. The Latin had not changed, and yet some English translations by missal publishers were already modifying their translations to reflect wording that was not promulgated for another three years. That was was indeed “wrong.”

Thank you. I thought this may have been the case, but I couldn’t figure out if that was indeed what was being said.

 

[Chatter163]

As I indicated in my previous post, this was probably the root of the damage caused by ICEL. However, my post spoke only to the words of the consecration and nothing else. I, too, miss the old language of this “blessed” chalice and other beaituflful terminology used for the Canon. Maybe the new Roman Missal translation will restore some of it. Of course, with the way the current Roman Missal is, maybe it’s best that some of the Canon be prayed silently.

But as has been pointed out, the Latin words of consecration were changed in the missal of Paul VI. That is what I was alluding to, and AJV has nicely enumerated the changes. This was not ICEL at work; it was the Church. I was responding to the member who was repeatedly stating that the words of consecration could not be changed. In fact, they can, and have been, changed, as we saw in 1969.

 

[benedictgal]

What in the current OF Missal could possibly be problematic so as to best be celebrated silently?

I am thinking of the Swiss Canons. These you may or may not have heard. They will be popping up in the new Roman Missal. One of them talks about the Church reading the signs of the times and other items. They are interesting, to say the least.

 

[Lazerlike42]

I am thinking of the Swiss Canons. These you may or may not have heard. They will be popping up in the new Roman Missal. One of them talks about the Church reading the signs of the times and other items. They are interesting, to say the least.

Do you have a link about them? I’d like to know where they came from and whatnot.

I was not aware they were releasing a new Missal - just a new translation.

 

[benedictgal]

Do you have a link about them? I’d like to know where they came from and whatnot.

I was not aware they were releasing a new Missal - just a new translation.

I meant that it was the new translation, not a brand-spanking new Roman Missal. Mea culpa. I’ll try to find the link to the Swiss Canons.

 

[japhy]

I meant that it was the new translation, not a brand-spanking new Roman Missal. Mea culpa. I’ll try to find the link to the Swiss Canons.

Here they are. Methinks the “signs of the times” language is lifted (in part) from Gaudium et Spes, n. 4: To carry out such a task, the Church has always had the duty of scrutinizing the signs of the times and of interpreting them in the light of the Gospel. Thus, in language intelligible to each generation, she can respond to the perennial questions which men ask about this present life and the life to come, and about the relationship of the one to the other.

 

[Lazerlike42]

My biggest problem with these would really be the lack of any real commemoration for the living and for the dead. I don’t mind the flowery language insofar as the things it prays for are legitimate and orthodox requests. They could certainly be interpreted wrongly, but then again so could the current canons or the Roman Canon. These ones are certainly worse in regards to the possibility of misinterpretation.