The reform of the O.F. Mass is closer

[pnewton]

Okay, what is the big blooming deal? Most of it says the exact same thing in an only slightly different way. Some other things seemed down right silly/nonsensical. Example: “And with your spirit” Because, you know, it’s detached from his body and is the only part worth blessing. Huh???

Translations can be inaccurate. Many of the the translations lack literal accuracy. This sort of dynamic translation (translating the ideas more than the words) may work for novels but make for slippery theology, where words really do mean something.

I am waiting to see how many who have blasted traditionalists for not being open to change will now be the ones objecting. Obedience is meaningless until one is willing to obey even when one disagrees.

 

[benedictgal]

Translations can be inaccurate. Many of the the translations lack literal accuracy. This sort of dynamic translation (translating the ideas more than the words) may work for novels but make for slippery theology, where words really do mean something.

I am waiting to see how many who have blasted traditionalists for not being open to change will now be the ones objecting. Obedience is meaningless until one is willing to obey even when one disagrees.

Excellent point! I, too, am curious about how all of this will play out.

 

[japhy]

Can you clarify where Trent said this?

Session 22, Chapter 8: “Though the mass contains much instruction for the faithful, it has, nevertheless, not been deemed advisable by the Fathers that it should be celebrated everywhere in the vernacular tongue.” And canon 9 of the same session: “If anyone says … that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only … let him be anathema.”

 

[Verbum_Caro]

japhy,

Yes, that’s it, thanks for the quote.

The point is that Trent here is distinguishing between the vernacular (language) and liturgical language. Although the emphasis is different in each, both Trent and Vatican II recognize that there is a liturgical language (Latin) and that it must be preserved in the Latin Rite.

The liturgical language of a Rite is a distinct reality that exists apart from its use in any one circumstance. Diggerdomer, that is why your statement

I celebrate the Latin Rite and never use Latin.

is inopportune. It doesn’t matter if your local church don’t use Latin. It doesn’t change the fact that the liturgical language of the Roman Rite is Latin.

Likewise your statement

diggerdomer:

The Church in Rome did not always use Latin.

also seems to be unhelpful. Latin developed as the liturgical language of the Roman Rite . . . it wasn’t created out of whole cloth. The fact that the Latin Rite didn’t have an official liturgical language in the first few centuries doesn’t negate that it has had a liturgical language for much of its history and that it has one now.

VC

 

[FrDavid96]

It’s also worth noting that Latin did not “become” the liturgical language of the Latin Church but curiously enough, the exact opposite happened. Latin was “the” language of the Roman Empire (once it replaced the Greek of the Republic and the early Empire). History does not have so much the designation of an official language (since it was already there), as a development of unofficial ones. Remember that all Romance languages (Italian, Spanish, French, etc.) are realy nothing more than bad Latin–and that Latin just gets progressively worse over the centuries until peope somehow realize that they don’t consider themselves to be speaking Latin anymore, but give a new name to their language.

It wasn’t that the Church and the governments used Latin as their language of liturgy, diplomacy, and laws, while the populace spoke their own vernaculars. Everyone was actually speaking Latin–but the Church and government were the only places where Latin was spoken/written properly. Of course, the Germanic languages (including what would become English) were the exception in that they were more “preserved” over the centuries as the vernacular rather than being replaced by Latin early-on. The places where Luther’s Reformation took-hold most strongly were the places outside of the Roman Empire, where Latin had less influence, and the original vernaculars were more prevalent.

Why the historical aside?

It reminds us that the Church has taken great efforts over her 2,000 year history to preserve the authentic language of Liturgy. Although the spoken language of the land changed, the liturgical language did not. It was preserved because it had to be preserved. The truths of the faith are immutable; and while our everyday language can and does constantly evolve, our faith remains a constant (developing yes, but never changing).

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Great points Fr. David.

Notice that the contrary to Latin is the “vernacular”, which comes from *vernaculus *having the meaning “native”.

The vernacular is the native tongue, the language of the people. The liturgical language remained unchanged (once set) and the common languages changed “underneath” it.

VC

 

[diggerdomer]

Session 22, Chapter 8: “Though the mass contains much instruction for the faithful, it has, nevertheless, not been deemed advisable by the Fathers that it should be celebrated everywhere in the vernacular tongue.” And canon 9 of the same session: “If anyone says … that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only … let him be anathema.”

Thanks japhy. I was being lazy by not looking it up myself hoping someone here would have it handy as a quick reference. I was aware of what Trent taught, just wanted to go back and read it for myself. I have no problems with it. The comment in the post I was responding to that struck me was

the same Magisterium “strongly advised” against an all-vernacular Mass at the more doctrinal Council of Trent.

The translation I referred to used “expedient” rather than “advisable,” nether of which strike me as “strong.” Also, I didn’t care for the “strongly advised” part because it wasn’t just advice Trent declared, it was clear directive teaching. No one had the liberty to celebrate Mass in any language other than those approved by the Church. So we can’t simply say Trent was against an all-vernacular Mass, it would depend on what one’s vernacular was and whether or not the Church had an approved Rite in that Mass. I of course agree with all that.

Thanks again for the help finding the reference.

 

[otjm]

Albeit that I do not voluntarily attend the OF, I don’t disagree about the importance of the forthcoming changes to the English version of the OF. At the same time, though, a delay of even 8 years makes me wonder how seriously the matter is taken by those “in power.”

Yes, it takes time to start to undo 40+ years worth of damage, but that may be begging the question. For example, the OF itself appeared within 4 years, and the miserable ICEL “translation” of same was there right from the start. This time around, it’s merely a translation (absent the quotes) of the OF, and it’s already been in the pipeline for 8 years … and counting.

There doesn’t seem to me to be a valid reason that a mere translation has had to take so long. And again, it’s only a translation of the editio typica, which means that it can only begin to undo the damage caused by the ICEL.

Well, first everyone gets in a twist because the changes came so fast, and then they get in a twist because the corrections took so long.

Speed is not of the essence if one wants to get it right the first time. Translations - have you ever studied another langauge? If you have studied enough, you should know that a translation can be done in a number of valid ways, but some are more accurate, or more useful, or more understandable than others. Part of the slowness may be intransigence on the part of some without valid necessity; but a good part of it is trying to determine what is best. It is not as if the whole proces was simple; and further, once it (the tranlation) is made, it is submitted for review - which takes time - and then if not satisfactory, sent back, at which point there may be further conversation with Rome, and then more work.

I understand what the word “consubstantiation” means, if for no other reason than having a degree in Philosophy. But why we have to use “consubstantial” instead of “one in being” or “one in substance” has been hashed out at a higher paygrade than anyone here. Is there a significant difference? Some would argue there is; but if most people have no clue what “consubstantial” means and are going to struggle with any explanation, then I am not sure what we are accomplishing.

 

[Frosty]

Well, first everyone gets in a twist because the changes came so fast, and then they get in a twist because the corrections took so long.

Speed is not of the essence if one wants to get it right the first time. Translations - have you ever studied another langauge? If you have studied enough, you should know that a translation can be done in a number of valid ways, but some are more accurate, or more useful, or more understandable than others. Part of the slowness may be intransigence on the part of some without valid necessity; but a good part of it is trying to determine what is best. It is not as if the whole proces was simple; and further, once it (the tranlation) is made, it is submitted for review - which takes time - and then if not satisfactory, sent back, at which point there may be further conversation with Rome, and then more work.

.

It does seem that the translations are taking a long time and there probably are good reasons for this. The USCCB isn’t the only conference of Bishops involved here. I believe that there are around a dozen other national bishops conferences concerned with the English translation. This is no easy task trying to get them all to agree to every single wording. The connotation of a particular word in the U.S. may have a slightly (or greater) connotation in New Zealand or Canada. If it is to be one correct and faithful translation for all the English speaking Church it really isn’t surprising, if one thinks about the logisitics involved, that it has taken so long. The Church in the U.S. is only a part of the process, and its’ involvement in it is no more or no less important that the rest of the English speaking Church.

 

[JReducation]

It does seem that the translations are taking a long time and there probably are good reasons for this. The USCCB isn’t the only conference of Bishops involved here. I believe that there are around a dozen other national bishops conferences concerned with the English translation. This is no easy task trying to get them all to agree to every single wording. The connotation of a particular word in the U.S. may have a slightly (or greater) connotation in New Zealand or Canada. If it is to be one correct and faithful translation for all the English speaking Church it really isn’t surprising, if one thinks about the logisitics involved, that it has taken so long. The Church in the U.S. is only a part of the process, and its’ involvement in it is no more or no less important that the rest of the English speaking Church.

What you say is very true. There are many English speaking Churches. They not only have different English registers, but they also have different budgets. This enters into the equation as well. The Vatican does not pay for the scholarly work involved in translations, legal copyrights, and everything else involved. That cost must be borne by the local Churches. The Episcopal Conference of Caribbean is not as wealthy as the USCCB, as an example.

Finally, you have to make sure that the translation is comprehensible, but also that it is musical. Many parts of the mass are often sung. If the translations are tongue twisters, that poses a problem.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[pnewton]

Session 22, Chapter 8: “Though the mass contains much instruction for the faithful, it has, nevertheless, not been deemed advisable by the Fathers that it should be celebrated everywhere in the vernacular tongue.” And canon 9 of the same session: “If anyone says … that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only … let him be anathema.”

FYI - This does not prohibit all verncular Masses, but rather that all Masses be verrnacular.

 

[benedictgal]

What you say is very true. There are many English speaking Churches. They not only have different English registers, but they also have different budgets. This enters into the equation as well. The Vatican does not pay for the scholarly work involved in translations, legal copyrights, and everything else involved. That cost must be borne by the local Churches. The Episcopal Conference of Caribbean is not as wealthy as the USCCB, as an example.

Finally, you have to make sure that the translation is comprehensible, but also that it is musical. Many parts of the mass are often sung. If the translations are tongue twisters, that poses a problem.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

But, the Carribbean does have a better translation of the Lectionary than we do. Please note that the CDWDS reiterated its prohibition against paraphrasing the parts of the Mass when converting them into song. The Haugens, Haas, Hurds and Ferralls of the OCP machine are probably not too happy. The ride is finally over.

 

[JReducation]

But, the Carribbean does have a better translation of the Lectionary than we do. Please note that the CDWDS reiterated its prohibition against paraphrasing the parts of the Mass when converting them into song. The Haugens, Haas, Hurds and Ferralls of the OCP machine are probably not too happy. The ride is finally over.

I’m not saying that they have to paraphrase. I am saying that the translation cannot be tongue twister. As one who grew up with Latin and who studied all of my theology in Latin, Greek and German, I can tell you that there are translations and then there are translations. You can have two translations that are very accurate, but one flows more smoothly than the other. Sometimes it’s just a matter of word order or a word that is synonimous. There are phrases and words in the ancient languages that do not have a literal translation into modern langauges and you have to use the closest possible word or words.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF