The TLM and the NO Mass

[Redratfish]

As most everyone knows, as of right now, the TLM is still permited to be celebrated as long as the congregation wants it celebrated, this topic is not to argue against the TLM.

Last week, in our bulletin, there was a flier explaining what sort of thing would happen when the new version of the Mass was approved for celebration. It was written in the form of questions and answers, one of which was If my Church likes the older (meaning the NO mass), will we be allowed to celebrate it? The response basically said that once the new translation came into use, the NO would not be allowed to be celebrated. My question now is, why not? If the TLM is allowed because people like it better (or believe it is more reverent) than the NO, shouldn’t the NO be given the same treatment with this new translation? Why not?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

If the TLM is allowed because people like it better (or believe it is more reverent) than the NO, shouldn’t the NO be given the same treatment with this new translation? Why not?

1. There’s huge historical differences between a 400 year old Rite and one that’s been around for 40 years.
2. The Mass is not changing, its simply being re-translated.

 

[benedictgal]

The revised translation of the Roman Missal was something that came as a direct order from the Holy See. The revised translation brings us closer in line to the original Latin Roman Missal, third typical edition. What we are using right now is the first typical edition (the one that Pope Paul VI first promulgated). Since then, there have been two revisions.

Furthermore, the current translation was not a faithful rendition of the Latin original. The idea of “dynamic equivalence” was used wherein the original ICEL translated the Latin texts into something more along the lines of what the translators thought the words said rather than what the prayers actually said.

The structure of the Mass in the Ordinary Form does not change. What changes is what we will say.

Here is what I mentioned in a letter to the editor that was published this past Thursday:

Later on, Rome revised the Roman Missal twice. When ICEL translated the second typical edition of the book in 2001, it was submitted to the CDWDS for the necessary recognitio, (approval). However, the CDWDS denied the recognitio, restructured ICEL and ordered the creation of the Vox Clara committee. Also during the same time period, Venerable Pope John Paul II promulgated the third typical edition of the Roman Missal and ordered the CDWS to implement Liturgiam Authenticam. “Dynamic equivalence” gave way to a revised, formal translation of the Roman Missal for English-speaking Catholics.

The key word in all of this is “revised”. The format of the Mass does not change. The Liturgy of the Word, including the scriptural readings, and the Liturgy of the Eucharist remain the same. However, the big shift comes in the style of language the celebrant and the faithful use to pray the Mass. The revised translations take on a more elevated tone. For Catholics, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the prayer par excellence of the Church. According ot the Second Vatican Council, it is the “source and summit” of the Church’s life. The faithful enter into the very presence of God and the Paschal Mystery of the passion, death and resurrection of Christ. Thus, the language used for the Church’s highest prayer needs to take on a dimension of the sacred. It needs to be language that goes beyond the ordinary because the mysteries that unfold at every Mass are, the Church holds, extraordinary.

This revision has been 10 years in the making and it moves the English-speaking faithful into conformity with the Latin text or the third typical edition of the Roman Missal.

 

[Redratfish]

Furthermore, the current translation was not a faithful rendition of the Latin original. The idea of “dynamic equivalence” was used wherein the original ICEL translated the Latin texts into something more along the lines of what the translators thought the words said rather than what the prayers actually said.

The structure of the Mass in the Ordinary Form does not change. What changes is what we will say.

My two questions are now, so is Latin going to be incorporated into the Mass in the new translation, and at what parts?

And so if we go to the NO mass, how are we celebrating a valid Mass? If it is valid now, should it not be just as valid in two years?

 

[MarkThompson]

My question now is, why not? If the TLM is allowed because people like it better (or believe it is more reverent) than the NO, shouldn’t the NO be given the same treatment with this new translation? Why not?

In addition to what NewEnglandPries said, note that the permission given to say the TLM is for the 1962 edition of the missal only. No traditionalist, no matter how “attached” they may be to various unreformed versions of the rite, is permitted to use the 1570 missal, nor the 1604, 1634, . . . 1884, 1920, nor 1955 missals. The change to the third edition of the modern missal (and concomitantly, to the new translation) is an entirely parallel situation.

 

[MarkThompson]

My two questions are now, so is Latin going to be incorporated into the Mass in the new translation, and at what parts?

No. By definition, it’s a translation into English. If a priest would like to have a bilingual English/Latin Mass, with some parts in each language, he is already free to do so, just as priests are free to have bilingual English/Spanish or English/French Masses, etc.

And so if we go to the NO mass, how are we celebrating a valid Mass? If it is valid now, should it not be just as valid in two years?

Yes, and yes. It would be valid but illicit, just like when a priest makes up prayers, inserts random things into the Mass, leaves out the penitential rite, has a woman beside him to elevate the Chalice, and so on. Valid, but not permitted.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

… so is Latin going to be incorporated into the Mass in the new translation, and at what parts?

No, what you call the NO Mass could always be celebrated in Latin. So, it isn’t a case of Latin being introduced into the Mass. It just isn’t very common for the NO Mass to be celebrated in Latin. As stated in a previous post the NO Mass can also be celebrated partly in English and Latin. This is exactly what the Holy Father did on his visit, last week, to England and Scotland.

And so if we go to the NO mass, how are we celebrating a valid Mass? If it is valid now, should it not be just as valid in two years?

What you call the NO Mass isn’t going anywhere. It will still exist. All that is happening is that the translation from original Latin (in which the Mass is published by the Holy See) into English has been done again; the translation from Latin to English is “improved”, i.e. the English is a more faithful translation of the Latin.

Therefore, the situation is not the same as the distinction between the TLM and NO. We’re keeping the NO but the translation has been “improved”.

1. The Ordinary of the Mass is the same - there are some word changes because of the better translation.
2. The Propers of the Mass are the same - there are some word changes because of the better translation. (There may be some new Propers reflecting any new saints added to the calendar.)
3. The Readings of the Mass will stay the same - the Lectionary for Mass is not changing.

P.S. I do not intend to infer anything with the above phrase “what you call the NO Mass”. It’s just that nowadays the TLM (Traditional Latin Mass) is called the Extraordinary Form (EF) of Mass and the NO (Novus Ordo) is called the Ordinary Form (OF).

 

[Redratfish]

No. By definition, it’s a translation into English. If a priest would like to have a bilingual English/Latin Mass, with some parts in each language, he is already free to do so, just as priests are free to have bilingual English/Spanish or English/French Masses, etc.

Yes, and yes. It would be valid but illicit, just like when a priest makes up prayers, inserts random things into the Mass, leaves out the penitential rite, has a woman beside him to elevate the Chalice, and so on. Valid, but not permitted.

Thank you, I was under the impression that it would have certain latin parts in it.

I can kinda see where you are coming with this. Thank you very much for clarifying this for me

 

[MarkThompson]

Thank you, I was under the impression that it would have certain latin parts in it.

I can kinda see where you are coming with this. Thank you very much for clarifying this for me

No problem! Just to be clear, the modern (OF) Mass is originally written in Latin (it’s different from the TLM, though both are in Latin), and then it’s translated from that into all the various languages. So in one sense, as Matthew Holford implies, the OF does have Latin in it, since it can be celebrated according to the editio typica, which is the original Latin text of it. In another sense, it could have Latin in it, since priests, if they want, can pretty much substitute the relevant Latin parts for whatever parts of the English they feel like. You could have everything in English except just the Lord’s Prayer in Latin – or vice versa, and everything in between. If you watch the daily Mass on EWTN, you’ll see that significant parts of the Mass (at least the Canon, and I think probably the Gloria also) are celebrated in Latin.

Finally, in a third sense, the new translation will not have Latin in it. That is to say, it will be able to be celebrated 100% in English, and I expect that almost everywhere that’s what will be done. If you show up for Mass on the first Sunday of Advent in 2011 and don’t hear a single word of Latin, don’t be surprised – the priest won’t be doing anything wrong.

Hope this helps–

 

[WeinschrottClan]

Let’s just get to the basics here, the “new” translation in the vernacular IS the Novus Ordo, or the Ordinary Form. It is not a differen’t mass. What the “new” translation is doing is making corrections to the wording of the responses and prayers, that were misinterpreted after the Vatican II Council. Which unfortunatley happenned quite a bit, do to people thinking that the Church was now nothing but a free for all. I would recommend reading the original documents from Vatican II so that you can more fully understand what was really supposed to change, when they said that the Sacrifice of the Mass could now be said in the vernacular. I would also recomend at least going through a missal used in the EO (it would be better to go to a Solemn High Mass on Sunday, though), then compare that to the “new” Translation.