Thee, Thou, Hath, Givest, etc

[LoyalViews]

Is the consecration, and the mass still valid when the priest replaces all the “you” “your” and “give” with say, “thee”, “thou”, “hath”, “doth”, “givest”? I know thats how it’s said in the Anglican Use, but how about the vernacular OF? I usuall am at the TLM, so…

 

[cctabb]

I’m sure it is just fine. I think if it was not okay then I think it would have been mandatory to change the Our Father.

 

[Chatter163]

It certainly would not be “fine” in that no priest should be changing approved Mass texts in any language, but it certainly would not change the validity of the Mass. However, Tudor/Elizabethan English involves much more than simply changing pronouns and the endings of verbs, and the very modern language of the current OF would sound bizarre if only these alterations were made and nothing else. The new translations that will go into effect at the end of next year will be much closer to that type of prose–still a way from there, but much closer than we currently are.

 

[shorty42223]

As Chatter163 said : “The new translations that will go into effect at the end of next year will be much closer to that type of prose–still a way from there, but much closer than we currently are.”

Maybe the priest is starting to incorporate this into the Mass, so when we finally do see the changes…it wouldn’t be hitting the parishioners all at one time and seem overwhelming.

 

[Digitonomy]

Maybe the priest is starting to incorporate this into the Mass, so when we finally do see the changes…it wouldn’t be hitting the parishioners all at one time and seem overwhelming.

While the new translation may be slightly more wordy and formal, I don’t think the use of archaic verb endings and familiar forms of “you” is a part of it. It sounds like the translation used was perhaps an older one, or one from the Anglican tradition.

 

[MarkThompson]

Is the consecration, and the mass still valid when the priest replaces all the “you” “your” and “give” with say, “thee”, “thou”, “hath”, “doth”, “givest”? I know thats how it’s said in the Anglican Use, but how about the vernacular OF? I usuall am at the TLM, so…

No, the priest is not permitted to change the words of the Eucharistic Prayer to suit his own whim. It doesn’t matter whether he prefers more-formal (“It will be given up for thee and for all…”), less-formal (“It’ll be given up fer y’all and fer all…”), or anything else (“It will be given up for you good gentlemen, and for many, …”). How is this even a question? I assume you’re just looking for someone to agree with you that this isn’t permitted, which I’m happy to do.

 

[Digitonomy]

How is this even a question?

It seems like a very good question if a person is uncertain about it. There are a variety of forms and rites to conduct the mass, just within the Latin church, and not everyone is clear that new English translations should not be in use yet (with the possible exception of South Africa).

MarkThompson:

It doesn’t matter whether he prefers more-formal (“It will be given up for thee and for all…”)

Just to nit-pick, grammatically “thou” and “thee” are the familiar 2nd person pronouns, while “you” is the formal pronoun. Thee and thou just sound more formal to us because they are archaic.

 

[JaMc]

No, the priest is not permitted to change the words of the Eucharistic Prayer to suit his own whim. It doesn’t matter whether he prefers more-formal (“It will be given up for thee and for all…”), less-formal (“It’ll be given up fer y’all and fer all…”), or anything else (“It will be given up for you good gentlemen, and for many, …”). How is this even a question? I assume you’re just looking for someone to agree with you that this isn’t permitted, which I’m happy to do.

“It will be given up for thee and for all…” That is, actually, gramatically incorrect, unless Jesus was addressing a single apostle - “Thee/thou” was the second person familiar singular - the “tu” form, while “Ye/you” was the second person formal or plural - the “vos” form.

“It’ll be given up fer y’all and fer all…” The current translation is about one step away from that. I’m looking forward to the new one.

But I see your point. The priest should only be using an approved translation (would this maybe be from one of the “transitional” missals from the mid-1960’s, or from the “English side” of an old Latin Missal? If so, would it be allowed?). However, I don’t think it would affect the validity of the Mass.

 

[LoyalViews]

I thought it wouldn’t be permitted, and only permitted in the Anglican Use, which is a translation of the 16th century Tridentine mass. I was just checking, so I wouldn’t spread a falsehood.