TLM, Vat.2, NO and a better english translation

[ethelzguy]

As far as the Bible goes, it is written but there you also have multiple translations, so which one do you put your trust in?

The subject of many other threads, I’m sure.

But the bottom line IS, that the Bible IS translated into the vernacular, so why not the Mass?

 

[Eric_Olsen]

Personally I would be content with the 1965 missal. It retained the old calendar and the majority of prayers from the '62 missal. Not to mention the English translation is far more superb than the God awlfull ICEL translation that will be hopefully be scrapped soon with the new translation.

If the 1965 missal were authorized today would there be some TLM lovers and some Novus Ordo lovers who would die of a heart attack?

I can get it about people preferring either the Novus Ordo or TLM.

What I can’t get is people being against accurate translation of anything Latin.

Why can’t we have an accurate English translation of the Latin Vulgate?

And in the Novus Ordo why can’t we have accurate exactly matching translation of the Vulgate in the Mass?

Would TLM lovers respect the Novus Ordo more if they chunked the NAB and went with accurate English translation of the Vulgate for the readings and everything scripture related in the Novus Ordo?

If I were pope I’d make that happen and I’d also allow an English version of TLM.

The Novus Ordo could be made much better.

Even TLM could develop beyond the 1962 missal.

And it is possible for future masses to be somewhere inbetween the both of them.

Is such a thought blaspehmous?

What would traditionalists think if the Anglican use was abolished and an English version of the Sarin Rite was reinstituted?

Would that be traditional enough for English speaking people or does traditional always involve the Latin language exclusively until the end of time?

Are the other rites that never have used Latin–can they be traditional?

When Roman Rite saints in heaven pray for us–is it OK for them to use languages other than Latin when they address God?

At Pentecost there were some Romans there who undoubtedly heard St. Peter speak in Latin but there were others from other nations who understood him in their own languages as well.

If the vernacular was always imperfect then some of the first masses were imperfect which we know is not true.

If you indeed HEAR St. Peter in Latin I am happy for you–just cut others who hear St. Peter in other languages some slack–if the Holy Spirit can make it so that they can hear despite St. Peter speaking in Hebrew or Aramaic–who knows–maybe that same Holy Spirt can enable other LATIN HEARERS to hear him when he speaks in English during the mass as well!

 

[ethelzguy]

Personally I would be content with the 1965 missal. It retained the old calendar and the majority of prayers from the '62 missal. Not to mention the English translation is far more superb than the God awlfull ICEL translation that will be hopefully be scrapped soon with the new translation.

Was the ICEL “translation” actually supposed to be a “translation” of the old Mass, or the rendering of the new Mass?

 

[Eric_Olsen]

It was supposed to be a translation of the latin in which the new mass was originally written in.

Was the ICEL “translation” actually supposed to be a “translation” of the old Mass, or the rendering of the new Mass?

 

[IndigoDreamz]

Every good TLM Missal I’ve seen has Latin text along with the English translation right next to it. By following along in your Missal, you absolutely can understand what’s being prayed.

For those who are new to the TLM, attending Mass requires far more concentration than with the NO, where everything seems so automatic that you can easily let your mind wander. This is one of many reasons that my family and I prefer the TLM.

I kindly disagree. The missal for the TLM is anything but easy to follow. One must flip back and forth, constantly. Much is said only by the Priest, quietly, making it very hard to be truly part of the Mass. And because of this, it makes it far easier to have your mind wander- which was one of the major issues that brought Vat2.

I agree w/ the O.P… There IS much beauty in the TLM (which, btw, is NOT the original Mass and had many faithful upset when the TLM was introduced). But being able to understand what is being said, having ones children understand what is being said (w/o constantly telling them or hunting it down in the missal- for those that can read), and thus allows for the faithful to be truly part of the Mass w/o having your mind wander (I rarely see any minds wandering during the N.O.).

Perhaps if there was a better TLM Missal, like the N.O. Has, thus not requiring the need to know what of to flip back and forth to, would help. But being able to hear it in English, while having many of the TOMB traditions (along w/ the older traditions in which the Vat2 sought to bring back)… This would make the reverence of the old, understandable to a greater number (including being far more welcoming to those that might be interested in coming into the Church).

 

[babochka]

What I can’t get is people being against accurate translation of anything Latin.

Why can’t we have an accurate English translation of the Latin Vulgate?

And in the Novus Ordo why can’t we have accurate exactly matching translation of the Vulgate in the Mass?

Would TLM lovers respect the Novus Ordo more if they chunked the NAB and went with accurate English translation of the Vulgate for the readings and everything scripture related in the Novus Ordo?

There is an English translation of the Vulgate - the Douay-Rheims. An English translation of the Latin Vulgate would be a translation of a translation, which really isn’t the best choice if you’re looking for accuracy. Translations should always start with the original languages (in this case Greek and Hebrew). It is fine to use the Vulgate as a reference, but subtleties would be lost if the original languages were discarded in favor of a translation. It is different with the Mass, because most of the prayers of the Mass were composed in Latin, so it is the original language.

Translation is an art and can never be “exact”, as much as that might frustrate us. Particular word choices, which may appear to convey the meaning, also convey subtleties and nuances. Word order might give a particular emphasis, or fail to convey a particular emphasis, even if the words seem to give an exact translation. An “exact” translation might be so clunky and unreadable (rendered in no way that a native speaker of the language would ever speak) that it is not practical, and a more artistic approach is necessary.

 

[zab]

I kindly disagree. The missal for the TLM is anything but easy to follow. One must flip back and forth, constantly. Much is said only by the Priest, quietly, making it very hard to be truly part of the Mass. And because of this, it makes it far easier to have your mind wander- which was one of the major issues that brought Vat2.

I agree w/ the O.P… There IS much beauty in the TLM (which, btw, is NOT the original Mass and had many faithful upset when the TLM was introduced). But being able to understand what is being said, having ones children understand what is being said (w/o constantly telling them or hunting it down in the missal- for those that can read), and thus allows for the faithful to be truly part of the Mass w/o having your mind wander (I rarely see any minds wandering during the N.O.).

Perhaps if there was a better TLM Missal, like the N.O. Has, thus not requiring the need to know what of to flip back and forth to, would help. But being able to hear it in English, while having many of the TOMB traditions (along w/ the older traditions in which the Vat2 sought to bring back)… This would make the reverence of the old, understandable to a greater number (including being far more welcoming to those that might be interested in coming into the Church).

I don’t recall having had any difficulty following along in the Latin/English Missal when I was a child. It is a different story today trying to follow along in the printed booklets at our TLM . Kind of like trying to follow a resurrected 7 year old thread

 

[babochka]

I don’t recall having had any difficulty following along in the Latin/English Missal when I was a child. It is a different story today trying to follow along in the printed booklets at our TLM . Kind of like trying to follow a resurrected 7 year old thread

Oops.

 

[Brendan]

I kindly disagree. The missal for the TLM is anything but easy to follow. One must flip back and forth, constantly. Much is said only by the Priest, quietly, making it very hard to be truly part of the Mass.

How does the volume of the priest speaking interfere with your role at Mass?

 

[ProVobis]

Perhaps if there was a better TLM Missal, like the N.O. Has, thus not requiring the need to know what of to flip back and forth to, would help.

Depends on which handmissal or missalette you look at. There is a St. Joseph Continuous Sunday Missal, for example, you need not keep five ribbons for. OTOH, there are a lot of OF missalettes which are quite disconnected. If I attend a Spanish OF, I have to get there ahead of time and prepare by keeping like three or four fingers inside the missalette so I can follow it. Or find some loose envelopes to mark the spots.

My big gripe with the EF Missals (or at least all the ones I’ve had) is that the fonts in Latin are generally smaller than the English. Seems counterproductive to me; the English isn’t even official.