C
Chatter163
Guest
So imagine how people felt when the Latin Mass was replaced?
- Status
J
JGMendes4049
Guest
That’s a legitimate option because the rite of distributing Holy Communion outside of Mass is a completely different ritual book, separate from the Roman Missal. It is optional to use the new translations in older ritual books that have some of the same texts as the Mass (e.g., in the Liturgy of the Hours, the Collect at the end of each hour is generally the same as that of the Mass of the day, so either the old or new translation may be used in it).
I
iloveangels
Guest
Good point.
A
applesofgold
Guest
Not sure I buy the argument for using the old translation when mass is celebrated in nursing homes. You cannot presume that some people “cannot handle” the new translation just because they are older and living in a care facility. Haven’t they too got the right to participate in a mass that is licit and valid. Older people who are blessed to still have their mental faculties intact, must find it very condescending to have the mass “dumbed- down” for them.
There is so much of the people’s parts that have not changed, that the mass will still be familiar even to people with a degree of dementia. Like the rest of us, I am sure the new parts will grow on them when they hear them often enough.
There is so much of the people’s parts that have not changed, that the mass will still be familiar even to people with a degree of dementia. Like the rest of us, I am sure the new parts will grow on them when they hear them often enough.
S
SgtSchultz
Guest
I hear a lot of older folks, set in their ways (as well as young folks my age or in their late teens or 20s who don’t like “messing with tradition” – go figure), using the old words. The missal books in some parishes I attend have the old way, as they are costly to replace.
I didn’t understand why these things had changed. I used to think that my memory was going bad, that I’d incorrectly been recalling things from Anglican churches instead of Catholic churches. But when I went to an EF mass, I saw the side-by-side translation, and it clicked. “Et cum spiritu tuo” literally translated means “and with your spirit”. It’s closer to the original Latin – closer to tradition than before!
I didn’t understand why these things had changed. I used to think that my memory was going bad, that I’d incorrectly been recalling things from Anglican churches instead of Catholic churches. But when I went to an EF mass, I saw the side-by-side translation, and it clicked. “Et cum spiritu tuo” literally translated means “and with your spirit”. It’s closer to the original Latin – closer to tradition than before!
C
Cordelil
Guest
Thank you for all your replies to this thread.
I think the older priest at my parish is using the outdated Eucharistic prayers not the new ones; hence, my difficulty in following that.
Compared to the changes that replacing the Latin Mass with the vernacular Novus Ordo one this new liturgy is minor in scope.
I think the older priest at my parish is using the outdated Eucharistic prayers not the new ones; hence, my difficulty in following that.
Compared to the changes that replacing the Latin Mass with the vernacular Novus Ordo one this new liturgy is minor in scope.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Although the Vatican promulgates Masses in Latin, the vernacular is offered to the people for pastoral reasons. That means the bishops (as a group) are allowed to use whatever language is necessary to help people understand the Mass in their countries. That also means they can make changes as often as they see fit. I can use the argument that British English is different from American English and therefore two different versions should be used in those countries but I don’t have authority to change those texts. If the bishop allows a particular version for a specific congregation, then we’ll just have to trust that he has good reason for doing so.
J
JimG
Guest
One advantage of getting old: the newly revised translation is almost exactly what I recall from the English side of the Latin-English missal back in 1960. In fact, when celebrating the Mass in the vernacular was first being discussed, this translation is pretty much what I had expected (but didn’t get) because it pretty precisely matches the Latin and was already familiar from those missals.
Then what English translation did you use when Mass was first in English?
The ICEL translation was not promulgated until late 1969 or 1970 or so. (I can’t quite remember.) Mass had been in English for a few years before that.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Actually very few people used missals. And, even of those who did, they probably wouldn’t have remembered. On top of that each pre-Vatican II missal had pretty much its own translation; only the Latin was exactly the same everywhere, word for word.
P
ProVobis
Guest
You are quite correct. The “for you and for all men” consecration appeared before the 1970 Mass; I think as early as 1967.
R
rfournier103
Guest
The people I feel most sympathy for are the priests who were ordained before the changes of Vatican II. This is their second major upheaval. You think YOU have had to relearn a bunch of prayers??? They have it worse than you!
I also agree that it is NOT a memorization contest. Use the cards. Everyone else is!
I also agree that it is NOT a memorization contest. Use the cards. Everyone else is!
J
JimG
Guest
The ICEL translation! Pretty much the same one that just preceded this one. Nobody expected that. Go back and look at a 1960 missal. The English side of the missal is pretty close to this new translation. So I guess they finally got it right, just fifty years delayed.
Then what English translation did you use when Mass was first in English?
The ICEL translation was not promulgated until late 1969 or 1970 or so. (I can’t quite remember.) Mass had been in English for a few years before that.
For example: Latin: Domine, non sum dignus, ut intres sub tectum meum, sed tantum dic verbo et sanabitur anima mea. English: Lord, I am not worthy that You should come under my roof, say but the word, and my soul shall be healed.
This is straight out of my 1961 missal. Is that the translation that ICEL gave us? No.
(I don’t remember if there was an interim translation before ICEL. But I don’t recall the translation ever being used that people were familiar with from the missals, which is pretty much what many people had expected.)
I still have my “1965 translation” hand missal. That was the translation I believe was widely used for English Masses in the United States. It had side-by-side English and Latin although it was designed to be primarily for English Masses. My missal seems to be “hiding” at the moment so I can’t look it up but I’m quite certain it says, “for many”. “For all,” must have come later.
A
acacia12
Guest
I have recently started to attend Mass after being away from the church for about29yrs.
I was shocked to hear the change. I didn’t know what to say or do. I felt so uncomfortable.
I was shocked to hear the change. I didn’t know what to say or do. I felt so uncomfortable.
P
ProVobis
Guest
My high school teacher told us to hold off buying hand missals in 1963 as a lot of changes were expected back then. I never saw the 1965 or 1967 missals; I just remembered that they dropped Psalm 42 and the Last Gospel and then had the priest facing the people and speaking the Mass out loud in whatever translation he could find. Much of it sounded very weird. There was no standard until the ICEL came along, but they started their work even before Vatican II convened. In fact, they had so much influence, many other translations (Spanish, etc.) were based on their work and not the Latin. Even today the Spanish consecration has the “for you and for all men.”
Did you not have Mass in English prior to 1970? At least where I lived the majority of Masses were in English starting about Fall 1965.
I have very clear memories of saying, “And with your spirit,” and “Lord I am not worthy that You should come under my roof. Speak but the word and my soul shall be healed.”
And I remember Sr. Mary Jean Patrice making us practice saying, “Ay-men” if the priest said, “The Body of Christ,” and, “Ah-men,” if the priest said, “Dominus vobiscum.” This was in 1965 and 1966 as we were practicing for our First Communions. (Our First Communion Mass turned out to be in English.)
P
Phemie
Guest
In Canada, and I suspect most English speaking countries, there were several gradual changes between Vat. II and the Missal we used from 1970 until last November. For a while it seemed that there were changes every couple of months.
The first English translation we used said “And with your spirit” and I think it also had “for many” in the translation. I also think the Gloria and the Sanctus were closer to what we have now than the ICEL translation we had for 40 years.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Phemie, out of curiosity, when did the French change? Or did they at all? I think you mentioned that the consecration is “for you and for the multitudes” which would probably be more cognative of the Latin.
J
JimG
Guest
Yes, we did, but I don’t recall if there was any official interim translation before ICEL. Of course, nearly everyone before 1960 DID have a “translation”–the one that was in their missal! And those tended to be pretty uniform and pretty closely matched the Latin original.
Of course, it was not just the English translation that changed. It was the Latin as well. A good deal of the Latin–and it’s corresponding English translation–was removed from the Mass, including for example the preparatory “prayers at the foot of the altar.” Even today, some of those come back to me fully formed, even the priest’s parts–in Latin of course; that’s a result of years of altar serving.)
- Status