Useful link to New Missal changes

[ProVobis]

Does the ordinary Mass even go by the codified Latin versions of these prayers, like the Crede, Gloria, and the Lamb of God anymore? Good grief-the last thing we need is another schism because of someone pulling something like the “Filioque” card again.

I agree.

Although I will admit that it’s nice to see that the Vatican II dumbing-downs are having a little more vernacular added to them.

You seem to contradict yourself here.

 

[ProVobis]

Ah, right, because Christ handed down the Mass in Latin from 10 A.D.

Well, part of the inscription on Christ’s cross was in Latin. Why the attack on Latin, Mark? It’s managed to preserve our faith pretty well since Christ even if it wasn’t most commonly used in the Mass until 300AD.

 

[ProVobis]

however, I also believe that we can go too far, which I think we may have done in this case.
If it were up to me, I would start over, and combine some of what we already have with alot of what is new.

Here’s what Cardinal Arinze had to say about that in 2006:

1. The Vernacular: Introduction, Extension, Conditions

The introduction of local languages into the sacred liturgy of the Latin Rite is a development that did not occur all of a sudden. After the partial experience gained over the preceding years in certain countries, already on 5 and 6 December 1962, after long and sometimes impassioned debates, the Second Vatican Fathers adopted the principle that the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of advantage to the people. In the following year the Council voted to apply this principle to the Mass, the ritual and the Liturgy of the Hours (cf. SC, nn. 36, 54, 63a, 76, 78, 101).

Extensions of the use of the vernacular followed. But, as if the Council Fathers foresaw the likelihood that Latin might lose more and more ground, they insisted again and again that Latin be maintained.

As already quoted, article 36 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy began by enacting that “particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rite”. Article 54 required that steps be taken, “enabling the faithful to say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass belonging to them”. In the celebration of the Liturgy of the Hours, “in accordance with the centuries-old tradition of the Latin rite, clerics are to retain the Latin language” (SC, n. 101).

But even while establishing limits, the Council Fathers anticipated the possibility of a wider use of the vernacular. Article 54 indeed adds: “Wherever a more extended use of the mother tongue within the Mass appears desirable, the regulation laid down in Article 40 of this Constitution is to be observed”. Article 40 goes into directives on the role of Bishops’ Conferences and of the Apostolic See in such a delicate matter.

The vernacular had been introduced. The rest is history. The developments were so fast that many clerics, Religious and lay faithful today are not aware that the Second Vatican Council did not simply introduce the vernacular for all parts of the liturgy.

Requests and widenings of the use of the vernacular were not long in coming. At the urgent request of some Bishops’ Conferences, Pope Paul VI first allowed the Preface of the Mass to be said in the vernacular (cf. Letter of the Cardinal Secretary of State, 27 April 1965), then the entire Canon and the prayers of ordination in 1967.

Finally, on 14 June 1971, the Congregation for Divine Worship sent notice that Episcopal Conferences could allow the use of the vernacular in all the texts of the Mass, and each Ordinary could give the same permission for the choral or private celebration of the Liturgy of the Hours (on the whole development, see A.G. Martimort: The Dialogue between God and his People, in A.G. Martimort: The Church at Prayer, I, p. 166).

The reasons for the introduction of the mother tongue are not far to seek. It promotes better understanding of what the Church is praying, since “Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful be led to that full, conscious and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy… (and which) is their right by reason of their Baptism” (SC, n. 14).

At the same time, it is not difficult to envisage how demanding and delicate the work of translation must be. Even more difficult is the question of adaptation and inculturation especially when we think of the sacredness of the sacramental rites, the centuries-old tradition of the Latin Rite, and the close link between faith and worship encapsuled in the old formula: lex orandi, lex credendi.

 

[ProVobis]

More from Cardinal Arinze:

1. On Translations into the Vernacular

The translation of liturgical texts from the Latin original to the various vernaculars is a very important consideration in the prayer life of the Church. It is a question, not of private prayer, but of the public prayer offered by holy Mother Church, with Christ as the Head. The Latin texts have been prepared with great care as to sound doctrine, exact wording “free from all ideological influence and otherwise endowed with those qualities by which the sacred mysteries of salvation and the indefectible faith of the Church are efficaciously transmitted by means of human language to prayer, and worthy worship is offered to God the Most High” (Liturgiam Authenticam, n. 3).

The words used in the sacred liturgy manifest the faith of the Church and are guided by it. The Church, therefore, needs great care in directing, preparing and approving translations, so that not even one unsuitable word will be smuggled into the liturgy by an individual who may have a personal agenda, or who may simply not be aware of the seriousness of the rites.

Translations should, therefore, be faithful to the original Latin text. They should not be free compositions. As Liturgiam Authenticam, the major Holy See Document that gives directives on translations, insists: “The translation of the liturgical texts of the Roman Liturgy is not so much a work of creative innovation as it is of rendering the original texts faithfully and accurately into the vernacular language” (n. 20).

The genius of the Latin Rite should be respected. The triple repetition is one of its characteristics. Examples are “mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa”; “Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, Kyrie eleison”; “Agnus Dei qui tollis…”, three times. A close study of the “Gloria in Excelsis Deo” also shows “triplets”. Translations should neither kill nor flatten out such a characteristic.

The Latin liturgy expresses not only facts but also our feelings, our sentiments, for example, in front of God’s transcendence, majesty, mercy and boundless love (cf. Liturgiam Authenticam, n. 25). Expressions like “Te igitur, clementissime Pater”, “Supplices te rogamus”, “Propitius esto”, “veneremur cernui”, “Omnipotens et misericors Dominus”, “nos servi tui”, should not be deflated and democratized by some translating iconoclast.

Some of these Latin expressions are difficult to translate. The best experts in liturgy, classics, patrology, theology, spirituality, music and literature are needed so that translations beautiful on the lips of holy Mother Church can be worked out. Translations should reflect that reverence, gratitude and adoration before God’s transcendent majesty and man’s hunger for God which are very clear in the Latin texts.

Pope Benedict XVI, in his Message to the meeting of the “Vox Clara” English Committee on 9 November 2005, speaks of translations which “will succeed in transmitting the treasures of the faith and the liturgical tradition in the specific context of a devout and reverent Eucharistic celebration” (in Notitiae, 471-472, Nov.-Dec. 2005, p. 557).

Many liturgical texts are steeped in biblical expressions, signs and symbols. They resonate with prayer patterns that date back to the Psalms. The translator cannot afford to ignore this.

A language spoken by millions of people today will undoubtedly have many shades and variations. There is a difference between English used in the Constitution of a country, that spoken by the President of a Republic, the conversational language of dock workers or students and the conversation between parents and children. The manner of expression cannot be expected to be the same in all these situations, although all are using English.

 

[ProVobis]

Still more:

What form should liturgical translations adopt? No doubt liturgical vernacular should be intelligible and easy to proclaim and to understand. At the same time, it should be dignified, sober, stable and not subject to frequent change. It should not hesitate to use some words not generally in use in everyday conversation, or words that are associated with Catholic faith and worship. Therefore, it should say chalice and not just cup, paten and not plate, ciborium and not vessel, priest and not presider, sacred host and not consecrated bread, vestments and not dress.

Therefore, Liturgiam Authenticam says: “While the translation must transmit the perennial treasury of orations by means of language understandable in the cultural context for which it is intended,… it should cause no surprise that such language differs somewhat from ordinary speech” (n. 47).

Intelligibility should not be pushed to mean that every word must be understood by everybody at once. Just look carefully at the Credo. It is a “symbol”, a solemn summary statement, on our faith. The Church has had to call some General Councils for an exact articulation of some articles of our faith.

Not every Catholic at Mass will immediately understand in full such normal Catholic liturgical formulae as Incarnation, Creation, Passion, Resurrection, Consubstantial with the Father, Proceeding from the Father and the Son, Transubstantiation, Real Presence, Transcendent and omnipotent God. This is not a question of English, or French, or Italian, or Hindi or Kiswahili. Translators should not become iconoclasts who destroy and damage as they go along. Everything cannot be explained during the liturgy.

The liturgy does not exhaust the entire life activity of the Church (cf. SC, n. 9). There is also need for theology, catechetics and preaching. And even when a good catechesis has been delivered, a mystery of our faith remains a mystery.

Indeed, we can say that the most important thing in divine worship is not that we understand every word or concept. No. The most important consideration is that we stand in reverence and awe before God, that we adore, praise and thank him. The sacred, the things of God, are best approached with sandals off.

In prayer, language is primarily for contact with God. No doubt, language is also for intelligible communication between us humans. But contact with God has priority. In the mystic, such contact with God approaches and sometimes reaches the ineffable, the mystical silence where language ceases.

There is therefore no surprise if liturgical language differs somewhat from our everyday language. Liturgical language strives to express Christian prayer where the mysteries of Christ are celebrated.

As if putting together these various elements needed in order to produce good liturgical translations, let us quote from the Address of Pope John Paul II to American Bishops from California, Nevada and Hawaii during their 1993 ad limina visit to Rome. He was asking them in translations to guard the full doctrinal integrity and beauty of the original texts:

“One of your responsibilities in this regard is to make available exact and appropriate translations of the official liturgical books so that, following the required review and confirmation by the Holy See, they may be an instrument and guarantee of a genuine sharing in the mystery of Christ and the Church: lex orandi, lex credendi. The arduous task of translation must guard the full doctrinal integrity and, according to the genius of each language, the beauty of the original texts. When so many people are thirsting for the Living God - whose majesty and mercy are at the heart of liturgical prayer -, the Church must respond with a language of praise and worship which fosters respect and gratitude for God’s greatness, compassion and power. When the faithful gather to celebrate the work of our Redemption, the language of their prayer - free from doctrinal ambiguity and ideological influence - should foster the dignity and beauty of the celebration itself, while faithfully expressing the Church’s faith and unity” (in Insegnamenti of John Paul II, XVI, 2, 1993, p. 1399-1400).

From the above considerations, it follows that the Church needs to exercise careful authority over liturgical translations. The responsibility for the translation of texts rests on the Bishops’ Conference, which submits them to the Holy See for the necessary recognitio (cf, SC, n. 36; C.I.C., can. 838; Lit. Authenticam, n. 80).

It follows that no individual, even a priest or deacon, has authority to change the approved wording in the sacred liturgy. This is also common sense. But sometimes we notice that common sense is not very common.

So, Redemptionis Sacramentum had to say expressly: “The reprobated practice by which priests, deacons or the faithful here and there alter or vary at will the texts of the Sacred Liturgy that they are charged to pronounce, must cease. For in doing thus, they render the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy unstable, and not infrequently distort the authentic meaning of the Liturgy” (n. 59; cf. also General Instruction on Roman Missal, n. 24).

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20061111_gateway-conference_en.html

 

[benedictgal]

ProVobis says
No translation is perfect as something is almost always lost in the translation, especially the precision and poetic beauty. But do you want to at least get a feel for the original thought or just accept anything that sounds good to you?

I agree with the first part of your statement.
And yes I believe that we should be as close as to the original as possible,
however, I also believe that we can go too far, which I think we may have done in this case.
If it were up to me, I would start over, and combine some of what we already have with alot of what is new.
But, alas, it is not up to me.
The change is coming, I will adjust,
and I will do my part to help others do the same.

However, what we have in use right now, while somewhat similar to the actual prayers in Latin, took liberties that managed to water down key elements of the prayers. For example, look at the prayer after the Agnus Dei:

All: Lord, I am not worthy
to receive you,
but only say the word
and I shall be healed.

Unfortunately, this is not an accurate translation. The new translation brings us in line with the Latin original (and with what the rest of the world is praying):

All: Lord, I am not worthy
that you should enter under my roof,
but only say the word
and my soul shall be healed.

This prayer was drawn from Sacred Scripture, from the account where the Roman centurion recognizes his unworthiness to have Jesus come under his roof to heal his servant.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

There is no question that the new version is better than what we have now. I see everything in it as an improvement.

 

[ErichK]

Ah, right, because Christ handed down the Mass in Latin from 10 A.D.
46 After three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, listening to them and -]asking them questions/-] celebrating a pontifical High Mass,
47 and all who heard him were astounded at his understanding and his -]answers/-] fiddleback.

Sarcasm notwithstanding. I never said the Latin Mass was handed down by Christ, but that Latin created a unity between Catholics besides merely being Catholic.

There’s a movie called “Joyeux Noel” which is set in WWI on the front in France, with the British, the French, and the Germans all in the trenches on opposite sides. When Christmas comes, they’re finally urged out of their trenches by singing Christmas carols in unison, and then the British chaplain serves mass at midnight. It almost put a tear in my eye when the chaplain said “Dominus Vobiscum,” to which the German, French, and British catholics present, all in unison, replied “Et cum Spiritu Tuo.” While it was symbolic to most viewers as “here are three armies at war, but they can find unity on Christmas,” it was to me a message of “they found their unity through Christ and the Church and the language of the Church.”

ProVobis:

You seem to contradict yourself here.

I didn’t mean that in the way you understood - I meant that the added vernacular is a closer translation of the original Latin on a lot of the prayers in comparison to the modernized versions.

 

[japhy]

Its some of the other things, espically the Creeds, that worry me more. Again not because they arent right, but that everyone uses the same creed, its really one of the few things of practice (daily things in common) with everyone else.

I’m not so concerned, since many of the Christian communities which use the current ecumenical translations of the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds don’t hold the same beliefs about the statements in the Creeds. Some of them omit the word “catholic”, for example. Some of them don’t believe that baptism actually brings about the forgiveness of sins. Some of them don’t believe that when we say the Virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus, that makes her the Mother of God; nor that she remained a virgin perpetually.

What good is it to use the same words but with different meanings?!

 

[33AD]

In the new missal, will the readings continue to be taken from the NAB or from another Bible translation such as the RSV-CE?

 

[benedictgal]

In the new missal, will the readings continue to be taken from the NAB or from another Bible translation such as the RSV-CE?

Unfortunately, the change does not yet include the Lectionary. I am hoping that this will be the next item reviewed. The language from the RSV-CE is much more beautiful and it reads better.

 

[Thunderbird]

I really like most of the changes being made, all except the Preface Dialogue. Specifically, the last half. Instead of saying “It is right to give Him thanks and praise,” we’re saying “It is right and just.”

It feels like a fragmented sentence. Would’ve sounded better to say “It is right and just to do so,” or something to that effect, ne?

 

[benedictgal]

I really like most of the changes being made, all except the Preface Dialogue. Specifically, the last half. Instead of saying “It is right to give Him thanks and praise,” we’re saying “It is right and just.”

It feels like a fragmented sentence. Would’ve sounded better to say “It is right and just to do so,” or something to that effect, ne?

It is not a fragmanted sentence. “It is” can stand on its own. “Just and right” merely qualifies it. It’s as though you were saying “Just and right it is.”

 

[MarkThompson]

Well, part of the inscription on Christ’s cross was in Latin. Why the attack on Latin, Mark? It’s managed to preserve our faith pretty well since Christ even if it wasn’t most commonly used in the Mass until 300AD.

I like Latin just fine, PV – I’ve studied it, I read it, I sing it, and often enough I go to Mass in it. So when people use bad arguments in favor of it, it embarrasses me.

I know it makes it more difficult to oppose using the vernacular today when it’s pointed out that worship was in various vernaculars in the beginning, then changed to Latin when Latin became the vernacular, that it’s always been in the vernacular in most if not all of the Eastern rites, that it was permitted in the vernacular in the Latin rite at various times and places for various reasons, etc. I strongly support a greatly increased role for Latin today, but I’m only going to convince the uneducated if I try to argue, “Hey, the Church was in Latin for 1960 years of purity. What changed???”

 

[Thunderbird]

It is not a fragmanted sentence. “It is” can stand on its own. “Just and right” merely qualifies it. It’s as though you were saying “Just and right it is.”

Yeaaaah, but I still think it sounds off somehow. I guess it’s just because I’m unaccustomed to saying it that way.

 

[ProVobis]

then changed to Latin when Latin became the vernacular

Are you sure about that?

ancienthistory.about.com/od/latinlanguage/qt/vulgarlatin.htm

I can’t believe it was spoken everywhere before the Latin Mass flourished.

Your other points well taken.

 

[choy]

Are you sure about that?

ancienthistory.about.com/od/latinlanguage/qt/vulgarlatin.htm

I can’t believe it was spoken everywhere before the Latin Mass flourished.

Your other points well taken.

Latin is the official language of Rome, so of course it would have been spoken everywhere
consider that because of the British Empire, English was spoken everywhere. but it doesn’t follow that it instantly became the normal language of many of these countries

there are subtle differences in the use of the English language in the UK, America, Canada, Australia, etc. and many countries have adopted English and turned it into their own. every heard of Singlish? its the Singaporean brand English, it may sound like broken english to most english speakers but it works in Singapore. its not an official language, but everyone in Singapore speaks that way. it may not be too long before its recognized as such. thats how Latin evolved into all those different languages

 

[MarkThompson]

Are you sure about that?

ancienthistory.about.com/od/latinlanguage/qt/vulgarlatin.htm

I can’t believe it was spoken everywhere before the Latin Mass flourished.

Your other points well taken.

You’re right, that was vague; I meant when Christianity integrated with the dominant Roman culture. I’m sure Latin was used among those converts in the earliest decades who spoke Latin.

 

[ProVobis]

You’re right, that was vague; I meant when Christianity integrated with the dominant Roman culture. I’m sure Latin was used among those converts in the earliest decades who spoke Latin.

I’ll agree there and I’ll also agree with Cardinal Arinze who theorizes that Latin caught on since then as people were turning to a separate language to worship in.

It is a remarkable phenomenon that many religions of the world, or major branches of them, hold on to a language as dear to them. We cannot think of the Jewish religion without Hebrew. Islam holds Arabic as sacred to the Qur’an. Classical Hinduism considers Sanskrit its official language. Buddhism has its sacred texts in Pali.

It would be superficial to dismiss this tendency as esoteric, or strange, or outmoded, old or medieval. That would be to ignore a fine element of human psychology. In religious matters, people tend to hold on to what they received from the beginning, how their earliest predecessors articulated their religion and prayed. Words and formulae used by earlier generations are dear to those who today inherit from them. While a religion is of course not identified with a language, how it understands itself can have an affective link with a particular linguistic expression in its classical period of growth.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20061111_gateway-conference_en.html

 

[MarkThompson]

I’ll agree there and I’ll also agree with Cardinal Arinze who theorizes that Latin caught on since then as people were turning to a separate language to worship in.

Agreed, though it bears remembering that they picked what was at the time the dominant language in their culture, a language very much living and spoken on the streets.

That’s not to say we need to do the same, but if we’re going to do something different we should at least know why.