Variances in Spanish version of Roman Missal

[benedictgal]

In another thread, moved to another forum, I noted, with some consternation, the fact that the archpriest of the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalulpe had changed the wording in the consecration.

Instead of “tomad y comed” and “tomad” y “bebed”, he said “tomen y comen” and “tomen y beben”. Out of curiosity, I checked the Mexican Episcopal Conferences version of the Roman Missal (that we use here in Texas) and found that the wording is “tomad y comed” and “tomad y bebed”, as opposed to what I heard that night. Does anyone know if the CEM (Mexican Eipiscopal Conference) changed the Roman Missal? Their website doesn’t say anything.

Oddly enough, the WLP misallete that the cathedral uses has “tomen y comen” and “tomen y beben” even though the Roman Missal has the other wording that I posted.

The only thing that I do know is that there is a new version of the Roman Missal that the USCCB approved for use in Spanish-language Masses. I have not seen the document, but, from what i understand, it cannot be used until the English version has been approved. The logic was that they would send both documents to Rome together. I am not sure if the variances exist in the propsed USCCB Spanish translation. The Spanish used in the CEM version is very formal.

 

[ack]

See this article:

diocesisdeveracruz.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=61

A summary of the article above:

In the introduction to the Mexican version of the Roman Missal, there is a note indicating that the priest may replace the vosotros form with the ustedes form throughout the Mass. This is because many Mexicans find the vosotros forms to be old-fashioned and difficult to read.

The Mexican bishops requested permission to use the ustedes forms, and the Holy See granted this permission on 7/10/1989. So, the priest may optionally read “tomen y coman” as you had heard on TV.

 

[benedictgal]

See this article:

diocesisdeveracruz.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=61

A summary of the article above:

In the introduction to the Mexican version of the Roman Missal, there is a note indicating that the priest may replace the vosotros form with the ustedes form throughout the Mass. This is because many Mexicans find the vosotros forms to be old-fashioned and difficult to read.

The Mexican bishops requested permission to use the ustedes forms, and the Holy See granted this permission on 7/10/1989. So, the priest may optionally read “tomen y coman” as you had heard on TV.

Thank you.

However, I do not think that this permission has been extended, as of yet, to the United States. From what I understand, having spoken to folks more knowledgeable on this than me, we are waiting for the USCCB to approve the English translations so that both sets can be sent to the Holy See. So, even if the “ustedes” form is included in the new US-use Spanish version of the GIRM, we can’t use that yet until the Holy See gives its approval, at least that is what a priest friend of mine told me. Many priests down here are using the “ustedes” form, but, they still say “tomad y comed” and “tomad y bebed.” It’s kind of a strange hybrid. They’ll say “ustedes” but then go back to the “vosotros” form. I actually like the “vosotros” form because it is more formal and more beautiful. But, that is just me.

 

[SenorSalsa]

Just as a general thing, the Vosotros construction is only really used in Spain. Speaking as a person haven taken spanish classes in US high school and talking to others that have taken them at high school and college level, I have not heard of one teacher/professor who bothered to teach vosotros, because it is so uncommon and can be replaced by ustedes in every needed situation

also, from what I understand, vosotros is not more formal, but less, although this can be somewhat confusing.

back in the day, Spanish used to refer to royalty in Vosotros form, or so I was told, upon enquiring of its use in the movie Pan’s Labrynth…

However, if you look at the pronouns, ustedes is clearly plural of usted(whic is formal you), and vosotros is usually considered then, to be plural of tu(informal you). It has been described to me often as the spanish y’all(or yins or yous guys for y’all up north). Which makes sense, as Jesus would have been speaking to close friends when He said those words

 

[ack]

Hi,

Note that the permission to use the uds. form was for the old translation of the Roman Missal (the same one that you are right now in Texas.) So, what you heard in the televised Mass was definitely legit, and similar use of the uds. form in the US would also be legit if the Holy See’s decision extended this permission to all countries using the CEM translation. (I don’t know if it did or not – but maybe you could look for the aformentioned note in the introduction of your CEM Roman Missal and see what you find.)

This is independent of whatever is going on with the new version of the GIRM. When the new Spanish version of the GIRM is published, it will not only have the uds forms, but it will also replace “por todos” with “por muchos”, among other changes.

Thank you.

However, I do not think that this permission has been extended, as of yet, to the United States. From what I understand, having spoken to folks more knowledgeable on this than me, we are waiting for the USCCB to approve the English translations so that both sets can be sent to the Holy See. So, even if the “ustedes” form is included in the new US-use Spanish version of the GIRM, we can’t use that yet until the Holy See gives its approval, at least that is what a priest friend of mine told me. Many priests down here are using the “ustedes” form, but, they still say “tomad y comed” and “tomad y bebed.” It’s kind of a strange hybrid. They’ll say “ustedes” but then go back to the “vosotros” form. I actually like the “vosotros” form because it is more formal and more beautiful. But, that is just me.

 

[ack]

It’s true that the Vosotros form is “officially” informal, but in Mexico and other areas, it takes on an air of formality due to being antiquated (because the vosotros has disappeared from use in Mexican Spanish.)

Here’s an example of how this happens: Believe it or not, English used to have forms similar to “tu” and “usted”: “you” was the formal pronoun and “thou” was the informal pronoun. Because “thou” has fallen out of use, it now has a more formal connotation than “you”.

Similarly, “vosotros” (not to be confused with the “vos” pronoun used elsewhere in Latin America which is completely different) has fallen out of use in Mexico, and some may now perceive it as being more formal than “usteds”.

For this reason, in most countries, “ustedes” may capture the connotation of what Jesus said better than “vosotros” would, which is why the translations are being changed.

Just as a general thing, the Vosotros construction is only really used in Spain. Speaking as a person haven taken spanish classes in US high school and talking to others that have taken them at high school and college level, I have not heard of one teacher/professor who bothered to teach vosotros, because it is so uncommon and can be replaced by ustedes in every needed situation

also, from what I understand, vosotros is not more formal, but less, although this can be somewhat confusing.

back in the day, Spanish used to refer to royalty in Vosotros form, or so I was told, upon enquiring of its use in the movie Pan’s Labrynth…

However, if you look at the pronouns, ustedes is clearly plural of usted(whic is formal you), and vosotros is usually considered then, to be plural of tu(informal you). It has been described to me often as the spanish y’all(or yins or yous guys for y’all up north). Which makes sense, as Jesus would have been speaking to close friends when He said those words

 

[kurtmasur]

It’s true that the Vosotros form is “officially” informal, but in Mexico and other areas, it takes on an air of formality due to being antiquated (because the vosotros has disappeared from use in Mexican Spanish.)

Here’s an example of how this happens: Believe it or not, English used to have forms similar to “tu” and “usted”: “you” was the formal pronoun and “thou” was the informal pronoun. Because “thou” has fallen out of use, it now has a more formal connotation than “you”.

Similarly, “vosotros” (not to be confused with the “vos” pronoun used elsewhere in Latin America which is completely different) has fallen out of use in Mexico, and some may now perceive it as being more formal than “usteds”.

For this reason, in most countries, “ustedes” may capture the connotation of what Jesus said better than “vosotros” would, which is why the translations are being changed.

Exactly right. In the Americas, “ustedes” is a perfectly “neutral” or normal word–it is neither informal nor formal (even if it is the plural of the formal “usted”, it makes no difference). It is what we say to say “you” in the plural and there’s no other common alternative word for it.

As somebody has already pointed out, “vosotros” is the normal word to say in Spain for plural “you”, but it is archaic in the Americas and is more appropriate in the use of poems. This is why to some people the “vosotros” form may sound “beautiful”.

By the way, the proper words of the consecration are: “Tomen y coman” and “Tomen y beban”.

 

[benedictgal]

Hi,

Note that the permission to use the uds. form was for the old translation of the Roman Missal (the same one that you are right now in Texas.) So, what you heard in the televised Mass was definitely legit, and similar use of the uds. form in the US would also be legit if the Holy See’s decision extended this permission to all countries using the CEM translation. (I don’t know if it did or not – but maybe you could look for the aformentioned note in the introduction of your CEM Roman Missal and see what you find.)

This is independent of whatever is going on with the new version of the GIRM. When the new Spanish version of the GIRM is published, it will not only have the uds forms, but it will also replace “por todos” with “por muchos”, among other changes.

I don’t believe that the permission was extended to include the US. However, because we already have the final draft of the Spanish-language version of the Roman Missal for use in the United States, we will have to wait and see what Rome determines. Remember, too, that even though we are using the CEM version of the Roman Missal, the Mass is still governed under the USCCB-adapted GIRM. In other words, were we to use the CEM version of the GIRM, people would be standing in places where kneeling is called for in the US version. Thus, while we use Mexico’s ritual books (Sacramentary and Lectionary), we don’t use their GIRM.

 

[malphono]

I don’t believe that the permission was extended to include the US. However, because we already have the final draft of the Spanish-language version of the Roman Missal for use in the United States, we will have to wait and see what Rome determines. Remember, too, that even though we are using the CEM version of the Roman Missal, the Mass is still governed under the USCCB-adapted GIRM. In other words, were we to use the CEM version of the GIRM, people would be standing in places where kneeling is called for in the US version. Thus, while we use Mexico’s ritual books (Sacramentary and Lectionary), we don’t use their GIRM.

The matter at hand really doesn’t concern or interest me, (when I do voluntarily attend the Latin Rite it is for the EF alone) but curiosity has the best of me so I will pose a purely academic question:

Is the use of the CEM books universal in the US for Spanish-language OF, or is it regional? I can’t help but think that Spanish-speaking people of non-Mexican background might feel slighted.

 

[benedictgal]

The matter at hand really doesn’t concern or interest me, (when I do voluntarily attend the Latin Rite it is for the EF alone) but curiosity has the best of me so I will pose a purely academic question:

Is the use of the CEM books universal in the US for Spanish-language OF, or is it regional? I can’t help but think that Spanish-speaking people of non-Mexican background might feel slighted.

From what I understood when I raised this question some five years ago at the FDLC meeting in San Antonio, we, as in the US, were collectively using the liturgical books of the CEM. In fact, the readings for Spanish-language Masses in the United States come from Mexico while the psalms come from Spain (go figure). In fact, Msgr. Maroney, the former secretary to the Bishops Committee on Liturgy (now Divine Worship) said that we were to use the CEM lectionary, as opposed to the commonly-called Orange (Sunday readings) and Blue (daily Mass readings) because the texts from these books were tainted with liberation theology.

Thus, the new Spanish-language Roman Missal will probably draw most of its content from the CEM version.

 

[malphono]

From what I understood when I raised this question some five years ago at the FDLC meeting in San Antonio, we, as in the US, were collectively using the liturgical books of the CEM. In fact, the readings for Spanish-language Masses in the United States come from Mexico while the psalms come from Spain (go figure). In fact, Msgr. Maroney, the former secretary to the Bishops Committee on Liturgy (now Divine Worship) said that we were to use the CEM lectionary, as opposed to the commonly-called Orange (Sunday readings) and Blue (daily Mass readings) because the texts from these books were tainted with liberation theology.

Thus, the new Spanish-language Roman Missal will probably draw most of its content from the CEM version.

Thanks for the information. That’s helpful.

A related academic question that I should have asked at the same time is, are the books used in Central America, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, etc, the same as the CEM version? (I’m more curious about the so-called Sacramentary than the Lectionary.) If not, I wonder how much they differ?

Again, this is all a matter of curiosity: if it were more than that, I suppose I could have tried to reach Bishop Iriondo.

 

[benedictgal]

Thanks for the information. That’s helpful.

A related academic question that I should have asked at the same time is, are the books used in Central America, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, etc, the same as the CEM version? (I’m more curious about the so-called Sacramentary than the Lectionary.) If not, I wonder how much they differ?

Again, this is all a matter of curiosity: if it were more than that, I suppose I could have tried to reach Bishop Iriondo.

I believe that the only difference you will find concerns the patronal feasts of the various regions. Now, bear in mind that several years ago, Pope John Paul II extended the celebration of the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe to cover all of the Americas, not just Mexico (and possibly the United States). It would be interesting to see how the other conferecens have factored OLG into their liturgies.

One other observation: the CEM version of the Roman Missal that we use does not have musical notations for the celebrant to chant the prefaces (or anything else, for that matter). A priest friend of mine told me that the only Roman Missal that he thought had them was the one from the Argentine Episcopal Conference.

Something else to note is the fact that, of yet, we have not seen a Spansih-language book of the Chair. The book of the Chair that a couple of priests use comes from Spain. In fact, we used it at the cathedral and when it came time for the General Intercessions, the deacon went on as normal, until he found himself praying “for the health and welfare of our beloved King”. He turned red and backtracked and tried to amend it to pray for our elected offisials.

 

[malphono]

… the CEM version of the Roman Missal that we use does not have musical notations for the celebrant to chant the prefaces (or anything else, for that matter). A priest friend of mine told me that the only Roman Missal that he thought had them was the one from the Argentine Episcopal Conference.

Thank you again for the insights.

I’d not be surprised about the Argentine version: considering all things, they would be the most likely to be relatively authentic to the original Latin. They probably took the Italian and Spanish (Spain) versions and did an amalgam.

benedictgal:

Something else to note is the fact that, of yet, we have not seen a Spansih-language book of the Chair. The book of the Chair that a couple of priests use comes from Spain. In fact, we used it at the cathedral and when it came time for the General Intercessions, the deacon went on as normal, until he found himself praying “for the health and welfare of our beloved King”. He turned red and backtracked and tried to amend it to pray for our elected offisials.

Now that last is a hoot and a half, and then some!!! Maybe it was the word “beloved” that caused the deacon to backtrack … ahem … I digress.

But again, thank you. My curiosity is now (more or less) satisfied.

 

[kurtmasur]

One other observation: the CEM version of the Roman Missal that we use does not have musical notations for the celebrant to chant the prefaces (or anything else, for that matter). A priest friend of mine told me that the only Roman Missal that he thought had them was the one from the Argentine Episcopal Conference.

Which edition of the Misal Romano are you using? As far as I’m concerned the CEM Misal Romano includes all chant and musical notation in the appendix. It covers pretty much all of the Ordinary of the Mass (ours is published 1999).

 

[kurtmasur]

I’d not be surprised about the Argentine version: considering all things, they would be the most likely to be relatively authentic to the original Latin. They probably took the Italian and Spanish (Spain) versions and did an amalgam.

Argentine Spanish is exactly that: Spanish. As far as I’m concerned the language itself doesn’t share anything with modern-day Italian other than an “Italian sounding” intonation.

Its vocabulary (except local slang) is the same and its grammar is 99% the same as mainstream Spanish.

 

[malphono]

Argentine Spanish is exactly that: Spanish. As far as I’m concerned the language itself doesn’t share anything with modern-day Italian other than an “Italian sounding” intonation.

Its vocabulary (except local slang) is the same and its grammar is 99% the same as mainstream Spanish.

Whereas I can manage some Italian, my comment had nothing to do with language. It was simply on the inclusion of musical notation.

 

[kurtmasur]

Whereas I can manage some Italian, my comment had nothing to do with language. It was simply on the inclusion of musical notation.

Ok.

 

[benedictgal]

Which edition of the Misal Romano are you using? As far as I’m concerned the CEM Misal Romano includes all chant and musical notation in the appendix. It covers pretty much all of the Ordinary of the Mass (ours is published 1999).

My parochial vicar was looking for the musican notations and he couldn’t find them. I’ll ask him what version he has.

 

[PacoG]

The Mexican missal has its problems. Major problems.

For instance in the Sanctus…If “God of pow’r and might” was considered a faulty translation of “Deo sabboeth,” “Dios del Universo” is even more fault. At least “pow’r and might” competently describes what hosts of angels are. El Universo is a place. El Universo (The Universe) is an inanimate object that only figuratively has “pow’r and might.”

The bishops need to make sure that the U.S. Spanish missal is as good a translation as the new English one. Spanish-speaking U.S. Catholics deserve that much.

 

[kurtmasur]

The Mexican missal has its problems. Major problems.

For instance in the Sanctus…If “God of pow’r and might” was considered a faulty translation of “Deo sabboeth,” “Dios del Universo” is even more fault. At least “pow’r and might” competently describes what hosts of angels are. El Universo is a place. El Universo (The Universe) is an inanimate object that only figuratively has “pow’r and might.”

The bishops need to make sure that the U.S. Spanish missal is as good a translation as the new English one. Spanish-speaking U.S. Catholics deserve that much.

According to my Dictionary of Ecclesiastical Latin, “Sabbaoth” can mean “heavenly hosts”, “armies”, or “an appellation of the Lord as ruler over all”. Perhaps the Spanish version “Dios del universo” alludes to the latter?