was it wise to change the mass?

[nickybr38]

I’m a new Catholic. I don’t mind the changes at all… except that I keep trying to say ruff instead of roof…

I especially love that we are to strike our breast when we say ‘through my fault, through my fault, through my most grevious fault’… but I love when the Mass engages all of my senses not just a few.

 

[puzzleannie]

another reason for the new English translation and the need for stricter conformity to the Latin original is the fact that translations of liturgical texts into non-Western languages are often or even usually made from the English since there are more likely to be tranlators familiar with those languages +English, rather than those languages +liturgical Latin. For this reason it is even more essential that the words preserve the meaning and connotation of the original.

If the scripture from which the text is drawn says “under my roof” then it is better to adhere to that expression than to translate it more loosely, otherwise the scriptural connection may be lost.

 

[daeve]

Let me tell you this not-so-smart and not-so-holy woman’s humble opinion. All those words and phrases you listed, were in the original English Masses said in the late 1960s. It is nothing “new.” It was new to me then, because I had been reared with the Latin Mass. When the first translations came to us, those were the words, those were the phrases, the same as in the Latin. We said (three times) “I am not worthy for You to come under my roof…” because that is what the Latin says, and the Latin says it because that is what the centurian said to Christ, when he asked Our Lord to cure his daughter.

These are not the “changes.” The “changes” were what those lovely words and phrases were “morphed” into, without any permission from the Vatican.

This is pretty much what I was thinking. I was away from the church for many years, and when I came back it took me forever to NOT say, “And with your spirit.” The Mass is more like it was when I was growing up, and we’ll all start saying, “And with your spirit,” eventually.

 

[Brendan]

another reason for the new English translation and the need for stricter conformity to the Latin original is the fact that translations of liturgical texts into non-Western languages are often or even usually made from the English since there are more likely to be tranlators familiar with those languages +English, rather than those languages +liturgical Latin. For this reason it is even more essential that the words preserve the meaning and connotation of the original.
.

I’m not too sure about that.

When I was in Tanzania, where Swahili is the primary language, but English is commonplace ( it was a former UK colony), the bishop I was staying with was very much looking forward to the new translation.

The people would see what was said in Swahili at Mass as see what was said in English at Mass, and the two didn’t match up. He would get questions from his flock on why they said certain things at one Mass, but it was completely missing at the other Mass.

Even though the Tanzanian bishops were very fluent in English, the Swahili translation was faithful to the Latin, not the English.

I also know a priest who is full blooded Algonquin. He translated the Mass into the Algonquin language, but was required (by Rome) to use the Latin as the starting point. This was back in the late 90’s, so even before Liturgicam Authenticam.

 

[revert_jen]

revert_jen;8803860:

Given the number of children who left the Church when it was more “modern-sounding” (myself included), I don’t think the numbers will increase. Personally, I didn’t leave for a church that was modern-sounding, I left for a church that used the King James Bible in its services.

But at one point the KJV was the “modern-sounding” Bible. Didn’t St. Thomas More even make a point about not allowing any (more) English translations of the Bible at the time?

I generally don’t like to give out specific personal information online, but I feel safe enough saying that I am not, in fact, 400 years old. Therefore, when I left the Church, the language of the KJV was not considered modern.

–Jen

 

[ProVobis]

… I am not, in fact, 400 years old.

Okay, just checking.

 

[revert_jen]

Okay, just checking.

It’s so hard to type when your body has turned into dust.

 

[po18guy]

Rhetorical: Are some of us a little put-off because we actually have to pay attention to what we are praying during the mass?

 

[Petergee]

But at one point the KJV was the “modern-sounding” Bible. Didn’t St. Thomas More even make a point about not allowing any (more) English translations of the Bible at the time?

No he didn’t. He was very much in favour of English translation of the Bible. The only things he objected to were:

• the publication of absurdly false, error-ridden and heretical mistranslations of the Bible in which the words of the Bible were actually outnumbered by the huge amount of nonsensical and heretical “commentary” full of vitriolic anti-Catholic rhetoric, such as Tyndale’s “Bible”;
• the absurd claim by Tyndale that nobody had ever before translated the Bible into English. As More pointed out, the English like every other race had had the Bible in their own language ever since significant numbers of them began to be converted to Christianity.

 

[po18guy]

And even in the new translation there are still things that are in English that are not in the original Latin and there are still debates amongst knowledgeable Latin scholars as to what is a “better” translation.

After reading Dr. Edward Sri’s article and observing the direct comparisons, I do not think that further disagreement with the revised translation carries much credibility. Our current missal in unquestionably more faithful to the Latin. It cannot be perfectly accurate unless it remains in the Latin.

The post-VII English translation was, by comparison, nebulous and murky. This alone may have contributed to some of the malaise of the past 40 years.

 

[YoungTradCath]

The post-VII English translation was, by comparison, nebulous and murky. This alone may have contributed to some of the malaise of the past 40 years.

After the VII hype cooled down, it probably was one of the main things that kept the malaise going.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Interestingly enough, even the Lutherans use language close to the Latin - at least according to this Common Service Book from 1917 I happened to find my my Dad’s library (he was Catholic; don’t worry).

Strange how Protestants can be “more Catholic than the Catholic Church”. High Church Protestants will recognise the words better, I think, with this new translation. So it was definitely a good thing, I think. The Lutherans, Anglicans, and the rest might like it quite a lot.

I still can’t abide “Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of Hosts”. I prefer Sabaoth, to be honest. When I think hosts, I think the communion wafers. Sabaoth, however, are angels. His personal “army”.

Anyway, the Lutherans may sound more “Catholic”, but we always have the right theology.

 

[po18guy]

After the VII hype cooled down, it probably was one of the main things that kept the malaise going.

Re-reading the title of the thread, the mass was not changed. The English prayers were rewritten to much more closely reflect the Latin originals. I see that as only a good thing, as they are more precise, and help to place us in a more humble relationship with our God.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Re-reading the title of the thread, the mass was not changed. The English prayers were rewritten to much more closely reflect the Latin originals. I see that as only a good thing, as they are more precise, and help to place us in a more humble relationship with our God.

So we agree.

 

[po18guy]

So we agree.

Did you manage to read the article written by Prof. Anthony Esolen? It is very much worth a read. All Catholics who wonder about the recent prayer revisions should read it. I had never read or heard the Latin prayers, so the watered-down (now superseded) English language prayers were all I had. Once I saw the comparo between the current prayers and the Latin “originals”, I was immediately convinced that this is part of a major reformation of the Church. It is indeed an exciting time to be Catholic.

 

[Petergee]

Interestingly enough, even the Lutherans use language close to the Latin - at least according to this Common Service Book from 1917 I happened to find my my Dad’s library (he was Catholic; don’t worry).

Strange how Protestants can be “more Catholic than the Catholic Church”. High Church Protestants will recognise the words better, I think, with this new translation. So it was definitely a good thing, I think. The Lutherans, Anglicans, and the rest might like it quite a lot.

Yes, most protestants also don’t go in for the politically correct language which so many Catholics in positions of authority seem so keen on. I have just read an article in a catholic magazine which repeated the word “God” or “God’s” every fourth word for several sentences in a row, apparently because of an editorial decision not to use any pronoun for God to avoid “excluding” the pseudo-feminists. It made the article virtually unreadable, and certainly totally distracted the reader from what the article was trying to say. Most protestants have no problem using “He”, “Him” and “His” when referring to God. (And with the capital H too!)

The one gripe I have about the new translation is that for some unknown reason it uses a politically correct mistranslation in the first line of the Gloria, “to people of good will”. The Latin is “hominibus” which means “to men”. If it was meant to be “to people” it would be “populis”, a totally different word.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Did you manage to read the article written by Prof. Anthony Esolen? It is very much worth a read. All Catholics who wonder about the recent prayer revisions should read it. I had never read or heard the Latin prayers, so the watered-down (now superseded) English language prayers were all I had. Once I saw the comparo between the current prayers and the Latin “originals”, I was immediately convinced that this is part of a major reformation of the Church. It is indeed an exciting time to be Catholic.

Yes, I did read it. I read it when it was first published.

 

[MarkThompson]

The one gripe I have about the new translation is that for some unknown reason it uses a politically correct mistranslation in the first line of the Gloria, “to people of good will”. The Latin is “hominibus” which means “to men”. If it was meant to be “to people” it would be “populis”, a totally different word.

You’re mistaken here. Homo (dative plural: hominibus) means “a person, a human being,” and carries no connotation of gender. Vir is the word meaning “a man” in the male sense. By contast, populus (dative plural: populis) does not mean “a person,” it means “a people” in the collective sense – note the connection to English words like “populace” and “population.” (This is why the adage “Vox populi, vox dei” does not mean “A person’s voice is the voice of God,” but rather “The voice of the people is the voice of God.”) Your version, “Et in terra pax populis bonae voluntatis,” would have meant “And on earth peace to peoples of good will,” which is a far different sense than the correct one.

Thus the present English translation is correct. And, no offense, I generally assume that the feminists who are pushing for ungendered language are way off the mark and everybody understands that “men” and “mankind” and so on are meant in the inclusive sense, but your view – peace to men only, not women! – is so wildly off the mark, and so obviously caused by a mistakenly restrictive interpretation of the word “men,” that it makes me wonder if they don’t have a bit of a point sometimes.

 

[YoungTradCath]

And, no offense, I generally assume that the feminists who are pushing for ungendered language are way off the mark and everybody understands that “men” and “mankind” and so on are meant in the inclusive sense, but your view – peace to men only, not women! – is so wildly off the mark, and so obviously caused by a mistakenly restrictive interpretation of the word “men,” that it makes me wonder if they don’t have a bit of a point sometimes.

I think his Latin knowledge just wasn’t very good, that’s all. It can be a little tempting to remove even the slightest inkling of perceived PCness, when such a great threat as feminism is working against you.

 

[Kerry77]

Chiming in late…For myself, I miss the old translation as well, I grew up on it. I might always miss the old translation, who knows? I also miss the old Haugen-Haas music, so be it. However, at the same time, I can also say that the new translation is superior. At minimum, it was not my decision to make.