was it wise to change the mass?

[ProVobis]

The Latin is “hominibus” which means “to men”.

Wouldn’t “human” be closer to homin-?

I usually check the etymology instead of running to the dictionary of educated guesses.

 

[ProVobis]

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”.

I don’t think it’s a matter of preference. “Hosts” is just too common of a word to use here. Even the Latin Mass dared not touch the Hebrew “Sabaoth.”

 

[passer_by]

i’m a recent convert–about five years ago. i’m a traditionist. i became catholic because of its orthodox teachings. i am not a progressive either religiously or politically.

but i can’t help wonder this, “will i ever get used to the new mass?” i know it’s only been a few weeks, but:

and with your spirit

consubstantial

through my most grievous fault

oblation

under my roof

will this ever sound normal to us? does it make bringing visitors to the Church easier or harder? does it make it more or less likely that our children will stay in the Church, as opposed to being lured away by something more modern-sounding?

even though I love the Church, I can’t help but wonder whether it was wise to make these changes.

I guess only time will tell. smarter and holier men than i have spent a lot of time considering it.

You have to remember that the mass before the changes were introduced were also a mass that was introduced at some point in time as a change.

There would have been doubts, suspicions etc on how good such an introduction might be. But as we know, the change was so good that many Catholics even had trouble accommodating recent changes to it out of fear that it will loose the effect.

So what I am saying is that we need to stop worrying about whether mass changes are good. The mass was put together by the church anyway. The Church therefore has the authority to make changes as long as it does not disrespect something sacred or teach something incorrect during the mass through the words and form.

I also don’t think there is actual reason for anyone to leave the church as a result of the mass changes. People might feel like its a hassle, miss the old ways, feel the new one doesn’t give the full feeling as before etc but those are really not reasons to leave the church. They are rather emotional feelings. If there was a chance that it could cause reasonable people to leave the church, then it would certainly have been unwise and imprudent for the church to change the mass. But I for one am unaware of such a danger.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I don’t think it’s a matter of preference. “Hosts” is just too common of a word to use here. Even the Latin Mass dared not touch the Hebrew “Sabaoth.”

I agree completely. Plus… it has a better rhythm to it than just flat “hosts”.

 

[Petergee]

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.

Sorry yes I did mix up the singular and plural of populus. That does not detract from my point.
Homo does not mean “person”. The Latin word for “person” is “persona”. Yes, “homo” = “man”, carries no connotation of gender, that is precisely my point, that it doesn’t need to be “corrected” to “people” so as to include women.

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.

Do you have the same objection to the line in the Nicene Creed, “for us men and for our salvation, He came down from Heaven”? (It’s the same word, “homo”) If not, why not? The translators are inconsistent translating it as “people” in the Gloria.

 

[MarkThompson]

Sorry yes I did mix up the singular and plural of populus. That does not detract from my point.
Homo does not mean “person”. The Latin word for “person” is “persona”. Yes, “homo” = “man”, carries no connotation of gender, that is precisely my point, that it doesn’t need to be “corrected” to “people” so as to include women.

No, homo does indeed mean “a person.” Persona theoretically can mean this too (Lewis & Short describes that sense as “post-Aug. and rare”), but in general persona means “a character” or “a persona” (that’s why we have that word in English). The standard Latin term – certainly in ecclesiastical Latin – for “people” is homines. I’m not sure if you think there is a big difference in meaning in English between “men (genderless)” and “people,” but that is unsupportable.

Do you have the same objection to the line in the Nicene Creed, “for us men and for our salvation, He came down from Heaven”? (It’s the same word, “homo”) If not, why not? The translators are inconsistent translating it as “people” in the Gloria.

Right, it is inconsistent. Vide the thread on “He took this precious chalice . . . . When we eat this bread and drink this cup.” There are, I think, two main reasons why they chose to use “men” and avoid “people” (or “persons”):

1. “For us people” would be the obvious alternative, but it sounds strange; it is an awkward-sounding construction. We could leave out the noun altogether – “for us and for our salvation” – but this might be taken as saying “for us gathered here today” or “for us Catholics.”
2. In the Latin, there is a connection between “propter nos homines” and “et homo factus est,” which ought ideally to be reflected in the translation too. If we translate the first phrase as “for us people,” then the second would have to be “and became a person” to remain consistent. But Christ was already the second Person of the Trinity, so this is theologically inaccurate or at least confusing. We could try “for us humans . . . became human,” but this strange emphasis on our species sounds like we are talking about an alien visitor on a spacecraft.

 

[veilofveronica]

The Mass itself is not changed. The Mass can never be changed and hasn’t changed since its’ inception. That’s a common misconception.

The New Roman Missal is a much more accurate translation from Latin to English. It is a literal translation rather than a dynamic translation as the other one was. I am a traditionalist also, and I find that it holds far more beauty, reverence, and profound meaning than the previous translation.

I suggest you take a look at this link, here, for some more information:

old.usccb.org/romanmissal/

I know it can seem shaky at first, but we will get used to it. We have to trust in the wisdom of our Holy Father in making these changes.

God Bless,
Jillian

 

[po18guy]

The Mass itself is not changed. The Mass can never be changed and hasn’t changed since its’ inception. That’s a common misconception.

The New Roman Missal is a much more accurate translation from Latin to English. It is a literal translation rather than a dynamic translation as the other one was. I am a traditionalist also, and I find that it holds far more beauty, reverence, and profound meaning than the previous translation.

I suggest you take a look at this link, here, for some more information:

old.usccb.org/romanmissal/

I know it can seem shaky at first, but we will get used to it. We have to trust in the wisdom of our Holy Father in making these changes.

God Bless,
Jillian

Thank you for the reminder. Let’s go back a few decades and try to imagine the earthquake that occurred when the Novus Ordo was introduced! This is a hiccup by comparison.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Thank you for the reminder. Let’s go back a few decades and try to imagine the earthquake that occurred when the Novus Ordo was introduced! This is a hiccup by comparison.

Right. I would agree that the differences between the Vetus Ordo and the Novus Ordo are far more than slight. They are profound, especially in the rubrics.

 

[mburn16]

The only element of the new translation with which I take issue is the use of “many” rather than “multitudes” for pro multis.

As I’ve expressed my concerns on here before, “many”, to a modern, western, english-speaking audience conveys an unfortunate note of exclusivity which goes BEYOND the meaning in the Bible.

 

[CatherineOH]

The Mass itself is not changed. The Mass can never be changed and hasn’t changed since its’ inception

.

So what is the beginnings of the Mass? How was it developed? When was the first mass as we currently know it held?

Keep in mind that I’m in RICA, but have been attending mass for many many years. To me, it is a beautiful ritual. At its simplest, it is a personal bible study session and conversation with God.

Why am I in RICA after so long? Because, when I leave a Mass, inside and out, it feels like I do coming out of a warm bath…all warm and fuzzy inside. I’ve never had that feeling at Lutheran Mass. But have at all the Catholic ones. Yet, there isn’t much difference between them. The Lutheran churches don’t have icons, statues, crucifixes, or stations of the cross. They are sterile of more than just symbol.

Now that there is a difference, it still feels the same. So, it has to be the ritual itself and what we are inside, not the words.

 

[po18guy]

.

So what is the beginnings of the Mass? How was it developed? When was the first mass as we currently know it held?

Keep in mind that I’m in RICA, but have been attending mass for many many years. To me, it is a beautiful ritual. At its simplest, it is a personal bible study session and conversation with God.

Why am I in RICA after so long? Because, when I leave a Mass, inside and out, it feels like I do coming out of a warm bath…all warm and fuzzy inside. I’ve never had that feeling at Lutheran Mass. But have at all the Catholic ones. Yet, there isn’t much difference between them. The Lutheran churches don’t have icons, statues, crucifixes, or stations of the cross. They are sterile of more than just symbol.

Now that there is a difference, it still feels the same. So, it has to be the ritual itself and what we are inside, not the words.

Welcome! The difference is that our Lord resides in the Tabernacle. His presence is the warmth that you feel. Have you been to adoration?

 

[ProVobis]

The only element of the new translation with which I take issue is the use of “many” rather than “multitudes” for pro multis.

As I’ve expressed my concerns on here before, “many”, to a modern, western, english-speaking audience conveys an unfortunate note of exclusivity which goes BEYOND the meaning in the Bible.

From an etymological standpoint, “multitudes” does fit better than “many.”

many
O.E. monig, manig, from P.Gmc. *managaz (cf. O.S. manag, Swed. mången, O.Fris. manich, Du. menig, Ger. manch, Goth. manags), from PIE *monogho- (cf. O.C.S. munogu “much, many,” O.Ir. menicc, Welsh mynych “frequent”). Pronunciation altered by influence of any (see manifold).

multitude
early 14c., from L. multitudinem (nom. multitudo, gen. multitudinis) “a great number, crowd,” from multus “many, much” (see multi-) + suffix -tudo. Related: Multitudes; multitudinous.

 

[Petergee]

No, homo does indeed mean “a person.”

I’ve never seen “homo” translated as "person.

Persona theoretically can mean this too (Lewis & Short describes that sense as “post-Aug. and rare”), but in general persona means “a character” or “a persona” (that’s why we have that word in English). The standard Latin term – certainly in ecclesiastical Latin – for “people” is homines. I’m not sure if you think there is a big difference in meaning in English between “men (genderless)” and “people,” but that is unsupportable.

No, there is no difference, that is what I’m saying, “men” did not need to be “corrected” to “people”.

Right, it is inconsistent. Vide the thread on “He took this precious chalice . . . . When we eat this bread and drink this cup.” There are, I think, two main reasons why they chose to use “men” and avoid “people” (or “persons”):

1. “For us people” would be the obvious alternative, but it sounds strange; it is an awkward-sounding construction.

Yes, just as “peace to people of goodwill” sounds strange and awkward (like all attempts at “politically correct” and supposedly “more inclusive” language). Catholics, non-Catholics and even non-Christians are familiar with “peace to men of good will” in Bible readings, prayers, in hymns and Xmas carols, and even as an expresion in everyday conversation.

 

[po18guy]

Picky, picky, picky!

 

[Petergee]

Picky, picky, picky!

If that’s directed at me, what I’m saying here is that I warmly welcome and fully endorse the new translation, with the exception of only one word of one prayer. Then I was challenged to justify that so I did.

 

[Petergee]

.

So what is the beginnings of the Mass? How was it developed? When was the first mass as we currently know it held?
…

Now that there is a difference, it still feels the same. So, it has to be the ritual itself and what we are inside, not the words.

The first Mass was our Lord’s Last Supper, and His Death and Resurrection. The Apostles obeyed His command to “Do this as a memorial of me” starting probably just after His Ascension. Since then the prayers etc have changed and developed, just as the Church has developed, though all of the elements are clearly visible from Masses of the early centuries. St Justin’s brief description (written about 150 AD) of what happens at Mass is easily recognisable as what we do today. As you say, the words of prayers and the rubics change over the centuries but the Mass remains the same.

 

[po18guy]

If that’s directed at me, what I’m saying here is that I warmly welcome and fully endorse the new translation, with the exception of only one word of one prayer. Then I was challenged to justify that so I did.

It was not. It is just that the restored prayers are so much of an improvement that I cannot complain about them at all.

 

[MarkThompson]

I’ve never seen “homo” translated as "person.

E.g.:

http://books.google.com/books?id=WX...G0iV7EmHj0ku1Bt7OTA&ci=112,413,838,123&edge=0

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ls...oYePlMakkdjuihpVI-DA&ci=115,444,746,73&edge=0

http://books.google.com/books?id=jA...aX4tP65vP7FnDgtkZ-c_Q&ci=96,930,762,89&edge=0

http://books.google.com/books?id=jO...oC095jkmnA9245tZFQ&ci=323,1461,311,131&edge=0

http://books.google.com/books?id=mf...d5meepNn4EmXnXQN_6g&ci=455,190,410,124&edge=0

No, there is no difference, that is what I’m saying, “men” did not need to be “corrected” to “people”.

Oh, well, if there’s no difference at all, then you are left with no basis in the slightest for your claim that “people” is a “mistranslation.” QED.

Yes, just as “peace to people of goodwill” sounds strange and awkward (like all attempts at “politically correct” and supposedly “more inclusive” language). Catholics, non-Catholics and even non-Christians are familiar with “peace to men of good will” in Bible readings, prayers, in hymns and Xmas carols, and even as an expresion in everyday conversation.

See? Now you have entirely retreated from the claim that they botched the Latin, “homo” is never translated as “person,” it would have had to be “populis,” etc., to your real contention, which is that you just don’t like it and it’s unfamiliar to you. Well, on that we can agree.

 

[Petergee]

E.g.:…

Sorry, are you saying that you think those pictures illustrate “homo” being translated as “person”? I certainly can’t see it there.

Oh, well, if there’s no difference at all, then you are left with no basis in the slightest for your claim that “people” is a “mistranslation.” QED.

I said there’s no difference in English between “people” andthat sense of “men”. However in Latin “hominibus” means “to/for men”.

See? Now you have entirely retreated from the claim that they botched the Latin, “homo” is never translated as “person,” it would have had to be “populis,” etc., to your real contention, which is that you just don’t like it and it’s unfamiliar to you. Well, on that we can agree.

I was pointing out your inconsistency that **you **say you find. “people”

strange; it is an awkward-sounding construction.

in the Creed, but not so in the Gloria.