When the Sunday Mass isn't "traditional"

[Digitonomy]

(Are there languages in use today that don’t have pronouns? What about hypothetical languages which lack words for “body” or “blood”?)

I can understand that my improbable hypothetical merits a bit of fun being poked at it, but in answer to your first question, yes. Japanese does not have possessive pronouns per se. I don’t recall if it also lacks all other types of pronouns. Although translating “This is my body” on Google, then back-translating the individual characters or groups of characters, doesn’t support any real difference in grammar such as I’m supposing.

japhy:

Does a missionary priest get to translate the Mass into the local language on his own? I would expect the Church would call for the coining of new words (neologisms) so that the vernacular could accurately reflect the Latin and transmit the faith of the Church without ambiguity or confusion.

I suspect that in isolated locations and ethnic groups where there is not outside expertise, the priest probably gets to do the translating. Such situations are no doubt becoming more infrequent as telecommunication becomes more widespread, and very few groups and languages remain unstudied.

Regardless, since the words of institution, and indeed the mass, were not originally in Latin, we need not assume that fidelity to Latin is a concern for our missionary - it certainly was not in the case where the words were omitted in a Eucharistic Prayer.

 

[japhy]

Japanese does not have possessive pronouns per se.

If we can get a testimony from a (native) Japanese-speaker, this will help resolve this part of the conversation, I think.

Regardless, since the words of institution, and indeed the mass, were not originally in Latin, we need not assume that fidelity to Latin is a concern for our missionary - it certainly was not in the case where the words were omitted in a Eucharistic Prayer.

Which “case” are you referring to: your hypothetical, or the actual case described in this thread?

And fidelity to the Latin is a concern, for the missionary and for the Roman Rite in general. If fidelity to the Latin text of the Roman Missal weren’t a concern, I wouldn’t be having this conversation.

 

[benedictgal]

I can understand that my improbable hypothetical merits a bit of fun being poked at it, but in answer to your first question, yes. Japanese does not have possessive pronouns per se. I don’t recall if it also lacks all other types of pronouns. Although translating “This is my body” on Google, then back-translating the individual characters or groups of characters, doesn’t support any real difference in grammar such as I’m supposing.I suspect that in isolated locations and ethnic groups where there is not outside expertise, the priest probably gets to do the translating. Such situations are no doubt becoming more infrequent as telecommunication becomes more widespread, and very few groups and languages remain unstudied.

Regardless, since the words of institution, and indeed the mass, were not originally in Latin, we need not assume that fidelity to Latin is a concern for our missionary - it certainly was not in the case where the words were omitted in a Eucharistic Prayer.

So, if we hold to your last paragraph, then Liturgiam Authenticam was for naught? With all due respect, your argument is not in line with the Church’s way of thinking. I would suggest that you read the document. It will answer your question.

adoremus.org/liturgiamauthenticam.html

The document is very clear. It is not merely directed at ICEL, but, at all of the national conferences.

 

[Digitonomy]

If we can get a testimony from a (native) Japanese-speaker, this will help resolve this part of the conversation, I think.

It should resolve the Japanese aspect - but it won’t rule out the possibility of other languages where some sort of dynamic equivalence may have been used in the translation of the words of institution.

japhy:

Which “case” are you referring to: your hypothetical, or the actual case described in this thread?

Sorry for the confusion. In the OP, the words were mostly present, although other words were interjected. The case I am referring to where the words of institution were omitted is the Anaphora of Addai and Mari.

japhy:

And fidelity to the Latin is a concern, for the missionary and for the Roman Rite in general. If fidelity to the Latin text of the Roman Missal weren’t a concern, I wouldn’t be having this conversation.

Again, sorry for my lack of clarity. If the hypothetical missionary is in say 1st or 2nd Century Uzbekistan, he may never have even heard of Latin.

benedictgal:

So, if we hold to your last paragraph, then Liturgiam Authenticam was for naught? With all due respect, your argument is not in line with the Church’s way of thinking. I would suggest that you read the document. It will answer your question.

I had in mind that the missionary may be from long ago, or in an Eastern Church, or perhaps even from 2001 before LA could be applied. Anyway, the discipline LA imposes is prescriptive; as far as I can tell it does not define what is valid and what is invalid. The question raised in post #5 was not whether the priest was correct in what he did, the question was whether what he did incorrectly was nonetheless valid.

The Church says definitively that the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is “euchologically” valid, in spite of having NO words of institution. It seems hard to simultaneously hold to that, and yet claim there is no possibility whatsoever that the words of institution described by ibkc could be valid. Obviously the introduction of new words and formulations may also introduce doubt as to validity. But if the meaning is roughly the same, I think we must admit at least the possibility that it is valid.

 

[AJV]

So say you. It doesn’t seem logical to me that a missionary priest who speaks a language free of possesive pronouns would invalidate the Eucharist simply by a minor grammatical anomaly when he translates the EP as faithfully as he can into the local language. Are there sources where I can read more about what illicit formulations may be valid or invalid?

Not every language has a vernacular translation. Often, the major dialect of the place is used- unless this would lead to significant tension and then some other non-partisan language is used (like English!) for the non-Liturgy of the Word (or the major parts thereof). I have seen this in rural areas of India, where the dialect changes almost every 15 miles or so.

Missionaries are not allowed to use vernacular translations which are not approved.

 

[AJV]

The Church says definitively that the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is “euchologically” valid, in spite of having NO words of institution. It seems hard to simultaneously hold to that, and yet claim there is no possibility whatsoever that the words of institution described by ibkc could be valid. Obviously the introduction of new words and formulations may also introduce doubt as to validity. But if the meaning is roughly the same, I think we must admit at least the possibility that it is valid.

Yes, but it has also consistently NOT applied that standard to other liturgies. Perhaps the reasoning for this will have to be explained at some point in the future. As I pointed out in another thread recently, it is not very easy to reconcile two very contradictory assertions - unless one goes to theories (which have their own problems) of the Church validating a form for each rite (a little like the earlier doubt expressed by some scholastics as to whether Latin penitents could be absolved using a deprecatory formula).

 

[japhy]

If the hypothetical missionary is in say 1st or 2nd Century Uzbekistan, he may never have even heard of Latin. I had in mind that the missionary may be from long ago, or in an Eastern Church, or perhaps even from 2001 before LA could be applied. Anyway, the discipline LA imposes is prescriptive; as far as I can tell it does not define what is valid and what is invalid.

It doesn’t need to define valid/invalid, because the Church has already pronounced on that matter and doesn’t need to repeat herself over and over again. The words at the consecration are not an “institution narrative” as if the priest is telling a story; the priest is lending his voice to Christ, the words are Christ’s. No orthodox Catholic theologian or liturgist would tell you otherwise.

And we are talking specifically about the Roman Rite in the vernacular, which is a widespread phenomenon only for the past few decades. I’m not going down the hypothetical 2nd century rabbit hole.

 

[Digitonomy]

It doesn’t need to define valid/invalid, because the Church has already pronounced on that matter.

Which leads me to inquire again if there is a source where I can read more on what the Church has pronounced valid or invalid on this matter.

 

[japhy]

Which leads me to inquire again if there is a source where I can read more on what the Church has pronounced valid or invalid on this matter.

Pope Pius V’s De Defectibus says that if the priest deviates from the words of consecration, he does not confect a valid Eucharist:
If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin.
Pope Paul VI, when promulgating the 1969 Missale Romanum, said:
in each eucharistic prayer we wish those words to be as follows: over the bread: “Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes: Hoc est enim Corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur”; over the chalice: “Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes: Hic est enim calix Sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Hoc facite in meam commemorationem.” (source)
So I guess we’re not yet in agreement as to whether saying “This is the Body of Christ” is the same as saying “This is my Body” and thus a matter of invalidity (rather than just a matter of sinning gravely). Is that correct?

 

[japhy]

Redemptionis Sacramentum says:
51. Only those Eucharistic Prayers are to be used which are found in the Roman Missal or are legitimately approved by the Apostolic See, and according to the manner and the terms set forth by it. “It is not to be tolerated that some Priests take upon themselves the right to compose their own Eucharistic Prayers” or to change the same texts approved by the Church, or to introduce others composed by private individuals.
And later:
173. Although the gravity of a matter is to be judged in accordance with the common teaching of the Church and the norms established by her, objectively to be considered among grave matters is anything that puts at risk the validity and dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist: namely, anything that contravenes what is set out above in nn. 48-52…
This isn’t conclusive for you, I know, but it inclines us in the direction that changing “my” to “Christ’s” is a matter of validity vs. invalidity.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Japhy,

**You wrote: ** *Redemptionis Sacramentum says:

1. Only those Eucharistic Prayers are to be used which are found in the Roman Missal or are legitimately approved by the Apostolic See, and according to the manner and the terms set forth by it. “It is not to be tolerated that some Priests take upon themselves the right to compose their own Eucharistic Prayers” or to change the same texts approved by the Church, or to introduce others composed by private individuals.

And later:

1. Although the gravity of a matter is to be judged in accordance with the common teaching of the Church and the norms established by her, objectively to be considered among grave matters is anything that puts at risk the validity and dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist: namely, anything that contravenes what is set out above in nn. 48-52…

This isn’t conclusive for you, I know, but it inclines us in the direction that changing “my” to “Christ’s” is a matter of validity vs. invalidity. *​

Very pertinent. However. when errors or slight changes occur untintentionally (slips, marks of language inaptitute such as when a Latino priest might say the Mass in English, that sort of thing), I would suppose that the Church has much to say about the validity of priestly acts, despite unintentional errors.

For sure, though, the words that you quote should motivate priests to say the liturgy with great care and as much precision as possible, as well as to show how serious errors and deviations really are! There was no doubt about this when the Latin missals, up to and including the 1962 and 1965 texts of the Missale Romanum, were in force. Alas, much unjustified sense of liberty and purported “invention” came into play from 1970 onwards when priests and bishops mangled the newer, entirely vernacular texts, of the Novus Ordo.

Jerry Parker
www.ecclesiaprimus.blogspot.com

 

[Digitonomy]

So I guess we’re not yet in agreement as to whether saying “This is the Body of Christ” is the same as saying “This is my Body” and thus a matter of invalidity (rather than just a matter of sinning gravely). Is that correct?

Exactly. Any such change puts at risk the validity, and thus is taken at the priest’s own peril, and that of the congregation who may receive an invalid Eucharist. For this reason it is not to be tolerated. It’s particularly loathesome when it occurs in the situation ibkc described, where the priest does this intentionally, as opposed to an honest linguistic mistake as Jerry Parker suggested.

But while the validity of the expression is in doubt, the meaning is roughly the same, so I don’t think we can declare it invalid with certainty.

 

[japhy]

But while the validity of the expression is in doubt, the meaning is roughly the same, so I don’t think we can declare it invalid with certainty.

Not in English, it’s not. In any language with pronouns like English or Latin, for the priest to say “This is Christ’s body” or “This is the body of Jesus” or “This is his body” instead of “This is my body”, the meaning has changed, because the Eucharistic Prayer no longer even makes sense!
He broke the bread, gave it to His disciples, and said, “Take this, all of you, and eat it: This is Christ’s body…”

He broke the bread, gave it to His disciples, and said, “Take this, all of you, and eat it: This is the body of Christ…”

He broke the bread, gave it to His disciples, and said, “Take this, all of you, and eat it: This is his body…”
By changing these words, the priest means that Christ is not speaking through him, or even that he is speaking the words of Christ. Even if the change of the words themselves is not invalid, I would say the priest’s intention is dubious, and that too calls into question the validity of the sacrament!