why didn't the EF mass just get translated into English?

[Scriptorium]

The vernacular was allowed for the traditional Mass starting in 1964 with Inter Oecumenici, It was not allowed in the Canon. Permission for this came in 1967 with Tres Abhiinc Annos, even though previously it looked like this would never be allowed. Also the vernacular was very important to the reformers because of the view that nobody knew or followed the Latin, in spite of the “pray the Mass” movement just 20 or so years earlier. The period of 1964 to 1968 is when numerous major changes were made to the traditional Mass. 1969 brought in the Missal of Paul Vi, which is a “on the spot” creation, a pastiche which as a whole has no foundation in the tradition of the Church. Some prayers were just made-up (centonization), while traditional ones were cast aside. A good read is the article below, with an extensive quote from Antoine Dumas revealing their approach. Hint: fad, cult of man, and disregard for tradition.

Article Index | Communio

 

[ProVobis]

If the EF was translated into English and allowed to be celebrated that way–how widespread would it become in 5 years?

Would there be more of it or more of the EF in Latin if both were allowed?

Any translations would bring upon the same problems as we have today. Controversial retranslations every 40 years. Corruption of the meanings. The perceived loss of mystery. The loss of low-tones in the liturgy. Latin and all the beautiful Latin hymns would be suppressed again. Loss of universality. And so on.

 

[Scriptorium]

Any translations would bring upon the same problems as we have today. Controversial retranslations every 40 years. Corruption of the meanings. The perceived loss of mystery. The loss of low-tones in the liturgy. Latin and all the beautiful Latin hymns would be suppressed again. Loss of universality. And so on.

Not necessarily. Much has been learned. It doesn’t have to be done the same way. The new NO translation shows this also.

 

[ProVobis]

Not necessarily. Much has been learned. It doesn’t have to be done the same way. The new NO translation shows this also.

Then attend the new NO translation. If I wanted an English EF, I’d attend the Anglican Use.

 

[jwinch2]

With the more recent translation of the Roman Missal I am of the opinion that many of the problems with the prayers and inaccuracies of translation have been dealt with. If the OF of the Mass was consistently celebrated in a reverent and traditional fashion, I believe that many doubters would be more open to it. For example: churchcastonline.com/churches/mass.php?churchname=basilicastjohn&mass=sunday1030am&day=Sunday&time=10:30am

In addition, there is a Catholic Mass which resembles the EF of the Mass in English quite closely, that being the Mass celebrated by the Anglican Use or Ordinaritate parishes. youtube.com/watch?v=Q251EywW__M

 

[sw85]

Before I started attending the EF Mass, I just kind of assumed that the OF was a wholesale translation of the EF. So I was pretty surprised to find that parts of the EF are not in the OF at all. (like the Judica Me at the beginning, for example). I have been curious for quite a while as to why the the EF wasn’t simply translated into English and used in vernacular celebration of the liturgy. Answers/thoughts much appreciated!

Incidentally, didn’t the Anglicans do this? My understanding is that their old English Missal was simply the Missale Romanum translated into English.

 

[OraLabora]

Also eliminated the need for all those translations into 500 vernaculars.

Well given that most missals around the world in EF days had a vernacular translation alongside, I don’t see how anything has changed in this regard. If anything, the translations were even less consistent than now, as imperfect as some still remain today.

And with understanding of Latin declining in the West, and never having been taught in some parts of the world into which the Church is expanding, I don’t see how a return to the EF exclusively would reduce the need for translation. Even if those translations were not proclaimed in the liturgy, they would still be necessary for the faithful’s understanding.

 

[Scriptorium]

Then attend the new NO translation. If I wanted an English EF, I’d attend the Anglican Use.

That’s not my point. You made it seem that the vernacular in and of itself must corrupt the meaning, foster a loss of mystery (the canon doesn’t have to be out loud), and a loss of the low voice (the low voice parts can remain). Furthermore, it doesn’t follow that Latin would be neglected either (it was never suppressed). A Pope can easily require Masses to be in Latin. Part of the reason why the vernacular swept over the Church was because the gate was left open for everyone to do it. Given free options, what do you think would happen considering the laissez-faire times and the built up pressure? (Instead of releasing pressure slowly, they just opened the dam up and the whole thing broke.) If a Pope said, though, that every parish must have a Mass in Latin on Sunday, I bet you that would happen (with appropriate time to prepare). So I don’t see it as a given that history has to be repeated. Much has been learned in the last sixty years of reform.

 

[Opie90]

Do the missals not have both Latin and English so people can follow the EF Mass?

they do My question was if the wish was to celebrate the mass in the vernacular, instead of creating a new form, why wasn’t a translation of the extraordinary form used?

 

[Opie90]

The Judica Me plus the Last Gospel were removed in 1964 well before the OF.

thank you for the information. Was there a reason given for their removal?

 

[Opie90]

Dietrich von Hildebrand wrote that almost three-quarters of the old prayers were replaced with entirely new ones before translation ever occurred. When I discovered the traditional Mass, I fell in love with the old prayers, and would love them in any language.

It seems that the group entrusted with reforming the Mass in the late sixties did not go about it with a very Catholic mindset. There are two books about it. One from the leader’s point of view, one from a priest who was part of the committee and who disagreed with the speed with which it was done. I’ll look up the names of them tomorrow if I can and post them here.

Thank you

 

[Scriptorium]

thank you for the information. Was there a reason given for their removal?

They were originally private prayers of the priest, which eventually got codified into the 1570 missal, but they were organic developments from the practice before. We know this is true because the crossing before the Introit marks the beginning of ancient Mass, and the Ite Missa Est and blessing the end.

 

[Opie90]

Because the OF Mass is an improvement on the EF Mass.

There are things that are tangibly better with the OF than the EF. How the OF Mass facilitates insight into the word of God through additional exposure and homilies focused on the readings is a huge improvement.

How does the OF provide more exposure to Scripture than the EF?

As far as homilies go, I am sure it varies, but in my experience so far has been that the homilies at the EF masses I have attended have been much more theological and Scripturally based than those at OF masses I have attended.

 

[Andre1000]

With the more recent translation of the Roman Missal I am of the opinion that many of the problems with the prayers and inaccuracies of translation have been dealt with. ** If the OF of the Mass was consistently celebrated in a reverent and traditional fashion, I believe that many doubters would be more open to it. For example: **churchcastonline.com/churches/mass.php?churchname=basilicastjohn&mass=sunday1030am&day=Sunday&time=10:30am

In addition, there is a Catholic Mass which resembles the EF of the Mass in English quite closely, that being the Mass celebrated by the Anglican Use or Ordinaritate parishes. youtube.com/watch?v=Q251EywW__M

The mass here by your link(churchcastonline.com/churches/mass.php?churchname=basilicastjohn&mass=sunday1030am&day=Sunday&time=10:30am) was not a good example. It contained many thinks the “doubters” you talk about would call “nontraditional” or even “sacrilegious”.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Does the EF being in Latin hinder your ability to get the most out of Mass?
No- Then your question is a non-issue
Yes- See your priest for clarification on the issue

Anything else is just asking for an another EF vs. OF thread.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I wish that people who love the EF would do all the English translations for the OF and the NAB.

Maybe English wouldn’t get everything as perfect as Latin but if the EF lovers did the English translations then the OF would be alot better and the NAB would be alot better.

I believe that if the 1965 missal had never been changed that the OF would be better–do any of the EF supporters here believe that?

I can understand how many EF supporters do not like the OF. Let me ask this of EF supporters–what other Rite do you like the second best…Anglican use–Sarum–Ambrososian–Mozarbic–Easter Rite?

What would a good OF in English look like?

 

[Rich_C]

Incidentally, didn’t the Anglicans do this? My understanding is that their old English Missal was simply the Missale Romanum translated into English.

Basically, but not consistently. From what I understand they suppressed most of the reverent actions (genuflecting, etc) and removed sacrificial language in the 16th century. In the Gothic/Romantic 19th century, the Oxford Movement of the Church of England resurrected a lot of this, leading to a service today among Anglo-Catholics that looks like the EF Mass in English.

 

[Rich_C]

Because the OF Mass is an improvement on the EF Mass.

There are things that are tangibly better with the OF than the EF. How the OF Mass facilitates insight into the word of God through additional exposure and homilies focused on the readings is a huge improvement.

The new Mass added one proper scripture reading. One. And to do that, it removed almost two dozen prayers from the ordinary that were taken word for word from the psalms and book of Isaiah, not to mention the Last Gospel reading.

That’s not even counting the way the propers are almost always replaced with hymns, whereas in the EF the propers are always sung and are mostly scripture passages.

The only thing is has going for it in the scripture department is the 3-year cycle of readings, but there are advantages in catechesis to using the same Sunday readings year after year, so this one could be a toss up.