Will the latest Catholic Mass translation get another overhaul?

[Waynec]

It’s fine the way it is. The Mass is not “everyday” speech, and it should not reflect everyday speech. The text of the Mass should use profound, high-sounding language because it’s not just a prayer service, but a re-enactment of Calvary. If you ask me, they should just go back to saying the entire Mass in Latin, but if we’re going to use the vernacular, no common speech.

I agree. We should go back to the Latin.

 

[pnewton]

I think the idea that we should all return to Latin seems in opposition to the way the Church is moving. We might as well speculate that the Church will return to standing all the way through Mass.

 

[ProVobis]

I think the idea that we should all return to Latin seems in opposition to the way the Church is moving. We might as well speculate that the Church will return to standing all the way through Mass.

Sometimes it seems we’re standing a long time through Mass. I know my back feels it.

 

[ProVobis]

… but if we’re going to use the vernacular, no common speech.

But isn’t common speech practically the definition of “vernacular”?

ver·nac·u·lar
vərˈnakyələr/
noun
noun: vernacular; noun: the vernacular

1.
the language or dialect spoken by the ordinary people in a particular country or region.

By its definition, there could be many vernaculars within a country, all of the same origin. Seems like in their haste to gut the Latin, they overlooked a few potential problems.

 

[ProVobis]

For me, as for the Bishops of Vatican II, the main point is to engage everyone at Mass and have them more actively participating in the responses and hymns.

So was it necessary to insult the intelligence of many to accomplish this?

 

[YoungTradCath]

For me, as for the Bishops of Vatican II, the main point is to engage everyone at Mass and have them more actively participating in the responses and hymns.
Jim

Him Jim,

But, you see, all this necessarily presumes that an interior conversion/greater understanding is taking place.

The idea is, “Vernacular is easier to understand for most people, therefore, if we use it, they will understand the prayers in a truly deeper, more efficacious way.” But I really don’t believe that has happened. There are other things I could say, like that we are non-verbal beings as well as verbal, but I won’t go there.

But as a percentage of the whole, I don’t know if a greater proportion of people today understand the Mass more deeply than in the past. Of course, there are now more laypeople who have theological degrees than in the past, but I hope it doesn’t require a theological degree to “get” what the Council Fathers intended we “get” from vernacularizing the Mass. I daresay laypeople with theological degrees are usually able to understand liturgical Latin as easily as their native tongue anyway. All the same, the percentage of laypeople with such training is infinitesimal in the first place, although presumably larger than before the Council.

If I go out and say that I don’t think more people today understand the Mass more deeply than in the past, then it makes me sound like I’m judging someone’s faith. Which isn’t true, but that’s what people will read. At the same time, automatically assuming that all the hopes and desires of the Council Fathers regarding liturgy have occurred, or at least are in the process of occurring, and using the same logic, is also a judgement. But I don’t want to use the term “judgement,” I’m just trying to prevent anyone from craftily reporting my post.

Alas, I think it is clear, blindingly clear, that the Council Fathers’ intentions and desires for the liturgy have largely not been realized, Latin or not.

 

[ProVobis]

But as a percentage of the whole, I don’t know if a greater proportion of people today understand the Mass more deeply than in the past. Of course, there are now more laypeople who have theological degrees than in the past, but I hope it doesn’t require a theological degree to “get” what the Council Fathers intended we “get” from vernacularizing the Mass. I daresay laypeople with theological degrees are usually able to understand liturgical Latin as easily as their native tongue anyway. All the same, the percentage of laypeople with such training is infinitesimal in the first place, although presumably larger than before the Council.

If I go out and say that I don’t think more people today understand the Mass more deeply than in the past, then it makes me sound like I’m judging someone’s faith. Which isn’t true, but that’s what people will read. At the same time, automatically assuming that all the hopes and desires of the Council Fathers regarding liturgy have occurred, or at least are in the process of occurring, and using the same logic, is also a judgement. But I don’t want to use the term “judgement,” I’m just trying to prevent anyone from craftily reporting my post.

Alas, I think it is clear, blindingly clear, that the Council Fathers’ intentions and desires for the liturgy have largely not been realized, Latin or not.

I agree. The vote was 2147 to 4 by the Council Fathers to preserve Latin in the liturgy, expand Gregorian chant, respect the pipe organ, allow limited vernacular but to keep in Latin the responses of the faithful. It’s right there in the document, written a year after Veterum Sapientia, which had effectively banned mutable vernaculars in religious matters.

 

[pnewton]

But as a percentage of the whole, I don’t know if a greater proportion of people today understand the Mass more deeply than in the past.

I really do not understand what this has to do with language, unless you are suggesting that the less one understands what is said the more understands the meaning of what is said. Rather, even if one accepts the premise, and I am not sure I do, that the laity are less informed of the Mass, this must be a case where correlation can not logically even suggest causation.

Alas, I think it is clear, blindingly clear, that the Council Fathers’ intentions and desires for the liturgy have largely not been realized, Latin or not.

You may think me blind, but it is not clear at all to me. After all, two of these “Council Fathers” have been popes and in direct control of the liturgy for three decades. I really cannot doubt the direction God is taking the Church. It simply seems too consistent.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

So was it necessary to insult the intelligence of many to accomplish this?

The Bishops of Vatican II insulted the intelligence of many to accomplish this ?

I don’t follow.

Who’s intelligence was insulted ?

Jim

 

[ProVobis]

I really do not understand what this has to do with language, unless you are suggesting that the less one understands what is said the more understands the meaning of what is said. Rather, even if one accepts the premise, and I am not sure I do, that the laity are less informed of the Mass, this must be a case where correlation can not logically even suggest causation.
You may think me blind, but it is not clear at all to me. After all, two of these “Council Fathers” have been popes and in direct control of the liturgy for three decades. I really cannot doubt the direction God is taking the Church. It simply seems too consistent.

pn, you sort of hit the nail on the head. The last two Popes seemingly have recognized that the translation efforts of the 60’s had been less about understanding or the Mass and more to do with setting new doctrinal standards, such as “for all” instead of “for many.” As my native tongue is Polish, I’m not trapped inside the Anglosphere (world), so I can perhaps see the bigger picture here. To what degree one understands or not understands the Latin behind the Mass is a worthwhile concern, but the idea of a single or simple translation that will fix everything is just a fleeting dream. We don’t want a world where we end up with diametrically opposed doctrines of the Church. Take for example our ways of measuring things. In the US we use the English system and the rest of the world uses a metric system. Sure, there are simple conversions, but they’re not exact and over time they can be most costly; look at the Mars exploration back in the 90’s that they had to scrap right in the middle of an experiment, for example.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

pn, you sort of hit the nail on the head. The last two Popes seemingly have recognized that the translation efforts of the 60’s had been less about understanding or the Mass and more to do with setting new doctrinal standards, such as “for all” instead of “for many.” As my native tongue is Polish, I’m not trapped inside the Anglosphere (world), so I can perhaps see the bigger picture here. To what degree one understands or not understands the Latin behind the Mass is a worthwhile concern, but the idea of a single or simple translation that will fix everything is just a fleeting dream. We don’t want a world where we end up with diametrically opposed doctrines of the Church. Take for example our ways of measuring things. In the US we use the English system and the rest of the world uses a metric system. Sure, there are simple conversions, but they’re not exact and over time they can be most costly; look at the Mars exploration back in the 90’s that they had to scrap right in the middle of an experiment, for example.

If you attend Mass without faith in Jesus Christ, it matters little what language is used.

In fact, if it’s merely the superficial beauty of the ritual and the sound of the hymns for your attendance, your presence isn’t much different than a person attending their favorite music concert.

The most spiritually rewarding Masses I have attended, were celebrated in a little monastery chapel by a Discalced Caremlite Friar, with just five people in attendance. No singing, all in vernacular, but reverent and spiritually deep.

Jim

 

[ProVobis]

The Bishops of Vatican II insulted the intelligence of many to accomplish this ?

I don’t follow.

Who’s intelligence was insulted ?

Jim

Those who had understood the Mass and all the bows, genuflections, etc., for starters. I would say most had at least a passable idea of what was happening. Too bad the educators of that time period didn’t think so they felt the Mass had to be dumbed down.

I have sometimes used the analogy that the English in the missals was like the training wheels on a bike. What should have eventually been discarded became the main objective and focus. Thus our translational and cultural wars.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

ProVobis

Those who had understood the Mass and all the bows, genuflections, etc., for starters.

Most Catholics did not, which is why the Bishops sought change in Vatican II.

I would say most had at least a passable idea of what was happening. Too bad the educators of that time period didn’t think so they felt the Mass had to be dumbed down.

Dumbed down ?

Now who’s insulting the intelligence of those who were not intellectually equipped to understand the TLM ?

I have sometimes used the analogy that the English in the missals was like the training wheels on a bike. What should have eventually been discarded became the main objective and focus. Thus our translational and cultural wars.

So understanding the Mass in Latin is somehow superior to those who understand it only in the vernacular ?

Really, did Jesus speak to his disciples in a language they could barely understand ?

Did he tell the Apostles to go and preach to the nations in a language few will understand ?

We’re not a Church if intellectual snobs, but a community of humble believers.

The Church serves the least among us, not just those who get a high out of intellectual stimulation.

Your post pretty much explains your motivation.

Jim

 

[GangGreen]

Dumbed down ?

Now who’s insulting the intelligence of those who were not intellectually equipped to understand the TLM ?

You are. You’re saying that the average person is not smart enough to understand TLM. People throughout the ages were able to understand it just fine. People who were uneducated and probably didn’t know all that much Latin except the prayers they were taught by their parents, priests and religious.

Again, modern languages came into being in the middle ages. Even before that the average person did not speak Church Latin fluently. Yet for century upon century that was the Mass that was used in the Church.

Even better is the fact that so many devout young Catholics are being drawn to the EF Mass. What explains this? Are you saying that these young people are super smart and the rest of the population isn’t smart enough to grasp it? Are these all Latin majors or people who speak Latin fluently? Probably I would say that the average young person at the EF probably can’t even create a standard sentence in Latin, yet for some inexplicable reason they are drawn to it over the vernacular Mass.

Why fight against people having this desire for the Latin Mass… especially young people. We surely aren’t keeping them in church otherwise, yet for some reason so many of them are attracted to the pre-VII Mass (those who actually have the ability and desire to seek it out anyway). Yet, people fight against it day after day.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

You are. You’re saying that the average person is not smart enough to understand TLM.

 

[ProVobis]

The average Catholic does not understand Latin…

Seems like a lot know enough if they can spot a bad translation.

If they question any translation, they’re above average in my book.

Your first few posts in this thread were all about having the Mass English suited to your taste. Now you seem to be saying English Catholics aren’t even smart enough to understand their own English? So why bother with an English translation at all? Do you realize how much time and money is spent by the Church in translating for and approving several hundred changing vernaculars and keeping the translations current? Not to mention the royalties involved? Why do you think Paul VI, who had approved the vernacular, then urged bishops to find ways to implement the Vatican’s Jubilate Deo?

adoremus.org/JubilateDeo.html

In April 1974 Pope Paul VI sent to every bishop in the world a booklet of some of the simplest selections of Gregorian Chant, much of it drawn from the Graduale Romanum. This booklet, called Jubilate Deo, was intended as a “minimum repertoire of Gregorian chant”. It is, in other words, an official Latin “core repertoire” for the Roman Rite. It was prepared, the Pope said, in order “to make it easier for Christians to achieve unity and spiritual harmony with their brothers and with the living tradition of the past. Hence it is that those who are trying to improve the quality of congregational singing cannot refuse Gregorian chant the place which is due to it” (Voluntati Obsequens).

Pope Paul VI gave permission for the selections in Jubilate Deo to be freely reprinted. The booklet was accompanied by a letter in which the Holy Father made this request of the bishops:

“Would you therefore, in collaboration with the competent diocesan and national agencies for the liturgy, sacred music and catechetics, decide on the best ways of teaching the faithful the Latin chants of Jubilate Deo and of having them sing them…. You will thus be performing a new service for the Church in the domain of liturgical renewal” (Voluntati Obsequens).

Jubilate Deo contains simple chant settings in Latin of the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass: Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Memorial Acclamation, Agnus Dei. It also provides musical settings for the dialogues between priest and people, such as before the Preface, and the Ite Missa est, the response to the Prayer of the Faithful, and others.

An, expanded edition of Jubilate Deo was later issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1987.

Unfortunately, the faithful were not taught these chants, and it is rare to hear any music from this collection sung in parishes today.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

ProVobis

Your first few posts in this thread were all about having the Mass English suited to your taste.

Nope. Just want English which is understood without much explanation, as the Vatican II document stated it should be.

Now you seem to be saying English Catholics aren’t even smart enough to understand their own English?

I didn’t say this.

Do you realize how much time and money is spent by the Church in translating for and approving several hundred changing vernaculars and keeping the translations current? Not to mention the royalties involved? Why do you think Paul VI, who had approved the vernacular, then urged bishops to find ways to implement the Vatican’s Jubilate Deo?

Oh and I was there when we first began using the Missal of Paul VI and also watched as the current translation was being debated. There were strong warnings that he new translation was slavishly done, as Bishop Trautman stated.

Literal translation from the Latin took the culture of when the Latin was used into the current translation, which is why it’s so awkward.

Anyway, I’ve said all I have to say on the subject.

It’s up to the Bishops on what to do now that we have a poor translation to use today.

Jim

 

[drforjc]

Love the new translation. It is such an improvement on the paraphrase we had previously, which also watered down key theological concepts, as Fr. Z has time and time again proven on his blog with comparative translations.

 

[pnewton]

Sure, there are simple conversions, but they’re not exact and over time they can be most costly; look at the Mars exploration back in the 90’s that they had to scrap right in the middle of an experiment, for example.

That is funny, and by far the best analogy I have ever heard of the pitfalls of translations. Another poster wrote.

Love the new translation. It is such an improvement on the paraphrase we had previously, which also watered down key theological concepts,

I think one would be hard put to argue that a more dynamic (not a true paraphrase) translation can help but water something down. It is simply unavoidable. I think what needs to be remembered though is that more accurate translations like the newer one also sacrifice something, usually understanding. “With your spirit” and “consubstantial” are not easily understood by all. If priests would simply substitute teaching the new translation for complaining about it, then both they and their parishioners would be better off.

 

[ProVobis]

“With your spirit” and …are not easily understood by all.

True. My opinion is that the proper way to understand that exchange in the English is “May the spirit of the Lord be with you/And also with you.” But then I would be shot down at the literal and/or dynamic level. To which I would respond with “But look at what you did with Sursum corda/Habemus Ad Dominum which is so untranslatable, you had to introduce the concept of lifting twice, which isn’t in the Latin at all.” However, since it’s been translated as “Lift up your hearts/We have lifted them up to the Lord” for several hundred years, I dare not change it now. If they want to believe there is a levate tua in there, let them.