Will the latest Catholic Mass translation get another overhaul?

[GangGreen]

Since my post was too long for the site, I’ll have to cut…

Anyway, do you think that the Bishops of Vatican II were in error allowing the vernacular, and were their successors in error allowing it’s full use to the point of excluding Latin ?

The Vatican II bishops allowed for the extended use of the vernacular and nowhere do the Council documents say differently. That’s all I’ll say on the matter.

Right, I lived through such times.

Your time was an extremely short time in the grand scheme of things.

We were taught to memorize the Latin words and mimic the words in our minds. We didn’t have public responses in the Mass back then as we do now. We sat and listened to the priest and altar boys say the Mass and some of us tried to follow along with the missal, as well as we could. The choirs sang in Latin, the people didn’t sing at all.
In order to understand the words, we had to go through the gymnastics of looking over to English translation, when it was available. Not all missals had the English translation. Many, especially children’s prayer books, which I still have mine from my first communion, merely told you what the priest was doing, and it would in some places, provide a prayer to say that was not in the Mass itself.

I’ve been to EF Masses. I know what it’s like. I go to them as often as possible. I attend both forms of the Mass regularly. I wonder how often you attend a Mass in Latin. Funnily enough, the people I see at EF Masses follow along with zero issue. Many people including those who are young sing right along with the choir in Latin. I remember being at an FSSP parish in San Diego and seeing kids no older than 10 singing along with the Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei. In order to learn, you learn the words in both languages, it’s not the most difficult thing in the world. Also, today we have much more materials available for the average person to use.

Maybe there wasn’t a high quality of religious education when you grew up. SC has a large section about education for a reason.

Again, it was St Pope John XIII calling for Vatican II and the resulting changes the Bishops made. They saw it as necessary, but you disagree with them.

Latin is to be preserved, Gregorian chant given a pride of place, pipe organ in high esteam, etc. we’ve gone over this 100 times. Almost every Bishop voted yes for SC, only slightly more than half voted yes for the new missal. The new missal and the 100% vernacular fallout was part of a council that was separate from VII.

There’s no denying that there were tons of abuses, bad education, among other things before the Council. There were tons of issues, no one is saying it was utopia. However, at that time in the US was also a high point in ordinations, people enrolled in Catholic schools, parishes, and just about every other indicator. Since then, they have all plummeted. These are the facts.

These were not the carrying out of the Council… there’s a reason why all these years later many Bishops are calling for clarifications and better understanding of what the Council’s documents really meant (including our last Pope). Many brought about abuses via the “spirit of Vatican II” nonsense and many of the bishops either turned a blind eye or took part of it themselves. I guess you also believe that the Bishops who pushed for contraception to be OK and COMPLETELY IGNORED Humanae Vitae and those who today are pushing for homosexuality, divorce, and whatever else to be perfect representatives of Christ.

Maybe I’ll say that the changes were fine when you show me the positive changes that it has brought to the Church. “By their fruits you shall know them”

Some do, but most young Catholics, don’t even bother going to Mass, never mind the EF.

I would say that if you take a poll of young, devout Catholics who have ever attended the EF, there would be an extremely high percentage of them who prefer the EF to the OF, but you can keep saying that it’s a myth.

Also, the reason some that do go to the EF, it has more to do with an ego-identiy attachment to the religious aesthetics, than a means of growing closer to Jesus, who is present at Masses in the vernacular as well as the EF.
After it wears off, they go back to their home parishes or stop going to Mass altogether.

Yes, Christ is present at both Masses, but I would say that you’re wrong about every other aspect of your sentence and in fact it’s quite insulting.

Aesthetics should not be discounted. Does sacred music not lift our hearts up to God? Does a religious statue or painting not make us ponder God’s greatness? Doesn’t seeing the beauty of nature draw us to God? God designed us to love these things which are beautiful as they are just a glimmer of his true Glory. Should we not be attracted to these things? Is this a shameful thing now?

I’ve most likely been a Catholic a lot longer than yourself. I’ve seen the trends among young Catholics and unfortunately, most don’t even go to Mass, regardless of the language.

What does that have to do with anything? The facts remain that the EF is attracting many young devout Catholics and they are embracing it and getting actively involved in it. If this is so, then it should be embraced, not shoved off to the side. The powers that be should try to understand what is attracting these young people to this Mass. We’ve seen so much resistance to the EF and Latin in general, it’s like some are afraid of it gaining too much popularity.

Anyway, don’t argue with me, argue with the Bishops who made the changes which allowed the Vernacular to be used in the majority of parishes.

And ask yourself, why they did it ? Were they following the Holy Spirit or some evil agenda?

I guess we won’t know until we meet God after this life, eh?

 

[ProVobis]

…and “consubstantial” are not easily understood by all.

Probably like Shakespeare. “Consubstantial” actually appeared in 19th century handmissals. No one made a scene about it because it had not actually been used in the Mass. Except that it was “consubstantial TO” rather than “consubstantial WITH.” (Patri takes the dative. They must have overlooked that part in the new translation.) Then the Anglicans changed it to “one substance with” and the ICEL to “one in being with.” I suspect amongst other things, “consubstantial with” will be changed again in our lifetime, judging by its unpopularity.

 

[DaveBj]

Probably like Shakespeare. “Consubstantial” actually appeared in 19th century handmissals. No one made a scene about it because it had not actually been used in the Mass. Except that it was “consubstantial TO” rather than “consubstantial WITH.” (Patri takes the dative. They must have overlooked that part in the new translation.) Then the Anglicans changed it to “one substance with” and the ICEL to “one in being with.” I suspect amongst other things, “consubstantial with” will be changed again in our lifetime, judging by its unpopularity.

I hope so. I commented on this way back when the new translation first came out. “Consubstantial” may be an English word, but I would not call it part of “the vernacular,” the language people actually talk.

 

[ProVobis]

I hope so. I commented on this way back when the new translation first came out. “Consubstantial” may be an English word, but I would not call it part of “the vernacular,” the language people actually talk.

There’s the dilemma. People say the language of the liturgy should NOT be in common everyday language, or something to that effect, while at the same time they want it in vernacular, the definition which I agree with you on.

Here’s another thought. Four hundred of the five hundred most used (spoken, I believe) words in the English language are one syllable while 90% of multiple-syllable words have their origin in Latin. Or so I’ve read.

But probably not to hope or worry until the current copyrights expire. Or until the bishops can’t take the complaints anymore.

 

[DaveBj]

There’s the dilemma. People say the language of the liturgy should NOT be in common everyday language, or something to that effect, while at the same time they want it in vernacular, the definition which I agree with you on.

Here’s another thought. Four hundred of the five hundred most used (spoken, I believe) words in the English language are one syllable while 90% of multiple-syllable words have their origin in Latin. Or so I’ve read.

But probably not to hope or worry until the current copyrights expire. Or until the bishops can’t take the complaints anymore.

Yeah, the push for yet another translation is not one of those hills that I plan to fight and die on.

 

[Rin]

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.

I agree that the lessened understanding of the Mass isn’t caused by the use of vernacular; it is used (albeit generally in a more archaic form) in the Byzantine rite without similar effects. However, one of the main claims of liturgical progressivists (and these days, everyone else, since the vernacular is now the most common) is that using the vernacular will increase understanding. And it hasn’t - that prediction has failed miserably. Understanding the words simply doesn’t equal understanding the Mass.

I’m not too attached to Latin (though I love Gregorian chant and polyphony), but I am attached to the EF. I’d prefer the EF in the vernacular over the OF in Latin, simply since the EF communicates the nature of the Mass better, in words as well as external signs of reverence. Lastly, I find the almost complete rigidity of the rubrics to be a blessing, since it greatly reduces (but does not eliminate, obviously) the possibility of liturgical abuse.

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.

Remember that the last of those two popes repeatedly stated that the Council has not as of today been implemented (and by that, i doubt he means the We are Church notion of the Council…), criticized versus populum worship, encouraged reception of Communion kneeling and on the tongue (okay, those two are the standard in the OF too, just virtually never practiced), rearranging the altar in his liturgies, further liberating the use of the EF, etc. And if you read his writings as a cardinal, there is no doubt that the person Joseph Ratzinger was in no way happy with the liturgical development after the Council.

As for JPII, while he did not seem to have the same interest for liturgy, remember that the EF indult (which was far more permissive than virtually any bishop wanted to acknowledge), Liturgiam authenticam etc. clearly counteracted many of the post-Council developments. I’m aware both may have been affected by Ratzinger, but oh well. In many ways, the close alliance between JPII and Ratzinger says a lot too.

 

[ProVobis]

It should be noted that in allowing the old Mass to be said, JPII specified the 62 Missal, not the 1965 or 1967 Missals which allowed the vernacular. Cardinal Arinze seems to be of the opinion that if the Mass were more extensively celebrated in Latin, there would have been less demand for the older Mass.

youtube.com/watch?v=mqnjgg1vNgU

In any case, it definitely would have saved a whole ton of money had translation wars never been allowed to come into play. Unfortunately that is the unintended consequence of allowing the vernacular.

 

[Brendan]

I hope so. I commented on this way back when the new translation first came out. “Consubstantial” may be an English word, but I would not call it part of “the vernacular,” the language people actually talk.

It’s not like ‘consubstantialis’ or ‘homoousios’ were common terms in Latin and Greek when the Council of Nicea introduced the Creed. They were not words that everyday Romans or Greeks used in regular conversation.

But yet, the still chose to use those words when they issued the Creed to the Church./ They then relied on the teaching authority of the local churches to make sure that the people understood.

There is no reason why we cannot do the same today. If people can learn what “Transubstantial” means, they can certainly learn what Consubstantial means.

 

[ProVobis]

Brendan, you bring up a good point.

Since Transubstantio, Consubstantio, and such are infallible teachings (dogma) of the Church, it would behoove us to leave such teachings untranslated to eliminate the possibility of any mistranslations. I suppose one could extend that argument for the entire Credo, be it in Latin, Greek, or Old Church Slavonic, at least in the formal prayer. Note, however, that it could be explained in a vernacular sermon, if there is the lack of understanding it in the language of the Church in which the infallible statement was made.

 

[Rin]

Brendan, you bring up a good point.

Since Transubstantio, Consubstantio, and such are infallible teachings (dogma) of the Church, it would behoove us to leave such teachings untranslated to eliminate the possibility of any mistranslations. I suppose one could extend that argument for the entire Credo, be it in Latin, Greek, or Old Church Slavonic, at least in the formal prayer. Note, however, that it could be explained in a vernacular sermon, if there is the lack of understanding it in the language of the Church in which the infallible statement was made.

Indeed, I remember debating this in college, with a Lutheran professor (this was a mixed college, with very orthodox Catholic classes and less orthodox Lutheran classes; that said, this professor was colloquially known as “the last [proper] Lutheran on Earth”, so this was probably something he was uncomfortable with); the assignment was to express the Trinitarian dogma in modern, colloquial language, without any use of theological terminology. I responded by saying any attempt at doing so would end in heresy, and that God probably intended for that dogma to be defined when it did because the academic language and (more importantly) culture at the time made it possible to express with accuracy. He responded with a very uncomfortable “well, you do have a point, but I don’t think we should give up because of that” .

As to the vernacular: Neither the Greek used liturgically by the Roman Church in the first few centuries, nor the variety of Latin that followed, were anywhere close to the vulgar Latin spoken by common folk. They were academic, archaic languages. The same goes for most translations of the Eastern Rites - they generally use a more archaic form of the vernacular. This is useful because 1) the translation then doesn’t have to be updated once every generation, 2) the language will generally be less easy to misunderstand, and 3) it reminds us that Liturgy is timeless.

Translation into the vernacular is a tradition in the Catholic Church, even though it is rare in the Latin Rite (Croatian and Mandarin being exceptions, pre-reform). However, those translations have never tried to emulate colloquial language that “everyone can understand”. This misunderstanding actually makes the Liturgy more difficult to understand; when someone sees the word “consubstantial”, the most common reflex is to look it up or ask someone what it means. This again opens the person to a deeper understanding of the Trinity.

Obviously some will just ignore words they don’t understand and go on, but I’m afraid using easily understandable terms that don’t really reflect the Latin properly won’t help them increase their understanding. At least, hearing the word “consubstantial” over and over without understanding the meaning might cause the person to look it up sooner or later. Or, as ProVobis says, a priest could (and should) explain it in a sermon whenever it ties into the subject of said sermon. In any case, it is an invitation to learn more.

 

[ProVobis]

Anyone see the youtube video on the Creed as it’s taken to the extremes on understandability?

youtube.com/watch?v=IUQcCvX2MKk

It’s a joke but it makes a point IMO.

 

[pnewton]

Remember that the last of those two popes repeatedly stated that the Council has not as of today been implemented

I have never seen that. I have seen it stated that it has not been fully implemented, but never suggested that the Church went another direction than the Vatican Council. I think part of the perception of the discrepancies come from looking at a sentence or phrase, here and there, and not the totality of the documents.

 

[Monica4316]

I don’t think the Mass should be brought to “our level”. It’s an act of worship to God, not something that should be devoid of mystery for us. If people don’t know a word, like consubstantial, they could try and find out or someone should tell them - people should be catechized. If we bring the Mass to the level of those who are badly catechized, what will remain?

Just how I feel about this. I attend the Latin Mass and I like how it lifts the mind to God. I was happy about the new translation because it’s more accurate.

 

[Rin]

I have never seen that. I have seen it stated that it has not been fully implemented, but never suggested that the Church went another direction than the Vatican Council.

Obviously it has been partly implemented, but Benedict surely held that the Church went another direction than the Council intended (interestingly, these are also some of his last words as reigning pope):

“And we know that this Council of the media was accessible to all. So, dominant, more efficient, this Council created many calamities, so many problems, so much misery, in reality: seminaries closed, convents closed liturgy trivialized … and the true Council has struggled to materialize, to be realized: the virtual Council was stronger than the real Council. But the real strength of the Council was present and slowly it has emerged and is becoming the real power which is also true reform, true renewal of the Church. It seems to me that 50 years after the Council, we see how this Virtual Council is breaking down, getting lost and the true Council is emerging with all its spiritual strength. And it is our task, in this Year of Faith, starting from this Year of Faith, to work so that the true Council with the power of the Holy Spirit is realized and Church is really renewed. We hope that the Lord will help us. I, retired in prayer, will always be with you, and together we will move ahead with the Lord in certainty. The Lord is victorious. Thank you.”

( en.radiovaticana.va/storico/2013/02/14/pope_to_rome’s_priests:_the_second_vatican_council%2C_as_i_saw_it/en1-664858 , my emphasis )

Also, there’s his address to the Curia in 2005, speaking about the correct implementation of the council:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/december/documents/hf_ben_xvi_spe_20051222_roman-curia_en.html

To illustrate my point, I’d have to make a very large quote, so I’ll recommend you read it in its entirety instead. The Pope clearly criticizes the implementation we have seen many places, while defending the Council itself.

Then there are the somewhat less “careful” quotes as cardinal. From an interview with EWTN:

“Generally, I would say it was not well implemented; the liturgical reform, because it was a general idea. (…) And so, I think we have to restore not so much certain ceremonies, but the essential idea of liturgy – to understand in liturgy, we are not representing ourselves, but we receive the grace of the presence of the Lord with the Church of the heaven and of the earth.”

( catholicnewsagency.com/resources/benedict-xvi/life-and-ministry/interview-with-cardinal-ratzinger/ )

From a private letter (therefore obviously not on public records, but the letter is verified), on how the future Roman Rite should look:

“The Roman rite of the future should be a single rite, celebrated in Latin or in the vernacular, but standing completely in the tradition of the rite that has been handed down. It could take up some new elements which have proven themselves, like new feasts, some new prefaces in the Mass, an expanded lectionary – more choice than earlier, but not too much, – an “oratio fidelium”, i.e., a fixed litany of intercessions following the Oremus before the offertory where it had its place earlier.”

( wdtprs.com/blog/2008/02/important-2003-letter-of-card-ratzinger-about-the-older-rite-of-mass/ )

His vision for the Liturgy in the future is exactly similar to what the Council mandated: The traditional Mass, but with certain additions and (limited) use of the vernacular. And, very importantly, little room for improvisations - he’s spoken about the intercessions of the faithful on other occasions too. It was never meant to be written anew from Sunday to Sunday, since they originally also in the Roman Rite were a fixed litany like in the Byzantine Rite. In my opinion they should have their natural place in stead of Kyrie, but oh well, I can’t agree with everything he says

Lastly, Ratzinger explains his views on this in length in the Ratzinger Report, but my copy is sadly a four hour train ride away…

I think part of the perception of the discrepancies come from looking at a sentence or phrase, here and there, and not the totality of the documents.

No. The totality of Sacrosanctum Concilium clearly is very different from what we got. It mandates only a limited reform of very specific elements in the Mass, not a complete rewrite of the entire order (and propers, for that sake) of the Mass. Pope Benedict is clear on this, as would to be honest any person who actually read the document in its whole be - I have a very hard time seeing how anyone can interpret that document to defend the reform, without doing exactly as you say; only looking at sentences or phrases loosely, instead of the totality of the document. (Edit: In addition, it has to be seen not only in context with itself and the Second Vatican Council, but with previous documents on the Liturgy - which is exactly what pope Benedict speaks about with the “hermeneutic of continuity”.)

That said, obviously the newer Mass is both valid and legitimate, as it is implemented by a pope and the texts satisfy the criteria of validity. It’s just not mandated by the Council; it may be an effect of the tumults after the Council, but it’s not what the Fathers mandated. And while legally legitimate, I sometimes wonder how long it will stay - post-council tumults have happened before, and they rarely last more than a century or two. But I doubt any of us will live to see it, so it’s pure and perhaps useless (but interesting) speculation.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Jesus said we are to “love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, MIND, and strength.”

I need to learn more about the mass every day until the day I die.

 

[pnewton]

my emphasis ).

From your quote:

But the real strength of the Council was present and slowly it has emerged and is becoming the real power which is also true reform, true renewal of the Church. It seems to me that 50 years after the Council, we see how this Virtual Council is breaking down, getting lost and the true Council is emerging with all its spiritual strength.

I have a very hard time seeing how anyone can interpret that document to defend the reform, without doing exactly as you say; only looking at sentences or phrases loosely, instead of the totality of the document.

I guess we are all different. I read all of the first two links and simply do not see it in the light you do. Pope Benedict did not take any action that indicates he believed the implementation of the Council was all that far afield. Surely he saw the ways in which the Council was implemented poorly, but not to such a degree he intervened across the board with the liturgy. What I do get from those two articles is a very balanced view of the good and the bad, in a form of historical reminiscence.

It has been half a century and are on our fourth pope (discounting JP I) since then. It would seem that the sensus fidei is in a rather singular and clear direction. I do not see confusion, exempting a very small minority.

 

[ProVobis]

It has been half a century and are on our fourth pope (discounting JP I) since then. It would seem that the sensus fidei is in a rather singular and clear direction. I do not see confusion, exempting a very small minority.

The small minority are willing to travel great distances every week to get to the EF or an OF more in tune with SC. The vast majority don’t go to church on a regular basis. If it weren’t for the obligation, how many would go at all?

 

[Celtic_Maiden]

Who knows whether this article is true. I am really growing weary of the modern liturgy. I live close to many churches and reverent liturgies are so rare. I am growing convinced that our modern liturgy makes it so easy for it to be celebrated badly. I am seriously considering switching rites or attending an Anglican use permanently.

That is the beauty of the Catholic Church, one can try the Tridentine Rite, Anglicanorum Coetibus, one of the Eastern Catholic Rites, all beautiful in themselves.

 

[pnewton]

The small minority are willing to travel great distances every week to get to the EF or an OF more in tune with SC. The vast majority don’t go to church on a regular basis. If it weren’t for the obligation, how many would go at all?

The fault I find with this statement is that it is true only if you assign those Catholics (those in name only) who do not ever go to Mass to the OF. I have never seen any poll that separates the two forms of Mass, or how you can even assign someone to a form if they never attend any Mass. Pretty much 100% of the Catholics I know go to Mass regularly. The vast majority of my parish I see every weekend. As I see it, this is the Catholic Church.

 

[ProVobis]

The fault I find with this statement is that it is true only if you assign those Catholics (those in name only) who do not ever go to Mass to the OF. I have never seen any poll that separates the two forms of Mass, or how you can even assign someone to a form if they never attend any Mass. Pretty much 100% of the Catholics I know go to Mass regularly. The vast majority of my parish I see every weekend. As I see it, this is the Catholic Church.

Fair enough. We do live in different parts of the country.