Would serious alterations to the Missal Require Vatican III?

[bostonboy23]

Hello all,

As the Catholic church begins the process of introducing the new Missal for the English-speaking churches, it seems to me that the RCC is moving back towards a more traditional direction, this is certainly true with our current Pope who, though not yet reintroducing the coronation or Papal Tiara, has nonetheless been largely friendly to traditionalism through his restoration of some Papal traditions and easing of restrictions on the use of the TLM.

Inevitably, this brings up the discussion of future, serious revisions to the order of Mass - almost certainly back in the general direction of the Tridentine form.

Yet the current form is a product of Vatican II, and, although the Holy Father can do largely what he wants, one must ask whether it would require another ecumenical council to make such significant changes.

What do you all think? And how likely do you think it is we’ll see a Vatican III within the next 50 years?

Possibly. What the church is doing now is going back to a more literal interpretation of the missal and church documents. The change that happened in Vatican II was the Bishops sat down and decided well these things are really old and some of this language can’t be translated into modern english or any modern language so what we should do is look at the intent of the author and not try and recover what the text actually says.

this very stupid idea if you ask me has finally been removed and we are going back to the way the church has always read the church documents. Which is why you see all of the strange language in the text. People back then really talked that way.

 

[ProVobis]

this very stupid idea if you ask me has finally been removed and we are going back to the way the church has always read the church documents. Which is why you see all of the strange language in the text. People back then really talked that way.

If I were to translate some Polish writings for you literally, you might think that to be pretty strange too. Just saying. Each language has its own set of nuances, which reflects much of its culture.

 

[Digitonomy]

English is probably one of the toughest to translate into.

I’m not much of a scholar of languages, but considering the cross-fertilization of ideas and shared culture within Europe, it would surprise me if English was a tougher language than most non-European languages.

 

[gobind001]

It’s too much.

Bucket elevator | Screw press | Pressure Leaf Filters

 

[ProVobis]

I’m not much of a scholar of languages, but considering the cross-fertilization of ideas and shared culture within Europe, it would surprise me if English was a tougher language than most non-European languages.

It’s surprising to me that the Polish translation (probably other Slavic tongues as well) seems to capture all the Latin nuances better than European and Germanic languages but it does. Perhaps because it’s less wordy or less analytical or has multiple endings or it’s less provocative in the second person or there’s fewer homophones, I don’t know, but I’m still trying to form some theories there. My stepbrother is a professional linguist working in the court system and I’ll be checking with him.

 

[iloveangels]

…although the Holy Father can do largely what he wants, one must ask whether it would require another ecumenical council to make such significant changes.

NOPE. In fact, the approval of the latin text was completed at the direction of Pope John Paul II in the year 2000. He did not need to convene a council to do it. What we will be using come November 27th is just the newest English translation of that text. That didn’t require a council either. These kinds of changes don’t.

And how likely do you think it is we’ll see a Vatican III within the next 50 years?

Not very likely. We are just starting to get to get our feet under us from the last one.

mc

 

[iloveangels]

THAT STATEMENT IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!!!
WHAT IF THERE WAS NO CONSECRATION IN THIS “REWRITE”?
AS ONE EXAMPLE…

Let’s here more learned people than me comment on this subject.
Thanks

I believe that he could, although for the sake of courtesy to the rest of us, I don’t think that he’d ever choose to do that. Remember that pope has infallibility, which is a blessing for him but in a way also a huge constraint. He can do a great many things on his own in the Church. However, even our worst popes have never taught doctrinal error, although some of them were were personally out of bounds at times.

Check out Canon Law sometime, especially canons 331-335.

mc

 

[iloveangels]

What I do miss is going into a church knowing that the Blessed Sacrament is present. Now the Blessed Sacrament is usually in a chapel or room to the side of the main church. It is not the same. I am not sure why that change occurred. I have heard it is to prevent the desecration of the Blessed Sacrament, but it seems to me the tabernacle could be secured as much as the chapel. Just sayin . . .

Yeah, that’s not really the reason. The reason was political. But nevertheless, it’s being fixed now and that’s a good thing.

mc

 

[ProVobis]

What we will be using come November 27th is just the newest English translation of that text. That didn’t require a council either. These kinds of changes don’t.

The bishops determine the vernacular texts to be used in their diocese. They may change them at any time but now they need Vatican approval.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

The bishops determine the vernacular texts to be used in their diocese. They may change them at any time but now they need Vatican approval.

Individual bishops, in their dioceses, cannot authorise translations from the Latin published by the Holy See. This can only be done by episcopal conferences. The main anglophone episcopal conferences have “sub-contracted” the bulk of the work to ICEL. Even so, each one must approve ICEL’s translation and adopts the English spelling used in their country. Just as a random example the new translation used in USA will contain the word ‘savior’ while the one used in the British Isles will use ‘saviour’. When an episcopal conference has approved a translation it must send it to the Holy See to be reviewed. An episcopal conference may only adopt and use a translation if it receives the Holy See’s approval.

So, it is not down to individual bishops. They cannot change them anytime. The Holy See’s consent has always been required.

 

[ProVobis]

Individual bishops, in their dioceses, cannot authorise translations from the Latin published by the Holy See. This can only be done by episcopal conferences. The main anglophone episcopal conferences have “sub-contracted” the bulk of the work to ICEL. Even so, each one must approve ICEL’s translation and adopts the English spelling used in their country. Just as a random example the new translation used in USA will contain the word ‘savior’ while the one used in the British Isles will use ‘saviour’. When an episcopal conference has approved a translation it must send it to the Holy See to be reviewed. An episcopal conference may only adopt and use a translation if it receives the Holy See’s approval.

So, it is not down to individual bishops. They cannot change them anytime. The Holy See’s consent has always been required.

You are right about specific texts. A consensus within the bishop confererences is required. (Before Vatican II, a simple imprimatur was enough to grant a translation inside a particular handmissal.) But per Vatican II a bishop decides the limits of how these translated texts will be used by the priest. For example, in the Chicago archdiocese 24 vernaculars are allowed, each having been approved by the bishop and pastors, of course. They don’t determine the wording of each vernacular to be used but whether the approved texts will be used at all.

That said, I wonder if the texts of the English Masses, albeit not many, celebrated in Poland spell it “savior” or “saviour.”

 

[Brendan]

I’m sure God would deal with him if such a pope ever tried to remove essential parts of the Mass.

Exactly, the very nature of the Papacy prevents a Pope from promulgating a Mass text with a missing or invalid Eucharistic Prayer.

Not the least of which is that not having a valid Eucharistic prayer procludes any text from being called a Mass in the first place.

It would similar to a math professor trying to claim that a three sided polygon he came up with is a square.

 

[Brendan]

only that by issuing the new translation, more true to the literal latin than previously, the church seemed to be moving in a more formalized, academic direction…

How to you define ‘the Church’, as simply the English speaking faithful.

The large majority of the translations (other languages) are already more literal to the Latin text, and have been for decades.

So can we really claim that ‘the Church’ is moving in a more formalized direction.

It seems to be simply a matter of one linguistic group growing closer to where the Church already is.

 

[ProVobis]

It seems to be simply a matter of one linguistic group growing closer to where the Church already is.

It seems to but cannot be according to Veterum Sapientia:

…Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority. Thus if the truths of the Catholic Church were entrusted to an unspecified number of them, the meaning of these truths, varied as they are, would not be manifested to everyone with sufficient clarity and precision. There would, moreover, be no language which could serve as a common and constant norm by which to gauge the exact meaning of other renderings.

But Latin is indeed such a language. It is set and unchanging…

papalencyclicals.net/John23/j23veterum.htm

 

[jimrob]

There are no serious alterations. The Missale Romanum 2002 edition is an expanded version of the Missale Romanum 1967 with the addition of various newly canonised saints, extra prayers ad libitum and versions of the Eucharistic Prayers for special occasions. These already existed in various sacramentaries and the 2002 edition drew it all together.

The 1970 Roman Missal is a hurried translation of the 1967 Missale Romanum. It seemed a good idea at the time, but the language has become very dated and in various places it was a paraphrase rather than a translation. The 2012 Roman Missal is a translation of the 2002 Missale Romanum involving a great deal more work and scholarship.

There are those who like the hippy English of the 1970 edition. It brings back memories of wearing flowers in our hair and kaftans. But the new translation is a far better rendering of the 2002 Missale Romanum and the greater part of it is a better translation of the 1967 edition. We must remember that the Catholic Church encompasses around a third of the Earth’s population and most of them speak a different first language to English.

 

[Elvis_Guy]

Hello all,

As the Catholic church begins the process of introducing the new Missal for the English-speaking churches, it seems to me that the RCC is moving back towards a more traditional direction, this is certainly true with our current Pope who, though not yet reintroducing the coronation or Papal Tiara, has nonetheless been largely friendly to traditionalism through his restoration of some Papal traditions and easing of restrictions on the use of the TLM.

Inevitably, this brings up the discussion of future, serious revisions to the order of Mass - almost certainly back in the general direction of the Tridentine form.

Yet the current form is a product of Vatican II, and, although the Holy Father can do largely what he wants, one must ask whether it would require another ecumenical council to make such significant changes.

What do you all think? And how likely do you think it is we’ll see a Vatican III within the next 50 years?

Short answer/ prediction…probably not…why? Lol…well…after a Council…it takes …decades …to hammer out fine tune and halfway consolidate…think if you will…(I am going to give Mickey Mouse Example…no reflection on your intellect…I’m jonesing a java!!! So here goes) it is 11/11/11 AD…it has been a few years since V2 (sorry…said I needed coffee)… anyway…even now you have Laity and Clergy who have Liberal Interpretations , Moderate, Conservative, Traditional, and upside down and in betweens… Really! Lol…we are still working out V2… How it’s to be understood…a Council sets things in motion that set a lot in motion…So…my guess/prediction…no…we as a Church are not close to being done with V2!!! Not by a long shot. A thank you to the posters who duly noted an important fact…This is a Revised Missal…not a new Missal! So even on that end that would be over the top to call council over a Revision. Blessings hope my caffeine depleted ramble is of some use…print it off and make fun of it…“check this Cat! Man…his synapses are locked!!!”

 

[ProVobis]

We must remember that the Catholic Church encompasses around a third of the Earth’s population and most of them speak a different first language to English.

Yes, but it’s more like 1/5. (and how many of them attend Mass?)

375 million L1 speakers. (and declining)

375 million L2 speakers. (and how many attend only English Masses?)

750 million EFL speakers. " "

Question, though, would be how many of these L1, L2, EFL speakers would understand “consubstantial with the Father” better than “consubstantialem Patri” or “and with your spirit” more than “et cum spiritu tuo” or “gloria to God in the highest” better than “Gloria in excelsis Deo.”

stats from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers

 

[ProVobis]

We must remember that the Catholic Church encompasses around a third of the Earth’s population and most of them speak a different first language to English.

Yes. And I think there are 500-some vernaculars out of 7000 possible languages.

English speakers number a fifth of the world’s population. (Very low percentage of Catholics and how many of those Catholics attend Mass?)

375 million L1 speakers. (and declining)

375 million L2 speakers. (and how many attend only English Masses?)

750 million EFL speakers. " "

Question, though, would be how many of these L1, L2, EFL speakers would understand “consubstantial with the Father” better than “consubstantialem Patri” or “and with your spirit” more than “et cum spiritu tuo” or “gloria to God in the highest” better than “Gloria in excelsis Deo.”

stats from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers

 

[Matthew_Holford]

You are right about specific texts. A consensus within the bishop confererences is required. (Before Vatican II, a simple imprimatur was enough to grant a translation inside a particular handmissal.) But per Vatican II a bishop decides the limits of how these translated texts will be used by the priest. For example, in the Chicago archdiocese 24 vernaculars are allowed, each having been approved by the bishop and pastors, of course. They don’t determine the wording of each vernacular to be used but whether the approved texts will be used at all.

That said, I wonder if the texts of the English Masses, albeit not many, celebrated in Poland spell it “savior” or “saviour.”

You make three points, which I will address individually. Your post to which I responded read to me that individual bishops can decide on the translations. I don’t know if you expressed it poorly; I don’t know if I understood it poorly; anyway, that doesn’t matter. We agree on the way translations are done post Vatican II.

Now, I said you made three points. I’m not clear whether the second and third are different or the same (that’s certainly down to my comprehension): “… per Vatican II a bishop decides the limits of how these translated texts will be used …” and “they don’t determine the wording of each vernacular to be used but whether the approved texts will be used at all.” Are you saying a bishop can determine how a translation is used? If yes, please explain how. The latter point is more clear (to my poor mind). Is it diocesan bishops who decide which language(s) can be used in the dioceses? I always thought that was another matter for episcopal conferences. I am not saying it is; I just assumed it was.

Well, I don’t know whether they’d use ‘savior’ or ‘saviour’ in Poland. I think I was specific in my last post about tying down my examples more tightly to specific geographical loci. They may even use ‘zbawca’ or ‘спаситель’.

Out of interest, what are the 24 vernacular liturgical languages approved in Chicago?

 

[JGMendes4049]

What I do miss is going into a church knowing that the Blessed Sacrament is present. Now the Blessed Sacrament is usually in a chapel or room to the side of the main church. It is not the same. I am not sure why that change occurred. I have heard it is to prevent the desecration of the Blessed Sacrament, but it seems to me the tabernacle could be secured as much as the chapel. Just sayin . . .

I don’t know about you, but I’d rather have a church have a perpetual adoration chapel where the Blessed Sacrament is exposed and reserved than a tabernacle in the main church.