![o{]:¬)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
Card. Arinze’s letter to Card. George with approval of the Ordo Missae translation
As you know, the Holy See granted approval (recognitio) to the translation of significant parts of the 2002 Missale Romanum’s Ordo Missae, the parts that remain the same nearly every day.
Here is the letter from the Prefect of the CDWDS, His Eminence Francis Card. Arinze, to the President of the US Conference, His Eminence Francis Card. George. You might say the letter is very "frank".
So, we have taken a big step in the right direction.
Here is my transcription of the text with my emphases and comments:
Prot. n. 1464/06/L
23 June 2008
Your Eminence,
The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is pleased to enclose the decree by which it has granted recognitio for the territory of your Conference of Bishops for the new English-language translation of significant parts of the Ordo Missae as found in the Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia, including most of those texts used in the every celebration of Holy Mass. [As we will see later on, there are still some things to be done.]
The Dicastery has no little satisfaction in arriving at this juncture. [Considering how long they had to wait to get the texts from the Conference…] Nevertheless, the Congregation does not intend that these texts should be put into liturgical use immediately. [In other words: THEY CANNOT BE USED until WE say they can be used!] Instead, the granting now of the recognitio to this crucial segment of the Roman Missal will provide time for the pastoral preparation of priests, deacons and for appropriate catechesis of the lay faithful. [Notice the difference: preparation and catechesis. I wonder if that shouldn’t be the other way around, in a sense.] It will likewise facilitate the divising of musical settings for the parts of the Mass, bearing in mind the criteria set forth in the Instruction Liturgiam authenticam, n. 60, which requires that the musical settings of liturgical texts use only the actual approved texts and never be paraphrased. [Write new music settings, but the words better adhere to what we have sent.]
As regards the text enclosed, this Dicastery wishes to draw attention to the following points:
1. The attached text is to be considered binding. [Roma locuta est. You cannot now push for changes. It’s over.] For its part, this Congregation is confident that the universal use of these texts will greatly contribute to the building up of the Faith throughout the broad and diverse English-speaking world. [This sentence is an answer to an implict objection, one raised explicitly for a long time before this recognitio came.]
2. It is to be borne in mind that use of this text is restricted by copyright. Therefore, all pertinent copyright legislation in civil law is to be observed in accordance with the statutes which this Congregation approved for the Mixed Commission known as the [ICEL] International Commission on English in the Liturgy. [Pretty hard to grasp this. I have a hard time understanding how the texts of Mass or of Sacred Scripture (Lectionary) can be copyrighted. Rather, why would they want to? I suspect it has to do with money. The production of liturgical books is a source of income for a Conference now gutted by cuts in giving by lay people – for obvious reasons. Also, the copyright can insure that the texts are reproduced properly, accurately. Once upon a time there was a license from the Holy See and, way back, an excommunication for those who made illicit changes to texts, again for obvious reasons.]
3. Although the Mixed Commission [ICEL] took the initiative of distributing, along with these Parts of the Order of Mass, an adapted text of Eucharistic Prayer IV, Higher Authority [!] has determined that as regards to either modification of the typical edition of the manner of translating it: non expedire. [What does this mean? Briefly, "no". Latin expedio means a whole raft of things, but eventually in the phrase res expedit, or impersonally expedit, constructed with the dative (e.g., alicui – literally "it helps out, furthers, promotes) it thus means "it is serviceable, profitable, advantageous, useful, expedient". Note also the word "although". You know there is a "no" on the way. So, read this as "It’s not useful to adapt texts of EP IV." What isn’t clear is precisely who the "Higher Authority" is here. It is either the Congregation itself or the Holy Father himself: those are the only two options. But this will be clearer in a moment.]<
4. Likewise, the Holy Father ["Likewise" and "the Holy Father", following the above "Higher Authority" means that the "Higher Authority" was Pope Benedict himself.] has decided that, in response to a recommendation of the Eleventh Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (October 2-23, 2005), a selection of additional formulae of dismissal for the faithful should be introduced in n. 144 of the Missale Romanum and consequently these materials are included in the attached text. [I suspect that this will include phrases commonly in use, such as "Go in the peace and love of the Lord!", and will not include "Have a nice day! See you ‘round", which would be more in keeping with the older ICEL versions.]
With every prayerful good wish, I remain
Devotedly yours in Christ
+Francis Card. Arinze
Prefect
+A. Malcolm Ranjith
Secret.
Soon, I’ll start looking at some of these texts which were approved.
I’ve checked out most of the text, since it’s available in PDF form on the USCCB website. Seems pretty faithful to the Latin original. I still can’t get over how the ICEL managed to take “and taking into his venerable hands this goodly chalice” and make it into “he took the cup.” Also, significantly, the “pro multis” is translated properly, per the wishes of the CDWDS and Pope Benedict himself. I’m quite pleased with this move.
Comment by Cory — 4 August 2008 @ 10:09 pmText available from the USCCB: http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/missalformation/index.shtml
Comment by Dave — 4 August 2008 @ 10:15 pmI would like to know which parts of the new translation did NOT receive the recognitio…does Rome ever offer an explanation for the parts not accepted?
Kate
Comment by Kate — 4 August 2008 @ 10:20 pmThe new translation looks great and sounds beautiful! I eagerly wait to put it into use! I wish that the Holy See would now speak with the same clarity and authority in regard to the propers. Deo Gratias!
Comment by sacredosinaeternum — 4 August 2008 @ 10:34 pmI noticed on the copy of the letter at the USCCb website, there’s something written below Cardinal Arinze’s name. It almost looks like a scrawled bit of Latin. Can anyone make it out?
Comment by Aaron — 4 August 2008 @ 11:04 pmI do not see “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.” Did this not make it into the new order?
Comment by M. Parrot — 4 August 2008 @ 11:09 pmOne of my peeves when we go to a NO mass is, in the canon: “Happy are we who are called to this supper”. I just want to paint a yellow smiley face on my shirt and mince off to dinner.
The new translation has it as “Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb.” Wow, what a difference.
Indeed, a search of the PDF doesn’t show the word ‘Happy’ at all.. Though a Latin-English dictionary will say beatus can be translated as either ‘blessed’ or ‘happy’, the modern meaning of ‘happy’ is too empty and frivolous for the liturgy. Thank God for the new translation.
Comment by Matthew M. — 4 August 2008 @ 11:17 pmGod bless Pope Benedict! He is doing wonderful things for the Church.
Comment by paramedicgirl — 4 August 2008 @ 11:22 pmAaron:
Comment by Sacramento Mom — 4 August 2008 @ 11:33 pmIt is the signature of Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, with secret under his name for Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments?
Thanks for posting this, Father.
I am curious: why would the Priest say only: “The Mystery of Faith” rather than “Let us proclaim the Mystery of Faith?”
Comment by Frcd — 4 August 2008 @ 11:35 pmI’ve spent about half an hour comparing the new translation to the current Sacramentary. I’ve only gotten through the Roman Canon, but the new translation is absolutely beautiful! It’s hard to compare the two however, as the flaws in the original translation really show up. The Sacramentary translation sounds like it demands God’s action, while the new translation pleads for God’s mercy. It’s much more supplicant.
For M. Parrot, it’s there, but is completely different. The new version is “We proclaim your death, O Lord, and profess your Resurrection until you come again.” Instead of a statement of fact, it’s a prayer.
Comment by Fr. Cory Sticha — 4 August 2008 @ 11:36 pm2. It is to be borne in mind that use of this text is restricted by copyright.
The good people over at NLM have a couple of posts on the use of copyright and the liturgy.
i. http://thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.com/2008/08/icel-copyright-and-creative-commons.html
ii. http://thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.com/2008/08/icel-vs-book-of-common-prayer.html
You have to separate the wheat from the chaff, but there is a lot of good commentary.
Comment by Brian Day — 4 August 2008 @ 11:53 pm“Let us proclaim the mystery of faith” implies that the mystery of faith is “Christ has died, Christ is Risen, Christ will come again” as opposed to the Eucharist.
By saying merely “The mystery of faith” it points properly to the Eucharist. As for the meaning of the new wording itself, Fr. Cory nails it.
Comment by LCB — 4 August 2008 @ 11:59 pmICEL holding the copyright is certainly an interesting development.
As for Prayer #4, if it is consigned to the ash heap of history I would not object.
Comment by LCB — 5 August 2008 @ 12:02 amDoes this at all apply to the use of English in the N.O. in Canada?
Comment by Matthew — 5 August 2008 @ 12:19 amFrcd,
My answer would be more simple: because that’s all the Latin says. The Missale Romanum simply says Mysterium Fidei (“Mystery of Faith)—there is no “Let us proclaim” (adnuntiemus or the like).
Comment by vox borealis — 5 August 2008 @ 12:28 amMatthew,
The following document from the CCCB website might help you:
http://www.cccb.ca/site/images/stories/pdf/newsletter_fall_2007.pdf
The short answer, if I read the document correctly, is “it doesn’t.”
Comment by vox borealis — 5 August 2008 @ 12:35 amI like this translation a lot, the only part that has me scratching my head is the reference to a cup in one of the mysterium fidei responses, since it is referred to as a chalice everywhere else throughout the Ordinary.
A few responses to questions asked above:
M Parrot:
The response is not there in the Latin N.O., so that response has been omitted this time around in English.
Kate:
The other portions have not been submitted to Rome as yet for final approval. I saw reference somewhere to the translation being broken into 12 separate portions, of which this is only the first, though most important.
Comment by Cyrus — 5 August 2008 @ 12:37 am“ICEL holding the copyright is certainly an interesting development.”
ICEL holds the copyright to all of their English translations, and they always have. Publishers have to enter into a signed contract with them and pay royalties, just like they would to any author. The Holy See does this as well, through Libreria Editrice Vaticana. LEV holds the legal copyright to all papal writings, and I believe original Latin liturgical texts.
Comment by Geoffrey — 5 August 2008 @ 12:37 amSsacredosinaeternum wrote:
“The new translation looks great and sounds beautiful! I eagerly wait to put it into use! I wish that the Holy See would now speak with the same clarity and authority in regard to the propers. Deo Gratias!”
)(
Yes, it is wonderful. Looks and sounds like recapturing the wording used in earlier Missals. In the real world, however, with the phrasing of “the Congregation does not intend that these texts should be put into liturgical use immediately,” you had better prepare to wait the rest of your life. There was nothing to indicate this will ever be put into use. What happened to the supposed Clarifications to Summorum Pontificum? The Motu Proprio is out there. If someone wants to embrace it, fine. If not, oh well. Does PCED really have any power? Evidently not. No changes at all in any of the locales which are clammoring for the Mass, appealing to the PCED. If it does have any power it seems to dissipate into thin air by the time it reaches the local churches.
...No, don’t expect these changes any time soon.
Also, I tire of this catch-phrase, “The Holy Father wishes…” “The Holy Father envisions…” Well, then get a move on it! Summorum Pontificum has been out for a year now. The Pope’s been doing the pretty-altar thing for almost a year now. Aint no trickle-down theory at my parish or at any of the surrounding ones.
==
paramedicgirl wrote:
“God bless Pope Benedict! He is doing wonderful things for the Church.”
)(
Yes, he is doing wonderful things, but QUI BONO if they are never implemented. In a reverse manner, the Pope is creating a cafeteria Church. He puts things out. If you want to do it, okay. If not, okay… Summourm Pontificum… the English-language changes… Remember, Jesus is Love. La-dee-da as we skip along.
In my opinion, this Church has done nothing but spent the last forty years wasting time and wasting people’s lives. Nothing concrete or definitive regarding Liturgy or Teaching has come down which was so significant in the life of the average Catholic except suffer horrid Liturgies and bogus teachings, so earnestly trying to cram a square peg ( V2 ) in a round hole. The way I see it, this is the most ignorant, unchurched generation of Catholics, and these so-called glorious changes of Vatican II have done just that. Rather than urge the strict regard of people’s spiritual life as in the past, V2—or its results—catered to the sloven nature of people. The present state of the Church ( along with Her art, literature an architecture ) is proof.
Comment by Matt Q — 5 August 2008 @ 1:33 am“ Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.” – Did this not make it into the new order? – Asks M. Parrot.
Answer: hopefully not, because it was an ICEL creative product (not in Latin text), suggesting that He is elsewhere, and not on the altar.
I am curious: why would the Priest say only: “The Mystery of Faith” rather than “Let us proclaim the Mystery of Faith?”- asks Frcd.
Answer: (1) The: “Let us proclaim” suggests that the Mystery is in the words of acclamation, and not on the altar, (2) it was particularly awkward when coupled with the ICEL product, which has been, hopefully, scrapped,(3) It not in the Latin text.
LCB would like to see EP4 “consigned to the ash heap of history”.
Answer: I see nothing wrong in it, but what should be consigned to history wherefrom it has been dug out is the EP2 – a typical example of archaeologism, which can be used with a peace of mind by anyone who doesn’t believe that the Mass, better: the Eucharist is first all Christ’s self-sacrifice.
Comment by Michael — 5 August 2008 @ 2:28 amI am downloading the text now. I am interested in comparing it to the draft editions that I have seen. In regards to amendments, the USCCB published them in their Liturgy newsletter some time back.
Comment by Jeff — 5 August 2008 @ 2:42 amMichael said:
Answer: (1) The: “Let us proclaim” suggests that the Mystery is in the words of acclamation, and not on the altar,...
Also, the saying “The Mystery of Faith” used to be part of the words of consecration of the chalice. Up until only a few months ago, I thought that the mystery of faith was the proclamation “Christ has died, etc.” not the Body and Blood on the altar. I would dearly love to see this phrase return to the consecration.
I have just completed a side-by-side comparison of the Eucharistic Prayers, new and old, with the intent to comment extensively here, but I confess that I am stunned into silence.
I would greatly encourage anyone with spare time to do the same. There is great teaching value and graces to be had just seeing how the Truth of our Faith has been made much more explicit and clear. The whole import and intent of the liturgical action stands out better.
I still prefer the EF, for a great many reasons, but this translation brings some of that sense of mystery back into the OF.
Thank you Holy Father.
Comment by danh — 5 August 2008 @ 2:56 amUp until only a few months ago, I thought that the mystery of faith was the proclamation “Christ has died, etc.” not the Body and Blood on the altar.
...hang on. I thought that until I read this comment. It was the whole “ok we’re done with the Consecration, priest comes out of his trance and talks to us again” thing. I’ve seen the wording in the EF missal and thought it was just something else that got shifted around.
Dude. Thank you for teaching me something today!!
Comment by puella — 5 August 2008 @ 4:26 amIt seems I also had always misunderstood what “Mystery of Faith” means. What a great example of “Lex orandi, lex credendi” at work. I wonder what else in the Mass I think I understand but don’t? I really hope our bishops and priests make a serious effort to teach the reasons for the changes. Unfortunately, I expect that the average parish will do little more than hand out copies of the text and have people repeat it until they have it memorized. And of course, I’m sure some priests will refuse to adopt the new text, and most priests will probably mangle it by mixing in some older wording and their own personal changes, just like they do now. (I’ve never heard a priest follow the book word-for-word in real life; I’ve only seen it on EWTN.)
Comment by Bob — 5 August 2008 @ 5:39 amAnd English is only one of the translations that the Vatican has to deal with. Whatever happened to the canons of Trent dealing with liturgy in the vernacular, beautiful or otherwise? Where is the emphasis on maintaining Latin in the liturgy, per Vatican II documents?
Comment by BobP — 5 August 2008 @ 5:41 amWow, the difference is like night & day. Sadly, even with this excellent text, unless the chanceries enforce the “red” you will still get the PC rewrite as we go at Mass abuses as in the past.
Comment by Al — 5 August 2008 @ 5:49 amTheir might need to be a little charity here. As a priest of over 20 years I know all the eucharistic prayers by heart. So when I come to pray the new versions, although I will be aiming to stick to the text, it will hardly be surprising if the odd phrase slips out from the current version. So please don’t assume all such slips are deliberate and disobedient!
Comment by Chris — 5 August 2008 @ 7:23 amAnd, of course, the liturgy continues to develop and this latest text will pass away too. It is good to remind ourselves that even the finest words are hopelessly inadequate before the mystery of God. Our hearts belong to God, not to texts and translations.
On the copyright question—Amy Welborn has her two cents’ worth at this link.
I think I’m with the NLM people and Amy on this. A restrictive copyright policy from ICEL will strangle the good work being spread far and wide.
Comment by PMcGrath — 5 August 2008 @ 7:38 amMea culpa. Let’s try that link to Amy Welborn here.
Comment by PMcGrath — 5 August 2008 @ 7:43 amMatt Q and other naysayers, you can complain all you want. The fact is that the new and beautiful translation that we have been waiting for, for a long time, is now complete (at least the Ordo Missae). We will indeed receive it with joy and pray it was soon as we can. As with all things Pope Benedict, it will get done, in his good time, and it will bear fruit for years to come.
Comment by sacredosinaeternum — 5 August 2008 @ 7:46 amI love the translation. It’s going to be fun to watch the priests who have been ad libbing their Masses all these years having to actually say the black and do the red. Or will they? The question is whether diocesan bishops will insist that parish priests not deviate from the texts. Unfortunately, I see several places in the Mass where I can envision priests finding ways to “do their own thing” i.e. at the beginning of Mass after the greeting where it says in “the red” that “The Priest, or a deacon, or another minister, may very briefly introduce the faithful to the Mass of the day.” Unfortunately, there is still room for Father to say, “Good morning!” the faithful to respond “Good morning, Father!” and for Father give the weather report or the score of the Notre Dame game that he checked before going to the altar.
Comment by TNCath — 5 August 2008 @ 8:24 amHurray! “For us men and for our salvation…” The imagery of all of us as one corporate body saved by Christ remains!
TNCath: Despite my excitement, I hear you. Even good, orthodox priests do this. Reminds me of Fr. Z’s earlier post about how “pastoral” somehow has come to mean “ignoring rubrics/doctrine/etc.”
Comment by Ed — 5 August 2008 @ 8:31 amO God that madest this beautiful earth, when will the English bishops be ready to accept this translation? How long, O Lord, how long?
Comment by Londiniensis — 5 August 2008 @ 8:54 amDoes anyone know what the proposed changes to EP IV (which were rejected) were? I do not recall having read about this.
The translation is wonderful. It will take a lot of getting used to, especially the sotto voce prayers of the priest, some of which I have committed to memory.
I also think of those old priests, especially the ones who led the fight for the rejection of anything preconciliar—this new Missal will be yet another “challenge to their existence”, so to speak (just as the Motu Proprio of last year called into question everything they ever fought for). It will be very difficult for many of them to accept this new translation. I have already heard priests complaining about it. Pray for priests.
I do wonder if there is going to be a period when the old ‘Sacramentary’ can be used in certain pastoral situations. For example, I think of the Masses I have in nursing homes each month. It is going to be well nigh impossible, I think, to do a catechesis on the new Missal translation and expect them to use the new texts. These poor people are burdened with enough troubles—some of them at least—never mind having to re-learn how to pray the Mass.
Lots of exciting times ahead!
Comment by Fr. BJ — 5 August 2008 @ 8:56 amTNCath
” It’s going to be fun to watch the priests who have been ad libbing their Masses all these years having to actually say the black and do the red. Or will they?”
If they have been ad-libbing so far—ignoring the current red and saying things different from the current black—why would a new translation change that behavior? It’s futile to think about those priests. Far more important are the generally obedient priests who more or less STBDTR: if they embrace the new translation, the laity in their parishes will be in for an eye-opener. If they resist, then…
Comment by vox borealis — 5 August 2008 @ 9:09 amIt’s fut