I got this question via e-mail from a reader:
Father, I have a question.
At the Invitation to Prayer part of the Mass one of our priests substitutes the word "God" for the word "Him": Instead of "May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his name…" and "It is right to give him thanks and praise" he says instead "for the praise and glory of God’s name" "it is right to give God thanks and praise,"
Is this allowed and proper? It drives me nuts.
No, it is not proper.
This is, of course, a two edged sword.
The priest ought to use the texts provided by ecclesiastical authority and not make changes according to his own insights.
"But Father! But Father!" some of you are, without a doubt nearly shouting at the screen, "What if the texts we have now are so bad that we can’t stand them?!? Wouldn’t it be better to make a few changes to make the texts stick closer the the Latin original? Isn’t it the Latin that counts and not the vernacular?"
A good point.
For example, we all know that "pro multis" in the consecration of the Precious Blood does NOT mean "for all"! In the past I have , I admit, taken it upon myself to change that "for many" when saying Mass in English. I am pretty sure I shouldn’t have and I don’t anymore. But I did. I just can’t stand that "for all", nor can I stand many other howling problems in the truly wretched lame-duck ICEL version we are still being forced to use.
But I think we have to stick to the rule of law as much as possible in this.
If we say that a "conservative" priest can make changes according to his insights, then it is harder to argue that a "liberal" priest cannot make his own changes.
Alas, I was told in December by Card. Arinze and by Archbp. Ranjith that the new translation probably won’t be ready and released for use for a few more years. Yes, years. Maybe 2011.
This is a real problem and I am a little impatient about this. I cannot see that it should have to take that long. But that is a decision far above my pay grade… just as the approval of the texts presently in use was above my pay grade.
Loading ...
Father,
I can appreciate your frustration at having to use faulty and foolish translations. I have served in some Orthodox churches where the translaqtion being used was equally as bad, usually an attempt at inclusive language. Often it reminds me of an elegantly dressed woman sitting down on an undersized chair. Fortunately we do have some very decent translations available and are not required to follow these poorly trnslated texts. Have you considred the Anglican rite? LOL
After having listened to a lecture by an eminent and erudite Ancient History priest professor in college on the Council of Nicaea and the troubling translation we have of the Nicene Creed, I took it upon myself to mutter “consubstantial” under my breath instead of “one in being” for a time, but then I came to the same conclusion you’ve come to here. It makes it very difficult to argue against wanton changing of liturgical texts while doing the same myself, even if properly motivated.
One solution I’ve encountered from priests particularly with regards to the “pro multis” question is to pray the Word of Institution in Latin, even during vernacular Masses. As far as I can tell, while mixing of rites is verboten, mixing of languages within the ordinary form is perfectly kosher.
Very disappointed with your news of the delayed translation. Why is it taking so long? Surely they have had 40 years to think about it? Interested to read your comment on your wishing to say the correct translation of ‘pro multis’ but also that you no longer do it. I have started to say the Credo as ‘I believe’ – when I am in France this is the translation so why not here? ‘We believe’ is too vague – it needs to be from each one of us. I don’t know whether you use ‘I’ or ‘We’ in the States or even whether we have the same English translation given that there are differences between American english and our own.
Perhaps I ought to refrain from saying ‘I believe’ and just ‘say the black’ in obedience but it is not easy. No problem next week as I shall be attending Mass in Paris!
I think there is a difference between using the words which will be officially changed at some point in the future in contrast to the priest who makes up the text based on his personal bias.
But I like Tim’s suggestion, just say it in Latin.
Might I add another perspective? It is not enough to attempt to translate the language alone. There should be an attempt to translate the text and the chant together, both to preserve the integral whole of the Church’s tradition, and also to facilitate the chanting of the solemn liturgy.
Anyone who has ever attempted to chant the orations know how difficult it is to manage the poor translation, and anyone who has attempted to sing the preface or the exultet, must recognize that the chant notation is also a hindrance.
Still, God is good. It is His Church and we must remember that our task as disciples of Christ is to render him faithful service.
In Domino,
Msgr Patrick Brankin, Tulsa
These just demonstrate all the more reasons to celebrate Mass is Latin.
Another translation scandal is the fact that the United States lacks a translation of the 1985-1987 Liturgia Horarum, over 20 years since it was published. Not to mention the numerous additional offices published in a typical edition in 2005. Amazingly, priests using the vernacular breviary in the USA are using a more than 30-yr. old, quite out of date text.
Does the answer to this question have to be the same for the priest celebrating the Mass and the layman assisting in the pews? One of my sons tends to give the Anglican Use responses (our usual Mass) when we are attending a NO vernacular Mass. I tend (in those circumstances) to give the Latin response that corresponds to the English at that point. I don’t do this loudly, more of in a mutter.
Long time since I attended a Latin Novus Ordo but the translation provided in the missalette, I suppose its ICEL English and not a more literal translation? Delayed until 2011. Well the Bishops don’t want it I suppose. At this rate it will be overtaken by the 1962 Missal!
KJ – I do the same. I figure if people can hold hands, hug and make all kinds of silly gestures, I can at least answer “…and with they spirit”.
KJ – I do the same. I figure if everyone else can hold hands, hug, kiss, make silly gestures (not to mention the priests changing words/meaning), it’s a small thing to say “…and with thy spirit” and “…His holy Church”. However, I avoid the new mass almost all the time, which solves all these problems.
Does anyone know where I can buy a copy of the Roman Liturgia Horarum, preferably the 2005 edition? Thank you.
-KJS
Habemus Papam: Long time since I attended a Latin Novus Ordo but the translation provided in the missalette, I suppose its ICEL English and not a more literal translation?
Actually, this is not so. The awful ICEL English paraphrase need not be used at a Latin Novus Ordo, and this is an additional reason why it may be best to celebrated to ordinary form in Latin.
It’s probably not well-known that with the Novus Ordo there’s only a “fuss” with the English translations that are proclaimed from the altar. Translations solely for private use by lay people in the pews are not subject to the restrictions that afflict official translations.
Thus, the interestingly (if inaccurately) entitled red-covered Latin-English Novus Ordo Mass booklet “Mass of Vatican II” published by Ignatius Press (www.ignatius.com) — for use by people attending Latin Novus Ordo Masses (similar to the ubiquitous red-covered Latin-English TLM booklets) — includes on the right-hand side pages an accurate and literate English translation with the following disclaimer printed on the inside back cover:
The English translation used in this booklet is used with permission of CREDO, an organization of priests dedicated to promoting an accurate, faithful, and beautiful translation of liturgical texts. It has not been approved for liturgical use and is printed here only as an aid to understanding the Latin texts.
Thus, being for private use in the pews and not for liturgical use at the altar, it is free to be “accurate, faithful, and beautiful” and need not be banal and polemical like an officially approved translation.
Occasionally I prepare leaflets with Latin-English propers and readings for Latin Novus Ordo Masses, similar to the ubiquitous Una Voce leaflets intended for use with the red-covered TLM booklets. For this purpose I am free to (and do) include as the English translations of the propers those provided by Father Z in his WDTPRS columns in The Wanderer (and which I have collected and posted in conveniently usable format at knoxlatinmass.net/wdtprs/).
Dr. Fratantuono has an interesting point. In light of the revision of the breviary, it should be noted that the latin edition has a revolving cycle for the Benedictus/Magnificat antiphons on Sunday which are keyed to the liturgical year. The lack of inserts for the breviary for the new beati and saints is another mess – especially in light of the growing number of Americans now included.
Good point, Fr. Z. You can’t do evil to do good.
If we want obedience in the Church, we have to start with being obedient ourselves.
As many have stated, it truly is better in Latin.
AND as an added bonus, when the new translations come out, it won’t be awkward because if you’re already saying the Mass in Latin, that will stay the same.
Vernacular has just been such a waste of time and energy only to end up with the pitiful texts we are “stuck” with now.
(I really would hope that by the time the new translations are released the traditional Mass would be the ordinary form again.)
Off topic:
Kevin, this is about the only place I can think of for the modern Roman Breviary:
http://www.paxbook.com/algorithmiS/servusPrimus?iussum=monstraElenchumScriptorumEditorumCat&corpus=B42
The $90 editions are vinyl covers and were published in 2000 (but they are much better than the US English versions). Not sure why anyone would pay $218 APIECE for the leather bound ones.
There’s also the fact that some feasts which formerly were removed from the calendar were re-instated (the holy name of Jesus,and the holy name of Mary for example)And the fact that many feasts have proper hymns that are’nt included in the liturgy of the hours.But I won’t get started on the quality if the hymns in the Liturgy of the Hours.
Guess where the text of Holy Mass is said correctly?
You got it!
The Tridentine Mass.
As long as there is the mentality that the Mass is horizontal only then priests will use the NO until that time when the Holy See eliminates it altogether.
I have never heard of a priest saying “for all” as opposed to “for the many”, in the Tridentine Mass.
Let the release of the new translations take 20 years. Let the faithful assist at the Mass of all Ages, to get the faithful rendition of the Sacrifice.
We still have the Tridentine Mass which is far superior, no comparison really, to the NO.
Deo Gratias!
Father, I think we could see changes in the OF beyond improved translations. For example, the congregation has been actively studying the possiblity of moving the kiss of peace before the offeratory. In addition, the Holy Father has long advocated “liberating” the OF from options that tend to put the focus on the celebrant, etc. My guess is that the new translations will be introduced with a new missal and GIRM.
Father, I think we could see changes in the OF beyond improved translations. For example, the congregation has been actively studying the possiblity of moving the kiss of peace before the offeratory. In addition, the Holy Father has long advocated \”liberating\” the OF from options that tend to put the focus on the celebrant, etc. My guess is that the new translations will be introduced with a new missal and GIRM.
Harry Edwards, we already have an accurate translation! I’m an uneducated layman with no qualifications to sit on a liturgical committee, which must be why I don’t see the need for YET ANOTHER translation of the Latin NO. That being the case means I don’t pick up wages for my expertise…oh, think I understand the need for a long drawn-out process now!
I can see no good reason why the draft ICEL translation cannot be used as an interim translation.
We all know what’s in it. And it’s vastly superior to the present ICEL translation.
Otherwise, the only way to avoid the present ghastly translation, without violating the principle of “Say the black, do the red” is to celebrate in Latin.
In any case, the 1962 Missal which since “Summorum Pontificum” has already achieved juridical parity with the 1970 Missal, may well, in several years time, have achieved ascendancy over it.
I think all of us are frustrated with how long it is taking for the translation. But I wonder if I can recall something that I think I read here on WDTPRS by Father a number of months ago.
By 2010 or even 2011, many Bishops in the English-speaking world who have not been helpful to good liturgy in general whether Reform of the Reform or Summorum Pontificum in particular will be gone through retirement. Not that we here in Canada are any better off, but just looking at the United States, the statistics are quite interesting. According to Catholic-Hierarchy.org, and after removing titular Bishops and Eastern Rite there are 32 American Bishops at or over the age of 73. If you look just to the next year, some of those who are now 72 and will be ready to retire in 2011 or soon thereafter will include Cardinal Mahoney, Bishop Trautman and Archbishop Niederauer amongst others.
Currently, there are 9 vacancies in the U.S Episcopacy. Add the 32 now over 73 and maybe another 15 over 72 that is at least 50 “old” bishops retired and “new” bishops in place by 2011.
I also think it will not be just the translation but a new “Missal” and GIRM. I think our good Pope will fix the other problems in the Ordinary Form to bring it closer to the Extraordinary Form. The “kiss of peace” moved to the Prayers of the Faithful, imagine if it was followed by a restored Prayer to St. Michael, the Roman Canon and maybe one other (no II or IV certainly) and a restored or at least EF optional Offertory. I think he will bring clarity soon on “ad orientem.” I also think he will move on the issue of Communion in the hand.
So maybe Rome has a good reason for the delay…
Josiah: And the fact that many feasts have proper hymns that are’nt included in the liturgy of the hours.
I’ve started praying the traditional Divine Office, wanting to pray the liturgy of the Church with the saints of all ages (as explicitly approved in the motu proprio). I’ve come to look forward especially to these proper hymns, treasures of the liturgy which often seem to be the high point of the hour.
In addition to the fine hand missal that Father Z mentioned recently, Baronius Press is finally coming out in 2008 with its long awaited Latin-English Roman Breviary. If what happened to the Breviary is (as some think) even worse than what happened to the Mass, this will be an exciting event.
Caveat lector, sarcasm afoot:
End sarcasm. Sorry about that. danphunter1 and Henry Edwards got me all worked up with their comments, with danphunter1 saying “Let the release of the new translations take 20 years” and with Henry saying about the hand missal: “Thus, being for private use in the pews and not for liturgical use at the altar, it is free to be ‘accurate, faithful, and beautiful’ and need not be banal and polemical like an officially approved translation.”
Now, to be very serious, I’m guessing that the comments of Schoolman and David are correct. In fact, I’m thinking that it is not the ICEL that is holding things back. It is Benedict, who, indeed, wants to clean up the post-VatII accretions (Benedict uses stronger language), bringing the Ordinary Form back to what the Council tentatively presented at its closure.
Cheers!
Fr. Renzo: bringing the Ordinary Form back to what the Council tentatively presented at its closure.
Could you tell us just what this “conciliar liturgy” was? Are you referring to the 1965 Ordo Missae, or to some predecessor?
Henry Edwards!
Guess it must be th 1962MR of Blessed John XXIII, used throughout the Council. Tentative, since some things were mentioned in the Council that would bring some minor changes.
God bless!
Either way, it’s the wrong thing to do. Priests should say the black, do the red. The mass is not their personal property to play with as they wish. It belongs to the Roman Catholic Church and laypeople everywhere have a right to it, as given.
In fact, I’m thinking that it is not the ICEL that is holding things back.
Fr. Renzo,
The likely culprits are the bishop’s conferences. I don’t know if the US conference is the most recalcitrant, but I suspect they all are to varying degrees. I’ll also wager that it’s the bureaucracy that is doing the most foot-dragging, with the full support of a few of the bishops. The whole thing is a travesty and stems from a twisted view of collegiality.
I know a Jesuit priest who in his sermons always substitutes a masculine
pronoun (when referring to the Godhead) with “God”. The feminist ideology behind
this is self-evident.
Yes, it is extremely frustrating and seems ridiculously unnecessary. I agree with Paul, it will probably be the bishops’ conferences that will cause the delay. What may delay it even more is the fact that in the next 3 years many of the bishops who are protesting the loudest about the new translations will nearing retirement or will have since retired.
The problem I have is with doctrinally dangerous expressions–“for all” is the most noticeable, perhaps. But you find problems not just in the ordinary of the Mass but also in many of the vernacular propers as others have pointed out. For me, however, some of the queasiest texts are in the funeral rite–texts which seem to reenforce the popular notion that everybody goes to heaven anyway, and probably immediately. In fact, the modern sacramental texts have a serious of questionable expressions. When saying the vernacular Mass, I have tried to do at least the consecration in Latin–unfortunately the reaction has been quite negative to that. And I myself feel it is must come across as terribly artificial. Like many of those on this site, I take joy in the older Mass since I don’t have to wrestle with my conscience. But I fear that the new Mass has been subtly and sometimes not so subtly teaching weak doctrine (at best) for two generations. It is frightening. Put that together with the damage done by vernacular trivialization, popular music and the unconscious teaching done by versus populum Masses, and you see a rather imposing liturgical desert we’re going to have to cross. I thank God for Pope Benedict who is trying to lead us through the wilderness. And Fr. Z for continually bringing up these neuralgic points which make our priesthood so difficult.
“Alas, I was told in December by Card. Arinze and by Archbp. Ranjith that the new translation probably won’t be ready and released for use for a few more years. Yes, years. Maybe 2011.”
Is that a bad thing?
Numerous posters have argued, for example, that Mass ad orientem must be introduced at a snail’s pace to prepare the Faithful for what said posters have stated is a change that could “shock” Latin Catholics.
If anything, shouldn’t the new translation be introduced to the Faithful at a snail’s pace and, of course, only following careful preparation of the Faithful?
I would think that changes to liturgical prayers would prove far more “shocking” to the Faithful than Mass offered ad orientem.
Father Z could probably do a great translation of the Ordinary in less than a week. Morever, the Novus Ordo itself and its current hideous translation was cooked up in far less time than the bishops are “working” on the translation. Look my good friends, this whole translation issue has NOTHING to do with good translation but POLITICS. The heirarchy is attempting to mollify left-wing liturgical wing who will NEVER be satisfied until the Mass is translated so God Almighty is remade in their image and likeness. For now, I have abandoned the English language Masses and exclusively attend the Novus Ordo in Latin or the TLM. And my money followed me. The bishops are digging the grave of the Novus Ordo by their dithering on translations. I hope they’re happy. Tom
I am borrowing an idea from a letter sent to me by a reader of this blog and a priest who is a blogger himself. It was concerning another matter but his advice has been working for me when applied to having to be faithful and “say the black, do the red” given the horrible translations we are subject to. I offer my zeal, frustration, disappointment and impatience on the altar of God. Thus offered, these feelings can be transformed and used by our Lord as He sees fit.
This is something anyone can do, priest or layman. And it bears much greater fruit than constantly rehashing the issue. I used to change “for all” to “for many,” but realized I was doing what I was upset about others doing: not saying the black. Once I put all my attention to saying the black and doing the red and offering my angst to God I was amazed at how I changed. I can only say the offering was accepted and grace flowed.
I hope this is helpful to whomever reads it.
2011!!! This is ridiculous. I remember reading about changes in ICEL with joy back in the late 1990’s. The delay is unacceptible and seems contrived in this day and age. Isn’t the Holy Sacrifice the source and summit of the true Christian spirit? Then, why hide the true meaning of the Mass any longer through poor and inadequate translations?
What do my fellow priests think of this? Is it realistic that we unite with like minded priests who want an accurate translation in a pact only to use only Latin for the ordinary, collects, prefaces, and Canon in all our public Novus Ordo Masses until we get a more accurate translation? Perhaps that would light the fire under certain feet.
Fr. Renzo: Guess it must be th 1962MR of Blessed John XXIII, used throughout the Council.
This is what I meant in referring to Fr. Fessio’s Latin-English Novus Ordo booklet “Mass of Vatican II” as inaccurately entitled.
For the 1962 TLM was most definitely the Mass of the Council, and everything I’ve learned of the Council says that essentially none of the bishops there envisioned any big change in it, none — that’s right at zero out of over two thousand bishops — of them envisioned any new Mass replacing the only one they knew, and few would have approved the Novus Ordo as we now know it.
On the other hand, the “Mass of Vatican II” title certainly is interesting to some who attend an ad orientem Latin Novus Ordo for the first time, and say afterwards something like “I never knew the old Latin Mass was so beautiful.”
I would not be surprised if Father Renzo’s supposition that Benedict is behind the hold up is correct. I know that Bishop Fellay in a conference last May (which I’ve seen on Youtube) stated that work is quietly being done in Rome on Pauline Missal to “make it more Catholic,” as he said. Among the changes Fellay mentioned was restoration of the traditional Offertory as an option. We shall see.
Like Henry, I pray the Roman Breviary myself, and have for a number of years. Like Henry, I’m also looking forward eagerly to the publication of the Baronius edition. I think it’ll go a long way in replacing what I feel is the pedantically reformed and Jansenist Liturgy of the Hours. For those of you who’d like to get a head start in that direction, may I recommend the Baronius Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary? It’s a beautiful little volume, priced at only $29.00, and makes a fine substitute for Shorter Christian Prayer.
For those of you who feel the need to stick to the LotH though, and are hoping for a new translation before the 22nd century, don’t hold your breath. Exactly three years ago I had the opportunity and pleasure to speak with Monsignor James Moroney, who at the time was the Secretary of the then Bishop’s Committee on Liturgy (it’ the Office of Divine Worship now). I asked him about the LotH translation. He told me ICEL wouldn’t even consider it until after the Missal was complete, and I remember him saying “for the time being, it’s all Missal, all the time.”
Monsignor did reveal to me however that a re-translation of the Grail Psalter according to Liturgiam Authenticam had been accomplished by the Benedictines of Conception Abbey in Missouri, and at the time was being reviewed in Rome. Where that project stands today, I’m not sure.
Personally I’m blessed with the ability to attend the TLM each Sunday. We also have a daily TLM in the diocese, but that being some thirty-odd miles away, I often find myself attending the Novus Ordo nearby. When I do, I avoid the whole response controversy by quietly murmuring in Latin. I used to respond in the new English translation, which I’ve learned, but for Father Z’s reasons, I no longer do. Latin’s the perfect solution.
Now, for those of you who’d like to see again the object of your desire, you can find it here: http://catholicanada.com/web/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=518&Itemid=91
Just remember to substitute “for many” in place of “for all,” as the translation will read that way per the Holy Father.
I don’t know if Father wants to permit access to it, as I know the USCCB has placed it under embargo. If you do not, Father, I accede to your wishes. Do what you think best.
Hey Fr Scott Bailey, C.Ss.R.,
Yes, there is much grace to be found when accompanying our Lord in Gethsemane, where the agony continues, where we, the members of the Body of Christ, are filling up what is lacking to the sufferings. Thanks.
=============
Henry Edwards,
I always enjoy telling priests that I work with (with whom there is a frequent turnover) about the Mass offered throughout the Second Vatican Council. The reaction I receive is always sputtering and, then, more sputtering, kind of a spitting, gagging, choking thing. It is then that I have to pay attention to Fr Z’s 5 rules. Cheers!
===========
Jon,
Interesting, that, about Bishop Fellay.
==========
Off topic (well, not so much). Can anyone tell me which editions of the breviary used the version of the psalms prepared by the Pontifical Biblical Institute, that is, with classical, non-ecclesiastical Latin (ignoring the Vulgate)?
I guess Fr.Fessio’s Latin-English Novus Ordo booklet could be used in the pews, quitely responding with the correct English translation?
The delay originated with the Bishops ‘though its interesting to suppose that Benedict may be playing them at their own game and using the delay to produce a new Missal. Hmmm, sounds plausible.
In a discussion with a committee member from the FDLC just this past week, I was told that it would be Advent 2011 before we would see the new translations. His committee is working on the catechetical materials that will proceed the release of the new translations, and the DRAFT of the materials will not be submitted until October of 2009, to be implemented by Advent of 2010, one year ahead of the new translations. That’s the current schedule. I know it seems like a long time, but it may well be that there are other things afoot that we don’t know about in this whole project. Have Faith.
Priest-readers: could you suggest the most polite, acceptable, and appropriate way for a layman to suggest to his parish priest that he, the priest, should Say the Black. For grey is substituted routinely and in many places in my parish, every single day. Additions, deletions, changes.
AM,
Gift wrap and deliver a Fr Z coffee mug.
Should that not work, speak more to your right to have the Holy Mass properly offered instead of attacking the “right” some priests think they have to own the Mass as their way to mess with people. I have donkey’s yEARS of experience with that.
Yes, some of our local sisters who seem to have bad knees, always try to omit the
male pronouns and will only say ‘in GOD’s Name’ instead of ‘in His Name’ , etc.
I had a priest explain this to me actually. You see, Jesus never said ‘My Father’,
no–what He said was ‘Abboun’ which means ‘my parent’ for God is a Spirit and
has no gender and so is both mother/father and he/she. You see? Simple. And
besides those male pronouns offend women who have been abused and everything.
Now you understand. It is all in the sensitivity training.
In a discussion with a committee member from the FDLC just this past week, I was told that it would be Advent 2011 before we would see the new translations. His committee is working on the catechetical materials that will proceed the release of the new translations …
Hmm … FDLC = Federation of Diocesan Liturgy Commissions, bestowers and guardians of your current fine liturgy. Gearing up to catechize you about the next round of improvements.
Anybody reminded of the fox guarding the henhouse?
Henry Edwards,
I’m reminded of the phrase “liturgical terrorists” whenever I hear anything about a diocesan liturgical commission. I try to stay away from them; maybe that’s why I don’t know of any which do not go out of their way to attempt to change the universal law of the Church. The sum total of the activity of any liturgical commission is to be the bishop (the only member), saying: SAY the BLACK; DO the RED. O.K. … Mayber a few other things, but you get the idea.
==============
Now, why not up the stakes a bit by asking about translations going the other way.
What if the Nova Vulgata were to be used in an amended Missale Romanum of Blessed John XXIII? After all, changes to the Calendar, etc., will be coming, and usage of the Nova Vulgata would seem opportune. Moreover it is already used for the N.O. What’s the big deal?
Glad you asked about the continued involvement of the Protestants in the Catholic Mass. It takes an ecclesiastical thriller in a TRILOGY to explain fully.
I remember an English Mass by a now-deceased American Cardinal where he rendered The “Oratre, Fratres” as “Prayer, brethren that our sacrifice and yours …,” using “our” in the “official” sense.
So, I’m not great with technology. Let’s try again: TRILOGY ! ! !
Thank you, dear Fathers, who say the black even when it’s awfully translated. As a layman in the pews, even well meaning corrections made by faithful priests winds up being more of a distraction than anything else. My least favorite moment for substitutions, by wacky and orthodox priests alike, is at the elevation of the Sacred Host: “This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world…”
One very orthodox priest I know would use a better translation:
“Behold the Lamb of God. Behold Him who takes aways the sins of the world. Blessed are those who are called to the supper of the Lamb.”
Beautiful, but every time I would notice that father was changing it on his own initiative.
Worse renditions include a mini commentary on the day’s readings:
“This is Jesus, the one who heals the sick and forgives our sins, who opens the eyes of the blind and brings us life, the bread of life which came down from heaven, the one… Happy are those who are called to His supper.”
!!!
Changing the texts within the modern Roman Missal is the norm in my area parishes and the seminary.
I gave up after years of going through the game playing and semantics from most of the priests and the diocesan liturgy director.
Let’s face it the majority of our priests and diocesan staff are deformed with bad “spirit of Vatican II” theology based on the dissident teachings of liberation theologians. They do not believe and in fact reject authentic Catholic teachings and authority. Visit one of their conferences to see and hear the extreme contrast – what they believe is not in accord with Catholicism.
I have witnessed only two situations in which confronting the priest about his habit of changing the texts produced corrective results:
1. A well intentioned priest who sincerely loves the Church and wishes to do what is right yet due to his poor liturgical formation honestly just don’t know any better.
2. In a case of the obviously dissident pastor – a large group of the laity at a parish cause such an uproar, emails, telephone calls, etc. when liturgical abuses take place that the priest begrudgingly “says the black and does the red” just to avoid getting these parishioners going. (This is still not guaranteed to work with the stubborn ones.)
The reality to remember is that most of our priests have never laid their eyes on the General Instructions of the Roman Missal, most have only quickly glanced at the rubrics in the Roman Missal itself, and at the seminary are taught that following the rubrics is not really important. In my area the few new priests we have and the current seminarians are not any better formed liturgically either.
What will happen with the ordinary form of the Roman rite over the years? We will still have poorly formed young priests from most seminaries and the diocesan offices are being turned over to young dissidents who have been trained under the present regime.
Using Latin gets around some problems, but then what do you make of a priest I knew who for many years said mass in Latin and changed pro multis to pro omnibus.
Dan:
I HATE those “commentaries.” Where did they come from? Does anybody know if it is required that they be read? We have one priest who never reads them, and he’s very obedient, so I’m assuming they’re not required. In any case, they should dump them in the same hole that should be used for burying “Good Morning.”
As for the rest of it, when I find some English response that I believe offends against faith and doctrine, I just say it softly in Latin. Or I don’t say it at all. I’m not sure how much one is compelled to speak out loud. “One” being an average Jill in the pews and not a priest, of course.
I don’t understand the need for a slow introduction of the new translation or the need for catechesis prior to its introduction. With all due charity, I serioulsy doubt that (a) the vast majority of those who attend the NO would understand the reasons for the change and (b) would care.
A liturgy professor once told me that the CDW gave permission to modify the words to “This is the lamb of God” in one of the dubia printed in Notitia in the 80’s. Anyone know anything about this?
When I was a graduate student at Harvard forty years ago, I attended Mass one weekday in the chapel of the Jesuit residence on campus, LaFarge House I believe it was called. When it came time for the canon, the celebrant said “Whose canon shall we use today?” Someone suggested John Doe’s, at which point the desired canon was retrieved from a pile of erstaz canons at the entrance to the chapel.
I don’t remember much about the canon, except its poetic references to nature and the absence altogether of a memento of the dead.
When mass was over the faithful lingered to chat.
I expressed distress to two nuns in civies, students at MIT, that the purificator, with undried wine therein, was still sitting unceremoniously atop the altar. One of the nuns said: “I have better things to do than worry whether the Blood of Christ is present in the purificator.”
And to think Father Z worried about saying “many”!
Regarding the breviary, someone mentioned something about a revolving cycle of Benedictus and Magnificat antiphons. I have seen this in the Spanish breviary. In any event, readers shoudl know that presently, the Magnificat antiphon of Sunday Evening Prayer I is keyed to Year A, the Benedictus antiphon on Sunday is keyed to Year B, and the Magnificat of Sunday Evening Prayer II is keyed to Year C.
If memory serves, the General Instruction of the LOH (printed in Volume I) says that there is supposed to be a supplementary volume of extra readings for the Office of Readings. One priest I know says that he has been reading the same readings for so many years and wishes there were other options at this point. In any case, praying the breviary does often require a certain level of self-renunciation, and I suppose that can extend to having to read the same readings over and over again.
Regarding someone above who mentioned saints whose feasts have been added and other feasts that have been restored (such as the Holy Name), there is an LOH supplement available, you know, that has some of the feasts in it. I suppose there are some that it does not have, but we can’t expect them to print a new English LOH every time they add someone to the calendar. How expensive would that be! It’s not a cheap set of books! That is why there are the various “Commons” in the back, so that even if you don’t have Propers for the saint you can still celebrate the memorial from the Common and insert the saint’s name where appropriate.
One thing that I wish would be revised about the current LOH is the intercessions. Just the other night we were praying about how life “is like a flower that blossoms in the morning and fades in the evening”. I’m sorry, but that is just a goofy prayer. I would love to know if it is a new creation in this LOH or if there is some precedent from it in the Church’s liturgical tradition. It is poetic to be sure but makes a chapel full of seminarians want to gag.
My understanding is that the intercessions in the Novus Ordo LOH are without precedent anyhow, that they are something that the Consilium added during their lab work in manufacturing the various rites of the Novus Ordo. Can someone speak to this?
The “commentaries” at the invitation to Communion are not in the Sacramentary. LTP out of Chicago used to have them in their annual publication…. can’t even remember what it was called. They also had translations of supposed alternative collects from the Italian Sacramentary and hosts of other “relevant” suggestions for anywhere there was the slightest hint of the priest ad libbing. I have no idea if they still publish such a thing. IIRC, Paulist Press and/or Liturgical Press publishes or did publish something similar. When I was ordained we thought they were the greatest things since whole wheat hosts! Other “commentaries” included the Penetential Rite, an embellishment of the Orate Fratres, proper “Communicantes” for EPs I & II, the invitation to the Lord\’s Prayer, and the final blessing or prayer over the people. And they were made to sound like they were official… except that they weren’t. Various “liturgists” would write them. When I was assigned to my second parish and got away from the influence of academe I stopped using them and will never go back. SAY THE BLACK: DO THE RED!
May I respectfully ask the priests here on this thread about something? The associate pastor at our parish usually uses Eucharistic Prayer II, and lately he’s changed this:
“Remember our brothers and sisters who have gone to their rest in the hope of rising again;”
to this
“Remember our brothers and sisters who have gone to their rest in the CERTAIN hope of rising again;” (and he says “certain” very loudly).
Isn’t this a heresy? I hate to mention it to our pastor because a couple of years ago I wrote to him about a visiting priest who ad-libbed the entire Mass including the Canon to the point where I wasn’t sure a valid Mass had taken place; when he wrote back he was supportive of my desire to attend a valid Mass, but also reminded me of my duty to be charitable and thankful that this retired priest had agreed to come and say Mass when Father had to be out of town. But if our associate pastor’s changes (and they are frequent and distracting) have reached the level of heresy I’m not sure if it’s okay not to mention it. I don’t want to be a parish busybody or complainer but I don’t want the Eucharistic Prayer altered to include heresy either. What should I do?
Quieta,
You might mention your concern. If rejected, appeals higher up may or may not help. Also, you might consider joining “the many” who search for a parish with less aggravation. You have a right to a properly offered Mass.
Quieta:
This priest’s change is dangerous. I suppose we all have the ‘certain’ hope that we will rise again; the problem is, some will rise to the resurrection of the damned, and I don’t think that is what this priest means.
I would write a very charitable letter to the pastor. The faithful have the right to the sacraments being celebrated correctly. What if he labels you a complainer? If you have been charitable, that’s his problem, and he will have to answer for not taking action. If you dn’t get anywhere with the pastor, write a very charitable letter to the bishop. Emphasis on charity. Priests and bishops get all kinds of nasty letters. When you write give this priest the benefit of the doubt to the greatest extent you can, and try to put it in question form instead of accusatory form. That is the way that I would approach it anyhow. I will say a prayer for you and for this priest. Good luck and hang in there!
Hmm… Why can’t people just pray what the Church gives them and stop whining about it? This applies to every faction, every wing, left or right. By all means communicate with the powers-that-be if you have a problem with something,and work within the Church for improvements, but in the meanwhile just keep praying the Mass, AND THE OFFICE, as the Church has given them to you. I can think of a hundred “improvements” I would make to the Mass, and in my dreams I put them into efffect, but NEVER in real life, no matter how certain I may be that they’d be more in tune with what Our Lord REALLY meant the Roman Rite to be like in 2008!
Hmm… Why can\’t people just pray what the Church gives them and stop whining about it? This applies to every faction, every wing, left or right. By all means communicate with the powers-that-be if you have a problem with something,and work within the Church for improvements, but in the meanwhile just keep praying the Mass, AND THE OFFICE, as the Church has given them to you. I can think of a hundred \”improvements\” I would make to the Mass, and in my dreams I put them into efffect, but NEVER in real life, no matter how certain I may be that they\’d be more in tune with what Our Lord REALLY meant the Roman Rite to be like in 2008!
KJS– I got my copies of the Liturgia Horarum at Newman Bookstore in Washington DC (202)526-1036. Yes, they ship, and yes, they have a large selection of great books. A man could go bankrupt there!
danphunter wrote:
**”Guess where the text of Holy Mass is said correctly?
You got it! The Tridentine Mass.
As long as there is the mentality that the Mass is horizontal only, priests use the NO until that time when the Holy See eliminates it altogether.”**
Agreed, Dan, but it’s highly unlikely Rome will eliminate the Novos Ordo entirely.
**”I have never heard of a priest saying “for all” as opposed to “for the many,” in the Tridentine Mass.
Let the release of the new translations take 20 years. Let the faithful assist at the Mass of all Ages, to get the faithful rendition of the Sacrifice.”**
The Tridentine Mass is not available to everyone everywhere. We have to do our best to ensure Masses are said worthily Novus Ordo-wise until such time as when the Tridentine Mass becomes more commonplace.
**”We still have the Tridentine Mass which is far superior, no comparison really, to the NO.
Deo Gratias!”**
Yes, Dan, we have the Tridentine Mass although at the moment, there is still an exclusivity to it simply because it’s not accessible to the average Catholic. Regarding poorly written texts, if Rome decides to go ahead and change the Good Friday prayer about the Jews, it begins the devolution of the Tridentine Mass and thus become an opening to further poorly written texts. There is no limit then as to what they will change in the future. We can all see where things would go after that. Remember, the prayer, if changed, would be simply for political correctness considerations, nothing loftier ( as anything loftier would be needed ).
Seminonymous: “A liturgy professor once told me that the CDW gave permission to modify the words to “This is the lamb of God” in one of the dubia printed in Notitia in the 80’s. Anyone know anything about this?”
Apparently, in some countries and religious congregations small changes have been approved by the Holy See.
For example, “Latin America, have, with the Holy See’s approval, added the words “Jesus Christ” to the Agnus Dei so as to strengthen the people’s faith in the real presence. The priest thus says: “This is the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, who takes away the sins …”
http://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/ZLITR40A.HTM
Interestingly, here is a proposed text from the draft of the English Missale Romanum re-translation. (A better translation, although, shouldn’t be used until it has been approved.):
“Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sins of the world. Blessed are they who have been called to the supper of the Lamb.”
Thank you for the answer about the commentaries. It’s interesting that these various liturgical publishing houses in the US had so much power, or at any rate, felt perfectly free to make or suggest additions to the text of the Mass (and that no one ever stopped them). They don’t seem to be very accountable to anyone, although they function as yet another level that “filters” the English language liturgical texts before they get to us. There’s Rome that creates the original, there’s the ICEL that translates or otherwise “adapts” it, and then there’s what happens when the publishers get hold of the text. Once upon a time, considerable control was exerted over publishers of these materials, but that doesn’t really seem to be the case anymore. Hopefully, this will change in the future.
I wonder what the neo-cats think about changing words of the N.O. these days.
I wonder what the neo-cats think about the world post-Summorum Pontificum.
I agree with Father M’s very find comments about the spiritual harm the present ICEL translations cause. Can a priest in good conscience contribute to the spiritual harm of the faithful by reciting the mistranslations of ICEL which promote the destruction of Catholic Dogma as expressed in the Sacred Liturgy?
As a priest, in good conscience, I cannot. So if the Latin “pro multis” means “for many” and not “for all,” that is what I say. If “et quod tibi obtulit summus sacerdos tuus Melchisedech, sanctum sacrificium, immaculatam hostiam” means “and that which your high priest Melchizedek offered to you, a Holy Sacrifice and a Spotless Victim, and not, “the bread and wine offered by your priest Melchizedek,” that is what I say.
I know many will not agree with me in this point, and sight “obedience.” However, to use the mistranslations of ICEL, and contribute to the deconstruction of Catholic Liturgy with all its negative consequences would be (at least for me) a violation of my conscience. Something, of course, which I can never do.
The thing i have been wondering about are the Eucharistic prayers. 1 and 2 say “…wil become FOR US the body and blood…” 3 and 4 say “…..will become the body and blood…” To my mind these are very different things. 1 and 2 are subjective. 3 and 4 are objective, i.e. what we are taught, transubstantiation. 1 and 2 don’t seem right to me. Am i being picky?
I wonder what the neo-cats think about changing words of the N.O. these days.
I wonder what the neo-cats think about the world post-Summorum Pontificum.
Not a lot is how I would sum it up.
The Neo-Cats remove some prayers from the new mass like the Orate Fratres because of their sacrificial aspect.
Thank you for the link, Roman Sacristan. Pity these books are so expensive……..
-KJS
Would anyone want to weigh in on the liturgy/sacred music question:
Is it permitted in the Novus Ordo for the priest to say the Eucharistic prayer silently while the Sanctus is sung prior to the payer of consecration, and the Benedictus is sung after the memorial acclamation? (I understand that no music can occur during the prayer of consecration.)
And does any document addresses this matter directly and explicitly?
Would anyone want to weigh in on the following liturgy/sacred music question:
Is it permitted in the Novus Ordo for the priest to say the Eucharistic prayer silently while the Sanctus is sung prior to the prayer of consecration, and the Benedictus is sung after the memorial acclamation? (I understand that no music can occur during the prayer of consecration.)
And does any document addresses this matter directly and explicitly?
It’s really very simple. Imagine if you were to state
in your will: $10,000 to person A, $10,000 to person B,
and so forth. How would you feel if the state decided
that what you meant is to give everything you own to the
state since what you wrote wasn’t clear enough.
I rest my case.
Our pastor, instead of saying’Behold the Lamb of God’, says something along the
lines of “See what you believe and receive who you are”.
And where I attend weekday Mass, father likes all those extra canons outside of
the four and some have very long instructions to God. I have taken up praying
the old missal and that really helps me enormously so I am not so upset
at the liturgical abuses. I cannot stop them! Very seldom do we have a totally
licit Mass and never on Sunday. BUT we have Mass and that is the most important
thing.
One of the worst abusive Masses was in Maryland and my aunt and I had to seek
out an early morning Mass as I was to travel that day. So we went to a parish.
Of course, you have to figure out where Mass might be with the church locked. There
was a man sloppily dressed in tee shirt and he directed us to a side chapel. Well
that was the priest! As Mass was to begin he said, “I want our visitors to know
that although we do things differently here, it is a valid Mass.” Oh oh. If the
priest starts out like this, there is sure to be trouble to follow. Sure enough,
there was. We left right after receiving Communion and the whole innovative
Mass was an exercise in endurance. Often, too, is some dig about those not
willing to change with the times. Well the shoe is on the other foot now.
Quieta, you asked if it was heresy to change this: “Remember our brothers and sisters who have gone to their rest in the hope of rising again;” to this “Remember our brothers and sisters who have gone to their rest in the CERTAIN hope of rising again.”
It is not heresy. It is almost a direct quote from the Catholic Funeral Rite which uses the phrase “sure and certain hope of resurrection.” But it is very dangerous (as is much of the current funeral rite) in that it gives a false hope that everyone, or just about everyone, will go to heaven. There is also what has been taken by many of the faithful as an implicit denial of purgatory resulting in souls being forgotten in their torments, torments which could be lessened by our prayers and sacrifices.
And of course, no priest, not even the Holy Father, may add or subtract anything from the Mass on his own volition without commiting sin (mortal according to St. Alphonsus in The Dignities and Duties of the Priest).
Magdalen, it sounds like your priest is quoting St. Augustine. That however does not make it right. See the last point of my previous post. Using the old missal during Mass is one way to get through. You could also pray the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary or even meditate on the Stations of the Cross while remaining in your pew. Both allow you to unite to the Holy Sacrifice.
Also, might I suggest that next time you encounter a Mass such as you describe you assisted at in Maryland and decide to remain, that you remain until the end and offer your suffering for the conversion of the priest? Leaving early, especially if one has stayed until Communion, is not the best thing. I do understand why you left and I do understand the pain that is caused by such priests as I have and do experience it myself. If encountering a situation like this again, leave as soon as you hear the words, “I want our visitors to know that although we do things differently here, it is a valid Mass.” That’s a sign, and a good one, that it just might not be a valid Mass (and almost certainly illicit) and it would be better not to be there at all. As you pointed out, if a priest begins with a caveat, there’s surely trouble to follow, and the trouble is deliberate and intentional. I’m sorry you had this experience. I hope it never happens to you again.
Magdalen: Your point is well understood here. I too have experienced many “masses” that were tests of endurance and patience. One wonders why these liturgical errors have been allowed to continue. I suppose the responsibility ultimately rests with the Bishops who are tasked with the oversight and discipline of their priests. But we are as “mere” laity required by the priests and religious to be docile to their instruction and shepherding, but what is to be done if the shepherds are inwardly wolves?
This problem is too widespread to be ignored.
Verily said:
‘The thing i have been wondering about are the Eucharistic prayers. 1 and 2 say “…will become FOR US the body and blood…” 3 and 4 say “…..will become the body and blood…” To my mind these are very different things. 1 and 2 are subjective. 3 and 4 are objective, i.e. what we are taught, transubstantiation. 1 and 2 don’t seem right to me. Am i being picky?’
What 1 and 2 mean is not “to us, it’s the Body and Blood; to everybody else, it’s a snack.” The “for us” means “for our sake”. God does this wonderful thing, for us, and for our salvation.
Hope this helps.
Magdalen: If you seriously doubt the validity of a Mass you MUST NOT attend. It would be a sacrilage to offer such a thing to God. Praying the Rosary or Stations would not get you off the hook. Stay at home and read the Missal.
Maureen: do you suppose this ambiguity was deliberate. Like the priest not genuflecting after the Consecration until he has held up the Host to the assembly?
This notion of validity has been dealt with here more than once.
1. Validity needs proper Intention (by the minister), Sacramental Form, & Matter.
2. Minimal intention is the same for every Sacrament: To to what the Church intends. It is always general, and not specific to any Sacrament.
3. The Sacramental Form is the words that designate the matter. When someone says, “This is my pen,” those words designate ownership of the pen. Thus” “This is My Body” & “This is My Blood” designate the matter in the Eucharist.
4. Sacramental Matter must be wheat bread and wine of the grape.
5. If a priest is wearing a Tshirt at mass or not genuflecting, that doesn’t mean that he does not have minimal intention. On the other hand, it probably indicates that a) he has had poor formation, and b) is a lazy slob.
RE: “become for us” – the “ut nobis” is in the Latin original in those prayers… which goes to show that translation is not always the source of equivocal understandings.
RE: singing the Sanctus and Benedictus during the Canon – this is expressly forbidden in the ordinary form by rubrics and instructions that forbid choral music or accompaniment during the presidential prayers, which are as a rule to be said (spoken or sung) clearly except where the text provides for them to be said in a low tone.
Thank you, Habemus Papam. I should have made it clear that if you have SERIOUS DOUBTS about VALIDITY you MUST LEAVE when you come to that realization. If you have any SERIOUS DOUBTS BEFORE the Mass starts you MUST NOT ATTEND at all. An invalid mass is no mass at all and to stay is a mortal sin. If there is ANY tinkering with the WORDS OF INSTITUTION you must LEAVE and may not receive Communion. To do so is a mortal sin of sacrilege.
And Magdalen, for the good of your soul you are free to go to another parish and even become a member there.
Please pray for the conversion of sinful priests and make reparation for them, especially on Thursdays.
Serafino —
“What’s bound on earth will be bound in heaven” applies even to the most unhappy translations. As a priest you’d better believe it coming from the bishops, since you get your own power to bind and loose through them. It’s a lot less miraculous to make a questionable translation valid than to absolve a soul of a hideous sin.
Thank you Maureen for explaining the “..for us..” to me. It still does seem a bit ambiguous but i will now pray this with the priest in the light of what you have said.
Further above I asked why don’t we just up the stakes a bit by asking about translations going the other way.
I asked: What if the Nova Vulgata (the New Testament of which is a translation INTO Latin from the Lutheran, anti-Trent, textual-critical Scripture project) were to be used in an amended Missale Romanum of Blessed John XXIII? After all, changes to the Calendar, etc., will be coming, and usage of the Nova Vulgata would seem opportune. Moreover it is already used for the N.O. What’s the big deal? I then mentioned that this is being treated in my Trilogy. When I made that comment, Chapter 5 was not up. NOW IT IS. Hint: I’m not much in favour of the the New Vulgate. God bless!
Dear Fr Zuhlsdorf,
And what about mixing NOM 1983 and NOM 1970?
Example: In Polish NOM 1970 there is:
…Look not on our sins, but on the faith of your Church, and according to your will grant Her the peace and strength Her unity…
but in NOM 1983 we have:
…Look not on our sins, but on the faith of your Church, and according to your will grant Her the peace and lead Her into full unity…
So – is it just for a priest which HAVE TO use missal 1983 – to use:
1) entire missal 1970
2) missal 1983 with this formula from missal 1970
?
Maureen: “Whatever thou (Peter) shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven”. Has any Pope bound the Church to the ICEL translations?
Fr.Scott Bailey: is not rendering “pro multis” as “for all” tinkering with the words of institution?
Very interesting commentaries. Just a couple of comments,
1. Liturgia horarum in Latin is not half so bad as some people think, I used to pray it before entered the monastery – we have cistercian rite here. The prayers and texts are 100% better and orthodoxer than any vulgar translation that I have seen to date.
2. For people used to the latin of the Vulgate, the nova vulgata can seem to jar. But I assure you the same goes the other way round. In my monastery we use the (old) Vulgata, and I have taken some time to compare the psalms between the two versions, together with the evangelia. I can really NOT find any theological differences between the two texts. Some verses have been shortened or simplified, but to talk about a protestantification of the nova vulgata, – at least for those books which I have compared – is simply NOT true. And having grown up as a protestant, I have an extremely sensitive nose for these things.
3. In the German speaking countries, the problem of Priests changing the Mass texts is unfortunately all too common. (Especially in Switzerland, where often parishes do not even know that there is an official Missale !!!) Although also full of false or incorrect translations, the present German language Missal is 100% better as the English language one. As to some of the translations of the Liturgia of the Hours, I can only suggest that our American friends try the “other” english language translation, as used in almost all english speaking countries OTHER than the US and Canada… the Divine Office. It has its weaknesses too, but it is better than the american version, has the newer antiphons and saints too. However, if you want the real thing, then its true, there is no alternative to the latin vesion.
B
Does not the availability of the proposed revised texts of the English translation of the Roman Missal suggest that someone somewhere is winking at their advance use in certain discreet situations?
Nope.
Habemus Papam,
We all know that “for all” is an incorrect translation. That cannot be questioned. However, that is the translation currently approved by the Church for the English speaking world. No priest can take upon himself the authority to change it to “for many.” That is for the appropriate ecclesiastical authorities.
However, we must also remember that “pro multis” is not part of the essential form of the consecration of the Precious Blood. The essential form, as St. Thomas tells us is: “Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei” (ST III, Q 78, A1). Therefore, “pro multis” is not necessary for valid consecration. That being the case, every priest is bound by his promise of obedience to use the approved translation.
And as Fr. Z originally pointed out, if we say it’s okay for a conservative or traditional priest to change the text of the Mass how can we say it isn’t okay for a more liberal minded priest to do the same?
Hey, frater raphael,
You’re right to say that some translations are better than others and, that if one wants the real thing, to go to the Latin. I’m sure we agree that what is important is knowing What The Prayer Really Says, where every word counts, feeding contemplative prayer life.
With that comes knowing the words of Scripture, where every word counts, every word being inspired by the Holy Spirit, every word burning and purifying and transforming and opening up all the wonders of the Christ Jesus, the Word Himself Incarnate. We need everything, down to the letter, which the Holy Spirit has inspired to form us into the Living Word of God, whom we read about and offer (and are offered with Him) in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
The Church is in desperate need of monks like yourself, who, with a spirit of sacrifice for the whole Mystical Body of Christ, will dedicate themselves to the Sacred Liturgy, which, of course, goes hand in hand with Sacred Scripture, which is part and parcel of these Mysteries. Along with your Latin, use your Greek and Hebrew. You will soon find that the exactness of which I speak will become a passion, and whole worlds will open up. All the huge movements or non-movements in ecumenism, for instance, come down to this exactness or non-exactness in the Sacred Liturgy and Sacred Scripture. As a convert, you will be rather overwhelmed.
I give a few hints about this in a certain Trilogy found by clicking on my name below. Just for your information, I think there are a number of your fellow (also German speaking) Cistercian brothers passionately reading away. I admit that I speak more about the Gospels and the New Testament than the Psalms, the latter of which, of course, have a wildly more wild history, and need separate treatment. Also, the Old Testament of the Nova Vulgate is vastly different in its background from the New Testament of the Nova Vulgate.
Let’s pray for each other. God bless!
I’m not at all defending the practice of anyone changing the approved texts of the Mass but I do think there is a difference between the “traditional” approach and the revisionist/progressivist approach. In my experience a traditional change would be to depart from the ICEL nonsense in an attempt to express the Latin editio typica faithfully, the heterodox on the other hand will tend to replace the Mass text entirely with themes or ideology that have little to do with Catholicism and more to do with secularism and the like. This is a huge difference but I agree that departing from the approved texts is never appropriate with one exception: if the approved text is explicitly heretical. There are approved texts that are, in my opinion, ambiguous or even proximate to heresy, but I think obedience and good witness win out in these cases.
As I understand it, in V II documents Latin has “pride of place” and was to be used in the canon of the Mass, the vernacular to be used in ‘dialogue parts’. Why then don’t more priests use Latin in the parts of the Mass where it was intended (those priests who suffer so from the translations, not those who enjoy the ‘creativity’)?
I did not know until a few months ago when I found this site that Latin could be used for the entire Mass by any priest, any time. Thank you Fr. Z for saying this again and again. I have yet to find more than 2 or 3 Catholics that know this and whenever I bring it up I’m told V II prohibited the use of Latin and those I talk to are certain of this. There is a lot of work to be done out there to educate Catholics but what is going on here is a tremendous step forward. I am most grateful!
Pat
Here is good solution to the problem of getting an approved text in a timely manner:
1. CDW Opens the matter to every Metropolitan Province to provide an accurate and literary translation of the Missal in accordance with the recent instruction on vernacular translations.
2. A commission, such as Vox Clara, reviews the submissions, a due date having been given, say 2 years. They narrow the choice to three.
3. CDW chooses one of the three to receive approval from the Holy See.
4. The Metropolitan Province that produced the approved version will receive the exclusive rights to publish that vernacular translation of the Missal: $$$
Knowing what kind of Missal will be approved and that there will be a contest with the winner receiving the exclusive rights to publish it, it would seem to me that we would have a really good chance of getting a really good translation approved and published in a short period of time.
If only…
Fr. Scott Bailey: Indeed, and I’ve never in fact heard a priest say “for many”. ICEL tinkered with the Words of Institution if not the essential Form of Consecration. Apparently this translation is mandatory for priests while Fr.Fessio’s translation of the Latin Novus Ordo can be used in the pews (thanks to Henry Edwards for this info).
reference to Frater Raphael comments above:
The Liturgia Horarum, nova vulgata text, is sound, does not vary significantly from the Clementine Vulgate of the older breviary and is “chantable”.
Cpmpare with the Pian Vulgate published under P.Pius XII, the nova vulgata is a tremendous improvement.
The American English Translation is dreadful, unrhythmic, etc. Needs complete revision.
The Spanish versions, the Diurnal from Barcelona and the Liturgia de las Horas from Mexico City are bothe well done translations and bear greater faithfulness to the Latin than the American English LOTH does.
The Italian in the Camaldolese Salterio Monastico is likewise respectable and faithful to the text.
the problem is cultural, American Anglophones have since the 60s sought to retool all things after the liberal academic fads of that era and have discarded formality and dignity for the more “horizontal” language we hear today in English speaking parishes and texts like the LOTH. Even the names of the hours – “Morning Prayer” instead of Lauds, “Evening Prayer” instead of Vespers reflects this dreadful tendency among English speakers to refuse common terms retained by other cultires (Spanish, Italian) and to make things mutually unintelligible,
The other issue is the use of the Masoteric/Protestant numbering of the Psalms in the English LOTH, whereas the Vulgate numbering is retained in the Spanish and Italian. This shift in numbering makes even discussing the Psalms of the Office difficult and fosters the sense of separateness the American Church seems to foster with regard to its status in the larger Universal Chuch.
Excellent comment, Harry, regarding the psalms.
I believe that many priests will turn back to the Latin to avoid the awful English translations.
Habemus Papam, I think we are in agreement. I’m sorry if I misunderstood. I thought we were talking about the priest changing the text, not the text the laity have at N.O. Latin Masses, but sometimes with so many comments with differing views I get a bit turned around.
At one time I did say “for many” instead of “for all.” Someone asked me why I made the change and I explained about the mistranslation and the form of the Holy Eucharist. But then I began to read WDTPRS and thought about it and prayed about it and did some research and came to the conclusions I did…which apply to priests celebrating in English. However If the laity have a more accurate translation such as Fr. Fessio’s then by all means they ought to use it for the N.O. in Latin. When I have celebrated the N.O. in Latin for occasions where I prepared a Latin/English program I never used the ICEL for the English. Since I only prayed the Roman Canon I used a translation from an old hand missal. I wasn’t aware of Fr. Fessio’s translation.
Agan, sorry for any misunderstanding.
One thing is for certain – by the time the new English translation is released, it will already be outdated, since modern English changes so rapidly. This is a losing battle… the only solution is to return entirely to Latin, and then we might as well return to the TLM, since it is vatsly superior to the NO. To go off on a tangent, the thing I notice most now when attending the NO is how much time the priest sits there doing nothing during the Mass, while the laypeople do their thing – what an inefficient use of scarce resources! At least at the TLM the priest is praying the Mass almost non-stop from beginning to end…
Fr. Scott Bailey: Yes and no! It occurred to me, even before reading your most recent post that the subject of this thread is the most confusing to fllow. My initial point was that, given an accurate translation of the Latin Novys Ordo exists in the form of Fr.Fessio’s booklet, why the need to wait unntil 2011? However it would seem that like so much else in recent decades this simple solution can not be allowed because….well, thats were I lose concentration!
Say the black, do the red…really simple words…Obedience is only insofar within the Magisterium and Scriptures…when something goes against Churh teaching we’re not obliged to obey in that respect. So as for the “pro multis” isssue, I say just say it in Latin..(I hope that the translations are approved before I’m ordained)…but in good conscience if I celebrate a Mass in Englih, if there’s something that’s heretical I’m obliged to correct it.
Habemus Papam, that one’s easy: Satan.
We all agree, I think, that the 1970 translation of the Missal makes a mockery of the principle “Lex orandi, lex credendi.” For some priests (!) the obligation to use it, knowing full well that it does not deliver the sense or intent of the Editio Typica, provokes an excruciating crisis of conscience. Not all of these priests are in a position to use the Latin Missal while waiting — and waiting — for the promulgation of the new approved English translation. The good of souls, including the soul of the priest, is the supreme law. It’s not an easy call, especially when one considers that the proposed new texts are already in circulation. Two generations of priests and faithful have already been deprived of liturgical texts that accurately transmit what Mother Church says and sings in her prayer and believes in her heart. What a painful situation we find ourselves in!
Fr. Scott Bailey: and my anti-spam word is Summorum Pontificum. Hell is throwing up all sorts of stuff since 7/7/07.
Don Marco: Its easy sometimes for layfolk to disregard what good priests have to go through. I think its a case of “well if I were a priest I would/would’nt do it way” when we have the luxury of NOT being priests!
An intermediate solution, while waiting for 2011 or whenever, might be for priests to be authorized officially to use the new translation of the Ordinary of the Mass. One could at least begin with the Eucharistic Prayer(s). My sense is that there is no little resistance to the new translations among certain hierarchs, just as there is resistance to other elements of the reform of the reform, and to Summorum Pontificum. I cringe every time I sing,”The Lord be with you,” and hear, “And also with you.” How long, O Lord, how long?
What insoluble problems for conscientious priests with vernacular only services. Ultimately, some of us could no longer endure the novelties, inclusivities and sheer hidden political agendas of some of the celebrants they heard too frequently. The following accounts are real. One celebrant actually used to break off in the middle of the Canon just as he was raising the host to tell us that what he was about to do could not be achieved without the faith of the assembly. Others have liberally added what they wished throughout the prescripted sections of the liturgy, while many sermons, I listened to during 35 long disturbed years uttered some of the most meaningless socio-psycho claptrap I have ever heard. There have been quotes from Dwight Eisenhower and the Dalai Lama, among non-Catholic others. One priest I knew used to virtually make up parts of his own Canon. Another always rushed through it all so quickly much of what transpired in the 12-13 minute norm was indecipherable.
Only The Holy Mass which is linguistically Catholic can possibly overcome such liturgical anarchy. What is the point of repeating words that are known to be diluting the faith with their, inaccuracies, ambiguities and their evident lack of clarity? As each priest says Mass for his parishioners there must be some appropriate shepherding, surely. One of the espoused objectives of vernacular in the modern Mass is allegedly to make it more comprehensible to the faithful who attend. However, over time it has obfuscated meaning and brought alternative beliefs. “Pro Multis” is not the only point of contention where this is concerned. While priests obviously have dilemmas what about the ordinary informed & sincere layperson who has to swallow the bitter pill being offered. There has to come a point when something closer to the liturgical norm is humbly suggested.