From ZENIT:
VATICAN CITY, OCT. 14, 2008 (Zenit.org).- The Holy See has approved three alternatives to "Ite, missa est," the final words said by the priest at Mass.Cardinal Francis Arinze, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, today notified the participants in the synod of bishops on the word of God about the new alternatives. The final message is currently rendered in English: "The Mass is ended, go in peace."
Benedict XVI has approved the alternatives, which were requested at the 2005 synod on the Eucharist to express the missionary spirit that should follow from the celebration of Mass.
According to Cardinal Arinze, the Pope had asked for suggestions to be presented. The congregation received 72, from which they prepared nine proposals. The Holy Father has chosen three.
The alternatives are in the revised third "editio typica" of the Roman Missal, which was printed last week, the cardinal said. [I hope it has better art this time. I’ve seen better art on refrigerators than what they put in the Missale.]
The alternatives are:
–"Ite ad Evangelium Domini nuntiandum"
–"Ite in pace, glorificando vita vestra Dominum"
–"Ite in pace" with "alleluia, alleluia" added during Easter season.In English, these could be rendered along the lines of "go to announce the Gospel of the Lord"; "go in peace, glorifying the Lord with your lives"; and simply, "go in peace (alleluia, alleluia)."
The original Latin final message, "Ite, missa est," has not been modified.
Because we really need more options.
Loading ...
How about a pre-dismissal form for the people who duck out after Communion and aren’t around for the official “Ite missa est”?
“I hope it has better art this time.”
I hope it has less typos!
I’m all for having two options: Ite Missa Est, and Benedicamus Domino…we don’t need any more options than these.
I like the Curt Jester’s other two options:
Go in peace, please don’t race the priest to get outside first.
Go in peace, coffee and donuts are available in the parish hall.
http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/archives/2008/10/go-in.php
What are they thinking? I guess you can call it “Menu Mass”.
One of our deacons renders his own version:
“Go in peace to love and serve the Lord and one another.”
Huh?
It is a strange to cite a desire to emphasize the missionary character of the dismissal as a reason to add new dismissals. Strange, because the existing dismissal is more missionary in nature than any of three new alternatives. Ite, missa est. Go, you are sent. Sent for what? Might it be sent to engage in the missionary nature of the Church?
Perhaps I am too sensitive on this point. When I briefly helped teach CCD, I was puzzled when the instructor told the kids that the word Mass means “sent.” I was puzzled, because I thought he said that Mass meant “scent.” Some days I am awfully thick.
I don’t see the need for more options. In my humble opinion, the variety of alternatives in the NO do nothing other than foster abuse and invite improvisation. Lawyers in litigation have a theory of presenting evidence, and this is somewhat analogous to other rituals: KISS, which stands for “Keep it Simple, Stupid.” As a litigator, I tell myself that often.
I didn’t check which revision of the editio tertia it was, but last week in the Vatican Book store I saw an edition in which the typos I was aware of (in the Apostles’ Creeed and EP IV) had been corrected. Is there yet another edition coming out? (Not being aware of the new dismissal, I didn’t look at that part).
However, the artwork looked the same!
The deacon at the Church I go to also says:
“Go in peace to love and serve the Lord and one another.”
After he says “the Lord” some people respond with the “Thanks be to God,” but the deacon continues with “and one another.” The only other problem with this deacon is that he wears the stole OVER the dalmatic. Aside from this, he is pretty solid and a great orator.
—”Ite ad Evangelium Domini nuntiandum”
—”Ite in pace, glorificando vita vestra Dominum”
—”Ite in pace” with “alleluia, alleluia” added during Easter season.
Too many options. Also, they lack the wonderful Roman sobriety and terseness of Ite, missa est. In fact, the first two strike me as positively clunky and contrived-sounding.
“[T]o express the MISSIONARY spirit” they’re getting rid of “Ite, MISSA est.” Classic.
Perhaps to make things a little easier for those of you who enjoy authority in the 4th Edition include the 1962 Missal, an anathema sit for those who complain about anything and the dismissal to be used in conjunction with the anathema…” Hit the road Jack and don’t you come back no more!”
The final message is currently rendered in English: “The Mass is ended, go in peace.”
I like the way that was put: “rendered”. It certainly was not “translated”.
My impression is that, maybe because it’s the priest’s last opportunity to ham it up, the dismissal shows more variation from the approved text than any other part of the liturgy, even by otherwise solid priests and deacons, as David Andrew and Philip have noted. I have heard exactly the same form they give, and also variations; last Sunday, the monsignor used something like, “Go in peace and joy to serve the Lord and pray for each other.” Nothing wrong with the sentiment, of course, but this is not the time for improvisation!
How about: The Peace is ended. Just go.
You mean this one isn’t in the current edition? Someone better tell my pastor.
“The Mass never ends, it must be lived. Go in peace to love and serve the
Lord and one another.”
“Thanks be to God, Alleluia, Alleluia.”
At a Philadelphia parish which I sometimes attend when I can’t attend my usual Mass, the conservative Pastor, who I KNOW to be a rabid football fan, actually ended Mass once with “Go in peace, the Eagles are on.” I don’t think he meant to say that, but he received a rousing response. Just thought of that now, since it happened a while ago.
I’m more a fan of these options than of certain options elsewhere in the Ordinary Form. But it troubles me that the solution to the lack of understanding the missionary sense of the dismissal is the introduction of new “obvious” phrases, rather than catechesis on the Mass as-is. Is this an organic or necessary development?
I really do like “Ite Missa Est”.
You know they could say:
“See Ya wouldn’t want to be Ya”.
“Later Gater”
“After WHile Crocidile”
There could be so many more modern revisions that come to mind why not just go for it? Go all out stupid, you know do not hold back………
Or even better they could sell this portion of the mass as an advertisement. Some thing like.
“Eat at McDonalds on Sunday, it will help with global warming and save the planet”
or my favorite:
“Cars, Cars. Cars…. We have big cars, environmentally friendly cars, and cars of all sizes. Do not miss out on the after mass sale. First come, first served. So do not miss out”
or maybe something more charitable like:
“Love ya mean it!”
I am hurt that they did not open this up to more experimentation.
You know they could make the old Mass so much better if they would just open their minds to the human possibilites.
Jim Dorchak
“Go in peace to love and serve the Lord and one another.”
That seems to be the favourite everywhere. I don’t mind these new legitimate options, but I doubt they will stop the one I just quoted from STILL being used!
“Say the black, do the red!”
Option #4:
Priest: “The Mass has ended. Have a great day everybody!”
People: “Thanks Father, you too!”
Anyone else unhappy with the choice of “glorificando vita vestra Dominum”? I am less familiar with Ecclesiastical Latin, but in classical Latin, you should use a present participle rather than an ablative gerund to express manner (means/instrument okay but not purely manner). I’d also sleep more soundly at night if it had been, “Dominum vita vestra glorificantes”. Clunky and clumsy either way.
“Missa est” is an extremely ancient Roman phrase. Interesting discussion of it over at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09790b.htm and http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08253a.htm.
I feel as if a brick has been dislodged.
Is there any way to interpret the second clause in “Ite in pace, glorificando vita vestra Dominum” as an expression of purpose? I know that “ad” + accusative gerund, or genitive gerund + “causa”, can reflect purpose, but a standalone ablative gerund looks odd.
Of course, there’s also the gerundive that implies obligation: but that should match the implied subject, which is a nominative “vos” — so that doesn’t work either.
Fr. Z’s translation [Whose translation?] of “go in peace, glorifying the Lord with your lives” doesn’t look right to me either.
The only way I can see to render it would be “Go in peace, by means of glorifying the Lord with your lives.” Which is either very odd or very profound.
Could the printing of a new edition of the Roman Missal contain any additions or clarifications of the rubrics concerning the proper celebration of Mass? Might things be tightened up a little?
“Later Gater”
“After WHile Crocidile”
To be followed by “P. Toodle-oo, caribou!” and “R. Been neat, parakeet!”
All of these dismissals have been used illicitly for decades – so as with female servers and receiving Holy Communion in the hand, this is the Vatican giving in and thinking that it’s better to make these dismissals “official.” Perhaps the concession came since the Eucharistic Prayers for Children have been surpressed, who knows? Though I seldom hear it in English, the “Ite in pace, glorificando vita vestra Dominum” has been extremely popular (illicitly until now ofcourse) with celebrants of Masses in Spanish.
part of the “mutual enrichment,” I suppose? Of course, reusing “Benedicamos Domino”: would be the best solution of all. Reinserting it back into more usage for the Traditional rite (nearly suppressed in the 1962 missal) would then help bring these two “forms” back into one “rite.” I’m beginning more and more to recognize that the motu proprio really was just a carrot and an act of “tolerance” as our Holy Father recently emphasized (even though it was trul an act of justicie).
Just one more reason to avoid the Novus Ordo and make whatever sacrifices are necessary to get to the TLM.
Go in peace to love and serve the Lord” but without the “one another” is
the usual ending of the Mass in the Philippines.
I remember this one from mass at a church at the Jersey shore a few years back. “The mass has ended. Go to the beach.” Actually appropriate considering how many people came to mass in swim trunks.
Seriously, how can the experimental liturgy of Paul VI be expected to survive and thrive, if they continue to make it worse with more and more of the options that Cardinal Ratzinger once deplored?
Of course, there could be a stewardess-esque dismissals as one gets off the plane. The funny send-ups are just endless.
On the other hand, the new dismissals seem ok to me and not worth getting one’s knickers in a twist over. However, I agree with those who say that bringing back Benedicamus Domino would be a splendid thing.
Interestingly, in my long-ago Anglo-Catholic days, the interpolated dismissal at the end of the mass, (there was no dismissal in the 1928 Prayerbook), was “Depart in peace.” Perhaps that’s in the old Anglican Missal. (I can’t remember if they used “let us bless the Lord” when there was a procession at the end of mass – usually the procession was before mass except at Corpus Christi).
Hm… if “Ite missa est” means “you are sent” why not some variation on the direct translation such as:
“Mass is ended. Go forth, sent by God.”
“Go now, you have been sent by God.”
Just saying.
Brian: I am unconvinced that it is reasonable to make that conclusion from this development.
Father Z,
What conclusion can we draw? That the “innovations” and “options” won’t cease under Pope Benedict’s reign? I thought the reform of the reform folks assumed that the “options” would cease under his reign? We now know.
Fr. Z,
If one reads Michael Davies’ “Pope Paul’s New Mass” and Msgr. Klaus Gamber’s book, plus the innovations that continue to occur since then, from my own personal perspective, it si inddeed just one more reason to avoid the Novus Ordo.
Of course, the books I mention give lots of other reasons as well. Fr. Cekada’s “The Problems with the Prayers in the Modern Mass” give examples of other reasons as well.
This “reform” of the Novus Ordo to bring it more in line with the tradition, in my humble opinion, is simply wishful thinking. It is beyond repair, from a liturgical perspective. We still don’t even have the “pro multis” in the Novus Ordo yet.
How long ago was that announced?
Options are not wrong in and of themselves, so long as celebrants “say the black, do the red”.
It seems that there are those so attached to the old Mass that they will always find something to complain about in the new Mass, which, by the way, is the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite.
As for “pro multis”, that will take effect when the Roman Missal is re-translated into English. It cannot be used now because… “say the black, do the red.”
Lawrence,
Gerundives and gerunds as datives of purpose/service are heavily limited in classica Latin at least. Solvendo esse means to be solvent or able to pay. You can also have one dependent upon a word that governs the dative or a word like satis, but ire isn’t one of those words. I still don’t see how glorificando could be means/instrument, as you can go by foot, horse, dogsled, boat, etc., but “by glorifying” is too bizarre. The whole expression strikes me as proto-Romance rather than Latin, but if there’s an Ecclesiastical Latinist out there who knows, I’d love to hear. Would also like to hear why the deacon says, “Offerte vobis pacem,” rather than, “Offerte inter vos pacem.”
Geoffrey: As for “pro multis”, that will take effect when the Roman Missal is re-translated into English. It cannot be used now because… “say the black, do the red.”
Would you therefore conclude that, until a correct English translation of the Roman Missal is issued, the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite should only be celebrated in Latin? Or, at least, that in the meantime the words of consecration should only be said in Latin?
Geoffrey, except that the options have no basis in history or tradition of the Roman rite. Can you explain to me that if the Roman canon is not used in the “Ordinary” form (You use this as if the word by itself makes it superior in some way; of course, that is not what the word means at all, but I digress), how what is left with all the various options can still be considered to be the Roman rite?
It has no basis in Rome other than Bugnini and his motley crew in the 1960s.
So much for “Roman” rite.
No, Geoffrey, that simply will not do.
It has no basis in Rome other than Bugnini and his motley crew in the 1960s.
And that it is the ordinary form of the rite of the Church of Rome, approved by the Bishop of that Church.
Henry Edwards said: “Would you therefore conclude that, until a correct English translation of the Roman Missal is issued, the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite should only be celebrated in Latin? Or, at least, that in the meantime the words of consecration should only be said in Latin?”
That would be wonderful, though sadly very unlikely.
Brian Mershon said: “ ‘Ordinary’ form (You use this as if the word by itself makes it superior in some way; of course, that is not what the word means at all, but I digress)…”
I used the word in the context that the Holy Father himself used it in Summorum Pontificum, in which he decreed that there are two forms of one Roman Rite. He is the Vicar of Christ and so I personally will abide by whatever he says.
So it is Roman because Bugnini was in Rome for a while and Pope Paul VI approved the text. That makes it Roman.
OK. Got it. Two forms of the one “Roman” rite.
One uses the Roman canon every time. The other does rarely, and the rest of the liturgical actions surrounding it have very little Roman in them either since so many of the collects and eveyrthing else have been modified or suppressed.
OK. Got it.
Excuse my ignorance, why is missa est feminine?
Options are not wrong in and of themselves, so long as celebrants “say the black, do the red”.
Some options are better than others. For example, the Roman Canon is objectively superior to Eucharistic Prayer II (as well as the others but this will serve as a good comparison) and it is always better to say the Confiteor at the penitential rite rather than a troped Kyrie. So I think it is not quite correct to say that options “are not wrong in and of themselves.” If a priest always omits the confiteor and always uses EP II, for example, he may be “saying the black” and “doing the red” but he is definitely doing a disservice to the people of his parish.
Brian said: So it is Roman because Bugnini was in Rome for a while and Pope Paul VI approved the text. That makes it Roman. OK. Got it. Two forms of the one “Roman” rite.
Yes, precisely. It’s also Roman because it is the Roman Rite, and includes a good amount of what has been in the Roman Rite in the past (nowhere near enough, though, and arranged and reworked in a way that introduces an inescapable sense of disruption in the liturgical tradition.)
I’m not saying I like these new, unnecessary optional dismissals. I absolutely don’t. This takes the Roman Rite in the wrong direction. We need fewer options in Mass, not more. The rite of Mass should be simplified, made closer to the pre-Vatican II Mass, not made more complicated.
It is necessary to update the novus ordo continuously, or it would quickly look very old fashioned. Celebrants know this which is why they improvise. It is a rite which calls out for constant innovation. Hence the liturgical dancing, clown Masses, puppet liturgies, etc., not envisaged by Paul VI in 1970.
“One uses the Roman canon every time. The other does rarely…”
I didn’t know the Roman Canon defined the Roman Rite.
The Rite of Braga uses the Roman Canon. I do not know about the Ambrosian Rite, the Dominican Rite, etc. And actually, the term “Roman Canon” is only used in the Ordinary Form. In the 1962 Missal and in the Rite of Braga, it is simply called “Canon Missae”.
Oops, what I called “Fr. Z’s translation” was Zenit’s translation. My bad!
Ioannes wrote: I still don’t see how glorificando could be means/instrument, as you can go by foot, horse, dogsled, boat, etc., but “by glorifying” is too bizarre.
It’s not just the means for “going”, but for “going in peace”. In other words, “going in peace” is not just a modification of “going”, it’s something very specific. So I think this reading is defensible (especially since it appears to be the only reading that is at all defensible grammatically, as I suggested in my first post).
Ioannes also wrote: Would also like to hear why the deacon says, “Offerte vobis pacem,” rather than, “Offerte inter vos pacem.”
Shouldn’t it be “Offerte vobis invicem pacem”? I think you need an indirect object in any case.
Melody wrote: If “Ite missa est” means “you are sent”…
Phy1729 asked: why is missa est feminine?
Ioannes cited this link, which discusses the derivation of “Ite, missa est”. It does not literally mean “you are sent” (which would be second person plural). Rather, “missa” is a noun, equivalent in meaning to “missio”, meaning “dismissal”. (It is therefore related to the verb mitto, mittere, misi, missus,. Often the fourth principle part is converted to fourth declension to form a substantive noun — e.g., actus, cursus, sensus, usus. Apparently in Medieval Latin it was sometimes converted to the first declension instead, as in this case.)
So “missa est” means literally “The dismissal is”, or less literally, “The dismissal is hereby performed”, or even less literally, “You are dismissed.”
And then, this word “missa”, which the people heard at the end of Mass, eventually became the word for the entire Mass itself.
So who says Latin is a dead language?
And actually, the term “Roman Canon” is only used in the Ordinary Form.
And by pre-conciliar liturgists referring to the Canon of the Mass:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03255c.htm
One of the things that defines a Rite in practice (as opposed to in Church law) is its anaphora. The Roman Canon is the anaphora of the Roman Rite.
Dear Laurentius Rex:
I am so glad there is someone else out there who finds “glorificando” odd, if not just downright WRONG. It can only mean: “Go by glorifying” – what on earth? As you rightly say, “glorificantes” or “ad glorificandum” would make sense, but not “glorificando”. We are in a truly bad state when the guardians of the Latin liturgy no longer understand basic Latin grammar. I choose to disbelieve the report that the Holy Father himself selected this option, since surely a man of his learning would have rejected it because of its grammatical absurdity.
Inquisitor and Laurentius Rex,
I have seen this construct used, I think, by St. Augustine. I don’t remember where
I saw it now (sorry about that!), but I think it was used in a kind of “branch”
structure, with the main verb being impersonal (or very abstract).
Example:
We are to be saints:
a) learning our Faith;
b) practicing our Faith.
Something like that. So, unless I’m deluding myself, perhaps it is something that
came into Latin at that time?
Denique ut ostenderet istos minimos reprobos esse,
qui docent bona loquendo,
quae solvunt male vivendo,
nec quasi minimos in vita aeterna futuros,
sed omnino ibi non futuros; cum dixisset: .
(Augustine, Treatises on John’s Gospel, 122, 9)
In this case, I think they modify the verb.
Dear mpm,
Thank you for that example, where the gerund does have a semi-participial function, though it can be understood as a true gerund: they teach BY speaking what they undo BY living badly.
For my part, I have found what is perhaps a more pertinent example, from the Vulgate: Acts 10:38: “[Iesus] qui pertransivit benefaciendo et sanando”. Here the gerund is acting as a true participle, and is actually translating Greek participles. So the usage did exist, and so I retract my scathing comment above. Although I still feel somewhat uncomfortable about the expression…
Dear Inquisitor,
You’re welcome.
BTW, you being a better grammarian than I (me?), please tell me what you think of the
following “translation note”, (using the new response as an example):
Ite in pace, glorificando vita vestra Dominum.
Go in peace, glorifying the Lord with your lives.
Going in peace, glorify the Lord with your lives.
I think they say the same thing. Do you agree?
Thank you for the explanation Lawrence.
Dear mpm:
I think it has to be “Go in peace…”, not “Going in peace…”, since the command is to go, not to glorify.
I am not better than thou, or thee!
I’ll agree that glorificando makes somewhat better sense as a means/instrument expression by going with the entire “Ite in pace” rather than just with, “Ite,” i.e. by means of glorifying, we go in peace. Theologically however, I would have thought we go in peace by means of God’s grace and not what we do.
The quote from Acts of the Apostles certainly has little if anything to do with means/instrument, which was my chief objection. I guess glorificando could rightly be taken as a manner expression in light of it. Jerome was probably biting his lip when he used a gerund there. The gerunds in the Augustine passage strike me as expressing means/instrument, which is legitimate even in classical Latin. Even in classical Latin, there certainly can be ablative gerunds and gerundives used where there is a note of manner to be inferred in an otherwise means expression.
Lawrence King,
L&S s.v. invicem II. Transf., one another, each other, mutually, reciprocally (mostly post-Aug.; syn. inter se) A quick check of how Greek allelois (dative plural reciprocal pron.) is translated in the Vulgate shows both invicem (Gal. 5:17) and inter + acc (Mark 9:50), where Jerome crucially wrote, “Pacem habete inter vos,” and NOT, “Pacem habete vobis”. I think I prefer invicem for its concision. Thanks for the suggestion! I think we’re both agreed that the wording as its stands raises questions.
mpm,
I’m not sure what is gained with, “Going in peace…” There certainly is an implicit directive to glorify, but I’d prefer to stick w/ the literal trans. unless absolutely necessary.
Dear Ioannes Andreades,
I prefer the literal approach as well. I was simply thinking about the use of the
gerund to modify the verb, and how closely connected the two “action ideas” get. I
may be all wet, I’m not a linguist or grammarian, and I’m certainly not a liturgist!
Dear Inquisitor,
“I am not better than thou, or thee!”
Right back at ya!
;>
Ioannes and Inquisitor: I very much agree!
See, not all the threads in the blogosphere turn into flame wars!
Hey!Jordanes and all….”made closer to the pre vatican II Mass……”so why not just “the “Gregorian Rite” aka pre vatican II Mass.