Loading ...
Woohoo! The Holy See has granted a recognitio to the improved English translation of the Mass, and we can now peruse it in all its glory! Cardinal Arinze’s letter makes clear that this translation is now fixed as the one to be implemented in the new English missal for the Novus Ordo Missae. That is a very good thing, both because it means that the process can now move forward (though no doubt more slowly than we would like) and also because this new translation is so much better!
Take a look for yourself. I’ll just point out a few of the highlights.
– “And with your spirit.” No more of this “and also with you” stuff, making people feel that they’re just exchanging pleasantries with the priest.
– “Through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault.” The general confession again includes the mea culpas.
– “And on earth peace to people of good will.” This has simply been translated wrongly for quite some time, first in the King James “and on earth peace, good will towards men” and even worse in many Novus translations used up to this time, “and peace to his people on earth.” But of course, the meanings of these phrases is notably different from what you find in the Vulgate. The new translation restores the proper sense of the phrase.
– “Consubstantial” made it in! Poor Joe and Mary Catholic.
– Our Lord still “became man.” Happily, the Creed hasn’t been changed to read “human,” or any other silly thing.
– “It is right and just.” The old response, “It is right to give Him thanks and praise” was never a very good translation of “Dignum et iustum est.” This one may not matter as much as “people of good will,” but I think it’s still a bit better, not only because it’s more accurate, but also because the way they say it now, it sounds as if the people are preaching to the priest, expanding on his suggestion. This way, the priest makes the suggestion to the people, and they effectively ratify it with a “yes, excellent idea.” Also, though, the new translation gets in the “iustum,” which the old one left out. That’s not trivial; it’s worth emphasizing that thanking God is both righteous and a requirement of justice. In other words, we shouldn’t be feeling all good about ourselves for thanking God; it would be positively wrong of us not to do so.
– “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Hosts.” No more “God of power and might,” which again, is not the same thing. Is there a difference, by the way, between “power” and “might?” It always sounded kind of redundant to me. I suppose it doesn’t matter now, does it, since they’re correcting that line to the more proper translation? The Lord God of Hosts is much better, because it emphasizes exactly the right thing: not just that God is powerful, but that He is the God of all the saints that have gone on before us, as well as the angels. This is particularly important at this point in the Mass, because we’re supposed to have the feeling of crying out together with the whole Church throughout the ages, praising God all in one voice! In the Traditional Latin Mass, of course, you have the preface that particularly emphasizes this. Still, even without that, people should remember Our Lord’s words overlooking Jerusalem, “But I tell you that you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.’” It is important here that we are addressing God as the Church together, showing ourselves to be His faithful people.
– “For you and for many.” No more do the words of consecration declare that Christ’s blood was shed “for all.” I won’t elaborate on this one since the “pro multis” controversy is an old one.
That’s just a quick tour. You should look over it for yourselves. The bottom line is, though, that this is an enormous improvement on the wacky translations that we’ve had to live with for some time now. Probably it’ll take a few more years of foot-dragging to really implement the change, but it gives me a joyful feeling to know that these are the words with which the next generation of Catholics will come to know the Mass.
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
I have for some time resisted the usual practice of ad-libbing or changing the parts I recite unlike some of our liberal clergy except when I do so it is to say I believe or consubstantial instead of the current translation which is thankfully going away. This current translation in addition to being inaccurate or not precise likewise was artistically poor reading often with all the poetry of a telephone book. I was overjoyed to see the Domine non sum dignus translated properly. It is not only more accurate but restores the Scriptural allusion to its proper context. One which was lost with the current translation.
Now if we could get them to suppress Eucharistic prayers II-IV as well as the reconciliation ones and the ones for children that would be great! They could also eliminate some of the penitential rites( I get nauseous with” Lord you came to heal the contrite”.)
Once at Mass the priest said the confiteor and the people did not know it since in our Parish it is so seldom used. I am a physician. Once one of my partners was regretting a business decision he had advocated some years before. The senior partner as the first partner was enunciating his regret silently struck his breast three times. Both partners are Jewish. I know of no equivalent practice in Judaism and think that this shows the universal impact on culture of the Traditional Rite. When he did this I howled. The irony of a jewish man alluding to a traditional rubric of the Traditional Rite points to the rite’s enduring quality and influence on our culture.No blasphemy was intended by my partner. The allusion was lost on my Protestant partners. Although this new translation is a step in the right direction, I frankly wonder if in a hundred years one will find the old Missal in general use and the current one a distant memory or changed so that it mirrors the old. I think the old Missal will still exert its influence and at some point eclipse the new.
JPG
Thank you, JPG! I quite agree with you, and you also pointed out a few great things that I forgot to mention — the correct translation of the “Domine sum dignus” and of course the “I believe,” both of which are very important corrections. It is too bad that there are still four Eucharistic prayers, but oh well, a step at a time, I suppose. Or perhaps (I hope?) you’re right that in another century the Traditional Latin Mass will be in so much wider use that it will matter less!
Both in the Gloria’s in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis and the pro multis clause the previous translations had terrible universalizing tenor. I’m so happy that they at least got that right (in line with EENS).
Consubstantial is also much better than the horribly sloppy “of one being.” All in all, I am quite pleased with this.
Oh and at least now we know that the Novus Ordo 2040 will be averted!
If there is a Novus Ordo 2040 let us hope the recent Eucharistic prayers be scrapped and the Iudica me be restored. I am fairly new to this if you will in the sense of being a cradle Catholic but born in 1959. I recall the sense transmitted of “new-good, old-bad”, with this nightmarish zeitgeist of forsaking all tradition and even the sensibilities that went with it meaning the simple act of genuflection a personal act by which one affirms one’s belief in the Real Presence or silence when before the Blessed Sacrament all seeming to slip away and my inclination to be horrified by this. Often such customs and sensibilities being swept away by those who ought to know better. I have at best a vague recollection of the Traditional Rite. My recent interest and study has started with purchasing a New Roman Missal by Scepter for my father 3 years ago. It contains the Novus Ordo in Latin and English which his Parish in Philadelphia regularly celebrates. At the same time I purchased a 1962 Missal from Baronius Press for myself. I do not as yet attend the traditional Mass with any regularity but hope to do so in the future. Where I am going with this is I am reading Klaus Gamber and I have seen it posted on different blogs that these newer prayers (Prayers II-IV)
are unlike we were told in the 60’s and 70′, are not as old as the Roman Canon but may in fact not be Roman at all or have been authored by Hippolytus for that matter.
Can anyone recommend other sources? Incidentally Gamber reports that the Fathers attributed the Roman Canon to Peter himself. This being said I still shake my head and wonder what hubris! What were they thinking? How dare they? Protestant ideas may have crept in but at least with the Reformation there was some backbone of catechesis by which thse people remained Christian. The sensibilities , customs , reverence with which the old Mass was celebrated transmitted the Faith more effectively than hours of questionable homilies. (Incidentally the rerorm minded write the history books thus one really wonders how warmly the Reformation in the 1500’s was really accepted or is was this an unasked for and unwelcome change foisted on Joe and Mary Catholic at the point of a sword?
JPG
I liked Damian Thompson’s comments on the new translation at Holy Smoke today:
“Cheer up, guys: if you think the liturgical conservatives have spoiled the ordinary form of the Mass, don’t forget that you now have the option of the extraordinary form, where problems of translation don’t arise.”
Well it’s certainly a definite step in the right direction. There was huge opposition to the last (and generally very good) draft which circulated a year or so ago. It was felt that any word of more than two syllables was beyond the capability of any post Vat II congregation and they have had, of course, years of the present rubbish. Such phrases as “deign to grant,” “supplicate” etc were especially frowned upon. It was pure delay tactics. The modernists never wanted an accurate translation of the Latin,just a new version with all the baggage that goes with it. They have been seriously wrong-footed again now by Rome.
Is this version for the whole English-speaking world or just the US? Without disrespect to our US friends, we of the old country have felt very much that we were forced into accepting very much mid-Atlantic compromises up to now. At least now there does seem here something usable and generally serviceable.
There are however one or two odd uses. What on earth is “dewfall” supposed to be? There is still an aversion to use of the relative pronoun (who/whom) in the Creed in favour of a new sentence; eg should be: “through whom all things were made..” Catholic is spelt with a small “c” (Catholic and apostolic). “From the rising of the sun” (Eu II) replaces the “from East to West” which is good, but “in a similar way” (simile modo) at the consecration is awkward for “similarly” or “in like manner” which might serve better.
The “Domine non sum dignus” is much better, correctly translated and “Sins of the world” (plural) are back for current “Sin of the world” which has a very Protestant feel about it, as though it were one common sin of mankind, not the weight of all our individual sins.
On the whole therefore it is a great improvement, but it still shows all those holes and gaps of the new rite. Never mind, given that the Holy Father thinks the old rite will improve the new (and even vice-versa in theory), perhaps those holes will be filled in eventually.
One thing is sure, there will be huge opposition. It’s all becoming uncomfortably “Catholic” (big C) all of a sudden. Personally I think this version should be imposed tout de suite or the wrangling will continue for ever. I suggest next Septuagesima at the latest (or its modern equivalent).
Card Arinze’s GIRM revisions were largely ignored. Much stronger action needs taking now. If we must have a vernacular Mass, at least let it be the best and most faithful of translations.
I agree with Mr Boot’s comments. Often it seems that the particularly American usage is favored. Even though I am born and raised here, I often think(know ) our use of the language on this side of the Atlantic often sounds more again telephone book or instruction manual English and we would do well to defer to those of the mother country with regards to proper usage. Nothing distracts more from comprehending an idea expressed than rendering it in banal English. I have not had the direct experience of the Book of Common Prayer or the KJV for that matter but it would seem from articles I have read it is the cadences of those translations which have contributed to their success and I think what leads many Evangelical Protestants to cling to the KJV as if it was what was handed to Moses and St Paul. I seem to recall a posting where a nonbelieving author (Ithink H.L.Mencken) wrote about the Latin Mass that “God forbid they translate it into American”. I know not the source or remember the blogger who posted it, but these sentiments were such that I completely agreed with what was said.
JPG