| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harasment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| New English Translation of the Mass | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Wednesday, 31. October 2007, 21:39 (1,249 Views) | |
| OsullivanB | Monday, 2. March 2009, 21:37 Post #211 |
|
right up to the present day presumably. |
 |
 
|
| Quicunque vult | Monday, 2. March 2009, 21:54 Post #212 |
|
O'Sullivan B wrote
Up to and including the Second Vatican Council. Whether the Novus Ordo rite is in accordance with tradition is a moot point on which views differ. I am aware of views that Papal power was exceeded in authorising a rite that abandoned so much of tradition and in the de facto suppression of the old rite against the express wishes of the Council. QV |
|
|
|
| OsullivanB | Monday, 2. March 2009, 22:00 Post #213 |
|
A successor is a successor though. I don't think we have any sedevacantists posting here. Edited by OsullivanB, Monday, 2. March 2009, 22:00.
|
|
|
|
| John Sweeney | Tuesday, 3. March 2009, 00:23 Post #214 |
|
QV No intention to misquote you. Could you tell us how the Mass developed from the words/actions of the Apostles and their successors ie how it was handed down to us from them? A few bullet points with perhaps datelines showing significant developments would be sufficient. Many thanks John |
|
|
|
| SeanJ | Sunday, 5. April 2009, 14:27 Post #215 |
|
Moderator
|
A new head for the ICEL, an English traditionalist. I'm only surprised that nobody else posted it. Sean Edited by SeanJ, Sunday, 5. April 2009, 14:28.
|
|
|
|
| Rose of York | Sunday, 5. April 2009, 15:23 Post #216 |
Administrator
|
A new head for the ICEL, an English traditionalist.
It was in 2001 that the Vatican tightened up on ICEL, stressing that the translations of liturgical texts should adhere closely to the sense and wording of the Latin originals. Bishop Roche was appointmed chairman of ICEL in July 2002. ICEL has produced a translation very similar to that with which we were all familiar, pre Vatican 2. Link Now we read a claim that a "traditiionalist" will take over later this year. I would dearly like to see an end to these labels. A priest who makes provision for Mass to be offered in both rites is neither a traditionalist nor a liberal, he is a PRIEST. |
  Catholic and proud of it! Talk to God before Mass. Talk to each other afterwards | |
|
|
|
| Derekap | Sunday, 5. April 2009, 17:48 Post #217 |
|
The latest announcement gives me the impression the present "new Translation" may be changed to suit the opposition to the present usage and directives from the Vatican. Frankly, the more I read about more literal translations from Latin, the more poetic and expressive language, the more I fear for the result and for the reaction of many many Catholics. I prefer prayers as we express them in today's good English not expressed as in Latin or a high falutin manner or as expressed a few hundred years ago. My non-Catholic father used to complain about non-Catholic clergy who used what he would say was a parsonic manner instead of a natural manner. I agree there should be opportunities for Holy Mass in Latin but let us also have Holy Mass in the true and proper vernacular not a Latinised vernacular. Edited by Derekap, Sunday, 5. April 2009, 17:52.
|
| Derekap | |
|
|
| Rose of York | Sunday, 5. April 2009, 17:54 Post #218 |
|
Administrator
|
Derek if you click here you can read the new translation of Eucharistic Prayer III. http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/missalformation/EuchPrayerIII.pdf I would say it is half way between old and new, regarding vocabulary. |
|
Catholic and proud of it! Talk to God before Mass. Talk to each other afterwards | |
|
|
|
| Derekap | Sunday, 5. April 2009, 18:14 Post #219 |
|
"I would say it is half way between old and new, regarding vocabulary." I agree Rose, but being intransigent, I prefer the present version. I certainly prefer: 'you' instead of: 'your spirit'. To me 'you' includes the human and spiritual person' whereas 'your spirit' refers to the spiritual person only. |
| Derekap | |
|
|
|
| Fortunatus | Sunday, 5. April 2009, 18:23 Post #220 |
|
John, if you want a history of the liturgy I suggest you try http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09306a.htm I know there are those who distrust newadvent but this seems to tie in fairly well with what I know of the subject. I can recommend the following (or have had them recommended to me; I haven't yet read all of them) for anyone who wants to study the development and meaning of liturgy in any depth. Doubtless there are other books equally as good. The Spirit of the Liturgy by Joseph Ratzinger and John Saward Liturgy: Sacrosanctum Concilium (Rediscovering the Vatican II) by Rita Ferrone Worship as a Revelation: The Past Present and Future of Catholic Liturgy by Laurence Paul Hemming Why Go to Church? by Timothy Radcliffe Happy Easter! |
|
|
|
| SeanJ | Sunday, 5. April 2009, 18:49 Post #221 |
|
Moderator
|
Why would anybody distrust NewAdvent? Sean |
|
|
|
| John Sweeney | Monday, 6. April 2009, 09:09 Post #222 |
|
Thanks Fortunatus. The account quoted contains all the familiar research. The authors desperately want to prove a clear link between early Christian practices and what we would recognise as Mass but I think any fair-minded reader would conclude that they fail to do this despite all their efforts. I don't think this matters except that the idea that the Apostles were saying a full recognisable Latin Mass can lead us into a false sense of superiority! John |
|
|
|
| CARLO | Monday, 6. April 2009, 11:07 Post #223 |
|
Derek What pray is the 'true and proper vernacular' ? I recall back in the heady post V2 1970s publication of a new and trendy US English translation of the New Testament in what was described as 'Modern English'. It was published in paperback in the UK and together with similar quirky efforts it is now long forgotten. From memory one section opened as follows: "Jesus and his buddies were hangin out together down by the river when a great gang of people came along to chew the fat.................." I will spare you a conversion of this 'true vernacular' US English into its UK equivalent except to say that it is even more ugly! Miserere nobis Have mercy on us CARLO Edited by CARLO, Monday, 6. April 2009, 11:08.
|
| Judica me Deus | |
|
|
|
| Derekap | Monday, 6. April 2009, 14:56 Post #224 |
|
Carlo asked me: "What pray is the 'true and proper vernacular" The normal English most of us use on this forum. As I've said a few times before, the Holy Mass was translated into Latin because it was then the vernacular in Rome. I doubt if anyone speaks in any language in the 21st Century exactly as they did in the 4th Century. Everyday language evolves. When translating we must aim to express ourselves in our language what we would normally say, not a literal nor closely literal translation. I remember in the days before the Mgr Ronald Knox translation of the Bible hearing on radio an excerpt from the Bible in broad Yorkshire. Jesus addressed his apostle as 'Lads'. I am not suggesting the Bible be thus translated throughout but it seemed more natural than the Douai and other versions I used to hear then. The excerpt made me think afresh. The American version you quote seems to us very alien indeed but whilst most people in the USA may not approve I doubt if it will be as alien to them as to us. Edited by Derekap, Monday, 6. April 2009, 14:59.
|
| Derekap | |
|
|
|
| Fortunatus | Monday, 6. April 2009, 15:38 Post #225 |
|
Sorry, John, but I come back to the old adage, "Information cannot communicate with a closed mind". Nobody has ever suggested that the apostles celebrated the Mass in its final form (whether by final you mean as is now or as was at Trent or after Trent or as a result of the changes that followed even after that). I'm not sure what "research" other than the "familiar" you expect. The epistles and the writings of the early Fathers suggest a ritual rather than a collection of ad hoc gatherings and the outlines at least of the liturgy were clear by the 4th century or by the 6th at the latest. The problem is that supporters of the Novus Ordo like to imply that the usus antiquior was created at the Council of Trent while in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Trent only codified what already existed and did some tidying up, including the incorporation into the Latin rite of several other rites which had effectively fallen into disuse. Neither is the 1962 Missal of John XXIII the same as the Pius V Missal. To give one example:- When each major feast had its own octave the feast was commemmorated in an additional Collect each day. So by the time it came to the Feast of the Circumcision the Mass included not only the Collect for the feast but also the Collects for the Nativity, St Stephen, St John, and the Holy Innocents. Have a look at http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Octave_(liturgical) for a good explanation of how liturgical octaves arose and how they were eventually reduced to the present two. It also proves that the Latin rite was not cast in stone at Trent but has evolved since. The reason why Novus Ordo fans argue as they do is that unless Trent produced a "new" Mass which has been virtually unchanged since 1570 their argument for replacing the 1962 Missal wholesale fails miserably. The Novus Ordo — whatever may be the individual views on it — is not an evolution of what went before; it is, as Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out, an artificial construct; it does represent a rupture; it is not what the Council Fathers approved nor what Sacrosanctum Concilium envisaged. To say that it can be justified because the rite that emerged from Trent was also something new is incorrect and no amount of burying your head in the sand about the "familiar research" will make it any different. And Latin is a red herring. There is, as far as I know, no doctrinal objection to celebrating the Mass of the 1962 Missal in the vernacular. There may well be disciplinary reasons but that is another matter. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The Mass , Liturgy, Sacraments, Priesthood · Next Topic » | |
5:01 PM Nov 24