What’s your response to the following: “The Lord be with you.”
If you said, “And also with you,” you’re probably a Catholic who goes to Mass on Sunday.
Not so fast. That response is about to change, along with other familiar parts of the Mass.
Overall, the language in the new English translation, just released by the bishops, is more elevated than before.
Critics of the old translation thought that the language was too conversational to be reverent. On the other side were those who thought that conversational language helped people to pray to God more naturally.
One easy place to see the change is when the priest prays a blessing over the bread and wine.
Here’s the old translation: “Let your Spirit come upon these gifts, to make them holy.”
Here’s the new one: “Make holy, therefore, these gifts, we pray, by sending down your Spirit upon them like the dewfall.”
Old and New Priest: The Lord be with you.
Old People: And also with you.
Previously Old but now New People: And with your spirit.
So, what’s new?
I like the Rite I “And with thy spirit” but I notice that people emphasize the wrong word: it should be said “and with THY spirit.” (Et cum spiritu tuo, if my Latin doesn’t fail me). Otherwise, it is a non-sequitor.
I actually like the new translation of the epiclesis (which Eucharistic Prayer is it, btw). It is closer to the Latin; there’s concrete imagery; and it has a better rhythm.
nothing will change at S. Barnabas then
http://www.sbarnabas.com
we become trendy by doing nothing!
“. . . like the dewfall”? Please.
#5 hath said the word. Dewfall? Dewfall? what is the matter with their ears? How about “like the rain upon the cabbage, rhubarb, and winter squash”? Or how about “like the dewdrops”? Mercy. The RC needs to get writers who do not have dead ears. T his is NOT more reverent. It is simply stilted. Larry
I like the Creed going back to an “I believe” statement.
Actually the only thing that I could not say in good conscience is the statement the Mary is ever-virgin.
“Dew” has strong usage in Exodus 16:13-15; Deuteronomy 33:28; and Gen. 27:28 (RSV).
Yeah, dewfall is sort of a bit hokey sounding, but I guess there is some scriptural warrant for the imagery. I am much more concerned that the mystery of faith “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again” is being deleted in its entirety (I am taking the author at his words). I can’t imagine why that would completely be deleted. That is one of the more powerful moments in the whole of the mass for me.
Is the full text available online anywhere? I would like to read it for myself.
Never mind, I found the link to it on the page.
At least they’re trying to make their liturgy more reverent and beautiful. I for one am glad, since there is certainly much room for improvment in the RC liturgy and who knows, if things go completely to hell in the AC, I may find myself heading to Rome.
Okay, looking more closely at it, the mystery of faith is not going to be deleted in its entirely, the translation of it is yet to be determined. That makes me feel better.
Further reflections upon looking at the actual link to the Changes in the Parts of the People in the Revised Order of the Mass
in the Roman Missal, Third Edition, and then I will stop posting on this thread:
I find the ending of the Sursum Corda to be a bit odd: “It is right and just” in lieu of “it is right to give him thanks and praise.” That seems a little choppy to me.
“through my fault, through my fault,
through my most grievous fault;” this seems a little redundant to me, but at least they are actually talking about sin and faults, something that mainstream protestants fail to do oftentime.
I am also a little curious why they are going back to the singular form of the Nicene Creed. Not that I have done a whole lot of research in the subject, but as I recall what I read in seminary, the original form of the creed was the plural and the singular “I believe” didn’t surface until the early middle ages.
And they are also leaving in the filioque clause, not that that surprises me much, coming from Rome.
“I look forward to the resurrection of the dead” is grammatically unclear to me. Does that mean I am looking forward (i.e. being glad for) or looking forward (i.e. peering into the distant future.) That just struck me as odd.
Not to knit pick, but “And one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.” is not a complete a sentence, it is a sentence fragment. If you are going to use a conjunction, you need a comma or semicolon.
Overall this is not a bad restructuring, just a few grammatical oddities that I do not understand why they needed to be changed to make it sound more “churchy.” At least they didn’t go overboard with the inclusive language schtick, which I really fear is going to happen in the Episcopal church if they try to revise the BCP again.
[blockquote]I am much more concerned that the mystery of faith “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again†is being deleted in its entirety (I am taking the author at his words). I can’t imagine why that would completely be deleted.[/blockquote]
Simple: it is not in the Latin text (another of ICEL’s -the 1970’s version – [i] ex nihilio [/i]creations ).
Archer, if you want to read substantive discussion on these texts & the translations, try either http://wdtprs.com/blog/ or http://thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.com/
I am thankful that they are omitting “by the power of the Holy Spirit” in the Creeds, as “the power of” leaves room for agency, whereas the original (and now new), “by the Holy Spirit” reminds us that God the Son took human flesh of a virgin mother.
Will ECUSA and other churches who signed onto the common English texts follow with the changes? (Don’t hold your breath…)
[i]Is the full text available online anywhere?[/i]
Yep – [url=http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/missalformation/OrdoMissaeWhiteBook.pdf]here.[/url]
BTW – the acclamation “Christ has died” existed only among English (read: US) speakers as a regional variant.
Language is a thing of the people, so I doubt very much that it matters to God what we say, as long as we bow down and worship Him.
It’s like a Roman Catholic version of “King James only”
Ok, correction to above (and mea culpa):
For some reason, I thought the Latin had the part about the dewfall. (I must be thinking of another prayer.) I checked the Latin for Prayers I-IV. The Canon (Prayer I), of course, doesn’t have it, but neither to do the others. Instead, it’s your basic Roman reserve and economy of language, simply asking for God to send the Spirit and sanctify the gifts. Given [i]Liturgiam authenticam[/i]’s call for faithfulness to the Latin, I’m not quite sure where it comes from.
It is good for any of us who find ourselves tempted to romanticize the Roman church to see this sort of liturgical pedantry — some good, some silly, some head-scratchers. Perfect liturgies are like perfect churches: an empty set.
As for the Nicene Creed, yes, the original text (in Greek) from the 1st Council of Constantinople did phrase it in the 1st person plural. However, the Latin text in the Mass has it in the singular. (Of course, this made sense when the priest was the only one saying it.) Therefore, all other translations now have to have it in the singular.
Re: the Consultation on Common Texts: At one time there was considerable agreement and consultation between CCT and the International Consultation on English in the Liturgy (ICEL), but Rome has since effectively brought an end to much of that. Just because the RCC wants to change the translations doesn’t mean other churches have to as well.
As for the Nicene Creed, yes, the original text (in Greek) from the 1st Council of Constantinople did phrase it in the 1st person plural. However, the Latin text in the Mass has it in the singular. (Of course, this made sense when the priest was the only one saying it.) Therefore, all other translations now have to have it in the singular.
Re: the Consultation on Common Texts: At one time there was considerable agreement and consultation between CCT and the International Consultation on English in the Liturgy (ICEL), but Rome has since effectively brought an end to much of that. Just because the RCC wants to change the translations doesn’t mean other churches have to as well.
Archer (#14),
The Latin text simply states, “Dignum et iustum est.” In English, “It is right and just” does sound choppy and brusque, but [i]Liturgiam authenticam[/i]’s instructions on translation don’t really care about what it sounds like in the translations; it simply emphasizes literal faithfulness to the Latin and the creation of a so-called “sacral vernacular” ([i]lingua sacra vulgaris[/i]) that really doesn’t have much to do with the way people actually speak in the vernacular.
The Holy Spirit falls like dew! What ever happened to fire? Unless this refers to baptism by sprinkling? What happened to the Credemus?
Hosea 14:
5 I will be like the dew to Israel; He will blossom like the lily, And he will take root like the cedars of Lebanon.
Psalm 133:
1 Behold, how good and pleasant it is
when brothers dwell in unity!
2 It is like the precious oil on the head,
running down on the beard,
on the beard of Aaron,
running down on the collar of his robes!
3 It is like the dew of Hermon,
which falls on the mountains of Zion!
For there the Lord has commanded the blessing,
life forevermore.
I think the Memorial Acclamation concept was brought into Western Eucharistic Prayers after studying those from the East. If one is trying to move back to a pre-Vatican II model for the Canon, that would be one element likely to go away.
So it’s early Sunday morning, the pews are full of sleepy parishioners, the processional is over, and the priest is fumbling around trying to turn on his busted microphone.
Priest (mumbling): There’s something wrong with this microphone.
People: And also with you.
“I will be like the dew to Israel….” and so on. But, even if we allow that dew is a reasonable image, why “dewfall”? I can’t find that in any translation I checked on biblegateway. It’s a heavy-handedly “poetic” word. I think it would make me feel self-conscious to say it (not unlike “this fragile earth, our island home” in EP C).
#20 – The Latin of Eucharistic Prayer II does, in fact, mention dew:
“Haec ergo dona, quaesumus, Spiritus tui rore sanctifica…”
“Rore” being a conjugated form of roro, rorare (to drop dew , drip, be moist; transit., to bedew, moisten, water; to drip, let fall in drops).
I like elevated language, but to my American ear, dewfall sounds way too close to both doofus and awful. Dew by itself would have done nicely. It is implicitly understood that the dew fell.
Ok, my apologies again. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa