What about the Latin editions?

Well it does to the people who post here... dispassionate and reasoned debate, with a good deal of humour thrown in for good measure.

Moderators: Dom Perignon, Casimir

User avatar
musicus
Moderator
Posts: 1605
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 8:47 am
Location: UK
Contact:

What about the Latin editions?

Post by musicus »

Last Sunday's pastoral letter from BCEW contained the following passage:

Since the Second Vatican Council, the Church has produced three Latin editions of the Roman
Missal. At present, we are still using a translation of the first edition which was published in
1973. Although the texts we have been using have served us well, since that time there has been
much development in the liturgical texts themselves and in our understanding of them.

A conversation with a fellow Catholic this evening got me wondering about those three Latin editions. He confidently believed that they had all been significantly different, which is why the new English translation is significantly different too. I, OTOH, thought that they had been broadly similar and that the differences in the new translation were more down to the method of translation. However, the Bishops' phrase "since that time there has been much development in the liturgical texts themselves" has given me pause.

So, can anyone enlighten me, please, as to the nature, the extent and the importance of the differences between these three Latin editions?
musicus - moderator, Liturgy Matters
blog
Southern Comfort
Posts: 2024
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 12:31 pm

Re: What about the Latin editions?

Post by Southern Comfort »

Whoever wrote the Bishop's document was not quite accurate.

1973 was the first English edition, not Latin.

In brief, Latin editions as follows:

1970, 1st edition. Quickly reprinted the same year to eliminate some small typos (such as tus es sacerdos — "incense, thou art priest" — instead of tu es sacerdos

1975, 2nd edition. Small differences, mostly to take account of the fact that subdeacons had been abolished since 1970, that women were now allowed to read the scriptures from a place in the sanctuary (permission granted subsequent to 1970), etc.

2002, 3rd edition. Some additional texts, and new saints' days, etc, but the greater bulk of the Missal remains the same as 1970/1975. Principal changes listed at http://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Missal/Information/RM3-Additions.pdf. It appears that this is in fact not a complete list. The cynics say that this 3rd edition was produced in order for the Congregation to have an excuse not to approve the ICEL 1998 revised translation of the 2nd edition, which would have been excellent. It currently exists as four PDF files totalling 11MB which I suspect this website will not allow me to upload.

The new translation is not different because of any significant differences in the Latin. That's the sort of urban myth which abounds on other blogs, but not here of course. :wink: The differences arise from the completely different "theory" of translation contained in the instruction Liturgiam Authenticam (2001) as compared with the guidance given in the previous instruction Comme le prévoit (1967).
User avatar
Nick Baty
Posts: 2199
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 11:27 am
Parish / Diocese: Formerly Our Lady Immaculate, Everton, Liverpool
Contact:

Re: What about the Latin editions?

Post by Nick Baty »

Thanks for this, SC. Most interesting.
Before the 1973 English edition, didn't we have another translation?
And was this just in part and transitional rather than the whole Missal?
Am a tad foggy about this as I was a tad young at the time.
But I do remember singing "Lord, God of hosts" – yes, with the comma in those days, I think!

And I'm sure I asked this somewhere else on here – and not too long ago.
The brain is a tad befuddled this week.
User avatar
keitha
Posts: 364
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:23 pm

Re: What about the Latin editions?

Post by keitha »

There was an interim (and pretty literal) translation of the Ordinary in use before the 1973 translation of the novus ordo. In my parish we used it at low mass, but only Latin at High Mass and Missa cantata. From memory, the latest translation of the Ordinary seems to be very similar to that interim translation. It might be interesting to do a comparison - if anyone can find the interim translation! :)
Keith Ainsworth
John Ainslie
Posts: 395
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 10:23 am

Re: What about the Latin editions?

Post by John Ainslie »

Oh yes, there were two successive versions of the Order of Mass in English, one from about 1964 (I think), the other from Advent 1966 until the New Order of Mass came into use at Advent 1969.

Here is the 1966 Gloria:
Glory be to God on high
And on earth peace to men who are God's friends.
We praise thee.
We bless thee.
We adore thee.
We glorify thee.
We give thee thanks for thy great glory.
Lord God, heavenly King, God the almighty Father.
Lord Jesus Christ, only-begotten Son.
Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father,
Thou who takest away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.
Thou who takest away the sins of the world, receive our prayer.
Thou who art seated at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us.
For thou alone art the Holy One.
Thou alone art the Lord.
Thou alone art the Most High, Jesus Christ,
With the Holy Spirit; in the glory of God the Father. Amen.

I have kept the original line breaks. The 'men who are God's friends' caused some amusement and not a little embarrassment at the time - this was, of course, before anyone had heard of inclusive language.

This was also when 'And also with you' replaced the original 'And with you'.
John Ainslie
Posts: 395
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 10:23 am

Re: What about the Latin editions?

Post by John Ainslie »

Nick Baty wrote:But I do remember singing "Lord, God of hosts" – yes, with the comma in those days, I think!

No, Nick, the 1966 text reads:
Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of hosts.
Thy glory fills all heaven and earth.
Hosanna in the highest.
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.
Hosanna in the highest.

So yes, a comma, but after the third 'Holy'.

There were some good settings of this, including an excellent rhythmic choir v. people one by Timothy Baxter which I taught to the children's choir and congregation at the old Pro-Cathedral, Clifton - before the new cathedral was built.
User avatar
Nick Baty
Posts: 2199
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 11:27 am
Parish / Diocese: Formerly Our Lady Immaculate, Everton, Liverpool
Contact:

Re: What about the Latin editions?

Post by Nick Baty »

John Ainslie wrote:So yes, a comma, but after the third 'Holy'.

Whereas I have it after the third Holy! :D
Yes, I should have had an ellipsis.
Chris
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 3:10 pm
Contact:

Re: What about the Latin editions?

Post by Chris »

The 1964 Gloria in both the English & American versions (as printed in the Tablet, September 5th 1964, p1006-1008.)

English:

Glory be to God on high
and on earth peace to men of good will.
We praise thee.
We bless thee.
We give thee thanks for thy great glory.
Lord God, heavenly King,
God the Father almighty,
Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son.
Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father.
Thou who takest away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.
Thou who takest away the sins of the world, recieve our prayer.
Thou who sittest at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us.
For Thou alone art holy.
For Thou only are the Lord.
Thou alone art most high, O Jesus Christ.
With the Holy Ghost, in the glory of God the Father. Amen

American

Glory to God in the highest.
And on earth peace to men of good will.
We praise you.
We bless you.
We give you thanks for your great glory.
Lord God, heavenly King,
God the Father almighty,
Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son.
Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father.
You who take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.
You who take away the sins of the world, recieve our prayer.
You who sit at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us.
For you alone are holy.
For you alone are the Lord.
You alone, O Jesus Christ,are most high,
With the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father. Amen
Chris
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 3:10 pm
Contact:

Re: What about the Latin editions?

Post by Chris »

The Eucharistic Prayer in the 1964 interim order of Mass in England remained in Latin (up till the Agnus Dei), so there was no translation of the Sanctus.

The American order however had the Sanctus, Pater Noster and Agnus Dei in English.

The Sanctus from the 1964 American order: (punctuation and capitalisation as found in The Tablet, September 5th 1964, p1008)

Holy, holy, holy Lord God of hosts.
Heaven and earth are filled with your glory.
Hosanna in the highest.
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.
Hosanna in the highest.
User avatar
Nick Baty
Posts: 2199
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 11:27 am
Parish / Diocese: Formerly Our Lady Immaculate, Everton, Liverpool
Contact:

Re: What about the Latin editions?

Post by Nick Baty »

Chris wrote:Holy, holy, holy Lord God of hosts.

That blinking comma is sent to befuddle us!
User avatar
presbyter
Posts: 1651
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 8:21 pm
Parish / Diocese: youknowalready
Location: elsewhere

Re: What about the Latin editions?

Post by presbyter »

Southern Comfort wrote:2002, 3rd edition. Some additional texts, and new saints' days, etc, but the greater bulk of the Missal remains the same as 1970/1975.


And is this not itself in two editions? My new Altar Missal (Latin) contains the EPs for children but I seem to remember SC posting elsewhere that his edition (printed only a few months later than mine) did not contain this material. Is that correct?

(What has happened to the EPs for Children in ICEL English? Where are they?)
Chris
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 3:10 pm
Contact:

Re: What about the Latin editions?

Post by Chris »

A few weeks after The Tablet published the (English & American) texts for the interim order of Mass to be used from Advent 1964 (of which I have posted the Gloria & Sanctus above) it also published a translation of the whole order of Mass by the famed writer Hilaire Belloc.

the translation was prefaced with an editorial note:

'This translation, which Hiloire Belloc made for the
private rise of himself and his friends, is here reprinted by
courtesy of his literary executor with the idea of interesting
the Hierarchy and their expert committe in preparing
their vernacular version. ' (The Tablet, October 17th 1964, p 1172-1174)

Here are the translations of the Gloria & Sanctus

Glory to God in the highest.
And on earth peace to men of goodwill.
We praise You.
We bless You.
We adore You.
We glorify You.
We give You thanks for your (own) great glory,
Lord God, King of Heaven, Godthe Father Almighty.
Lord Son, the only begotten, Jesus Christ.
Lord (and) God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father.
You who take away the sins of the world have mercy on us.
You who take away the sins of the world receive Our supplication.
You who sit on the right hand of the Father have mercy on us.
For You alone are Holy. You alone are Lord.
You alone are supreme, Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit
in the Splendour of the Father.

Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Hosts,
the heavens and the earth are full of Your glory,
Hosanna in the highest.
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.
Hosanna in the highest.

This article suggests that Belloc's work may have been an inspiration to ICEL... http://www.adoremus.org/499Belloc.html
Southern Comfort
Posts: 2024
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 12:31 pm

Re: What about the Latin editions?

Post by Southern Comfort »

Chris wrote:The Eucharistic Prayer in the 1964 interim order of Mass in England remained in Latin (up till the Agnus Dei), so there was no translation of the Sanctus.

The American order however had the Sanctus, Pater Noster and Agnus Dei in English.

The Sanctus from the 1964 American order: (punctuation and capitalisation as found in The Tablet, September 5th 1964, p1008)

Holy, holy, holy Lord God of hosts.
Heaven and earth are filled with your glory.
Hosanna in the highest.
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.
Hosanna in the highest.


This was the period when the Order of Mass was gradually moving from Latin to the vernacular. It did so in stages, the last thing to go being the Roman Canon (there were no others canons at that point).

In order to cope with this, the UK publishers Geoffrey Chapman issued two loose-leaf binders, the blue Book of Collects (for use at the chair — contained the introductory rites as they then were, Collect Prayer, Postcommunion Prayer and concluding rites) and the red Sacramentary (for use at the altar — contained everything else). In order to cope with the phased changes from Latin to the vernacular, fresh batches of replacement pages were sent out every few months for priests to insert in the binders in place of existing pages, as new parts of the Mass progressively went into English. The translation used at that point was the NLC (National Liturgical Commission) translation, whose antiphons and prayers continued to exist side-by-side with the ICEL ones for years after in missalettes from Goodliffe Neale, Farnworth, etc. The loose-leaf idea was messy, but in practice it worked and kept the users abreast of the latest liturgical developments as they happened.

In 1969 the new Order of Mass was published in Latin, translated into English by ICEL and used in English from the 1st Sunday of Advent of the same year. It was followed closely by the new Holy Week rites ahead of the full Missal. These were available for use in English for the first time in Holy Week 1970. Publishers produced special Holy Week altar books and people's books for the purpose.

At that stage we still had the "men who are God's friends" Gloria and the "Thy glory fills all heaven and earth" Sanctus that John Ainslie adduces. These changed to the 1970/71 ICET translation we are currently using in 1973, but older versions hung around for some while. Baxter's setting of the 'Holy, holy', cited by Ainslie, was probably the last to disappear.

People such as the late Laurence Bévenot, who had published New Music for Holy Week in the 1960s had to revise it, to his considerable annoyance as I recall.

ICEL's complete English translation of the Roman Missal was completed in 1973, but did not appear in published form in the British Isles until 1975: the Roman Missal that we currently use.

At the same time as all this was going on, the Congregation had published the Ordo Lectionum Missae in 1969. This was a list of scripture references for readings and chants for the new Lectionary, including captions to the readings and responses to the psalms. This resulted in the one-volume Jerusalem Bible Lectionary (red cover) appearing in 1970, followed later in the same year by a similar volume (dark blue cover) using RSV for the scriptures. The latter was a better product than the former (but did not sell as well, since most people had bought the JB version instead of waiting). Opportunities had been taken to iron out mistakes in the JB Lectionary, and the translation itself, though still in thee-thou language, was designed for public proclamation in a way that the JB was not. There are still a few churches using the RSV Lectionary from that time — Douai Abbey is one. The Grail psalms were common to both versions.

In 1980 Rome issued a three-volume Lectionarium, this time containing the actual texts of the scriptures including psalms, and slightly increased in content in the ritual and votive masses and notably with a much expanded and very rich Introduction. This appeared in English in 1981 as the three-volume Lectionary that we have now, Jerusalem Bible only with Grail psalms.

In a few cases Rome had altered the psalm responses (and even the actual psalms in one or two instances). The Bishops decided that, for Sundays and major feasts, it was undesirable to change responses which the people had got used to, and so they stayed as they were, which accounts for some (but not all) of the small number of minor divergences between E&W and US lectionaries to this day.

The new Lectionarium also paired up Gospel Acclamations with the following Gospel readings. Chapman's editors had already in 1968-70 made selections when there was a choice of texts of Gospel Acclamations (for example during Sundays and Weekdays of Ordinary Time), pairing them as appropriately as possible with the Gospel readings. This was also what appeared in people's lectionaries, and carried over into hand missals. In the new three-volume Lectionary and in people's missals, from 1981 on, therefore, there would often be two choices: the original one selected by Chapman's editors, and the one selected in the Roman three-volume version, whenever the two did not coincide.
User avatar
Nick Baty
Posts: 2199
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2006 11:27 am
Parish / Diocese: Formerly Our Lady Immaculate, Everton, Liverpool
Contact:

Re: What about the Latin editions?

Post by Nick Baty »

That's one post that's really worth saving.
Thank you for that SC.
Southern Comfort
Posts: 2024
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 12:31 pm

Re: What about the Latin editions?

Post by Southern Comfort »

presbyter wrote:
Southern Comfort wrote:2002, 3rd edition. Some additional texts, and new saints' days, etc, but the greater bulk of the Missal remains the same as 1970/1975.


And is this not itself in two editions? My new Altar Missal (Latin) contains the EPs for children but I seem to remember SC posting elsewhere that his edition (printed only a few months later than mine) did not contain this material. Is that correct?

(What has happened to the EPs for Children in ICEL English? Where are they?)


I would be interested to see this. The Roman excuse for excluding the EPs for Masses with Children from the forthcoming Missal is (a) that these prayers were composed in vernacular languages (but then so was the Prayer for Various Needs and occasions, which started off life as the "Swiss Synod Prayer") but also, more importantly, (b) that these prayers have never appeared in a Latin edition of the Missale Romanum (but then neither had VNO — until now!).

At one stage, ICEL said that it was working on a retranslation of these prayers in accordance with the stipulations of Liturgiam Authenticam and that they would be issued in a separate fascicle in due course. No further news has been heard of that for many moons. In the meantime, the advice is that, in the absence of the retranslation, the present translation may continue to be used (even though these prayers do not appear in the new Missal) until such time as the retranslation is published. The same applies to the Consecration of Oils, over which battles royal are apparently being fought in Rome even as we speak (they, too, do not appear in the Missal and they too are being or will be retranslated).

In the midst of all this, no one has yet mentioned the EP for Masses with the Deaf that we have in England and Wales. The presumption is that this, too, will continue in use.
Post Reply