"The greatest problem of the new missal" according to Msgr. Richard J. Schuler in 1984
  • Paul_OnnonhoaratonPaul_Onnonhoaraton
    Posts: 434
    “The greatest problem of the new missal, at least in English-speaking countries, lay in the miserable translation that was imposed upon priests and people. Many prayers were so mistranslated that a student of first-year Latin would have done better.” — Msgr. Richard Schuler, 1984


    READ THE FULL ARTICLE

    Lots more to read:

    Another fable introduced by the promoters of a new rite was the error that the new Mass had to be celebrated versus populum at a table altar erected near the congregation. Old altars were removed, even against the wishes of the people; new table altars were set up, some very poorly designed and even unworthy of the Mass celebrated on them. To promote the use of the altar versus populum, the English translation of the new missal of Paul VI even mistranslates the Latin original or leaves out entirely the rubrics of the Missale Romanum which in at least five places indicates that the priest should turn toward the people to say "The Lord be with you," "Pray brethern," "This is the Lamb of God," etc. The Latin has sacerdos conversus ad populum dicit, but the English takes no notice of conversus which clearly means "having turned toward the people." The norm for the new missal of Pope Paul VI is the priest at an altar which is not versus populum. Furthermore, the altar versus populum is not a new idea brought in by the reforms of Paul VI. The Mass could always be celebrated with the priest facing the people, as indeed it was in Rome and in many other places for centuries. True, it was not the usual way, but it did exist.
  • WiesOrganista
    Posts: 128
    Yep. Read his essay years ago...

    The "mis-translation" into English doesn't explain all the versus populum altars erected all over Europe...

    (And what does this have to do with music? LOL)
  • MarkThompson
    Posts: 768
    Except that "conversus" doesn't necessarily mean "having turned"; it means "Facing in a specified direction" (Oxford Latin Dict.) (and likewise versus, "In a specified direction, towards the quarter named). It is noteworthy that the Missal never once tells the priest to actively turn, in the same way that it tells him to do lots of other things ("he bows," "he genuflects," "he strikes his breast"); rather, it merely specifies with a past participle that certain things must be done "conversus" (facing) the people.

    As a person who favors the ad orientem posture, I nonetheless must recognize that this idea that the Missal "secretly" presupposes or even requires it is and has always been false.

    Edited to add: by "always" I mean "since 1969," haha.
  • MaryAnn Carr WilsonMaryAnn Carr Wilson
    Posts: 1,738
    That the newer missal presupposes the liturgical east posture is something my mentor, a bishop fluent in Latin, and also a canonist, has asserted for years.

    With all due respect, it can be easy to mistranslate when one is working primarily with dictionaries. Are you also fluent in Latin, Mark?

    I find it more compelling to hear from those fluent in both languages, and in the case of liturgical texts, those persons with theological degrees and first-hand rubrical knowledge. All these areas form a context which we musicans do not often possess. Msgr. Schuler would be an exception...

  • mahrt
    Posts: 517
    Mark,

    That the use of conversus and versus does mean turned to the people momentarily is supported by the fact that these rubrics occur in just a few places in the Mass, exactly where it would be appropriate for the priest to address the people directly, while he says the rest of the Mass ad orientem.
  • MarkThompson
    Posts: 768
    @MaryAnn: I read Latin comfortably enough, yes, though it would go much too far to say that I was "fluent" in the sense that I could compose or converse in it with any sort of facility. I cited a dictionary because I figured it would be more persuasive than "In my experience ...".

    @mahrt: I would say it is more consistent with the view (mine) that the rubrics studiously avoid making any presumption at all about which direction the priest will be facing. As an interesting bonus fact, the 1962 Missal also never tells the priest to "turn" to face the congregation, which allows it to be used without modification at St. Peter's and the other churches where the historical high altar faces the nave.
  • gregpgregp
    Posts: 632
    Mark, there's always the possibility of an idiomatic meaning for converto, but it would have to be a present participle to mean 'facing'. That would be 'convertens'. 'Convertus' is perfect, which almost always means 'after facing' or 'having faced'. To me, that implies a change from a previous state.
  • MarkThompson
    Posts: 768
    I am not citing an "idiomatic" usage, but rather the dictionary definition.

    One must remember that Latin makes do with what it has, and not every Latin word bears exactly the meaning it "ought" to have based on its etymology or grammatical parsing. Some months ago I talked (online) with somebody who was confused by the line "et homo factus est": factus est, they said, is the passive of facio, and so it should mean "was made" (by somebody), not "became" in a self-actuating sense. But the truth is, fio ("to become") is defective and lacks a past tense, so this is supplied by the past tenses of facio.

    Similarly the past participle conversus, grammatically speaking, means "having turned" (the prefix con- indicating, in this case, completeness). But as Latin lacks an explicit preposition meaning "facing," it gets the sense by using forms of versus, like adversus and conversus (the preposition contra can be used, but would generally carry a sense closer to "opposite from"). The fact that these adjectives derive from a verb meaning "turn" does not imply that any turning is actually done: an adversarius, for instance, is somebody who is against you, not somebody who has turned against you but must have been for you at some point in the past. There is nothing idiomatic about this; it is how these words are ordinarily used.

    Thus Caesar (Bello Civili 3.63): "Erat eo loco fossa . . . et vallum contra hostem . . . . Ab eo intermisso spatio pedum dc alter conversus in contrariam partem . . . ." -- "There was a trench with a rampart fronting the enemy. At an interval of six hundred feet away there was another, facing the opposite direction." Needless to say, at no point in time had the second set of works "turned."

    "Convertens" would be "turning," not "facing."
  • mahrt
    Posts: 517
    If the rubrics had been meant to prescribe a consistent facing of the people, they would have given that direction at the beginning, instead of at several places where it is appropriate for the priest facing East to turn to the people.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • MarkThompson
    Posts: 768
    As I said, the rubrics do not mean to prescribe either orientation.
  • hartleymartin
    Posts: 1,447
    “The greatest problem of the new missal, at least in English-speaking countries, lay in the miserable translation that was imposed upon priests and people. Many prayers were so mistranslated that a student of first-year Latin would have done better.” — Msgr. Richard Schuler, 1984


    This is true. In 2010-2011 I was heavily involved with the Sydney Guild of St Stephen in educating altar servants in the new translation of the missal. About April or May in 2011 I began looking at the Latin text directly, and I was shocked at the use of paraphrasing which robbed much depth of meaning from the Latin text. I had been studying Latin for about 8 weeks at that stage.

    Looking at church documents, rubrics, GIRM, etc, I understood that it was desirable to separate the tabernacle from the altar, since the tabernacle is the place of repose of the blessed sacrament and the altar is the place of liturgical action. The church documents made me understand that if a new church were being built or a church was undergoing major renovations that the separated altar and tabernacle was the desired arrangement. Removing existing altars was most definitely NOT an option or an idea mentioned in any church documents.

    I am also extremely wary of the practice of destroying an altar. In scripture it is seen in several places that altars to pagan gods have been destroyed and this has created, shall we say, a rather unpleasant situation. Tearing down an altar dedicated to the one true God does not bode well.
  • mahrt
    Posts: 517
    The publication of the Gregorian Missal (1990), with side-by-side Latin and English presentation of the orations (Collet, Prayer over the Offering, Postcommunion), was the occasion for quite a few people to compare for the first time the ICEL translations with their Latin originals. This was the occasion of shock for those who had not made such comparisons.
    Thanked by 2Paul_Onnonhoaraton CHGiffen
  • Paul_OnnonhoaratonPaul_Onnonhoaraton
    Posts: 434
    The publication of the Gregorian Missal (1990), with side-by-side Latin and English presentation of the orations (Collet, Prayer over the Offering, Postcommunion), was the occasion for quite a few people to compare for the first time the ICEL translations with their Latin originals. This was the occasion of shock for those who had not made such comparisons.

    Agreed! And on 23 February I wrote an entire blog about this here, with a "must-read" document of Msgr. Schuler.

    Here are some random examples I noticed yesterday (Old ICEL):

    image

    image

    The new translation is such a relief on so many levels.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • MHIMHI
    Posts: 324
    From the EF Ritus servandus, V (Collect):

    1. [...] the celebrant [...] having his eyes lowered to the ground, turns himself from the left side to the right towards the people [vertit se a sinistro latere ad dexterum versus populum], that is, by that part which regards the Epistle side [...] and having his hands joined, as before, turns back [revertitur] by the same way to the book [...]

    3. If the altar should be to the east, towards the people [ad orientem, versus populum], the celebrant having his face turned towards the people, he does not turn his shoulders to the altar [non vertit humeros ad altare], when he is to say Dóminus vobíscum, Oráte fratres, Ite, missa est, or is to give the blessing [...]

    The EF rubrics very clearly distinguish between an altar where liturgical east is the direction that the people face and one where it is the direction facing the people. In the first case the they require the celebrant to turn around at certain times, and in the second not to do so.
    Thanked by 4Paul_Onnonhoaraton ClemensRomanus CHGiffen gregp
  • Paul_OnnonhoaratonPaul_Onnonhoaraton
    Posts: 434
    MHI, thanks so much for this!

    Can you answer this?

    It is true also that the introduction to the first edition of the missal of Pope Paul VI had to be withdrawn because it so poorly expressed the true nature of the Mass as a sacramental sacrifice.

    source

    Years ago, I had a copy of the Ottaviani Intervention --- is it in there?
    Thanked by 1MHI
  • MHIMHI
    Posts: 324
    I believe that Mons. Schuler refers to a change in the preliminary part of the Pauline Missal: from memory, a reference to sacrifice was added to the section that describes the Mass as a sacred Synaxis; from memory, M. Davies (R.I.P.) discusses it in Pope Paul's New Mass.
  • MHIMHI
    Posts: 324
    The Lord’s Supper, or Mass, is a sacred synaxis, or assembly of the people of God gathered together under the presidency of the priest to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. (Pope Paul VI, Institutio Generalis, §7, 1969 version)

    This is the pre-revision text.
  • MaryAnn Carr WilsonMaryAnn Carr Wilson
    Posts: 1,738
    ^^^ some buzzword loving liturgist likely took great delight in crafting that.
    the presidency of the priest...
    sacred synaxis...

    How very uninspiring.

    How did people make it through those days? God reward Msgr. Schuler!
Add a Comment