Ordinary of Mass in the English Language - Missale Romanum 1965
Corey Zelinski has provided the English translation of the 1965 Ordinary of Mass and writes:
This was the official English version of the Order of Mass from the 1965 Roman Missal, published directly after the Second Vatican Council ended in 1965. This was the English Mass used from 1965 until 1969-70, when Paul VI promulgated the New Order of Mass (Novus Ordo Missæ), and imposed it on the Latin Rite (the Novus Ordo is the current normative Mass of the Latin Rite). This interim Mass is much closer to the intended fruit of Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium than the New Mass of 1970. It is essentially the Tridentine Latin Mass in English with minor modifications.
Many rubrical similarities exist between the 1965 Missal and the New Mass of 1970. Obviously, an option for use of the vernacular exists in the 1965. Furthermore, as in the Novus Ordo, it is at the discretion of the celebrant to either face the East (”ad orientem“) or the people (”versus populum“). An option for concelebration was also introduced in the 1965 (this was formerly restricted to Ordination Masses). The required Mass vestments were also simplified (e.g., optionality of the maniple). In 1967, the cope was suppressed in the Asperges (rite of aspersion at High Mass). The chasuble was worn in its stead. The Canon was still required to be read in Latin until 1967, when it was permitted in the vernacular. In the 1965 Missal, the priest, when administering Communion, says “the Body of Christ” (or “Corpus Christi”) instead of “Corpus + Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam ad vitam aeternam” (that is, “May the Body + of our Lord Jesus Christ bring thy soul unto life everlasting”).
Options for congregational singing also exist in the 1965, exactly as they do in the Novus Ordo—with places for processional, offertory, communion, and recessional hymns. The 1965 also allows for the Prayer of the Faithful after the Creed. The prayers at the foot of the altar, in addition to being made entirely optional, were shortened (as they would previously be prayed at Requiem Masses). The Last Gospel was suppressed. The calendar follows the Tridentine Ordo, consistent with that of the previous Missal (Missale Romanum 1962). Ironically enough, the New St. Joseph’s Missal ends the Liturgical Calendar in 1970.
As is clearly evident, the 1965 Missal more than accomplished all of the goals of Sacrosanctum Concilium and the Second Vatican Council. The promulgation of a New Order of Mass was unnecessary. And, as you will see below, the translation of the 1965 Order of Mass is far superior to the faulty ICEL translation of the 1970 Mass.
Leave a Reply
23 Comments
Now I know why I thought I knew a different set of English words, which seemed a more accurate translation when I finally saw the Latin Order of Mass — I was remembering it from before I was old enough to have actually participated at Mass!
I was surprised to see the words “Recessional Hymn” since lately I’ve been hearing that that was never an “official” part of Mass.
I e-mailed Corey with a couple of inquiries - I’m waiting to see if/when he gets back to me. Thanks for pointing the “recessional hymn” instruction out - should his response be prompt, I’ll ask him about that too.
Peace, all.
Mr. Zelinski lives in a dreamy state. Better for all Catholics would have been taking a few more years to get the translations right. A perfectly good translation of Roman Missal 2 was produced and approved by the USCCB in 1992. Why does it take so long to get good material into use? One word answer: curia. The problem with the 1970 Missal is that it was too rushed. Two years enough to revise the Roman Missal? Silliness.
The Curia whom you wish to blame is being glacially slow about this for the very reason that they were once burned by the unconscionably agenda-serving, inauthentic and just plain deceitful “translation” work of the ICEL.
I’m am glad for Mr. Zelinski that he lives in a ‘dreamy state.’ Would that be Missouri? New Jersey? One of the Dakotas?
Peace, Faith.
Deceitful? Are you kidding? ICEL faithfully followed all the principles laid down by Vatican II and the documents which followed. Eleven English-speaking bishops’ conferences approved their work. The CDWDS approved their work: the worst of it in the 60’s, and the best of it through the 80’s and early 90’s. Medina’s predecessor praised their efforts. I don’t buy the victimism claimed by the traditionalists.
Todd, what is wrong with the translation of the 65 missal, it is a far more faithful translation to the original Latin than the ICEL dreck. Again Todd, scholars of Latin, ones who know far mnore about the language than you do have pointed out many many times on the errors of the ICEL translations. Again for the bishops, one, many of the Bishops did not fully know what they are signing on to, the ICEL had little oversight, and the Bishops in large part gave their autority for translations over to the ICEL, and two, Bishops, as we have seen with the recent abuse scandals, can and have made many mistakes. The bishops picked out by Abp Jadot in the 70s are a prime example of such. ICEL did not follow the actual documents of Vatican II, but the so called “Sprit of Vatican II”.
Todd, progressives like you may not like this, but the tide of history is turning against you, even Cardinal Arinze, who is the darling of many progressives(more for his image rather than his not so well known views) is trashing bad ICEL translations. The old ICEL is gone, and the next translation of the liturgy and eventually the lectionary is going to be far closer to what you see here in the 65 missal.
Peace, John,
I don’t buy the ignorance theory on the part of bishops. And I think the world’s bishops are far more concerned with a micromanaging curia than they are with the fine points of translation. My prediction is that the next pope will have a more hands off “administration” and bishops will get some relief from micromanaging. What that will mean is that the liturgy wars will shift back to the parish, diocese and occasionally the national conferences. The Wanderer stays in business, and progressives will have elbow room to move the reform forward.
Since the ICEL of 1965-70 and 1997 were two entirely different sets of people, it really matters little if the ICEL of 2004 consists of all new people or if they just change the name, or if they add another level of bureaucracy. As a parish liturgist, my wish is to get good translations that appeal to the poetic and the beautiful, and not the stiff literalism Liturgiam Inauthenticam represents. Short-term, I trust bureaucracy to roll at a snail’s pace. And for the big picture, I trust the Holy Spirit.
With Cdl Arinze considered to be among the most papabile Cardinals, along with the new Abp. of Milan, I doubt the next Pope will be more “hands off”, you may wish he will be, but with the collapse of faith in Europe, the burden of proof is now on the progressives. Your hostilty on Liturgiam Authenticm is noted. Move the reform forward, oh yes, it will continue to move forward, just not in a direction you like. The ICEL staff was sacked by Rome, and in its place are Bishops and priests who have views on translations far different than yours.
What I find interesting is how progressives are the biggest defenders of powerful Bishops, of course as more conservative Bishops are slowly taking over Bishop conferences, that will change.
– I don’t buy the ignorance theory on the part of bishops. –
I don’t either, I think it was deliberate.
– And I think the world’s bishops are far more concerned with a micromanaging curia than they are with the fine points of translation. –
Patently, many were not the least interested in good translations.
– As a parish liturgist, my wish is to get good translations that appeal to the poetic and the beautiful, and not the stiff literalism Liturgiam Inauthenticam represents. –
Do you really not understand that if the translation is INCORRECT it doesn’t matter how beautiful it is?
The “stiff literalism” would never have appelaed to anyone (including the Curia,) as a corrective had the current translations INcorrectness not demanded it.
Fanatics are always too preoccupied with their obsessions to remember that over-playing their hands is a loser’s game.
Pendulums swing, that’s what they do.
I deeply resent that important work that the more liberal among us wished for was doomed by a more petty “progressive” aganda.
– And for the big picture, I trust the Holy Spirit –
Amen.
Todd,
Let’s face it, the 1969 translation instruction was so vague (”dynamic equivalence” - whatever that means) that it seems that almost anything, except an accurate translation of course, would be in accord with it. I assume you have read the letter from the CDWDS on the problems with the ordination rite translation (mid 1990s, I believe)? If you haven’t read it, do so and you’ll know what I’m talking about (You’ll find it at the - *gasp* - Adoremus website). It points out all the things we’ve had to put up with for years and years: ICEL adding, subtracting, revising, “improving” the Latin. In my opinion, even a stiff literal translation would be an improvement over what we have now, where I can barely recognize the prayers in the English (though that by itself is not good enough).
Speaking of poetic, the ICEL translations remind me of those 1970s churches that are indistiguishable from a shopping mall or a prison - little or no ornament, cheap workmanship, prefab materials, poor lighting, uninspired design, bland color schemes. The whole thing looks and feels pedestrian, cheap and dated, designed by a committee insead of a living, breathing person. They were built with the creed which intoned - “WE CAN”T LOOK TO THE PAST FOR INSPIRATION - THAT WOULD BE “INAUTHENTIC.” WE MUST DESIGN BUILDINGS FOR “MODERN MAN.” FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION.” etc, etc. The same line you heard from the liturgists in those days. As an architecture buff, I’ve noticed that architects are learning from their mistakes and while seeing some strengths to buildings of that era, nowadays are not ashamed to look to the past and realize that they don’t have all the answers by themselves. And the results are refreshing. Believe me, few architects yearn for the days of the Bauhaus, but unfortunately plenty of liturgists are still “stuck in the 60s.” There’s little richness, depth, a “let me hear that again” feeling, a sense of overflowing from much of what ICEL gives us. Most of the sentences are short, trimmed to the bare bones, the ideas banal, the expression stark and limp, much like those 70s churches that were once cutting edge. The original Latin is anything but.
And why is faithfulness in translation always a zero-sum game? Does an accurate translation have to be “stiff”? Or does one have to play fast and lose with the original meaning to have something poetic?
For me all the wailing, whining and hyperbole from the liberals concerning LA, complaints that it’s all about “power,” “micromanaging” etc. is a good sign that they really don’t have much of answer to the CDWDS objections (I haven’t seen many) and perhaps something is going to improve after all. I’m hopeful, anyway.
Actually, I think that this is about more than translation. Reading a book by (mostly former) members of ICEL, “Shaping English Liturgy,” really opened my eyes. The chasm between their vision of liturgy an the one upheld traditionally by the Church was disturbing. And looking at the way ICEL was going about its business and what it produced reflected that vision. That’s what’s at stake here; CDWDS is not naive and is finally doing something about it. Maybe that’s what’s getting at the liberals.
Peace, Sam.
“Dynamic equivalence” means translating the sense of the original, including the use of modern idiom in the target language.
It would do little good to read the CDWDS letter on the ordination rite, since I would need to see the ordination rite in Latin and proposed English to get the sense of the deal. If I could, I would make my decision from there. I tend to read commentary only after I’ve read the original scopp, as it were.
And ICEL, like other language groups, were instructed by bishop’s conferences to add, subtract, and improve: all the things the traditionalists crow about. The bottom line: many weaker translations were approved by everybody up the line: curia and bishops.
Regarding architecture, I’d be happy to correspond with you personally about that any time. The issue is far more complex than you suggest.
Todd,
I admit I am being oversimpilistic about architecture in order to make a point. As I said, I’m not an architectural historian, just a buff who has read some semi-popular books on the subject. I still think the basic point stands, that the ICEL translations embody much of the same aesthetic that insipred the architecture of the period; (most) architects have moved on, liturgists have not. Knowing a little more about music history, it is freely admitted by all that a similar aesthetic was imposed in a Draconian fashion on composers in the post-war period. Musicians, too, have moved on.
Actually, you should take a look at the CDWDS critique of the ordination rite. It’s quite detailed and gives some Latin text. You can find it at
There’s also a more general critique by the CDWDS of the newer translation of the Roman Missal:
Okay, it doesn’t take the place of a thorough study of the texts, but it will give you a better idea of what I’m talking about.
As I mentioned, I understand that certain changes, additions, etc. were expected with the vernacular translations, e.g. “Go in peace to love and serve the Lord” (although it seems like now they are pulling back a little on this). What I’m speaking of is mis-translations of original text, which often comes in the form of leaving out whole phrases, or adding ideas foreign to the original concept of the prayer. I also realize that the translation we have now (as well as the revised translation of the RM that was not approved by Rome), were approved by the bishops conferences - I accept them as valid, etc., and in no way am saying that any priest should tamper with them as he’s celebrating the liturgy - in fact, I get annoyed when they do. I am not questioning the authority of the bishops in saying that many translations are shoddy and can be improved.
I wish dynamic equivalence meant in practice what you say it means in theory. The original formulation was problematic and the way it was implemented more so. It’s a truism that a translation should use the idioms of the target language - I’m not advocating “was incarnated” or other Latinisms a la Douay-Rheims. But out-of-date Cranmerian English and minimalistic ICEL-ese are not the only options out there, just the two extremes.
Hmm, looks like my URLs didn’t make it through the blog message machine. Let me try that again:
CDWDS critique of ordination rite:
http://www.adoremus.org/98-01_cdwobserve.htm
CDWDS critique of new RM translation:
No, the recessional hymn isn’t actually part of the Mass, though I did put it down there on the site. The 1965 Missal, it must be remembered, was still the ancient Roman Rite, and not the Novus Ordo — though messed around with a great deal. Thus, in a sense, it can’t really be compared to the “ICEL” translation of the Novus Ordo except maybe in some parts (Credo, etc.)
But — why use the 1965 Mass when you can use the Traditional Latin Mass? It was not so much my intention to advocate a return to the 1965 Mass as much as it was to demonstrate the uselessness of a New Order of Mass.
But, if in the future the Traditional Roman Rite were restored, and the vernacular were to be permitted on a limited basis, say, for parts of the ordinary at Low Mass, the Missal as it was in November of 1964 should be used. The 1964 Missal was identical to the 1962 Missal, no suppressions; however, some parts were permitted in the vernacular. No facing the people either. Of course, use of contemporary English is rather banal… and the Canon should remain in Latin anyway, and in secret tone, as Trent mandated.
Better to just stick with the Latin Mass!
In Christo Deo,
Corey Zelinski
Look, I have only taken two semesters of Latin and I can translate the Canon and most of the rest of the liturgy better than ICEL. The words are simple, straightforward Latin, they are not poetic or whatever, except in a few choice places. The rest of it says what it says, ICEL simply doesn’t like what it says.
Once you actually translate it you can also see how completely boneheaded whoever in the Vatican desk job was that wrote it was. Sometimes I’m like, “Okay, so you’ve been celebrating with this thing for nearly 600 years, and you still don’t get the meaning of these prayers?” Frankly, even I could completely FABRICATE a liturgy in Latin that would be better than this, and people would love it too.
Obedience is obedience, though (to traditionalists), and prudence is prudence (to the hierarchy). Best for the lay to excercise their office of obedience and the clergy to excercise theirs of prudence.
Correct - the Recessional is not part of the Mass. However, in the ‘65 Missal, wasn’t the Recessional part of the “four-hymn syndrome” that was originally intended for use in Low Mass?
BMP
Todd:
Back in the day, the Latin phrase “Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meam, sed tantum dic verbum et sanabitur anima mea” was translated, “Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof: speak but the word and my soul shall be healed.”
This is one part of the Mass that, in Latin, DID NOT CHANGE ONE WORD from the Tridentine to the Pauline Mass. How is it, then, that we now say, “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed”? For starters, the first clause is a scriptural quote, and I have never even heard of a Bible that has the Centurion say “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you.”
ICEL wanted to show that they were hep to the jive, and evidently hated metaphor as well.
Peace, Ed.
ICEL, with the approval of the English-speaking bishops and the CDWDS, translated as they did. They followed the guidelines laid down in Comme Le Prevoit (1969) and while I think one can criticize the translations for hastiness, it is petty to suggest they couldn’t and didn’t follow rules that wouldn’t be in existence for thirty years. If you want to point fingers, you’ll have to include the episcopacy and Rome; these translations were not sneaked into the Missal by night train.
And with your spirit, Todd.
I wasn’t making reference to any rules of recent provenance. I just look at some of the work that was done by ICEL, remembering the ‘English Missal of 1965 to 1970′ as I do, and knowing portions of the Latin that did not change from Pius V to Paul VI, and cannot see how they got to where they got from where they started. Another example is the change in the Gloria, which now seemingly applies all the laudatory language only to the Father by moving ‘Lord God, Heavenly King, Almighty God and Father’ ahead of it. That’s not how the Latin Gloria is. Why change it?
“And with your spirit, Todd”
Ed the Roman, I am pleased to make your acquaintance, even if in cyberspace — are you in music ministry or a PIP or a religious?
Pehaps you have been hanging out here for a while and I just didn’t notice, and should already know.
Do you have a blog or a homepage?
I’m a cantor at a large (for the Old South) parish, who also sings with the Methodists because that’s the only place that I can sing great choral works in this town with any regularity. Heck, the Methodists are the ones who did the Mozart Ave Verum and the Brahms Requiem Sanctus. I am not in order(s). No blog, no homepage.
Mostly I am a loudmouth who is willing to grace all and sundry with his opinions.
Geri,
I noticed a comment of yours making reference to Rensselaer. How did you run across RPI?
Sorry for the mistake, not RPI but the Catholic institution in Rensselaer Indiana.
![[Bench Pressus]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/bench-pressus-ad125x125.gif)
![[Colossians 3:16]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/colossians-316-ad125x125.gif)
![[SMMMHDH]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/smmmhdh.png){kind=small}
![[Listed on blogs4God]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/blogs4god.png){kind=small}
![[Valid XHTML 1.0]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/xhtml10.png){kind=small}
![[Valid CSS 2.0]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/css.png){kind=small}
Last 5 Comments