Further to my post on the CTS booklet.
I ordered a copy (just one so that I could have a look!) of the Mass leaflets from McCrimmon Publishing in which I have noticed what appears to be a mistake in what the people are directed to say. At the Orate Fratres there is an "Amen" added at the end of the people's response. This is not present in other publications and not present in the 2002 Missale Romanum. It may seem like a small point but if thousands of people learn the responses from this card, then how is that to be undone?
In fact, to say the "Amen" at this point follows the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, for after the server has made the response ("Suscipiat Dominus...") the Priest says quietly "Amen". Perhaps someone in the type-setting department is familiar with the Traditional Mass and it slipped in unconsciously! Fr John Zuhlsdorf actually mentions this in the Catholic Herald this week in his "And with your spirit" column explaining that the priest says this "Amen" because he is:
"A priest for the faithful, but a Christian with them, he makes the prayer his own."
I have one or two more little points. I wonder how these decisions get made - are they are accidents or deliberate changes? To go back to the Mass book of my original post, it says that the readings are "proclaimed". Traditionally and technically, the readings are read - only the Gospel is "proclaimed". Again, the Latin of the rubrics in the 2002 Missale Romanum says "legit" - reads - for the readings (to be read by a Lector by the way) but "proclamat" - proclaims - for the Gospel (to be read by the Deacon/Priest).
Another puzzling thing: Why is "hominibus" in the Gloria translated as "people", yet "homines" in the Creed translated as "men"? Then again why is "fratres" translated as "brethren (brothers & sisters)" in the Penitential Rite and the Orate Fratres, yet translated as only "brothers & sisters" in the Confiteor? (No option of "brethren" there!). Consistency, dear boy!
I also note that in the 2002 Missale Romanum there is only ONE way of dismissing the people:
Ite, missa est. Not translation, therefore, but addition.
Does anyone know where all the other options come from in the English version? I think I heard that these extra options were presented to the Holy See for approval at some time and received it but I wonder why they were thought necessary?
My thanks to Fr Ray Blake for giving my original post a mention and for what he says about the rubrics and an interesting thought on why there has been a rush to publication (which perhaps accounts for some of these oddities people are noticing).
.jpg)
6 comments:
Father - thank you for this and all your posts.
I think that there is indeed an agenda somewhere and suspect that the CTS is the innocent victim - particularly as regards rubrics for Holy Communion and the like.
On the subject of the dismissal, I understand that the latest editio typica does include a number of formulae other than 'Ite, missa est', so in that regard the translation now about to be introduced is correct in including those alterntives.
Isn't that the leaflet from McCrimmon?
One would have hoped that the BCWE body for approving the publication of commercially available 'participation aids' would have checked that the texts and rubrics etc are faithfully rendered.
Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur seem to mean not a lot these days.
Three years ago the new formulae were proposed and approved by the Holy See. These were suggested by the Synod of Bishops.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0805441.htm
"Perhaps someone in the type-setting department is familiar with the Traditional Mass and it slipped in unconsciously!"
May I make a little point, Father? When you say 'unconsciously' do you not mean 'subconsciously'? Of course, they may well be unconscious as this would explain a great deal about the lack of activity on so many issues from Eccleston Square.
Thanks to the earlier poster who rightly pointed out that the offending leaflet is actually published by McCrimmon and NOT by the CTS. My apologies to them for the error, which I have now corrected. I would say Mea Culpa, but Tablet readers might burst out laughing! (See: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/07/the-tablet-equates-striking-the-breast-during-the-confiteor-with-child-abuse/)
Dear Pedant,
I actually meant 'unconscious' in the sense of the absence of conscious awareness, though your suggestion of them being physically unconscious at Eccleston Square makes much more sense!
Thank you also to Merry Del Val for reminding me of the Synod of Bishop's suggestion - I thought I'd seen it somewhere but couldn't recall.
Post a Comment