This will interest you. Here are excerpts from the English translation of the liturgy in the 1966 People’s Mass Book in Ireland.
Comments?
Thanks to ca for transcribing!
1966 translation from Ireland
Comments
38 responses to “1966 translation from Ireland”
-
How lovely — sexist, exclusionary language, and lots of pointless thees and thous. We’ve come a long way, baby . . . right?
-
Of course, this is clearly of its era; the non-inclusive language, the King James-ish style that runs throughout. But It is imbued with a poetic style that echoes the rhythm of speech in Ireland.
-
“Thee and thou” are most definitely not the language of the “era” of 1966. That you could say that only shows what a lifeless, whitewashed tomb the so-called Church had become by the time Vatican II came along to try to bring us out of the Dark Ages.
-
Verily, thou dost leave me speechless. And the charity of thine fellow commentors doth mightily impress me.
-
With all due respect, Sandi, Tudor-Stuart English (period or faux) was current liturgical language in 1966 for Catholic liturgical translations and non-Catholic liturgies alike. Only in the wake of the efforts of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL), the Consultation on Common Texts (CCT) in North America, the Joint Liturgical Group (JLG) in Great Britain, and ultimately the International Consultation on English Texts (ICET), did contemporary English enter the liturgy of any major denomination.
Many of us still use faux Tudor-Stuart English, at least occasionally, both out of respect for history and as a matter of pastoral necessity. It’s not my preferred way of praying, personally, but I understand the impulses behind retaining it. I would be very wary of wholly discounting it as a legitimate means of human address before God today.
I should add — but without advocating for a return to it — that such language does have vocabulary and phraseology that facilitates liturgical speech without the verbosity of modern English. How does one render all the nuance intended in the words “beseech” and “vouchsafe” today?
-
Sorry but Sandi is correct that “thee” and “thou” was not the language of 1966 even if it was the language in the books.
In 1959 when I purchased the four volume Roman Breviary in English, the text said “thee” and “thou” but I always prayed “you” etc. I did this even though I was attracted to liturgy by Gregorian Chant, and had discovered the Divine Office in my search for a “best prayer book.” The old fashioned English seemed to me to be an imperfection, something that made the prayer less worthy of God.
Today, I love to hear Anglican chant even though it has the old style of English but I have to have a text in front of me in order to understand the words.
My understanding is the Greek of the NT is neither literary Greek nor the common speech language of the people but an in between language that was more characteristic of professional writing such as scribes would use when they wrote down letters or instructions for business purposes.
I don’t see much value in archaic or exalted or a specifically liturgical language, or a literal translation.
Cantillation should be the only form of enhancement. Otherwise keep the language easy to understand.
-
Jack Rakosky: n 1959 when I purchased the four volume Roman Breviary in English, the text said “thee” and “thou” but I always prayed “you” etc.
I’ve often rewritten devotional prayers into contemporary English. The prayers aren’t part of the formal liturgy of the Church, so I’m free to recast them into modern English.
Fr. Cody: Many of us still use faux Tudor-Stuart English, at least occasionally, both out of respect for history and as a matter of pastoral necessity. It’s not my preferred way of praying, personally, but I understand the impulses behind retaining it.
Agreed. I have a great respect for those Anglicans who take comfort in the (1662) Prayer Book. I know that after 1st Advent I will inevitably say “and with thy spirit”. To make things worse, the priests of the Prayer Book Anglo-Catholic parish I often attend chant the greeting according to the Roman tones. I’ll have to undergo some neural re-wiring once the Advent wreathes appear.
The BCP was formed when English was evolving out of its T-V distinction. Liturgical Latin has never had a formal and informal distinction in the 2nd person. I sometimes clash with those who would like a “hieraric” translation of the EF. An insertion of “thou, thy/thine, thee, ye” etc. into an English translation of the EF would imply a distinction that doesn’t exist in Latin. I don’t mind a bit more vernacular in the EF. I would like translators to stick a bit closer to Latin syntax, though.
Also, as Claire Mathieu has rightly noted, contemporary English can convey profound liturgical meaning without a Latin substrate. Even those who strongly prefer Latin must admit the truth of this observation.
-
Jordan – my understanding is that the use of “thou” and “you” in liturgical English has nothing to do with formal and informal, but rather with singular and plural. “Thou” is singular and “you” is plural, thus:
The Lord be with you (addressed to a large group, the congregation)
And with thy spirit (addressed to a single person, the priest)“Thou” eventually evolved to be an informal form of address with “you” becoming formal (apparently because royalty referred to themselves in the plural), but liturgical English seemed to ignore this development and remained deliberately archaic.
EDIT: Oops, Roger Evans totally beat me on addressing this. I suppose I should read all new posts before replying.
-
-
-
The Gloria and Credo are similar to the interim texts for England and Wales, if I’m not mistaken.
The 1966 Canon translation is interesting in that the qui pridie and simili modo are translated, but the per ipsum remains in Latin. Why did the translators (and/or the bishops) decide that the per ipsum must remain in Latin? Interesting choice.
I haven’t done a side-by-side between the Latin, the 1966 Irish Canon and the 2010 translation of EP I. Still, even from a glance the 1966 sentence structure is clearer than 2010. There is some paraphrasing in the 1966 example, but the text is still quite faithful to the Latin. This translation is a nice balance between a paraphrase and an extremely literal translation. Too bad this isn’t what we got for EP I on this go around.
-
It “suffers” from some of the “defects” of the 2008 and 2011 translations of the Canon. For example:
Accept them as you graciously accepted the offerings of your just servant, Abel, the sacrifice of our father, Abraham, and that of your high priest, Melchisedech – a holy sacrifice, an unblemished victim.
A criticism made some time ago here focused on whether “a holy sacrifice, an unblemished victim” (however it’s rendered in the 2008/2011 texts) was referring to the offering we’re making or to Melchisedech.
-
No translation of the supra quae into English will avoid idiomatic issues in the Latin. I’m sure this has been covered before at PT. Pardon the homework; I have to type while thinking.
sicuti accepta habere dignatus es munera pueri tui iusti Abel, et sacrificium Patriarchae nostri Abrahae, || et quod tibi obtulit summus sacerdos tuus Melchisedech, sanctum sacrificium, immaculatam hostiam.
There are two clauses in this excerpt, divided by double pipes. The first is a 2nd person singular clause with God the Father as the subject (dignatus es is deponent), and the second is a 3rd person singular clause with Melchisedech as the subject. Ack.
sicuti connects the first clause to the opening petition. The quod in the second clause is not as clear. quod most likely reflects the accusatives munera or sacrificium in the first clause, even though quod is a conjunction. Both the 1966, 2008, and 2010 translations of the Roman Canon fail to insert the implied relationship between quod and the accusatives in the first clause. “and that offering your (tibi) high priest Melchisedech offered, a holy sacrifice, a spotless victim” would be redundant in English but much clearer. Almost any paraphrase of this prayer will struggle to render redundancies idiomatically. Clunkiness is clarity, ironically.
Now i understand why alternative EPs were written up for the reformed missal. The Roman Canon does not lend itself well to vernaculars.
-
Sorry, but one more thing:
sacrificium in the clause et sacrificium Patriarchae nostri Abrahae could be the antecedent of quod as
sacrificium and quod agree grammatically (both neuter accusative singular). In that case, perhaps et quod tibi obtulit summus sacerdos tuus Melchisedech, sanctum sacrificium, immaculatam hostiam could be rendered “which sacrifice the high priest Melchisedech offered to you, a holy sacrifice, a spotless victim.” The casting of quod as a pronoun with sacrificium as the antecedent suggests that Melchisedech offered the same sacrifice as Abraham. This is also problematic.Neither a quod-conjunctive or a quod-pronominal strategy yields cogent English. The supra quae is the poster child for the difficulties inherent in an English translation of the Canon.
-
-
I checked to my 1969 Simple Prayer book. The prayers up to, and including, the Sanctus, are the same, the Eucharistic prayer differs. There are a few differences in punctuation.
My 1965 missal has different texts. Interestingly it has a table of movable feasts for the years 1965 – 1994. Presumably by 1969 it was already out of date.
I suspect that documents from this era of change are comparatively rare hence the discussion now as to what was said at different times.
-
-
Anthony, I asked an Irish priest ministering abroad if he could recall that Mass Book. He replied:
“Yes, that Mass book was used throughout Ireland until the Novus Ordo came into use in 1969. Michael Harty, the editor, became Bishop of Killaloe in 1967.
As the letter of Cardinal Conway points out, the booklet includes not only the parts of the Mass said in English but a translation of parts said only by the priest, especially the Canon. These prayers were still said in Latin.
The priest had the option of saying the Canon quietly or audibly. However, Archbishop McQuaid decreed that in Dublin, ‘for the sake of uniformity’ the priest should say it silently/quietly. (I think ‘quietly’ is more accurate since the priest had to articulate the words, though not audibly.)
This Mass was essentially what is now called the Extrarodinary Form except that parts of it were in the vernacular and prayers of the faithful were introduced.
I have an idea that at some stage before the Novus Ordo came into being the priest was allowed to say the Canon in the vernacular, but my memory isn’t clear on that. What I am certain of is that when I was ordained in December 1967 it was still in Latin.
I think too that some of the rubrics had been modified, eg, not so many signs of the cross by the priest during the Canon. Again, my memory isn’t too clear on that.
With regard to the English in the booklet for the parts of the Mass said by the priest alone, in Latin, I’m not sure if the booklet used a fresh translation or whether it used a translation from one of the many Latin/English missals in use at the time. But the parts said in the vernacular are certainly a translation that was officially prepared. I notice that ‘and also with you’ came in at that time. The Latin/English missals had ‘And with your spirit’.”
-
I found a 1966 missal in our sacristy. The Canon is in Latin except for the Doxology which is in English and Latin. The readings are in English. The Ordinary and propers in English and Latin.
Many of the blessing have been tipp-exed out. The Rubrics have been crossed out and new one hand written in. T
Pasted into the Missal is the Roman Canon in English and the copyright is dated 1968. It is the same version we use today with the exception that the “mystery of faith” is still part of the consecration. The words of consecration for the Chalice have a typewriter printed page pasted over it and this piece of paper has the consecration as we have today, separating the mystery of faith. I can’t remember what the words of the people acclamations are.
-
-
The vernacular Canon was introduced in Ireland on the First Sunday of Advent, December 1st, 1968. The Irish hierarchy decided this at their June meeting of the same year.
This shows the first vernacular texts introduced in Ireland (1965): http://lxoa.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/tss.pdf
-
The Anglican churches uses thees and thous abundantly in their present worship and in their hymns, and Catholics still pray the Lord’s Prayer and the Hail Mary and Salve Regina with thees and thous. There is nothing wrong with retaining those old expressions, which have their own peculiar charm.
-
Evidently in that short transition period between 1964 and Advent of 1969, Bishops of different countries could decide what English translation to use for their interim missals. Evidently this 1966 version is still the Tridentine Order. As has been pointed out to me, the version of the English altar Roman Missal the USA Bishops chose in 1964 as the official translation of the Mass was borrowed from the English laity missal produced by Maryknoll. That version of English omits Tudor-Stuart English using a more common form of the vernacular instead. However, the quiet parts of the priest including the Roman Canon are not officially translated into English in this official Roman Missal; these remain in Latin.
The genius of the various translations of the Tridentine Mass available to the laity prior to the reform of the Mass is that there were a variety for the laity to choose. Collegeville Press had its own version, St. Joseph Missal had it’s own as will as Maryknoll. Then there were the translations that had all the “thees” and “thous.” But the choice of the translation was the person purchasing the missal of which there were many vernacular versions.
What strikes me is that various Bishops’ Conferences were able to choose their version of the English translation of the Mass shortly after Vatican II but not after Advent of 1969, although there are slight differences in the Roman Missal in various English speaking countries in our current Roman Missal.
For those who dislike the new 2011 translation, you can still bring your favorite translation to Mass with you after Advent of this year and follow it if you please. Everything old is new again! -
Fascinating… I have an interesting book of “Faux-Bourdon” Propers from 1966 (United States) which was intended to be used as the proper chants with the interim missal in the US. There are also plenty of “Thee” and “Thou”‘ in these chants as well, although I don’t recall them going to the extent of words like “vouchsafe” etc…
I do find it funny at times that we go out of the way to remove such words from historical prayer texts, sometimes to the detriment of the poetic schema. The sequence for Pentecost is a great example where the cleansed English translation results in this verse:
O most blessed light divine
Shine within these hearts of yours
And our inmost being fillOf course, it should be “hearts of Thine”, completing the AAB rhyme scheme like every other verse. But it would be odd to add the “Thine” in that verse but eliminate all of the other instances of formal pronouns.
Oddly though, we have no problem with retaining these words and their appropriate word order in the Our Father, Hail Mary and Hail Holy Queen. I can’t recall ANY instance of seeing or hearing “Our Father who is in heaven” or ” You are blessed among women” (to replace “blessed art thou amongst women”). I know that there are some resources that have the Hail Mary with “You” in place of “Thou”, but other than kids reading this prayer at the May Crowning, when they actually say it from memory, the Thee and Thou are back in there, telling me that they have learned this prayer at home in the older form.
I get particularly miffed at classic hymns getting bowdlerized (Holy God we praise your name, Lord of all we bow before you), and then “All on earth your rule acclaim” in order to eliminate the image of “scepter claim” as though being ruled is fine, but certainly not with a scepter!
-
My formative years as a Catholic child were with the “interim” Missal.
In CCD we learned the traditional prayers, et cet., for First Communion. There was a host of them, and they were explained, and we got aurally examined on them, et cet.
Confirmation occurred after the switch to the 1970 Missal. And, at that time, there was an effort to re-teach us most of the prayers (except the Our Father) with more contemporary language. We had to re-learn all this stuff, and it left us with an strong sense of the plasticity of prayer language. Anyway, we learned the new stuff to pass the examinations, but after that no one had any use for the modernized language. And *we* were the generation on whose behalf this whole linguistic shift was ostensibly done; we didn’t need it – we knew what the “old” language meant, and it worked. Kids have a love for language and are usually much more plastic in their grasp of different usages and languages than adults (in my public school – I had the privilege of being the first in my family to go all the way through our much-better public school system – we started foreign language study by the age of 9). (I should add that no one was pining for the days of the preconciliar Missal – that was a small fringe a few miles away from us in Uniondale that was basically considered to be a group of people that had gone a bit batty.)
-
Actually, the faithful hear contemporary versions of the Lord’s prayer in the lectionary. In the Lucan infancy narratives, the words which form the basis of the “Hail Mary” are also expressed in contemporary English. Following a practice introduced in England during the time of Cardinal Hume, after commending the prayers of petition to God, we pray the Hail Mary in contemporary English. I have no doubt that many people still use the older forms they learned as children in private prayer, but they seem to handle “bi-lingual” versions with ease.
Interestingly, many years ago the US Bishops decided not to adopt the more contemporary translation of the Lord’s prayer for Mass because they feared it would disrupt the long established prayer custom of the faithful. It appears that with the approval of the new translation they have moved beyond that scruple. We’ll all have our familiar patterns of prayer disturbed come Advent.
-
Jack, in the lectionary for daily Mass in the USA, today’s Gospel reading was Jesus teaching the “Our Father” from Matthew, 6:7-15 and the translation of it is the very one in our Roman Missal, “hallowed by “thy” name, “thy” kingdom come, “thy” will be done.” This lectionary goes back to the late 1990’s and this is one of the many oddities in it.
In the Protestant south, the majority of Protestants pray the Lord’s Prayer as we do with the “thy’s” but have the longer doxology at the end. When I was in public elementary school in the early 1960’s in the south, we prayed it every morning but we Catholics, as an act of defiance, made the Sign of the Cross, and did not say the ending doxology, but of course we became more ecumenical after 1965! But then the government took prayer out of public schools. Go figure.
-
-
re: “instance of seeing ‘Our Father who is in heaven'”
I think some of our Lutheran brothers and sisters have this version to use as an alternate to the ‘traditional’ language:Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your Name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
Forgive us our sins
as we forgive those
who sin against us.
Save us from the time of trial,
and deliver us from evil.-
“Our Father who is Heaven” is actually grammatically incorrect – or at least non-traditional. It should be “Our Father who are in Heaven.”
Technically an address in the second person should use the second person verb even after “who” – as in “who art in Heaven” or “Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world.” In contemporary English this tends to confuse people, so the issue is often ducked by changing the sentence structure – as in the “Our Father in Heaven” above or the “Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world” in the current Mass translation.
-
English usage for the second person vocative has shifted, and the former usage is archaic. It may not be “logical” but it’s shifted. English is not a language of consistently logical usage. Thank God.
-
Usage in everyday life may have changed, but I think translators are aware of the issue – hence the efforts to avoid choosing either way in the examples I gave. I suspect when a choice is unavoidable they choose the old way, although I admit I cannot think of any examples off the top of my head.
-
-
-
On a different subject… anybody looking to find a Music Director position in beautiful SW Florida? I need to place someone in a parish here in Nokomis (Sarasota area) who has Organ, piano and vocal skills. Salary is quite good and job has full benefits, pension etc. Need to get this filled sometime in the next month or two before the season starts again. You can contact me for more details if interested ( jaherbert@vzw.blackberry.net )
Sorry for the ad… there really needs to be a job postings section on some of these sites!
-
I disagree with #22 as to current English usage on the second person vocative.
It’s more likely common among those without a good education but certainly is not normative.
“I am grateful to you, who is always so good to me.” I don’t think so.
Probably a case of unsuccessful reverse elitism by middle class academics trying to imitate working class speech without actually knowing or (heaven forfend) socialising with them! -
” I sometimes clash with those who would like a “hieraric” translation of the EF. An insertion of “thou, thy/thine, thee, ye” etc. into an English translation of the EF would imply a distinction that doesn’t exist in Latin.”
I don’t know where you get this. “Thou” is simply Latin singular, and “you” is translation of the Latin plural. Thus the old usage was exactly parallel with the Latin. It was English “refined” speech in which the polite form, “you” (comparable to the French vous) gradually obliterated “thou.” That’s why the Quakers resisted addressing each other with the more frilly “you.”
The English-speaking Protestants all those centuries had the celebrant saying “The Lord be with you” because he was addressing a plural object. The people responded “And with thy spirit” because he was singular. Nothing “hieratic” about it. Of course God got “thou” because he is singular.
-
Mr. Zarembo might be referring to a situation like that in the Revised Standard Version (1952) of the Bible, in which God was still “thou” but everyone else was “you” in the singular. That created a false distinction. You are right that if a translation used “thou” for everyone in the singular, that would be consistent with the original. (Except for “and with thy/your spirit,” is any non-divine person ever addressed in the singular in the Mass – EF or OF – anyway?)
-
Dialogue between deacon and priest before the Gospel
D: Iube, domne, benedicere.
P: Dominus sit in corde tuo
et in labiis tuis: ut digne et competenter
annunties Evangelium suum:
in nomine Patris, etc.
-
-
Thought of another one: “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands…”
-
Sorry, I’m missing your topic. This is another one of what?
Thanks,
awr -
Another example of the priest (rather than God) being addressed in the second person singular in the Mass text. I meant to reply to the post above; I guess I hit the wrong button. My apologies.
-
-
re: Roger Evans on June 17, 2011 – 2:15 pm
Classical and the Latin of the later empire certainly do not have a definite T-V distinction. The use of the second person to delineate status could be imputed to the Mass, especially within the context of 15th and 16th century English or its imitators. Still, there is no clear philological mandate to overlay early modern English grammar over the Mass. There is also no absolute morphological equivalency between the uniform second person in liturgical Latin and the bifurcated second person in early modern English. Certainly, translators might wish to use early modern English grammar as a template for translation. Still, the hieraric translation ideology is not philologically superior to a modern English translation ideology. Further research into the second-person in later Latin might strengthen the case for hieraric translation of the EF. For now, hieraric has no inherent advantage.
As I have mentioned, contemporary English is certainly suitable for postmodern liturgy. Heck, I’m convinced that Let It Be is a great Marian hymn, despite the cringes of PTB‘s professional musicians. I sharply diverge from the PTB consensus over the role and extent of Latin in the liturgy. I am entirely unconvinced that English language Christian prayer must only reflect a particular incarnation of English from a relatively short time period.
-
-
The interim period coincided with my teenage years, and having learned to serve the pre-V2 Mass had to adjust to changes which seemed to occur on an almost yearly basis. In England the translation of the Common was as in Ireland, and these versions were used until 1976 and even after that if sung (I’m thinking particularly of the Gloria and Sanctus, complete with ‘thees’ and ‘thous’ which meant that they were in use for some 12 years.)
There were differences in the Ordinary, however. I have memories of the following, c.1965:
V. O God, Thou wilt turn again and bring us to life.
R. And Thy people shall rejoice in Thee.
V. Show us, O Lord, Thy mercy.
R. And grant us Thy salvation.
V. O Lord, hear my prayer.
R. And let my cry come to Thee.
V. The Lord be with you.
R. And with you.‘And also with you’ came in just before the NO as people had complained that the original was too abrupt.
-
At #34, That 1965 version is just messed up. so You is used for singular and plural and Thou only for God. English has never had that distinction: I don’t know of any language that has a separate personal pronoun for God.
-
@ Ceile De #36
I couldn’t agree more. 1965 was linguistically a dog’s breakfast -the orations were still in Latin, for instance – and apart from the Scripture readings the first things to go into the vernacular were those parts of the Ordinary that people, thanks to the ‘dialogue’ Mass, knew in Latin anyway.
Just before the NO came in I remember the PP saying “I know you’re fed up with all the changes, but after this one things will settle down”. Then , of course, we had ICET texts, Communion in the hand and standing, Communion in both kinds, EMHC, altar girls, liturgy committees of enthusiastically creative middle-class laity…
by
Tags:
Please leave a reply.