USING THE "EQUIVALENCY METHOD" TO REINTERPRET THE SYMBOLS USED AT THE CATHOLIC MASS. BUT DON'T LAUGH, THESE SYMBOLS WERE ACTUALLY USED IN THE RADICAL DAYS OF THE LATE 1960'S AND EARLY 1970'S ESPECIALLY AT YOUTH AND YOUNG ADULT "HOME MASSES, CAMPUS MASSES, SCHOOL MASSES AND MAYBE EVEN PARISH MASSES! THERE ISN'T MUCH DIFFERENT FROM THIS TYPE OF EQUIVALENCY IN TRANSLATION AND WHAT WE GOT IN ENGLISH AS A EQUIVALENCY TRANSLATION IN THE LATE 1960'S! DID ANY OF YOU MY AGE AND OLDER OUT THERE EVER EXPERIENCE WILD MASSES IN THE 1960'S AND 70'S AND IF SO WHAT WERE THEY LIKE?
THIS IS EQUIVALENT TO BREAD AND WINE ISN'T IT:
Excerpts from the summer issue of Faith & Family magazine. August 11: sent as a comment to the previous post:
On the way home from Church on that first Sunday of Advent, 1970, I joined my parents’ grumbling chorus:
“Why does the Creed say, ‘We believe” instead of “I believe’? How do I know what the guy sitting behind me really believes? I want to speak for myself.” (That was Dad.)
“They’ve taken all the poetry out of the mass. It was a more elevated type of language before. This sounds like a third grade reader.” (That was Mom.)
“And now it just says plain ‘Church’ instead of ‘holy Church’ during the Offertory. Like the Church isn’t holy anymore?” (that was 11-year-old me chiming in, proud to be part one of the Grumbling Grownups.")
I loved reading this article by Ms Sockey. It goes to show you,with change we will complain if it's not to our liking; even 41 years ago!
My comments: I remember the transition from Latin to English and the first English translation of the people's parts much closer to the corrected English translation we are currently implementing. I also remember the English translation changing very quickly toward the late 1960's and wondering some of the same things in the comment above.
All the while I thought the Latin had been changed in the Post-Vatican II Mass for the people's parts. I had no idea that it was the style of translating the English that had been changed. And it would not be too far-fetched to acknowledge that those who took the "equivalency" method of translating the Latin into English had a "theological agenda" in doing so for the English, to make it more pedestrian and like we speak everyday and without any pious sentiments or sentimentality.
What is sad about the liberties taken with an extreme liberal approach to equivalency is that those translating the reformed Latin Mass into English betrayed what Vatican II intended for the Vernacular Mass which should have had as its guide the theology, piety and sentimentality of the Latin. Why do English speaking translators think that the English Mass should be any different in these characteristics than the reformed Latin Mass in the Ordinary Form? Was there an arrogance issuing from these English translators?
Let me make clear that I think an "equivalency" translation of the Mass that soberly uses this method could have produced a very sound English text that remained as faithful to the original reformed Latin Mass and that a literal translation can belabor the Latin too much in the English format.