Jeff Ostrowski Writes: “We love receiving messages from our readers. The following came in response to a recent article about the “Spoken” propers. It’s no small feat to determine which articles will interest readers. The English versions of the ENTRANCE CHANT I’ve been posting seem to be appreciated. Each of them on average gets downloaded 2,200 times. Oh, how I wish I could convince 2,200 people to watch the (free) 51-minute introduction to my seminar.”
The following came from Harry M.
[We usually redact names for anonymity’s sake.]
EAR JEFFREY: I enjoyed your article which comments on the 1970 document attempting to justify different sets of propers (depending on whether the Mass is sung or recited). One fundamental thing to remember is that our scripture in the Latin Mass is always a translation from Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic. And there are different translations into Latin. Indeed when Saint Jerome produced his translation he produced different drafts. When the Gradual was composed the texts of the antiphons were taken by the cantors in Rome from a different source from Saint Jerome’s final version, and in any case variants crept into that as copies were made (by hand of course). So even though the Graduale Triplex meticulously preserves the antiphon Sicut cervus, when the same text from Ps 41/42 occurs in a funeral procession it is Quemadmodum desiderat, and has been so for centuries. The same thing occurs in the Office, 2nd Vespers of Whit Sunday, Psalmody begins Dum complerentur and after the psalmody the Chapter Cum complerentur, though admittedly the difference is trivial. Sometimes the differences involve whole phrases because different ancient editors in Alexandria or Damascus had different texts. The case you highlight is one such. Editorial decisions are always difficult, and contentious. Have a look at what happened in the 1590s, if only at Wikipedia’s account of the Sixtine Vulgate.
The following is Jeff Ostrowski’s response:
[This response was posted on 9 November 2024.]
Where We Agree • In its footnotes, the 3rd edition of the Saint Edmund Campion Missal points out many discrepancies similar to those you reference. Several are a bit more pronounced; e.g. on ASH WEDNESDAY “Juxta vestíbulum” vs. “Inter vestíbulum.” Others are hardly worth mentioning; e.g. whether the OFFERTORY “Ad Te Levávi” omits the word “Dómine.” You speak of translations made directly from Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic. I’m all too aware of such endeavors. Indeed, getting “closer to the original” is precisely how certain clerics justify ceaseless revisions to our liturgical translations. They cultivate a “perpetual state of revision”—and the instability has caused enormous harm to Catholics’ faith.
I Don’t Follow You • But what you have written has absolutely nothing to do with the Spoken Propers. (Unless I’ve failed to correctly understand what you wrote.)
Consider the COMMUNION ANTIPHON for the 28th Sunday in Ordinary Time:
What specifically was it about PSALM 118 that Dom Franquesa felt was deficient, scandalous, or unacceptable? Why was he so keen on getting rid of it? What possible justification could there be for such tinkering?
