As I understand it, we (English-speakers) have been using up to now a translation of the 1970 editio typica of the Mass of Paul VI. Unless I’m mistaken, they never got around to approving a translation of the 1975 second edition, and what we’re getting next Advent will be the new translation of the 2000 editio typica tertia. So what has changed from the 1970 missal to the 2000, other than getting a better translation? What’s different in the missal itself? I assume they’ve added saints’ days and fixed some minor mistakes, but is that it? I haven’t really seen any discussion of this.
Try here for differences in the Ordo Missae. I’m not sure of the rest, though I remember reading an overview somewhere online.
Thanks – that’s certainly thorough, if not a particularly user-friendly way of presenting that information!
Does not help much for those of us who do not know Latin.
Try the US Bishop’s website.
Excellent question; I was thinking of asking this.
If I may expand on the OP: why has the Holy See revised what we now call the Ordinary Form of the Mass twice? Why didn’t the anglophone countries translate the second typical edition?
Did any country or language group publish a vernacular version of the second typical edition. We are being told the new English translation has taken place so that it conforms better to the original Latin. However, the logic of that tells us we should re-translate the first typical edition. There does not, as the original OP points out, seem to be any explanation given for why we’re on the third typical edition from Rome.
There was a translation of the 2nd edition proposed in 1998 (a good 23 years after the 2nd edition Latin text came out). Most, if not all, the English-speaking conferences approved it, but Rome did not. While some of its translation was good, some of it was heading in a direction which Rome did not like: inclusive language, numerous newly-invented texts, complete reworking of rubrics and options (e.g. the Gloria and Penitential Act were made mutually exclusive).
We are currently using an English translation (from 1973) of the first Latin text (from 1970). We’ve never used an English translation of the second Latin text (from 1975). We’re going to use an English translation of the third Latin text (from 2002, with amendments made in 2008). We’re not going to simply use a newer translation of an older Latin text, but a translation of the newer Latin text.
The phrase “original Latin” is misleading. The new translation will conform to the “typical edition”, that is, the Latin text of the Roman Missal. There is no reason to continue using an older edition of that Missal.
As for differences between the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd editions, there were some rubrical adjustments, some new saints on the universal calendar, the restoration of the “Prayer over the People”, etc.
That depends on your geographical location and your idiom. Here in UK people would have understood what the phrase “original Latin” meant. It meant a translation from the language in which the text was originally written, i.e. Latin to the language that it was being translated into, i.e. English. It does not have the sense in which you seem to have understood it: that there is some older version of Latin.
Fair enough. (I would have said “underlying Latin”.)
Suffice to say, the new English translation deals with the “original Latin” of the third edition, not of the first edition.