This weekend and last weekend when I went to Mass, I noticed that the priest did not include St. Joseph’s name in the Eucharistic Prayer. I thought this revision was now in effect?
He probably does not know or forgot. Perhaps you can discreetly press the point. Offer the suggestion of penciling it in.
When our pastor told us about the change he added something about not forgetting. I think by now he would have much of the new translation memorized (Unlike when we started it) even a penciled in might get missed. I think it is likely that it was forgotten not on purpose. I have heard St Joseph mentioned by some priests and overlooked as well. We should be patient.
Ah, the liturgical police will be in full force for the summer :)
When the news came out, I did email him with an attachment to the document, and he said he was very pleased to hear it, yet it's been two weeks, and I haven't heard it. It's strange.
Just so - a whole new “liturgical abuse” to complain about! Given that the battle cry around here is “do the red, say the black,” I think people forget that when a priest is deep into the Mass, and especially the Eucharistic Prayer, his concentration is very focused and if something isn’t on the printed page - as the name St. Joseph isn’t - something literally only a couple of weeks old can be easy to forget. Maybe Father hasn’t had a chance to put a Post-It note in the Missal yet, huh? I would suggest a little more kindness and understanding towards our priests, and perhaps some critical self-reflection along the lines of how long it might have taken us to move to “And with your spirit” without accidentally reverting to “And also with you.”
Has the exact wording, “Her Spouse” as opposed to “Spouse of the same Virgin” been decided? There seems to be a discrepancy between the Latin EP1 and the other EP’s. Personally I would like to see it done right the first time.
At the abbey this morning it was “St. Joseph, son époux”, so, the former so far.
**The Congregation has provided English language translations for the additions to the Mass prayers.
In Eucharistic Prayer II:
that with the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God,
with blessed Joseph, her Spouse,with the blessed Apostles
In Eucharistic Prayer III:
with the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God,
with blessed Joseph, her Spouse,with your blessed Apostles and glorious Martyrs
In Eucharistic Prayer IV:
with the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God,
with blessed Joseph, her Spouse,and with your Apostles
I read that the next step is for the Bishop’s Conference to promulgate it. Next, each diocese with implement it. I am not expecting an instant implementation. I’m just happy that St. Joseph will be added.
Our associate pastor did :thumbsup:
There’s no discrepancy.
Here’s the full paragraph.
Accordingly, mature consideration having been given to all the matters mentioned here above, this Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, by virtue of the faculties granted by the Supreme Pontiff Francis, is pleased to decree that the name of Saint Joseph, Spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary is henceforth to be added to Eucharistic Prayers II, III, and IV, as they appear in the third typical edition of the Roman Missal, after the name of the Blessed Virgin Mary, as follows: in Eucharistic Prayer II: “ut cum beáta Dei Genetríce Vírgine María, beáto Ioseph, eius Sponso, beátis Apóstolis”; in Eucharistic Prayer III: “cum beatíssima Vírgine, Dei Genetríce, María, cum beáto Ioseph, eius Sponso, cum beátis Apóstolis”; and in Eucharistic Prayer IV: “cum beáta Vírgine, Dei Genetríce, María, cum beáto Ioseph, eius Sponso, cum Apóstolis ”.
The sentence in blue is merely explanatory. That’s not the place where the Congregation actually provides the text to be inserted into the prayer.
On the other hand, the sentence in red is the new typical Latin text–ie the actual words to be added to the prayers.
So the original Latin reads "cum beáto Ioseph, eius Sponso"
The English translation of that is indeed “with blessed Joseph, her Spouse”
No. The bishops’ conferences do not have to promulgate it–that’s already been done for the entire Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite.
It’s worthy of note that “the Congregation itself will soon provide vernacular translations…” for major western languages–and for English, has already done so. In other words, they’re not waiting for the bishops’ conferences to submit suggested texts. This might mean something (given past history of translations) or it might mean absolutely nothing (given that it’s such a simple thing, there’s no reason for a long process of translating and approving).
I’ll buy your argument. But for the record the EP1 goes as follows:
Communicantes, et memoriam venerantes, in primis gloriosae semper Virginis Mariae, Genetricis Dei et Domini nostri Iesu Christi: sed et beati Ioseph, eiusdem Virginis Sponsi, et beatorum Apostolorum ac Martyrum tuorum, Petri et Pauli, Andreae, (Iacobi, Ioannis, Thomae, Iacobi, Philippi, Bartholomaei, Matthaei, Simonis et Thaddaei: Lini, Cleti, Clementis, Xysti, Cornelii, Cypriani, Laurentii, Chrysogoni, Ioannis et Pauli, Cosmae et Damiani) et omnium Sanctorum tuorum; quorum meritis precibusque concedas, ut in omnibus protectionis tuae muniamur auxilio. (Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.)
youtube.com/watch?v=NBZw0hahaqM at 1:40
I get it now. I misread your earlier post. I thought you meant a discrepancy between the new text in Latin and the new English version. (Please, God, let us not go back to those days!)
Now I get it. You’re actually pointing out a difference between the sentences as they appear in Eucharistic Prayer I in contrast to Eucharistic Prayers II, III and IV.
Is that what you mean?
Our new associate pastor read it.