I went to my first 1962 Mass today after I got a 1962 Missal from Angelus Press. When the readings were re-read in English at the Homily, I noticed the translation was a little different. Do different Missals use different English translations?
I have an Angelus Missal, but don’t know what was being used. It’s an FSSP service, and I thought I read somewhere that they are associated with Baronius Press, so maybe they are using it?
It’s been my experience that since the re-reading of the lesson and Gospel in the vernacular isn’t exactly part of the Mass proper, but rather a custom, there isn’t really a standardized version used. I’ve heard anything from the NAB to the Douay Rheims to whatever was in the altar boy’s hand missal.
The Douay Rheims is used in both the Baronius and Angelus Missals. The Baronius Missal is based more on the Daily Missal and Liturgical Manual while the Angelus Missal on the Ideal Missal, but since Sylvester P. Juergens, SM, STD compiled both of the originals, both of the Baronius and Angelus Missals have very similar features. And yes Baronius Missal is linked with the FSSP.
In terms of other English translations, one would encounter such in antique missals and reprints of such. The St Andrew’s Missal from what I know uses its own and the St Joseph’s and St Pius X Daily Missal from Catholic Books Publishing Co. use the Confraternity Bible. I am not sure about old British Missals, but from the 1950s I think the Msgr Knox Bible was used.
The Latin Vulgate or Douay-Rheims version of the Bible.
I believe prior to Vatican II they uesd those Bible version in the Traditional Missal, so the 1962 version of the Mass uses it…
or may be it uses the Confraternity version.
But I’m pretty sure it has to be an approved translation, that the priest isn’t allowed to do an on-the-fly translation. This rule protects against the possibility of a mistranslation coming across as material heresy… all it takes is a word or two to be off.
Either in the past and now priests read the Gospel from their (usually bilingual) hand-missal. This is necessary because some words may be added to the Bible, and e.g. the Lesson for today (05-16 St Ubaldi = Statuit ei Mass) is from the Ecclesiaticus, but a selection of sentence parts from a much longer text (Eccli 44:16-45-20)
As for the original question before 1940 the Duoay Rhems was used obligarotily; later the editor used whatever approved translation as he liked.
Even this isn’t necessary. Last Sunday our EF priest skipped the vernacular reading and spent much of his sermon on explaining the Epistle and Gospel. I felt this was more informative as the connection between the Epistle and Gospel isn’t always obvious to the average churchgoer, even with approved translations.
Until about 1900 this was the rule. There was no Scriptural reading in vernacular at all, only the sermon. If it was homily, the priest explained it by his own word. Even in my time only the Gospel was read by the priest in vernacular.
Here is from the ritus servandus of the 1920 Missal
6 Si autem sit prædicandum, Contionator,
finito Evangelio, proedicet, et sermone,
sive contione expleto, dicatur Credo, vel, si
non sit dicendum, cantetur Offertorium.
If there is sermon or addressing of the assembly,
let it be after the (Latin) Gospel, and the
end of it let the Creed or immediatelly
the Offertory verse said, if there is no Creed.