No mention of Mary or the Saints in RC services. Is this common?

I've not long returned from an exceptionally wonderful pilgrimage/conference on Iona.

Dr Rowan Williams was there, which was excellent, and we also had a highly memorable visit to Staffa, Fingal's Cave and the puffins. A pod of dolphins accompanied us part of the way.

Wonderful stuff.

My question though, is as follows ...

I was privileged to attend some morning prayers at the Catholic House of Prayer and, back on the mainland, attended a Vigil Mass in the RC cathedral in Oban.

I was surprised to find no invocations or even references to Mary and the Saints at either of these. As @Alan29 and other Shipmates may remember, I was surprised to find that not all RCs go in for 'that sort of thing'. I was even more surprised though, to find no reference to them in RC morning prayers nor in a Vigil Mass.

I am not saying that is right or wrong, good, bad or indifferent. I am simply puzzled.

How common is this? Perhaps some RC Shipmates can enlighten me.
«1

Comments

  • Robertus LRobertus L Shipmate
    As far as I remember Mary must be mentioned by name, almost always as ' Mary, the mother of God' in all eucharistic prayers, and has been in there basically since there have been eucharistic prayers. Besides the standard four eucharistic prayers, there are dozens of others for special occasions, but I find it difficult to believe she would be omitted from any of them.

    The saints, are a different matter, depending on which prayer you're using in the Roman canon, certain saints are obligatory, others saints are discretionary.
  • I tell you the truth.

    She wasn't even name-checked at the Mass I attended. I don't think I'd nodded off and wasn't paying attention.

    Her absence stuck out like a sore thumb.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    No mention of Mary and/other saints in Morning Prayer doesn’t surprise me. But like @Robertus L, no mention in the Mass, at least of Mary, does surprise me. Mary is mentioned by name in each of the four standard eucharistic prayers, as is “blessed Joseph, her spouse.” Only Eucharistic Prayer 1 actually includes a list of saints. The other three have non-specific references to apostles, martyrs and saints, though individual saints—a patron saint or a saint(s) being commemorated—can be added, at least to EP 3.

    I tell you the truth.

    She wasn't even name-checked at the Mass I attended. I don't think I'd nodded off and wasn't paying attention.
    Not even in the Creed? (You said it was a Vigil Mass, so I’m guessing a Vigil Mass for Sunday, but maybe not.)


  • Yes, she was mentioned in the Creed but nowhere else unless I am badly mistaken.
  • It was a Saturday evening.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    The RC Mass is primarily addressed to the Father through the Son. Some Eucharistic prayers mention Mary, and the Roman Canon includes an optional list of early Roman saints along with Mary and Joseph. The confession at the start of Mass calls upon Mary, all the saints and all present to pray for those saying it.
    Saints might get a mention in the collect on their feast day depending on how important they are.
    The big exception is that England and Wales dioceses have permission to include the Hail Mary in the intercessions. This started when the Liturgy was translated into English and the then Archbishop of Westminster was afraid people might forget it. This is unique to England and Wales.
    Mary and the saints only appear in the Office on their feast days.
    Popular piety is a different matter and will vary according to the local culture.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited July 7
    As @Alan29 says, Mary and the saints are invoked in the usual RC Confession. From memory, it goes something like this:

    And I ask blessed Mary, ever-Virgin, all the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.

    Apologies to RCs if I've misquoted slightly.
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    EP! (The Roman Canon) 'In communion with those whose memory we venerate,especially the glorious ever virgin Mary...'
    EP2 'Have mercy on us all,we pray, that with the ever blessed Virgin Mary...... we may merit to be coheirs to eternal life.'
    EP3 'May he make of us an eternal offering so that we may obtain an inheritance with your elect,especially with the most Blessed virgin Mary.........'
    EP4 To all of us,your children, grant that we may enter into heavenly inheritance with the Blessed virgin Mary...'

    There are other eucharistic prayers but they are rarely used. Either the priest made a mistake or GG had nodded off.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited July 7
    Two thoughts come to mind:

    What confession was used at the Vigil Mass? AIUI, there are short responsorial forms (based on the Kyries) which don't mention Mary or the saints, and which can be used instead of the full version.

    Did the priest deliberately omit mention of Mary during the Eucharistic Prayer, perhaps to avoid possible offence to non-RCs?

  • Robertus LRobertus L Shipmate
    It did occur to me that there may have been so ecumenical reason for dropping the saints' names, but not the name of Mary. As I said she is almost always referred to as Mary mother of God', so only non- Nicaeans could possibly be offended by her inclusion

    It's possible the priest was saying mass from memory and somehow skipped some part of the eucharistic prayers, I've certainly known this happen. If @Gamma Gamaliel isn't familiar with RC liturgy he may have noticed the missing mother of God, but perhaps not noticed other missing bits.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited July 7
    Yes, to be fair, the priest could have simply made an error.

    What about the confession, though?
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Yes, to be fair, the priest could have simply made an error.

    What about the confession, though?

    Might have used one of the other forms of the penitential rite.
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    Oban is not the sort of place where non Catholics who might be offended at the name of Mary would be likely to enter St Columba's cathedral.
    nor it is the sort of place where the celebrant might be thinking about non catholics coming in to the cathedral.
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    Yes, to be fair, the priest could have simply made an error.

    What about the confession, though?

    Might have used one of the other forms of the penitential rite.

    Yes, that's what I meant.
  • Thanks for your comments, good people.

    I think, as has been said, I either nodded off and missed the references or else the priest was going from memory and forgot. Either way, I've always noticed references to her in Eucharistic prayers when I've previously attended RC Masses.

    The whole thing did feel rather spare and trimmed down and I'm sure there may well have been other bits missed out that I wouldn't have noticed due to a lack of familiarity.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Maybe they are finally catching up to the Reformers.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited July 7
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Maybe they are finally catching up to the Reformers.
    Oh, I don’t know. Mary got a mention in the Great Thanksgiving (Eucharistic Prayer) at our Presbyterian place yesterday, as did John the Baptist.


  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Maybe they are finally catching up to the Reformers.
    Oh, I don’t know. Mary got a mention in the Great Thanksgiving (Eucharistic Prayer) at our Presbyterian place yesterday, as did John the Baptist.


    In truth, we have mentioned Mary in the past too, and even some of the saints when the service falls on their day, but not in the sense of putting in an extra word on our behalf with you know whom--though Revelation seems to indicate they do.

    Of note, beginning 27 November, the Roman church will begin using a new Missal. Not sure of all the details. This will be the first major change since 2002.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited July 7
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Of note, beginning 27 November, the Roman church will begin using a new Missal. Not sure of all the details. This will be the first major change since 2002.
    I think you may be thinking of November 27, 2011, when a new English translation of the Roman Missal became official.

    I can’t find any information about a new edition of the Missal, either the Latin edition or the English translation, in 2025. And this year, the first Sunday of Advent, when such things typically take effect, is November 30, not November 27.


  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    Did the Reformers not get on with Mary? Do they disagree with the scripture in which she says "All generations shall call me blessed"?
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    I have some thoughts in response to that question, but I suspect they’re more Purgatorial than about “church liturgy and worship practice”.
  • Ex_OrganistEx_Organist Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    I can’t find any information about a new edition of the Missal, either the Latin edition or the English translation, in 2025. And this year, the first Sunday of Advent, when such things typically take effect, is November 30, not November 27.


    A Google search suggests that the change is in the English translation used for Lectionary and Psalms. These seem to be moving to ESV.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    I can’t find any information about a new edition of the Missal, either the Latin edition or the English translation, in 2025. And this year, the first Sunday of Advent, when such things typically take effect, is November 30, not November 27.


    A Google search suggests that the change is in the English translation used for Lectionary and Psalms. These seem to be moving to ESV.

    The compulsory translation of the responsorial psalms is changing too, which is causing much tearing out of hair among musicians.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    I can’t find any information about a new edition of the Missal, either the Latin edition or the English translation, in 2025. And this year, the first Sunday of Advent, when such things typically take effect, is November 30, not November 27.


    A Google search suggests that the change is in the English translation used for Lectionary and Psalms. These seem to be moving to ESV.

    This seems an odd choice, given the heavy evangelical thumb on the scales of that translation.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Thank you, @Ex_Organist and @Alan29. I somehow missed that in my search.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Did the Reformers not get on with Mary? Do they disagree with the scripture in which she says "All generations shall call me blessed"?

    Short answer: whilst they didn't invoke her prayers or the prayers of the Saints, I think it's fair to say that the 'Magisterial Reformers' and later figures like John Donne and John Wesley had a very palpable respect for Mary that isn't always articulated as strongly among contemporary Protestants.

    That isn't to say that this has completely died out, as @Nick Tamen indicates from a Presbyterian perspective.

    I don't know about Calvin but both Luther and Wesley believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

    But we are getting away from Ecclesiantic into Purgatorial territory I think. Probably my fault.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Did the Reformers not get on with Mary? Do they disagree with the scripture in which she says "All generations shall call me blessed"?
    I don't know about Calvin but both Luther and Wesley believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.
    Without looking it up to confirm or correct my memory, I believe Calvin did as well. My memory is that he was also comfortable with the title Theotokos/Mother of God.

    The problem arose in later generations, when Not Looking Like Catholics became the most important, inviolable rule.


  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    I can’t find any information about a new edition of the Missal, either the Latin edition or the English translation, in 2025. And this year, the first Sunday of Advent, when such things typically take effect, is November 30, not November 27.


    A Google search suggests that the change is in the English translation used for Lectionary and Psalms. These seem to be moving to ESV.

    This seems an odd choice, given the heavy evangelical thumb on the scales of that translation.

    And from a publishing standpoint going from UK based copyright holders of the JB and Grail Psalms to USA based copyright holders of the ESV and the Abbey Psalter adds complications.
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    This change to a different version of the Scriptures for Readings is not happening all over the anglophone world. For example it has not taken place in Ireland.
  • IIRC, the change of RC liturgical texts back in 2011 caused some problems for musicians, as existing music didn't fit.

    It all seemed from some points of view to be a rather unnecessary exercise.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    edited July 8
    Our Mass readers have discovered that a literal word for word translation which the ESV is, might be brilliant as a study edition, but can be difficult to read aloud as it is not very idiomatic or natural English. This is a stark contrast to the JB where the translators aimed for meaning rather than word for word literalness.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Alan29 wrote: »
    Our Mass readers have discovered that a literal word for word translation which the ESV is, might be brilliant as a study edition, but can be difficult to read aloud as it is not very idiomatic or natural English.
    Not being idiomatic or natural English should make it fit well with the 2011 translation of the Missal.


  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    Our Mass readers have discovered that a literal word for word translation which the ESV is, might be brilliant as a study edition, but can be difficult to read aloud as it is not very idiomatic or natural English.
    Not being idiomatic or natural English should make it fit well with the 2011 translation of the Missal.


    Sadly true.
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    Our Mass readers have discovered that a literal word for word translation which the ESV is, might be brilliant as a study edition, but can be difficult to read aloud as it is not very idiomatic or natural English.
    Not being idiomatic or natural English should make it fit well with the 2011 translation of the Missal.


    Sadly true.

    Yes, I thought that. Sorry, RC Shipmates, but the 2011 Mass sounds terribly clunky in English. It doesn't seem so clunky in French - any ideas as to why that might be?
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    Alan29 wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    Our Mass readers have discovered that a literal word for word translation which the ESV is, might be brilliant as a study edition, but can be difficult to read aloud as it is not very idiomatic or natural English.
    Not being idiomatic or natural English should make it fit well with the 2011 translation of the Missal.


    Sadly true.

    Yes, I thought that. Sorry, RC Shipmates, but the 2011 Mass sounds terribly clunky in English. It doesn't seem so clunky in French - any ideas as to why that might be?

    I've heard it suggested that the translators of the English version were not native speakers. Perhaps the translators of the French version were, or maybe translation into other Romance languages is easier for native Italian speakers than into Germanic languages.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Alan29 wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    Our Mass readers have discovered that a literal word for word translation which the ESV is, might be brilliant as a study edition, but can be difficult to read aloud as it is not very idiomatic or natural English.
    Not being idiomatic or natural English should make it fit well with the 2011 translation of the Missal.


    Sadly true.

    Yes, I thought that. Sorry, RC Shipmates, but the 2011 Mass sounds terribly clunky in English. It doesn't seem so clunky in French - any ideas as to why that might be?

    I've heard it suggested that the translators of the English version were not native speakers. Perhaps the translators of the French version were, or maybe translation into other Romance languages is easier for native Italian speakers than into Germanic languages.
    What I have heard is that a premium was put on reflecting, as it were, the Latin origin of the text. If that’s the case, perhaps French, as Romance language can accommodate that more easily than a Germanic language? (I have no idea what the German or Dutch translation is like.)


  • Yes, you may well be right about Romance languages.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Alan29 wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Alan29 wrote: »
    Our Mass readers have discovered that a literal word for word translation which the ESV is, might be brilliant as a study edition, but can be difficult to read aloud as it is not very idiomatic or natural English.
    Not being idiomatic or natural English should make it fit well with the 2011 translation of the Missal.


    Sadly true.

    Yes, I thought that. Sorry, RC Shipmates, but the 2011 Mass sounds terribly clunky in English. It doesn't seem so clunky in French - any ideas as to why that might be?
    Maybe the French version hasn't been re-translated. Or maybe the French held out against pressure from the centre.
    Apparently the English is used as the urtext when translating into minority tribal languages where nobody can translate from Latin.
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    There have been at least two small changes to the text of the Roman Mass in French over the last year or so.
    One of them is in the basic penitential prayer at the beginning of Mass in order to make it agree completely with the Latin form.
    The second is in the prayer where the Latin form begins 'Orate,fratres'........ Since the French form began to be used over 50 years ago there was a simple verse and response
    'Prions au moment d'offrir le sacrifice de toute l'église
    Pour la gloire de Dieu et le salut du monde'
    (Let us pray at the moment of offering the sacrifice of the whole church
    For the glory of God and the salvation of the world)
    Over the last year the words of this little prayer have been changed to an exact translation of the original Latin
    Most days at 10 a.m. Central European time/9a.m. UK time . Mass is streamed from the grotto in Lourdes and is usually celebrated in French. Sometimes you will hear the 'new' form of the prayer and sometimes the older one. There is generally a louder response if the priest uses the older form.

    Personally I think that many set prayers in almost any language can be clunky as they are often attempting to express ideas which can be complicated. This,for me, includes the Lord's prayer in its traditional English format. In time one gets used to the language and one hardly thinks about it
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    edited July 8
    One of the things I have noticed in France is that they use paraphrases of the bits the people sing (Gloria, Sanctus, Agnus Dei etc) much more than we in the UK are permitted - basically we have to stick to the text.
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    In the German version of the Roman Mass which I follow every week I hardly think of the words. They just make sense.Without going into some detail as I have just done with regard to French version it is extremely rare in German to hear anything but 'Geht hin in Frieden' at the end of Mass (Go in peace). I should have added with the French that that phrase from the Latin 'Ite,missa est' which has a number of translations used in English is now having a number of different possible forms in French.that makes a third small change to the Ordinary of the Mass in French.
    Certainly in Austria,the traditional texts of the Ordinary Kyrie,Gloria etc are either sung in Latin/Greek or very often in one of the many German language 'Singmessen' used since the 1700s e.g. Schubert's German Mass.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Forthview wrote: »
    e.g. Schubert's German Mass.
    A favorite of mine.

  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    A thought on this and then a question. Others may squeal, but for all Common Worship's weaknesses, I do think the CofE is better at writing liturgy in modern English than is the RCC. Whether it is because their liturgy is not required to be a translation and those putting it together do not have to carry across in their heads the shadow a Latin text or whether it is just that they have been used to having English as their liturgical language for 480 years rather than just 75, I don't know.

    The RCC reversion to 'chalice' in stead of the 'cup' that everyone else uses to me is particularly clunky.

    And now for the question:-
    Am I the only person who queries whether 'Mother of God' might not be the best translation into English of 'Theotokos'. Yes, those that defend it will say, 'we are not Nestorians' and we aren't, but to me, in English the phrase always carries an implication, which is not in Theotokos, that Mary preexisted the Trinity.

    This may be an oddity with English, rather than say French or German. I don't know.

  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    If the term 'Mother of God' is linguistically an oddity in English then it is equally an oddity in other languages. But then in some other languages it may be used,both spoken and heard, much more frequently than in some others and therefore not be seen as an oddity.

    When christianity came out of the shadows and became more or less THE religion in Europe the Council of Nicaea with the later additions at constantinople attempted to define exactly who Jesus Christ was (is and ever shall be). 'born of the Father before all ages,God from God,Light from light,true God from true God,begotten not made,...'

    If Jesus was (is and ever shall be) God and Mary was His mother then she is the Mother of God. That, at least, was what the Council of Ephesus in 431 attempted to explain.
    I understand Enoch's reluctance to say Mother of God but would suggest that he too,just as Catholics and Orthodox are, is bound by the cultural norms of his own form of Christianity.

    If I understand Enoch is prepared to accept 'God bearer' as a title for Mary,but if Mary was indeed the 'God bearer' she was also the' mother' as surely she provided all the comforts of a mother throughout the human childhood of Jesus who was(is and ever shall be) God.

    Latin often uses the term 'Dei Genitrix' for theotokos rather than 'mater Dei' and it appears at the end of a popular set Catholic prayer 'Salve Regina' with the words
    'Ora pro nobis,sancta Dei genitrix'............
    the German version of this prayer ends with
    'bitte fuer uns,o heilige Gottegebaehrerin' instead of the more common 'Mutter Gottes'
    'Gottegebaehrerin' = (female) bearer of God.
    The English and French versions of this prayer (Hail,Holy Queen.........) end with
    'pray for us,o holy Mother of God'
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Wikipedia says this:
    Theotokos (Greek: Θεοτόκος) is a title of Mary, mother of Jesus, used especially in Eastern Christianity. The usual Latin translations are Dei Genitrix or Deipara (approximately “parent (fem.) of God”). Familiar English translations are “Mother of God” or “God-bearer”—but these both have different literal equivalents in Ancient Greek: Μήτηρ Θεοῦ, and Θεοφόρος respectively. . . .

    Theotokos is an adjectival compound of two Greek words Θεός “God” and τόκος “childbirth, parturition; offspring.” A close paraphrase would be “[she] whose offspring is God” or “[she] who gave birth to one who was God.” . . .

    “Mother of God” is the literal translation of a distinct title in Greek, Μήτηρ τοῦ Θεοῦ (translit. Mētēr tou Theou), a term which has an established usage of its own in traditional Orthodox and Catholic theological writing, hymnography, and iconography. In an abbreviated form, ΜΡ ΘΥ (М҃Р Ѳ҃Ѵ), it often is found on Eastern icons, where it is used to identify Mary. . . .

    The theological dispute over the term concerned the term Θεός “God” vs. Χριστός “Christ,” and not τόκος (genitrix, “bearer”) vs. μήτηρ (mater, "mother"), and the two terms have been used as synonyms throughout Christian tradition. Both terms are known to have existed alongside one another since the early church, but it has been argued, even in modern times, that the term “Mother of God” is unduly suggestive of Godhead having its origin in Mary, imparting to Mary the role of a Mother Goddess. But this is an exact reiteration of the objection by Nestorius, resolved in the 5th century, to the effect that the term “Mother” expresses exactly the relation of Mary to the incarnate Son ascribed to Mary in Christian theology.

    For what it’s worth.

  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Sorry for the double-post, but I meant to add that if the concern is that “Mother of God” suggests that Mary is somehow the Mother of the Godhead rather than just of Jesus Christ, then translation isn’t the issue when it comes to Theotokos, because it clearly contains Theo—“God.” If “Mother of God” is a problem because it could be misunderstood, Theotokos presents the same problem.

    I wonder if a key to understanding these terms is an ancient understanding that the father’s “seed” contained the future human, while the mother’s womb was the place for that seed to grow?


  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    When it comes to the Trinity, you cannot have the one without the others.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    When it comes to the Trinity, you cannot have the one without the others.
    No, but you can have someone be the mother of the incarnation of one person of the Trinity without being the mother of all three persons of the Trinity.


  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Being very familiar with the kind of theological circles that hold the ESV in high esteem, I have to wonder what they would think of Catholics switching to that translation in the UK...!
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    When it comes to the Trinity, you cannot have the one without the others.
    No, but you can have someone be the mother of the incarnation of one person of the Trinity without being the mother of all three persons of the Trinity.


    Indeed, and as far as I am aware, I don't think Luther had any problem with that either.
Sign In or Register to comment.