Anyone looking at the new Translations for the Mass?

[Frosty]

It was always in the TLM…and in this age, we must not forget him.

The Prayer to St. Michael was not always part of the TLM. It was added to the Mass in 1886. Also, the Prayers after Mass were only said after Low Masses.

The prayers after Mass of which it was a part were said after private Masses or Low Masses. They were not said after after a sung or High Mass, a Mass said with any special solemnity (e.g., a funeral Mass, conventual Mass, First Communion Mass, ordination Mass, a wedding Mass, Mass of a newly ordined priest) or at a Mass followed by some other sevice if the priest does not leave the sanctuary

.
Catholic Encyclopedia

 

[Hyacinth_II]

The Prayer to St. Michael was not always part of the TLM. It was added to the Mass in 1886. Also, the Prayers after Mass were only said after Low Masses.
.
Catholic Encyclopedia

Then we need to pray to him ourselves…we are in battle, we need his help. Satan is attacking our church in many ways, do you not see it?

catholictradition.org/Angels/litany4.htm

I plead to you to join me.

God bless you.

 

[Bluegoat]

I think that if I decide to join the Catholic Church, it will make the whole thing a lot more palatable. But I’m sure it would take a while for me to stop saying “And with thy spirit.”

 

[Brendan]

It was always in the TLM…and in this age, we must not forget him.

Not, it was never part of the Mass itself, rather, it was said after Mass ended.

There is nothing to prevent the St. Michael prayer from being said congregationally after Mass. That is how it is done in my parish.

The St. Michael prayer is said after the conclusion of Mass ( the Final Blessing) but before the Recessional Hymn.

 

[FrCorey]

yeppers, our bishop is making everyone update thier cheat sheets with the changes. and giving everyone one month to learn them and start using them.

 

[benedictgal]

Now, these translations have been up for quite some time. When I read the OP, I thought that the USCCB had already posted the translations they are working on now. I took the initiative and wrote to Bishop Serratelli, the chair of the Bishops Committee on Divine Worship and I implored my bishop and our Metropolitan to please support the new translations when they receive their mail-in ballots.

I believe that some of the provinces in Africa jumped the gun and started using the new translations, even though the CDWDS specifically noted that these were for instructional purposes only.

The translations are beautiful and they restore dignity, solemnity and majesty to the Mass. They truly live up to the name of the document that mandated them, as they are Liturgiam Authenticam, a return to the authentic, real words. What we have right now is simply a paraphrase of the original Latin, and not the original words as they appear in the Roman Missal. That is why the Spanish and Italian translations are more faithful to the text.

 

[Joannm]

yeppers, our bishop is making everyone update thier cheat sheets with the changes. and giving everyone one month to learn them and start using them.

How are you going to start using them if the books with the changes aren’t even published yet? They final recognitio from Rome won’t come probably until the first of the year if all gets approved in Nov. There is still one section to be approved I think. Then the books have to be published which will take a bit of time. So how can you begin the new translations in a month? The BCDW gives Advent 2010 as their earliest goal to begin using the new translations.

 

[FrCorey]

Now, these translations have been up for quite some time. When I read the OP, I thought that the USCCB had already posted the translations they are working on now. I took the initiative and wrote to Bishop Serratelli, the chair of the Bishops Committee on Divine Worship and I implored my bishop and our Metropolitan to please support the new translations when they receive their mail-in ballots.

I believe that some of the provinces in Africa jumped the gun and started using the new translations, even though the CDWDS specifically noted that these were for instructional purposes only.

The translations are beautiful and they restore dignity, solemnity and majesty to the Mass. They truly live up to the name of the document that mandated them, as they are Liturgiam Authenticam, a return to the authentic, real words. What we have right now is simply a paraphrase of the original Latin, and not the original words as they appear in the Roman Missal. That is why the Spanish and Italian translations are more faithful to the text.

yes. God Bless the new Holy Father. he is “old school”.
he don’t like most of the changes the John Pauls made.

 

[FrDavid96]

yeppers, our bishop is making everyone update thier cheat sheets with the changes. and giving everyone one month to learn them and start using them.

While on the one hand, I think these corrections are long overdue (and should never have been necessary in the first place), I too just can’t understand what you mean by that post. Are you saying that the bishop is implementing the new translations now?

 

[seremina]

I wonder something, as its somewhat related to the topic at hand. At first glance of the new translation, I see that they’re keeping the Roman Canon -and- the other 3 optional canons. Just like the NO instituted. I had kinda thought the translation would go back to just using the Roman Canon so I wouldn’t have to guess which optional canon is being used.

My question is…why were 3 optional canons instituted in the first place? I mean, do they serve a real purpose besides being “variety”?

 

[kalel76]

The “Domine nom sub dignis” after the ecce homo is now “Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.”

This is a good change and I am confused as to why it was translated as “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you…”. I think many people may have thought that once they spoke those words, that they were magically worthy enough to receive Jesus in Communion.

 

[seremina]

This is a good change and I am confused as to why it was translated as “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you…”. I think many people may have thought that once they spoke those words, that they were magically worthy enough to receive Jesus in Communion.

It may seem like that, but look a little deeper. I’m not sure if you see it, but its a statement of humility. None of us are worthy to receive Communion, not even Spiritual Communion. But its a free gift and we should receive with gratitude and humility because our Lord loves us and instituted this for us. During the Last Supper, our Lord was grateful and humble.

Remember, during the Confiteor, we beat upon our chest once for having sinned. That’s part of being humble while we ask for forgiveness we don’t deserve. But our Lord is so wonderful, of course He’ll give it! At the same time, we have a fine-rope to walk to be sure we don’t presume upon His gracious Mercy.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

This question was addressed by the USCCB in the August 2005 issue of the newsletter of the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy: The expression et cum spiritu tuo is only addressed to an ordained minister. Some scholars have suggested …

Please note the bold I added. To say “some scholars have suggested” is the equivalent of saying “we don’t really know but our best guess is…”
So it appears that anyone claiming a definitive reason for “and with your spirit” would be off base as apparently even the US Bishops don’t really know why its used.

Personally, I think the new translation is the equivalent of using a sledge hammer when a small hammer would suffice. The translation needed correction, but this wholesale change is simply going to cause mass confusion (not sure if i intended that pun). The average parishioner is going to be lost and many new comers will wonder why the Church decided to spend this much time and effort on this.

its definitely a “teachable moment” but its also going to be a chaotic one with people confusing the responses and priests making mistakes and some parishes probably refusing to implement the new translation. oh joy, what fun this will be.

 

[japhy]

To say “some scholars have suggested” is the equivalent of saying “we don’t really know but our best guess is…” So it appears that anyone claiming a definitive reason for “and with your spirit” would be off base as apparently even the US Bishops don’t really know why its used.

Bishop Blair (Toledo):
As one of the U.S. bishops working on the new translations Cardinal George] writes: “Our current translation might seem more personal and friendly, but that’s the problem. The spirit referred to in the Latin is the spirit of Christ who comes to a priest when he is ordained, as St. Paul explained to Timothy. In other words, the people are saying in their response that Christ as head of the Church is the head of the liturgical assembly, no matter who the particular priest celebrant may be. That is a statement of faith, a statement distorted by transforming it into an exchange of personal greetings.”
Just providing another voice of support.

The average parishioner is going to be lost and many new comers will wonder why the Church decided to spend this much time and effort on this.

I don’t know why people give so little credit to the “average” parishioner (whoever that is). If priests clued in their parishes more often about Catholic happenings, the “average” parishioner would be much smarter and much more aware.

And questions from newcomers are good. It shows that they’re paying attention and that they care enough about something they don’t understand to ask questions and learn more.

its definitely a “teachable moment” but its also going to be a chaotic one with people confusing the responses and priests making mistakes and some parishes probably refusing to implement the new translation.

Mistakes and confusion (were you around in the 1960’s?) are inevitable, easily forgivable, and easy to move past. Frankly, there are some parishes which will refuse to implement anything the Holy See or their Bishop tells them to implement. This certainly is a test of obedience.

And it’s my personal goal to make the transition orderly rather than chaotic.

 

[deacon_eric]

Well for or as long as I have been alive, I have always said “and also with you”; I haven’t heard it spoken any other way except in the Latin. I am all for correct translations but I think we have jumped the tracks here. Its one thing to change it, and another to have reason for changing it but how are you going to get people to change. For 30 some years I have been conditioned to say it one way and now when I finally feel like it’s the correct way to do things, they change it, Heaven help us.

I don’t think that we are “jumping the tracks” at all!
What we are doing is correcting translations that should have been corrected long ago.
Et cum spiritu tuo does NOT mean and also wirh you, It means AND WITH YOUR SPIRIT.
As for getting used to the changes --that shouldn’t be too hard ! After you have been saying the “correct responses” for a while, you will get used to them just like you got used to the "incorrect responses .

                                         Orate fratres !
                                        Les orendi, Les credendi !:)

 

[Bluegoat]

As a note, the Anglican Church changed from “And with Thy Spirit” to “And also with you” in the 80’s. It didn’t take long in places where they used the new liturgy a lot for people to get used to the change. I’d say less than a year and there was rarely a mistake.

 

[SMHW]

As a note, the Anglican Church changed from “And with Thy Spirit” to “And also with you” in the 80’s. It didn’t take long in places where they used the new liturgy a lot for people to get used to the change. I’d say less than a year and there was rarely a mistake.

I just happened to attend a service at the church of my Lutheran boyfriend (after attending Mass, of course) on the weekend that they made the change in either the late 1970s or early 1980s. It was actually somewhat amusing listening to people stumbling over the words. I remember thinking, 'My goodness! Why are you having such a hard time with the new responses! We Catholics had to switch from Latin to old English and then a few years later from old English to modern English and we did just fine!"

 

[rpp]

One other point, has anyone noiticed that something was removed? Immediately after the consecration, curing the cannon, where the faithdul are called upon to recite the mystery of faith, there are now only three options. The option “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again” has been removed. My understanding, which may be wrong, is that this option never existed in the original Latin to begin with but was added a while back.

Thoughts?

 

[Bluegoat]

One other point, has anyone noiticed that something was removed? Immediately after the consecration, curing the cannon, where the faithdul are called upon to recite the mystery of faith, there are now only three options. The option “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again” has been removed. My understanding, which may be wrong, is that this option never existed in the original Latin to begin with but was added a while back.

Thoughts?

Yes, I believe it had been resurrected from a very early liturgy? But I am possibly mis-remembering. I know the new translation is just supposed to be a new translation and not actually a different liturgy - but the one in current use, at first glance, to me seems so similar to the new Anglican liturgy from the 70s/early 80s - and that is clearly written along totally different lines theologically from everything that came before. It also made a big deal about reclaiming early church liturgical practices.

Was this also the case with the NO mass?

Which makes me wonder about the NO mass - it seems like it had

 

[japhy]

… the mystery of faith, there are now only three options. The option “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again” has been removed. My understanding, which may be wrong, is that this option never existed in the original Latin to begin with but was added a while back.

It was not and is not part of the Latin text of the Roman Missal. It’s an English addition. (Such things make it terribly easy to talk about the liturgy in a way that’s meant to be universal but ends up being completely foreign to non-English-speaking Catholics: “It’s like we say at Mass: ‘Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.’” “Huh? When do we say that?” asks a French/Spanish/Italian/German/etc. Catholic.)

It is unlike the three acclamations found in the Latin text, which a) are directly addressed to Jesus Christ (and are not simply about him), and b) mention his interaction with us.

The acclamation in the middle of the Eucharistic Prayer is also not a traditional element of the Roman Rite.