Anyone looking at the new Translations for the Mass?

[rpp]

Speaking of the ICEL changes, can you believe they changed the words “All generations shall call me blessed.” to “All generations shall call me happy.”??? Talk about changing words just for the sake of change, I truly believe that ICEL was making changes just to keep their jobs going. I hope the bishops get rid of that group.

I am sorry, but where is that?

 

[johnknoesel]

Now if we can just some of these bishops to stop all the other abuses at mass.
I mean come on the GIRM was not written and update just for grins. If you can believe this I have been to liturgies at some parishes in the Fort Worth area where they have girls dancing in the ailes and all kinds of other strange things. I am seeing more and more abuses be allowed to occur by the Exraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist where they are consuming the last of the precious blood and they are the ones placing the Christ back into the tabernacle and the list just goes on and on. Well maybe this too shall soon be corrected hopefully while the local priests etc… are reading over these new implementations they will revisit the GIRM and see what else is going wrong. We must pray for this also. I mean come on we are not protestants that can do what ever they want. This is the Sacred Mass of Our Lord.

 

[japhy]

And it also brings all sorts of other issues to their minds. Many people have already asked the question, “is this really the most important thing we need to be addressing right now?”

What does one expect the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments to do?

 

[FrDavid96]

What does one expect the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments to do?

This sort of thing reminds me of the “broken window” principle in law enforcement. Policemen used to “walk beats” knowing the people who lived/worked in a neighborhood and doing their best to keep the peace. Sometime in the 60’s someone got the bright idea that it would be better to have them in partol cars so that they could be more mobile and concentrate on the “big crimes.” We hear that sort of thing a lot, “so what if my kid broke a window, don’t you have some bank robber to catch?” Of course, we also have to remember that when it’s that person’s window that gets broken, suddenly he wants the police to “do their job and enforce the law.” ] Police began a policy of not bothering with petty crimes–including neglecting the principle of crime-prevention by removing the beat cops. “A window was broken in a warehouse, take a report before the end of the week and get back to driving the car around.” A second window gets broken, same reaction. Next thing you know, the building has no windows left, and it’s a prime target for some up-and-coming arsonist. The ultimate result of ignoring those broken windows turned out to be not less crime, but considerably more crime. When New York city (just for example) decided to reverse that policy in the 80s, and dealt with both the petty and the major crimes, eventually the trend reversed itself (to a degree).

If the Church were ignoring the “big issues” like poverty, disease, abortion, oppression, etc. etc. and only worried about translating a Mass text, the argument that the Church has better things to do might have some merit. But that’s not true–not at all. As you pointed-out the Church has a sacred Congregation to deal with liturgical matters, including translations of the Mass. This is not at all an insignificant issue. The Mass is the most important thing that the Church does–everything else flows from it. If we start to think that the Church has better things to do than to fix problems in the text of the Mass, then we are in trouble indeed.

 

[Bluegoat]

There seems to be this idea that English speakers in the late 1960s and early 1970s weren’t aware of the differences between the original Latin and the 1969 English translation.

THIS IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE!

First of all, most of us were using an English translation which is very similar to the soon-to-be used translation.

But more importantly, we were specifically taught that the reason the 1969 translation was so different from the Latin was so we wouldn’t “overly spiritualize” the meaning by thinking words like “soul” and “spirit” meant something more than the word “person”. We were told that we shouldn’t imagine saying, “And with thy spirit” had any greater religious significance than would an avowed atheist be using if he were to say, “Good bye,” (“God be with you”) as a farewell greeting. We were told that the exchange, “The Lord be with you,” and the response, “And with thy Spirit,” were not to be understood as anything more than, “Hello, how are you?” and “I’m fine, thank you”, (which by the way, is the proper exchange even if one is about to collapse and die.)

Now, obviously younger people who never knew the older English responses, and converts from other denominations are not familiar with the history of the language so this is all new to them.

So did they feel that English speakers would somehow be particularly prone to this? Why did the Latin not avoid the “spiritual” words as well? Or what about French, or Spanish, which follow the Latin? Are Spanish people less likely to be led into dualism? This explanation, while I don’t doubt that it was given, seems pretty bogus to me. It also makes me wonder if the English speaking part of the Catholic church had some underlying motivation in the language use. Certainly what I know about theological training in the 60’s would tend to support that possibility.

 

[trish2009]

The changes re “All generations shall call me happy” were made in the New American Bible also damaged by ICEL. “Hail Mary, full of grace” was changed to Hail, highly favored daughter". I feel that we are all favored daughters of Christ but no one else is “full of grace”. An important distinction.

 

[benedictgal]

The changes re “All generations shall call me happy” were made in the New American Bible also damaged by ICEL. “Hail Mary, full of grace” was changed to Hail, highly favored daughter". I feel that we are all favored daughters of Christ but no one else is “full of grace”. An important distinction.

Actually, this is one that you cannot blame ICEL for doing since the NAB is a creature of the USCCB.

 

[trish2009]

Now if we can just some of these bishops to stop all the other abuses at mass.
I mean come on the GIRM was not written and update just for grins. If you can believe this I have been to liturgies at some parishes in the Fort Worth area where they have girls dancing in the ailes and all kinds of other strange things. I am seeing more and more abuses be allowed to occur by the Exraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist where they are consuming the last of the precious blood and they are the ones placing the Christ back into the tabernacle and the list just goes on and on. Well maybe this too shall soon be corrected hopefully while the local priests etc… are reading over these new implementations they will revisit the GIRM and see what else is going wrong. We must pray for this also. I mean come on we are not protestants that can do what ever they want. This is the Sacred Mass of Our Lord.

We older folks who were raised in the 40’s and 50’s have seen so many changes to the Mass that we knew instinctively were wrong yet the bishops and priests went along with it anyway. (Some priests refused to include some of the things that they knew were wrong and they were ostracized by the other priests and their bishops). In the so called “spirit of ecumenism” they destroyed the insides of Catholic churches: removing statues, stations of the cross, altar rails, crucifixes, etc. In our diocese one priest was chosen to go to parish after parish, to do just that. First the pastor would be retired, sometimes long before they needed to retire. Then the “wreckovator” as we called him would take over and rip out everything that smacked of Catholicism. A protestant could attend our Mass now and would not see anything in the church or in the Mass that he would not feel comfortable with. The rosary was discouraged. Novenas stopped. Prayers to the saints were discouraged. The statues of the saints were either stored in the basement or demolished. The large crucifix above the altar was replaced with a statue of the Risen Christ.

With “ecumenism” came “community”. Everything was geared to the people being a community and sharing a “meal” at the “table” of the Lord. Then Communion in the hand was introduced. Could the church do more to reduce belief in The True Presence?
It’s no wonder more than half of Catholics do not believe the Holy Eucharist is the True Presence.

Priests no longer preach about sin, purgatory or hell. Most homilies are about loving one another and social issues. In fact, they used to be called Sermons but I guess that sounded to strict and would make the people feel that they were being lectured to. God forbid the people should be unhappy. Hence the dancing girls, clown masses, etc. I’m sure that is why the “Sign of Peace” amongst the people was introduced. We never had that in the Latin Mass either. My personal feeling about the Sign of Peace is that, if it is found necessary to keep it in the Mass, move it to the beginning of the Mass or at the end. I feel that having the Sign of Peace* immediately after the Consecration,* when Christ is truly present on the altar, is not the time for turning around and shaking hands with everyone within reach. In fact, if we could actually see Jesus standing before us, I doubt if the first thing we would do is shake hands with our neighbors. We would fall to our knees and adore Him (which is where we should be anyway).

Catechetics of our children had a lot to do with the people who are now in their 40’s not having a clue as to what the Mass is really about.

I guess I sound like an old lady with a lot of gripes but I and my husband have been so heartbroken over all these changes which have literally changed the meaning of the Mass to a lot of people, that I feel I need to let some of the younger people who may read this post know what the Mass and the Church was really like before Vatican II.

God Bless,

Pat

 

[trish2009]

Actually, this is one that you cannot blame ICEL for doing since the NAB is a creature of the USCCB.

It was my understanding that ICEL was responsible for the wording and then the USCCB approved of it. Maybe I’m wrong.

Pat

 

[bkovacs]

Are their still going to be Altar girls, EMHCs’, and will the priest still be facing the people. What about guitar music. Will these items still be in force, when the new translation comes out. Or hopefully will all this change as well.

 

[Phemie]

Are their still going to be Altar girls, EMHCs’, and will the priest still be facing the people. What about guitar music. Will these items still be in force, when the new translation comes out. Or hopefully will all this change as well.

You’ll find that those things are still allowed. The GIRM has already been translated and is in force in the US. In fact, female altar servers are allowed per Canon 230 of the Code of Canon Law.

 

[bkovacs]

You’ll find that those things are still allowed. The GIRM has already been translated and is in force in the US. In fact, female altar servers are allowed per Canon 230 of the Code of Canon Law.

So much for the excitement. Guess I’ll still be home bound, till an EF is present. The GIRM is another huge problem with the OF Mass that needs changing big time.

 

[FrDavid96]

So much for the excitement. Guess I’ll still be home bound, till an EF is present. The GIRM is another huge problem with the OF Mass that needs changing big time.

Keep in mind that the permission to allow girls to serve as altar boys only applies if the bishop of that particular diocese has decided to permit it, and then only if the priest-celebrant at that particular Mass also decides to permit it.

Here is the exact text of canon 230, from the Vatican’s own website

Can. 230 §1. Lay men who possess the age and qualifications established by decree of the conference of bishops can be admitted on a stable basis through the prescribed liturgical rite to the ministries of lector and acolyte.

Nevertheless, the conferral of these ministries does not grant them the right to obtain support or remuneration from the Church.

§2. Lay persons can fulfill the function of lector in liturgical actions by temporary designation. All lay persons can also perform the functions of commentator or cantor, or other functions, according to the norm of law.

§3. When the need of the Church warrants it and ministers are lacking, lay persons, even if they are not lectors or acolytes, can also supply certain of their duties, namely, to exercise the ministry of the word, to preside offer liturgical prayers, to confer baptism, and to distribute Holy Communion, according to the prescripts of the law.

 

[bkovacs]

Keep in mind that the permission to allow girls to serve as altar boys only applies if the bishop of that particular diocese has decided to permit it, and then only if the priest-celebrant at that particular Mass also decides to permit it.

Here is the exact text of canon 230, from the Vatican’s own website

Can. 230 §1. Lay men who possess the age and qualifications established by decree of the conference of bishops can be admitted on a stable basis through the prescribed liturgical rite to the ministries of lector and acolyte.

Nevertheless, the conferral of these ministries does not grant them the right to obtain support or remuneration from the Church.

§2. Lay persons can fulfill the function of lector in liturgical actions by temporary designation. All lay persons can also perform the functions of commentator or cantor, or other functions, according to the norm of law.

§3. When the need of the Church warrants it and ministers are lacking, lay persons, even if they are not lectors or acolytes, can also supply certain of their duties, namely, to exercise the ministry of the word, to preside offer liturgical prayers, to confer baptism, and to distribute Holy Communion, according to the prescripts of the law.

It shouldn’t be allowed at all!. The Altar Boy’s function is to serve the priest and through him, God Himself. There is no function to which he might ever aspire, except the Priesthood itself, which will bring him to a more lofty service. Altar Girls cannot be Priests. The Altar Boy represents the multitude of the Faithful who assist at Holy Mass, responding for them, praying for them and, through his ringing of the bells, ensuring that all present are attentive at the most important moments. No layman, regardless of age, can be closer to God than within the Sanctuary during the Holy Sacrifice. He who serves the Mass also kneels, quite truly, beside Saint Mary Magdalen, Saint John, and the Blessed Virgin Mary at the foot of the Cross.

 

[FrDavid96]

It shouldn’t be allowed at all!. The Altar Boy’s function is to serve the priest and through him, God Himself. There is no function to which he might ever aspire, except the Priesthood itself, which will bring him to a more lofty service. Altar Girls cannot be Priests. The Altar Boy represents the multitude of the Faithful who assist at Holy Mass, responding for them, praying for them and, through his ringing of the bells, ensuring that all present are attentive at the most important moments. No layman, regardless of age, can be closer to God than within the Sanctuary during the Holy Sacrifice. He who serves the Mass also kneels, quite truly, beside Saint Mary Magdalen, Saint John, and the Blessed Virgin Mary at the foot of the Cross.

I agree with you–for the most part.

Keep in mind, though, that I was explaining to readers here that girls as altar boys is not a universal practice, and certainly not a required practice. First, the local bishop has to approve it, and only then is the priest-celebrant permitted to allow it. Either one is likewise free not to allow it to be done.

I share the opinion that it should not have been approved. However, we must all accept the reality that it has been approved, and we should accept the authority of the Supreme Pontiff to make such a decision. I respect that authority, and at the same time choose not to make use of the permission.

 

[maryjk]

So much for the excitement. Guess I’ll still be home bound, till an EF is present. The GIRM is another huge problem with the OF Mass that needs changing big time.

So you don’t attend Mass since you don’t have an EF available?

 

[rpp]

So much for the excitement. Guess I’ll still be home bound, till an EF is present. The GIRM is another huge problem with the OF Mass that needs changing big time.

You commit a grave sin when you intentionally choose not to attend Mass without a sufficiently grave reason. Not liking an OF Mass is not sufficiently grave.

 

[seremina]

bob roy,

Yes, that was my question. Did you respond? Your post borked.

 

[Muzhik]

Yes, I have been looking at them. I’ve written a book that will hopefully be published soon that deals with the parts of the Mass which the congregation says (or sings). I’m already working on a second book dealing with the priest’s prayers.

These books are mystagogical catecheses, the type of spiritual-liturgical instruction called for by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.

I do have a question I hope you can answer: Why did the words of the consecration change from:

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT: THIS IS THE CUP OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT. IT WILL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR **ALL **SO THAT SINS MAY BE FORGIVEN. DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.

to:

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT; WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR **MANY **FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS. DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.

In other words, why the change from “All” to “Many”?

(As a side note, when reading the changes, I was taken back to the “old” Mass “I am not worthy that you should come under my roof” is directly from Scripture] as well as phrasing that I associate with Orthodox services.)

 

[passus]

I do have a question I hope you can answer: Why did the words of the consecration change from:

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT: THIS IS THE CUP OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT. IT WILL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR **ALL **SO THAT SINS MAY BE FORGIVEN. DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.

to:

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT; WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR **MANY **FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS. DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.

In other words, why the change from “All” to “Many”?

(As a side note, when reading the changes, I was taken back to the “old” Mass “I am not worthy that you should come under my roof” is directly from Scripture] as well as phrasing that I associate with Orthodox services.)

Check out the FAQ page on the Committee on Divine Worship’s new website. This article should answer your question.

- Questions on the TranslationPro Multis

The expression ‘for many,’ while remaining open to the inclusion of each human person, is reflective also of the fact that this salvation is not brought about in some mechanistic way, without one’s own willing or participation; rather, the believer is invited to accept in faith the gift that is being offered and to receive the supernatural life that is given to those who participate in this mystery, living it out in their lives as well so as to be numbered among the ‘many’ to whom the text refers.