Are priests allowed to use this Consecratory prayer?

[peregrinus_sg]

What they seem to be thinking, at least in part, is what “more accurate” actually means. There are some who do not object to accurate translations, but disagree that accurate of necessity means using English words that are not of general usage presently.

Then there is the question of what constitutes the appropriate register of language for divine worship. Should it be everyday language (sms langauge? profane conversations?) or should it be elevated (hieratic? elizabethan? archaic?)? I doubt that question will ever be completely resolved.

When all the points that can be said have been said, it boils down to obedience.

 

[otjm]

Then there is the question of what constitutes the appropriate register of language for divine worship. Should it be everyday language (sms langauge? profane conversations?) or should it be elevated (hieratic? elizabethan? archaic?)? I doubt that question will ever be completely resolved.

When all the points that can be said have been said, it boils down to obedience.

Waht boil down to obedience? The Op was asking why bishops might not vote to approve the proposed change, as if they were not interested in an accurate translation. It is not an either/or - eithr you vote for the current translation or you are against and accurate one. It is deetermining what, out of mulptiple choices, is both accurate and should be used.

As to obedience, this isn’t about obeying the pope, as he has not waded in on the issue of the current proposal. It isn’t about obeying a dicastery in Rome, as they gave the bishops a job to do - come up with a better translation. The vote is about whether we should use this phrase or that to express in English what is based in Latin.

Once a text is accepted by Rome, then using that text is an issue of obedience, but that was not the OP’s question.

 

[yablabo]

I went to Mass today and the priest said:

“This is the Chalice of my Blood, the Blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for many so that sins may be forgiven.”

He also said Chalice whenever the word “Cup” appears in the Canon.

I went into the sacristy after Mass and asked him why he did that, and he said that priests were allowed to make those changes, because they are part of the upcoming revision of the missal. He said priests were allowed to start making that change to the Mass.

I had never heard this before; can anyone weigh in on this?

I am not sure why my original post was taken down. I did want to answer FrDavid96. I do not dispute the validity or licit-ness of the Order of the Mass as it is in Latin. I know, however, the consecration formula as it’s been said in English (for the wine) is, while valid, illicit.

“HIC EST CALIX SANGUINIS MEI” are the essential words required for the consecration of the wine. According to my dictionary of Ecclesiastical Latin, “calix” can be translated as “chalice, goblet or cup.” So, as long as the priest states “This is the chalice/goblet/cup of my blood,” then you have nothing to fear as to the validity of the form. Once again, since in the English Order of the Mass it is said “This is the cup of my blood,” there is nothing to fear in the validity of the English consecration formula your priest used.

About “changing” the ‘for all’ to ‘for many’ in the “new” consecration formula: it is in fact not new and not being changed, but old and being corrected. When the new Order of the Mass was written in Latin, the consecration formula was not changed to say ‘for all’ as it was in English, but continued to say “for many.”

– Nicole