Are the words important?

[Sparrow]

After seeing some of the other forums, we have bigger problems than what I’m going to start here. Nevertheless…

For the sake of unity with Catholics everywhere, I believe strongly that the words of the Mass must be consistent. I am becoming increasingly annoyed at the politcally correct phenomenon of de-gendering the words ot the liturgy *and * the music lyrics. What do you think of these “progressive” changes:

Nicene Creed: Saying “For us and our salvation” instead of “For us men and for salvation…”. Do we regard our fellow worshippers as being too dim to understand context and traditional word usage?

The cantor replacing the words of certain song lyrics (“Him” with God, or “His” with God’s), even though the music books that are provided for us to sing along do not have these substitutions.

One cantor, singing the Glory to God from the Mass of Creation, replaced “you are seated at the right hand of the Father”, with “you are seated at God’s right hand.”

Do we need to try and point these out to the “offenders”, if for no other reason than to stem this tide of erosion and hopefully reverse it?

 

[ktm]

Sparrow:

Do we need to try and point these out to the “offenders”, if for no other reason than to stem this tide of erosion and hopefully reverse it?

I’ve heard more than once that as laypersons (oops, sorry for being PC) we have the **right ** to a liturgy that is free of abuses. My understanding is that Jimmy Akin in the back of his Mass Confusion book gives tips for approaching your pastor on correcting abuses. (Hmm I should get his book )

 

[kellie]

I always thought of myself as a womens liberalist, but I still say “For us men and for our salvation”.

I couldnt believe the first time I heard the priest say “For us, and for our salvation”

It put the timing out to say the very least

It all depends on the people within the Parish I think.

We have a lot of Vietnamese speaking people in our Parish here in Melbourne.

They may get confused if we say “For us men”.

I think that is why we changed it here.

Love Kellie

 

[dantheman]

Redemptionis Sacramentum seems to think so:

[59.] The reprobated practice by which Priests, Deacons or the faithful here and there alter or vary at will the texts of the Sacred Liturgy that they are charged to pronounce, must cease. For in doing thus, they render the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy unstable, and not infrequently distort the authentic meaning of the Liturgy.

The emphasis is mine.

 

[CatholicGeek]

One priest who celebrates Mass at my parish uses

**“The Lord is with you”**instead of "The Lord be with you"
I know it is a small thing, but to me, it has become more and more of an irritation. It seems to change the meaning from a blessing to a statement.

And our response. “And also with you” seems to be so much less.

Is this being over-scrupulous, or does this fall into the category of what “Redemptionis Sacramentum” is talking about?

God Bless

 

[STJOMO]

There is nothing over-scrupulous about insisting that we follow the Sacred Mass as written. It is beautiful and emotional as is.

I, for one, am beyond weary of the assualts on the Mass. They may be of little consequence to some, but I find it appalling.

It’s especially frustrating when I’m trying to teach my son that the beauty of Catholicism is its consistency.

 

[jordan]

Sparrow:

After seeing some of the other forums, we have bigger problems than what I’m going to start here. Nevertheless…

For the sake of unity with Catholics everywhere, I believe strongly that the words of the Mass must be consistent. I am becoming increasingly annoyed at the politcally correct phenomenon of de-gendering the words ot the liturgy *and *the music lyrics. What do you think of these “progressive” changes:

Nicene Creed: Saying “For us and our salvation” instead of “For us men and for salvation…”. Do we regard our fellow worshippers as being too dim to understand context and traditional word usage?

The cantor replacing the words of certain song lyrics (“Him” with God, or “His” with God’s), even though the music books that are provided for us to sing along do not have these substitutions.

One cantor, singing the Glory to God from the Mass of Creation, replaced “you are seated at the right hand of the Father”, with “you are seated at God’s right hand.”

Do we need to try and point these out to the “offenders”, if for no other reason than to stem this tide of erosion and hopefully reverse it?

I posted this to another string, but it works for this one also:

jordan:

The English version of a lot of our liturgical prayers are not as faithful to the vulgate as the Holy Father thinks they should be. I don’t know why this happened. Could be the various bodies that made the translations had their own agendas.

A few years ago the document Liturgiam Authenticam was published to help illuminate us, and our pastors may God belss them, on what good translations for the liturgy should be. This link is a good article summarizing Liturgiam Authenticam, and links you also to the source document.

I hope it means we’ll see more faithful translations in the future.

adoremus.org/0601newera.html

 

[David_Ancell]

Here’s one that bugs me . . .

Instead of “This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to his supper,” we hear “Happy are we who are called to his supper.” Those words have another meaning besides the present Mass. They refer to the Wedding Feast of the Lamb at the end of time. We cannot presume that we will be called to it.

I know that some people may feel that we are nitpicking Pharisees when we expect exact observance of the Liturgy, but please keep in mind these things:

1. The Mass is a sacred thing and greater than ourselves. If we believe that we are at liberty to modify it when we please, then we are not treating it as such.
2. Some of the wording changes may well not be grave matter. However, they can often be an indicator of what kind of priest/parish we have. If a priest isn’t obeying in such a simple matter of reading the correct words out of the book, what else is he doing? Given that worship is a fundamental act of a Christian, those who are disobedient in worship are doing a disservice to the faithful.
3. The Holy Father himself insists on conformity to the Liturgy.

David

 

[DrCat]

David Ancell:

Here’s one that bugs me . . .

1. Some of the wording changes may well not be grave matter. However, they can often be an indicator of what kind of priest/parish we have. If a priest isn’t obeying in such a simple matter of reading the correct words out of the book, what else is he doing? Given that worship is a fundamental act of a Christian, those who are disobedient in worship are doing a disservice to the faithful.

David

It not only happens in the Mass, nor only in English. I once took a class with a priest who made the following comments about common errors people make when praying the Ave Maria.

1. Changing the verb tense:
   The correct phrase is “Bendito es el fruto de tu vientre” (Blessed is the fruit of your womb…" When you change it to “bendito sea…” (blessed will be…), you are saying that Jesus is not yet Blessed - which is false, because he most certainly is.
2. Including an uncalled for article:
   The correct phrase is “…nosotros pecadores…” (us sinners). Whe you say “…nosotros los pecadores…” (us the sinners), you are saying that there are people who are not sinners. That is against Catholic teaching. All men are sinners.

He finished his lecture by saying (paraphrased and translated) that there are two ways to say a prayer; the way the Church has written it, and the wrong way.

I think many of those who make changes in the prayers used in the liturgy, as well as those who try to make all other prayers “inclusive” would have benefitted from taking classes with this priest.

John

 

[NancyA]

Very timely thread to me. I just sent off a letter thanking a priest for reverting to the correct (as the current Altar Missal reads) wording of the consecration of the “cup” of wine…he had been saying “chalice”. Now, it may very well be that it is a more ‘correct’ translation of the Tridentine Mass consecration, however our Magisterium says it is to be “cup”, so this holy and reverent priest may not take it upon himself to change the word any more than another priest who consistently cleanses US from OUR sins and washes away ALL OUR iniquities. (aarrgghh!!) Or at the close of Mass, blesses “us all” (Including himself, so is he the priest giving the final blessing, or what?)…

It boils down to pride. Humility causes a priest to follow the letter of his missal, in holy obedience.

I do not believe it is nitpicking and I strongly agree that we not only have a right to a proper liturgy, but we have an obligation to do what is possible for us to do to stand up and charitably point out that right. We must defend our Faith always.

 

[Minimus]

NancyA:

Very timely thread to me. I just sent off a letter thanking a priest for reverting to the correct (as the current Altar Missal reads) wording of the consecration of the “cup” of wine…he had been saying “chalice”. Now, it may very well be that it is a more ‘correct’ translation of the Tridentine Mass consecration, however our Magisterium says it is to be “cup”, so this holy and reverent priest may not take it upon himself to change the word any more than another priest who consistently cleanses US from OUR sins and washes away ALL OUR iniquities. (aarrgghh!!) Or at the close of Mass, blesses “us all” (Including himself, so is he the priest giving the final blessing, or what?)…

As I read through the forums, it appears that most participants do not realize that the Novus Ordo Missae is a Latin document, and that the English translations they recite at mass are just that…they are not source documents, and, in fact seem to contain a bunch of howling errors. The words of consecration in the NOM are: “hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei…” The word “calix,” meaning “wine-cup,” has for ages been translated as “chalice,” to distinguish it from an ordinary drinking cup, which would be “poculum.” Here is one of hundreds of examples of why the latent language should be respected. It is the same reason we look to any original texts: authenticity. Many traditional opponents of the NOM would be astounded to see that the source document is really rather close to the pre-Conciliar mass (well, perhaps an exaggeration, as the institution is rearranged and many other things have been shiffled or dropped. Still, there are many similarities).

 

[mposey]

Sparrow:

Do we need to try and point these out to the “offenders”, if for no other reason than to stem this tide of erosion and hopefully reverse it?

Yes - I think we do! How unfortunate that you see this in your Mass…I see it now and then from a person or 2 in the pews, but never from some leading the singing or from a lectur or priest…

 

[Maggie]

I’ve heard it both ways, though I learned it as for us men and our salvation and therefore that’s how I say it no matter what they say I figure the rest of the world is as poorly catechized as I was so they can learn from my example. I might not have gotten all of the gifts of the Spirit but I figure God gave me a voice that carries for a reason…

 

[system]

dantheman:

Redemptionis Sacramentum seems to think so:

[59.] The reprobated practice by which Priests, Deacons or the faithful here and there alter or vary at will the texts of the Sacred Liturgy that they are charged to pronounce, must cease. For in doing thus, they render the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy unstable, and not infrequently distort the authentic meaning of the Liturgy.

The emphasis is mine.

Pray tell how Deacons are altering or vary at will texts of the Sacred Liturgy?

DigitalDeacon

 

[tcaseyrochester]

DigitalDeacon:

Pray tell how Deacons are altering or vary at will texts of the Sacred Liturgy?

DigitalDeacon

Hi DD -

For example, in my parish, they say “Glory to God in the highest and peace to God’s people on Earth” instead of “Glory to God in the highest and peace to His people on Earth.”

Jesus Christ reveals to us very clearly that we are to refer to God the Father as, well, the FATHER!

 

[system]

tcaseyrochester:

Hi DD -

For example, in my parish, they say “Glory to God in the highest and peace to God’s people on Earth” instead of “Glory to God in the highest and peace to His people on Earth.”

Jesus Christ reveals to us very clearly that we are to refer to God the Father as, well, the FATHER!

So how are Deacons responsible for that?

DigitalDeacon

 

[dantheman]

DigitalDeacon:

Pray tell how Deacons are altering or vary at will texts of the Sacred Liturgy?

DigitalDeacon

I suppose one place that a Deacon could conceivably alter texts is in the Liturgy of the Word. The Deacon proclaims the Gospel, and if there is no suitable lector available, he would also do the other readings as well.

 

[tcaseyrochester]

DigitalDeacon:

So how are Deacons responsible for that?

DigitalDeacon

Oh , we have been caught in a sweeping generalization! I am sorry DD…

 

[marco]

ktm:

I’ve heard more than once that as laypersons (oops, sorry for being PC) we have the **right **to a liturgy that is free of abuses. My understanding is that Jimmy Akin in the back of his Mass Confusion book gives tips for approaching your pastor on correcting abuses. (Hmm I should get his book )

Mass Confusion is a great book, it is a great source for a quick understanding of the most important aspects of liturgie. However I do not think that should be taking only for the pourpose of correct what we may concider abuses. The most important thing is kindly suggest the priest or any minister (of communion for example to read the book, even send the book to them ) and after that remeber to pray for them.

 

[marco]

DigitalDeacon:

So how are Deacons responsible for that?

DigitalDeacon

In some cases minor transgressions are made not sure if intentionally , by mistake or simply for lock of good formation, I witness one day a deacon leading the sermon and interprting that the miracle of the multiplication of bread was not literally so but somo sort of metaphore to explain us to share one to another. (cases such are these indid cause confusion) To be fare most deacons are faitfull and obidient servants of the Lord. I should remember to pray for them always.
God Bless