BREAKING: Pope Francis gives local bishops more responsibility for Mass translations

[JimG]

“For us men and for our salvation”. There’s an objection in this thread to “men”. No, that objection is an appeal to the trend of the times and that is something the Church simply does not do. Pope Francis may be criticized for some things, but at least he has held to the definition of marriage and the necessity of men only in the priesthood.

“For us men and for our salvation,” in the Creed really means, for all human beings, but that would be a clunky translation. And just saying “for us” would leave some ambiguity: would the “us” just refer to us who are reciting the creed? Us in this parish? Us in the Catholic Church? Sometimes the use of “man” or “men” as a generic term is preferable.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

??? The reply to “Dominus vobiscum” (“The Lord be with you”) has always been “Et cum spiritu tuo” (“And with your spirit”). Why would anyone reply to a secular comment such as “Have a great day” with something regarding the immortal spirit? And if anyone was confused by the whole thing, so what? Let them be confused. You don’t think people weren’t confused when the experiment commenced which took the Mass as it had been for 1500 years and replaced it with we have now? Any confusion that exists is due to those responsible for the whole mess up of the translation in the first place, and at least one of whom was involved in this has since publicly repented for his role. Little of the language used in the Liturgy is even used in conversational English which is why, despite the liturgy now being in the vernacular, people know less about what the Church teaches today than ever before (with their today being even further removed from having even a slight knowledge of Latin which is sort of needed as almost EVERYTHING ever written in the Church is in Latin, or based on something in Latin). In my experience sermons packed with orthodox Catholic teaching are extraordinary, even in my diocese which is considered “conservative.” I often hear priests barely touch on important issues but won’t mention them by name. A good priest will more than mention such issues and raise his voice in persona Christi doing so. Being a good priest requires a life full of continual study and it’s then their job to dispel confusions by adequately explaining them away. In a time where many priests no longer know the liturgy that well, let alone actually agree with and preach what the Church teaches, I guess this is the real problem.

Just because it’s right, dosn’t mean that it’s easy. To bash someone about because they don’t understand the changes is completely against the virtue of mercy.

Why does it have to be something dramatic? This isn’t about the church and it’s issue, it’s about being sensitive to feelings when making major changes that affect people’s worship. Had that been done in the first place, it’s likely the church would not suffer as it did.

 

[DignumEtJustum]

Why does it have to be something dramatic? This isn’t about the church and it’s issue, it’s about being sensitive to feelings when making major changes that affect people’s worship. Had that been done in the first place, it’s likely the church would not suffer as it did.

We’re not so much in disagreement at all.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Why does it have to be something dramatic? This isn’t about the church and it’s issue, it’s about being sensitive to feelings when making major changes that affect people’s worship. Had that been done in the first place, it’s likely the church would not suffer as it did.

We’re not so much in disagreement at all.

Except for the part where I think that people today affected and confused by the change should be given utmost mercy, and you seem to think they should fall into line without question because a wrong was righted, no I don’t think we much disagree in spirit.

While those “in the know” waited for these reforms, most in the pews were just as confused and frustrated by the changes in 2011 as they were with the ones in the 60’s.

 

[R_H_Benson]

While those “in the know” waited for these reforms, most in the pews were just as confused and frustrated by the changes in 2011 as they were with the ones in the 60’s.

Consider that the reforms of the 1960s were far more extensive than the revision of the Roman Missal promulgated in 2011. The 1960s saw a drastic change in every aspect of the Church’s liturgical life. I don’t think that the 2011 revisions are even remotely comparable to the amount of confusion that accompanied the liturgical changes of the 60s.

 

[DignumEtJustum]

In my case I only came to be “in the know” long after 2011. I never really understood the changes myself at the time but then again I never really sought to understand them either; I simply accepted it. Where this confusion and affection you speak of comes from confuses me. In my opinion it is likely an issue most pushed by those looking to stray away from authentic Catholic worship, whether they consciously know it or not, so they can instead go off in all other directions as certain groups within the Church have and are doing.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Xanthippe_Voorhees:

While those “in the know” waited for these reforms, most in the pews were just as confused and frustrated by the changes in 2011 as they were with the ones in the 60’s.

Consider that the reforms of the 1960s were far more extensive than the revision of the Roman Missal promulgated in 2011. The 1960s saw a drastic change in every aspect of the Church’s liturgical life. I don’t think that the 2011 revisions are even remotely comparable to the amount of confusion that accompanied the liturgical changes of the 60s.

Looking directly historically, I’d say you are right. HOWEVER, you also must look at the people in 1960’s. You had a solidly educated base who memorized their Baltimore Catechism. They were raised in 2 parent families and Mass was not competing with sports and other activities. Churches were social hubs and often were cultural centers for French or German or other immigrants. People were connected to their faith. It was extraordinarily confusing, but they had real knowledge of what being a Catholic meant.

Today, Mass is almost stand alone. People go to the church in droves on Christmas and Easter and Sunday when it’s tolerable. They have instruction in their faith so flimsy that it could easily be refuted by a best-selling FICTION book. There is little in the way of church activities, Catholic schools are filled with Non-Catholics and many live in broken homes. The frustration and angst caused by the changes, therefore, are so much more impactful, because, for a majority of Catholics today, Mass is literally all they have of the Catholic Church.

See what I’m saying?

 

[stpurl]

I see what you’re saying, but as somebody who lived through both, I think you’re mistaken in assigning the greater impact to the recent changes.

A. The changes of 2011, in and of themselves, were not really all that drastic as changes (some different words, but no adjustment to the Mass format, postures, positions, etc.). And for the majority of those Catholics, even the ones who attended sporadically, the reasons for and the preparations went on for months in advance. Plus you have the Internet and far more availability to get information. And you have a population which is used to change in every aspect of life.

B. The changes in the 1960s were far more drastic. Ever been to a TLM? If not, go to You Tube and pull one up. Imagine that, just as the 2011 Catholics had been exposed to the “old translation’ for 40 years, you’re a 1960s Catholic who has had that TLM as your experience (and to a far greater extent than the 'Christmas and Easter” Catholics of 2011, or even the ‘average’ Catholic who by no means is a weekly Church-goer).

Which group underwent the most difficulty in adjusting to 'change"?

Again, having been through both, I can tell you that in many cases it is not the change in a handful of words that is causing angst among those who call for ‘the old translation before 2011’. No, it isn’t that change. Most of these people thrive on change. They love it when there are ‘new things’ at liturgy. It keeps them actively participating, don’t you know.

No, what they object to is that the ‘new translation’ keeps change from occurring.

Father Mc Adlib could poof around prior to 2011 and nobody cared because Everybody EXPECTED Father to have his ‘little touches’.

But once 2011 rolled into play, everybody was prepared for what they had been told would be heard. And, unless Father is extremely disobedient (sadly, some may be), Father was no longer doing ‘the personal touch’. And THAT is what many in the pews are missing. They will fixate on a ‘weird word’, but the main complaint is that instead of Father doing “St TouchyFeely’s Mass whereby we all hear a slant about social justice or New Age Journeys or ecumenoplasty” we hear, or are supposed to hear, a Mass that isn’t all about ‘our personal ways and ideas’. And many don’t like THAT. And that, IMO, is what is being addressed in the new MP from the Vatican, God help us, because I think that is very poorly reasoned though I’m certain it is with the best intentions. And one knows what ‘best intentions’ often result in paving. . .

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

I’ve been to a low Mass and I still disagree.

When the Mass is the center of faith, but there are many other things that are part of it, it is not nearly as pivotal. Yes, the changes were by far more “drastic” but the people knew what being Catholic meant.

The 2011 changes were not well rolled out in many places. They were equally frustrating and probably more maddening.

By admitting that you lived through both changes, you’re also admitting to being in that group of people who were well educated about their faith. That means you, in some ways, cannot grasp the lack of education that people post 1960’s have about their faith.

With little acceptions, I did not see a great number of priests “playing around” with Mass. It was like it was in the books…which all changed around words in 2011. If you want to discuss not following rubrics in the OF mass, start another thread.

 

[stpurl]

My dear Xanthippe, I have children (and grandchildren). I do know about the 'lack of education" which believe me I tried to remedy in my own and other’s children in CCD and home and in their schools, public and private. It is not so black and white as you think. The ‘rot’ in education set in in the 1940s if not earlier; you had even in the mid 1960s people who knew their faith but were swayed by societal forces that had a crippling effect. It has been often said that a ‘good person’ who has been ruined is in worse shape than a mediocre person who has been ruined; the fall is that much greater.

“Mass is all they have”? People today have far more available. They have forums, the internet, books, e-books, pamphlets, classes, RCIA, You Tube, you name it. For YEARS, the 1960s Catholic could not even find a church to offer the TLM. No Internet, no You Tube, no forums, no blogs. . .and the material through the Church itself was often suspect, as you note in recognizing the poor catechesis of today.

And yet, the liturgy that you mention as the lodestone was itself badly flawed for many.

The changes are positive and address where well-meaning people went a little ‘off’ (well intentioned of course).

As others have mentioned, the ‘angst’ (and believe me I sympathize) is comparable to that of the patient who really dislikes the taste of the medicine which is necessary to cure him or her of a dangerous disease. Nobody likes bad-tasting medicine, uncomfortable treatments like skin grafts for burns, or amputation of limbs. . .but in many cases, they are the only possible cures. One can try to make the bad medicine taste as tolerable as possible, but if one caters to ‘feelings’ and refuses to give the medicine, the person could die. Not exactly a good ending! And none of those treatments, painful as they might be, are in and of themselves BAD THINGS. Just so, the changes to the liturgy (and again, I don’t think they will be the only changes ‘ever’) are not ‘bad things’ even if some dislike them.