Catholics Will No Longer Recite 'And Also With You'

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ahimsa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“The July vote dealt with the Propers of the Season. The USCCB was the last Conference to vote on those and unfortunately rejected the translation of certain Collects. Had they accepted, the Propers would have been submitted to Rome for approval.”
OK, I stand corrected, but I’ve found no article that says “Proper of Seasons”; they all say “the Mass.”

And, if that’s the case, then why’s Trautman still talking about “consubstantial”?
 
“Does anyone know if and/or when there will be new and better translations for the Liturgy of the Hours?”
What’s wrong with the Gelineau Psalter?
 
GodsGadfly said:
“The July vote dealt with the Propers of the Season. The USCCB was the last Conference to vote on those and unfortunately rejected the translation of certain Collects. Had they accepted, the Propers would have been submitted to Rome for approval.”

OK, I stand corrected, but I’ve found no article that says “Proper of Seasons”; they all say “the Mass.”

And, if that’s the case, then why’s Trautman still talking about “consubstantial”?
Click to expand...
Guess it depends on where you find the articles. The National Catholic Reporter has an article on the Florida meeting.

“Consubtantial” didn’t come up at this meeting; the “archaic and obscure” terms, “wrought,” “ineffable,” and “gibbet” did.

The secular press doesn’t seem to realize that the Roman Missal has been broken into several sections for this translation, each part voted on separately.
 
Brendan said:
There is a substantial Theological difference.

The response "And with your spirit is a direct recognition that the priest is acting “in persona Christi”, that what we hear from the mouth of the priest is not the priest’s words, but those of the Spirit of Christ Himself acting within the priest.

The response “And also with you” carries with it the connection of the priest Himself, that we are responding to the priest, and not to Christ.

( There was a letter to the editior in my local diocesan paper that decried the new translation. The writers point was that “and with you” recognized that the priest had both a body and a soul and we were addressing the “complete person”. The writer was pretty clueless about who was being addressed in the response")

The new translation carries with it the correct theological precision that can help correct such mistaken assumptions.
Click to expand...
Yikes. :eek: I know what you’re saying but do you think 95% of those that attend an English Mass really care? I’m serious. I attend the EF almost exclusively now but I really would feel for those who might not recognize the Mass as they knew it. I feel for those that lose their Spanish priest as well and have nothing that they can understand. I really think the Church needs to stick to its objectives and start slowly introducing the original Latin into the Mass, not just keep translating and retranslating. God had a reason for allowing them to build the Tower of Babel, you know, so we could all learn from it. Seems that that’s what the vernacular has taken us into, unfortunately.
 
Who makes these changes?? And WHY? This attention to minutia reminds me of the Red Cross CPR training of years ago when every year there would be new changes in the procedure…one year it’d be “change on three next time” and the next they’d change it to “next time change on three” Ha… so who’s job is being saved by these deep thinkers making these superflous changes?😊
 
shiikis said:
Who makes these changes?? And WHY? This attention to minutia reminds me of the Red Cross CPR training of years ago when every year there would be new changes in the procedure…one year it’d be “change on three next time” and the next they’d change it to “next time change on three” Ha… so who’s job is being saved by these deep thinkers making these superflous changes?😊
Click to expand...
They’re not superfluous changes, they are changes to bring the English translation in line with what the Latin says. If the translators had done their job properly the first time there would be no need for this.
 
shiikis said:
Who makes these changes?? And WHY? This attention to minutia reminds me of the Red Cross CPR training of years ago when every year there would be new changes in the procedure…one year it’d be “change on three next time” and the next they’d change it to “next time change on three” Ha… so who’s job is being saved by these deep thinkers making these superflous changes?😊
Click to expand...
I totally agree. But some of the music directors are having a field day with it. 🙂

Personally, I think we should disband the ICEL and just go with the promulgated version of the Mass. Works with the Missal of 1962.
 
The changes won’t take effect until 2010!!? I was under the impression that the New Roman Missal revision in its entirety would take much longer, but these advanced changes were to be instituted sooner than that.
Realistically speaking if the US Catholic Bishops aren’t going to put in the advanced changes until 2010 that really means more likely 2020 or later. In which case I doubt if I’ll ever see the complete revised Missal instituted.
 
You know…how can the mass be a reflective experience if we constantly are interrupted to respond in a proscribed manner, or enter into social interaction with hand shakes etc. This can not possibly help us become closer to our creator.😦
 
Well the change will be different, I only know it to be what it is now. (Child born in the 1970’s.) So I can just see myself messing this up. lol I don’t have a problem with the changes. I believe the church will lead us in the correct way.
🙂
J
 
Phemie said:
They’re not superfluous changes, they are changes to bring the English translation in line with what the Latin says. If the translators had done their job properly the first time there would be no need for this.
Click to expand...
I would also note, as an altar boy circa 58 to 64, I am once again being able to come closer and closer to truly say, “And I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.”

fallguyOIF

“Gloria in excelsis deo et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis.” Luke 2:14 (I know my Latin is long since fractured, but the last part does say, " . . . and in (on) earth peace towards men of good will." If this was good enough for the Angels to sing at Christs birth, it is certainly more than good enough for me:) )
 
The new translations are more accurate translations of the official Latin into English. This is an excellent development and I look forward to the day when the Church in England will also use the newer translation.
 
This is just a comment. Take it as you will.

When I was a child in the 1960’s and early 1970’s and going to a Catholic school the sisters would have us practice the revised English responses so we’d get them right at Mass. At least where I lived English language masses were at least as common, if not more so, than Latin masses. So I was very used to saying, “And with your (thy) spirit.” But I heard Latin often enough to make the connection with, “Et cum Spiritu tuo.” (My knowledge of other Latin responses was limited so I’ll stick with the one noted in the title of this thread.)

The explanation given to us at the time (and this included explanations to school children) was that the literal translation was causing people to understand the responses literally rather than idomatically.

Suposedly too many people thought that spirit referred to the soul only and not to the whole person. The word *spirit *might cause us to miss the point that this was all supposed to be a mere polite exchange. The religious connotations were little more than historic reference. In other words, we were told that “And with your spirit,” does not have any more religious significance than an atheist intends when saying, “God Speed,” at a parting.

It is interesting now to hear people say that we ought to restore the more word for word translation. We fear people are confused and think, “And also with you,” is a mere response to a greeting and may not understand that it has deeper theological meaning.

At least the translators who came up with the current responses Let’s call it the modern translation rather than the old translation were honest about their reasons. But I doubt that makes anyone who longs for a more literal translation feel more comfortable.
 
Why is it so important to change things that have been tradition so many years and are perfectly appropriate?? It reminds me of the old adage of “seems like somebody doesn’t have enough to do.”
I wonder how much time they spent deciding not to say “Amen” at the end of the Our Father. Why don’t we also delete it at the end of the Hail Mary and the Glory Be then?

Change just for the sake of change seems counter productive to me.
:rolleyes:
 
Muppett said:
Why is it so important to change things that have been tradition so many years and are perfectly appropriate??:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
By *tradition *are you referring to the Latin translation, the older English translation, or the translation in use today?
 
SMHW: That’s just my point. Change after change after change.
Why? What makes the latest change better than ones that have stood for decades? Unless something is drastically in error or offensive or not according to the magisterium what’s the problem?? We don’t seem to get one new lectionery out before it is outdated and they’ve already changed something else.
:confused: :confused: :confused:
 
Muppett said:
SMHW: That’s just my point. Change after change after change.
Why? What makes the latest change better than ones that have stood for decades? Unless something is drastically in error or offensive or not according to the magisterium what’s the problem?? We don’t seem to get one new lectionery out before it is outdated and they’ve already changed something else.
:confused: :confused: :confused:
Click to expand...
I think you might be a tad bit confused. The translation that we currently have in use is not on par with the document issued by the Holy See called Liturgicam Authenticam. This document, promulgated by the late Pope John Paul II, demands that the texts used for the liturgy be translated correctly from the Latin form so that the wording wiill be authentic.

The problem is that when the ICEL got its hands on the Roman Missal, the language used was less than stellar. Furthermore, wording was used that is not consistent with the original Latin used for the Roman Missal. Innovations like “and also with you” instead of “and with your spirit” and the addition of a Memorial Acclamation that is not found in the orignal latin Roman Missal. The Confiteor that we currently use is missing the section, “Through my fault, my fault, my most grievous fault”, which is found in the Latin version. Furthermore, the Gloria doesn’t match up at all with what is written in Latin. That is why the translations had to be cleaned up.

I have read the Spanish Roman Missal and the translation is in line with the original Latin version. In Spanish, the people say, “Y con tu espiritu”, which means, “and with your spirit”.

Therefore, it is not change for change sake. We have just been using a poor translation all this time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top