Changes in the English Language Mass

[Rabark]

I have searched through several threads and am unable to find an answer regarding this,
If someone such as Father Serpa or similar could answer this would be great.

Does the changes forbid kneeling to receive the Eucharist? My understanding is the PJP said kneeing was okay?

I also understand (is this correct) that lay females can be alter servers as children but this was a USCCB change and not a Lumen Gentium/Vatican endorsed change.

Finally, is anyone printing an updated Mass card to reflect the upcoming changes?

Please respond, even if it is only to me via email.

Thank you

 

[FrDavid96]

One at a time

The universal norm is kneeling to receive Communion. For the United States, the US bishops conference petitioned Rome to make standing the normative posture for receiving. Rome approved the request. Therefore, kneeling to receive is acting against the norms in the US. Rome has also said that no one may ever be denied Holy Communion on account of that person kneeling.

Bl John Paul II allowed bisops to permit girls serving as altar boys within their own dioceses. Each bishop decides for his own diocese to permit this or not–if the bishop does nothing, it’s not permitted. If (and only if) the bishop permits it, then the individual priests may permit it, but no priest is obligated to accept it. Rome made that last part clear in response to a question submitted several years ago.

Try www.andwithyourspirit.com for cards of the Mass text. I’ve seen many and I think these are the best (personal preference).

 

[JGMendes4049]

If someone such as Father Serpa or similar could answer this would be great.

As far as I know, Father Vincent Serpa usually only posts in the Ask an Apologist forum.

 

[drforjc]

If you are in the USA, an adaptation to the 2011 General Instruction of the Roman Missal specifically allows an individual member of the faithful to kneel for communion if he wishes, though the norm is standing.

 

[FrDavid96]

If you are in the USA, an adaptation to the 2011 General Instruction of the Roman Missal specifically allows an individual member of the faithful to kneel for communion if he wishes, though the norm is standing.

This is what the GIRM says
160…
The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.
old.usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter4.shtml#sect4

That’s not the same thing as saying that it “specifically allows” kneeling. What it says is that one cannot be denied Holy Communion on account of kneeling. There is a difference.

 

[zab]

Try www.andwithyourspirit.com for cards of the Mass text. I’ve seen many and I think these are the best (personal preference).

I like the size of the one from your link. Our parish has larger booklets that have the music for the sung Mass, which is nice while we are getting used to the new music, but I don’t like the size. In my opinion it makes the book holders look a little sloppy. But the ones in the link are smaller, heavy cardstock and look great. I requested a free sample be sent to my pastor.

 

[centurionguard]

One at a time

The universal norm is kneeling to receive Communion. For the United States, the US bishops conference petitioned Rome to make standing the normative posture for receiving. Rome approved the request. Therefore, kneeling to receive is acting against the norms in the US. Rome has also said that no one may ever be denied Holy Communion on account of that person kneeling.

Bl John Paul II allowed bishops to permit girls serving as altar boys within their own dioceses. Each bishop decides for his own diocese to permit this or not–if the bishop does nothing, it’s not permitted. If (and only if) the bishop permits it, then the individual priests may permit it, but no priest is obligated to accept it. Rome made that last part clear in response to a question submitted several years ago.

Try www.andwithyourspirit.com for cards of the Mass text. I’ve seen many and I think these are the best (personal preference).

Good Morning Father;

It’s always had a confusing contention to me why the English side of the Church in numerous countries back changed the original reply of the Priest
And With Thy Spirit to (“And Also With You”) which to the best of my recollection happened in the early 1970’s. I mean what was achieved by changing it from the original to a newer form in the 1970’s that the Pope presently is bringing it back to the original translation.

I bring this up because in French Masses said in Canada and France the congregations reply from the Priest has never changed. And With Your Spirit translated to French
Et avec votre esprit has always stayed in the liturgy.

(“And Also With You”) the grammatical language form never made any sense to me when it was customarily used.

Yours in Christ
Chris

 

[Brendan]

This is what the GIRM says
160…
The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.
old.usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter4.shtml#sect4

That’s not the same thing as saying that it “specifically allows” kneeling. What it says is that one cannot be denied Holy Communion on account of kneeling. There is a difference.

Fr David,

There is an updated GIRM that went into effect in August. The USCCB has not updated their website, but the new GIRM is availble in print edition from the USCCB ( I ordered a copy several weeks ago).

The US adaptions of GIRM 160 now reads:

The norm established for the Dioceses of the United States of America is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Instruction, Redemptionis Sacramentum, March 25, 2004, no. 91).

The GIRM was updated to reflect the interpretations of the US adaptations that were promulgated by the CDWDS.

As the CDWDS is the legislative body with authority under Canon 16, the GIRM was revised to more closely reflect the Rome’s understanding under what conditions the norms of reception for the US were given the recognito required to gain the force of law.

 

[zab]

Brendan;8444773:

There is an updated GIRM that went into effect in August. The USCCB has not updated their website,

but the new GIRM is availble in print edition from the USCCB ( I ordered a copy several weeks ago).

usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/roman-missal/general-instruction-of-the-roman-missal/
Well, when I googled General Instruction of the Roman Missal, this is the link that came up and it appears to be from the USCCB
I don’t know about the rest of you but I seem to have a little more difficulty in finding what I am looking for in this edition of the G.I.R.M.

 

[FrDavid96]

I like the size of the one from your link. Our parish has larger booklets that have the music for the sung Mass, which is nice while we are getting used to the new music, but I don’t like the size. In my opinion it makes the book holders look a little sloppy. But the ones in the link are smaller, heavy cardstock and look great. I requested a free sample be sent to my pastor.

These are the ones that I ordered for my own parish. They’ve been out there for a few months now (first to say “this is what’s coming” and now to say “we’re using some of what’s on here”) I’ve had 100% positive feedback on the cards (and no complaints about the text at all).

There are a couple of things that I really like about them:

1. They’re single page cards. Not folders. Folded cards get bent back-and-forth constantly so they wear out quicker, and they’re also much harder to use.
2. They’re concise. No distracting explanations. They only say what they need to say, which means they’re easy for the congregation to use. When the corrected translation first came out, a lot of companies were going to print “before and after” versions of pew cards. What silliness. I pointed this out to a rep. from one of the companies and said "why would I want to give my congregation a card and say “this is the text that you are NOT saying?”
3. They are durable. They won’t last forever, but so far they’ve held up pretty well. I think a good part of that is what I wrote in #1
4. They look dignified. Nothing against any of the others, but they simply look good.

A few notes you might want to pass along to your pastor IF he wants to look into this further.

I’ve had mixed reactions on the 2 forms (one with changes bolded, one with all the text the same). People have been split on their preferences here.

The large type only comes with changes bolded.

This last one is important: I have had to re-order the large type cards twice now. At first, I took a guess at how many large type cards I would need based on the age of parishioners. Wow, was I off! I’ve noticed that even young people with perfectly good eyesight prefer the large type cards. I don’t know if it’s the font size or the larger card, but for whatever reason most people prefer to use the large ones.

Order a lot more than you think you need. A LOT MORE. The cards just keep walking away, no matter what I say asking people to leave them in the church. The Spanish speaking population especially remove them from the church (they seem to think that the cards are like the bulletins: take one every Sunday, take it home, and get a new one next week. This really puzzles me because given that they don’t speak English, I can’t figure out why they keep taking the cards home anyway). I still get a lot of requests to take the cards home, so be prepared for this. Even though at first (back in August) I said “go ahead and take ONE home, and we’ll order more if we need them” I still have people asking to take one–especially visitors from other parishes who often ask for 2–one for me, one for my pastor.

To put this into perspective, I’ve had to order a number of cards equal to 3 times the number of people I have in the parish. That’s right 3 times! I don’t mind it though. It’s money well spent.

Finally, if he does buy them, at checkout, use the coupon code MISSAL3 to get 10% off the order.

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr David,

There is an updated GIRM that went into effect in August. The USCCB has not updated their website, but the new GIRM is availble in print edition from the USCCB ( I ordered a copy several weeks ago).

The US adaptions of GIRM 160 now reads:

The GIRM was updated to reflect the interpretations of the US adaptations that were promulgated by the CDWDS.

As the CDWDS is the legislative body with authority under Canon 16, the GIRM was revised to more closely reflect the Rome’s understanding under what conditions the norms of reception for the US were given the recognito required to gain the force of law.

Thanks for the correction.

I was looking at the GIRM the USCCB has posted in their “New Roman Missal” section, and thought that it was in fact the new GIRM. I now know it’s not.

I’ll keep that in mind from now on.

 

[FrDavid96]

Good Morning Father;

It’s always had a confusing contention to me why the English side of the Church in numerous countries back changed the original reply of the Priest
And With Thy Spirit to (“And Also With You”) which to the best of my recollection happened in the early 1970’s. I mean what was achieved by changing it from the original to a newer form in the 1970’s that the Pope presently is bringing it back to the original translation.

I bring this up because in French Masses said in Canada and France the congregations reply from the Priest has never changed. And With Your Spirit translated to French
Et avec votre esprit has always stayed in the liturgy.

(“And Also With You”) the grammatical language form never made any sense to me when it was customarily used.

Yours in Christ
Chris

The reason is that the ICEL translators in the early 70s wanted to make this into a “greeting” rather than a “blessing.”

To put it into perspective, in the East, this is always a blessing. “Peace to this place/city/village/monastery/etc” [example “*mir vseem”] while the priest makes the sign of the cross over the people. Clearly a blessing.

ICEL at the time wanted to make this into a greeting. They wanted it to sound specifically non-liturgical. They wanted it to be a greeting like we would do when meeting a friend while walking down the street. They wanted it to be a “Hello” or “good morning” or “how yall doin’?”

They still call it a “greeting” in the new English Roman Missal (at least, that’s what I recall from the samples because I haven’t actually had one in my hand yet). I do not know what the typical Latin language Roman Missal says about this.

Brendan: do you have one, and can you check?

In my Latin Missal circa 1950s there is no title given to this. It simply reads “the priest says” I’m not proficient enough in Latin to read the general instructions on the opening pages, so I don’t know if it’s called a greeting.

Anyway, that’s a very long way of saying that “And also with you” was an attempt by the ICEL translators to change the meaning of this liturgical action and make it into something non-liturgical and more secular.

 

[FrDavid96]

If you are in the USA, an adaptation to the 2011 General Instruction of the Roman Missal specifically allows an individual member of the faithful to kneel for communion if he wishes, though the norm is standing.

To correct what I said earlier:

Yes, what you wrote is what the new GIRM says.

 

[MarkThompson]

The reason is that the ICEL translators in the early 70s wanted to make this into a “greeting” rather than a “blessing.”

To put it into perspective, in the East, this is always a blessing. “Peace to this place/city/village/monastery/etc” [example "*mir vseem

"] while the priest makes the sign of the cross over the people. Clearly a blessing.

ICEL at the time wanted to make this into a greeting. They wanted it to sound specifically non-liturgical. They wanted it to be a greeting like we would do when meeting a friend while walking down the street. They wanted it to be a “Hello” or “good morning” or “how yall doin’?”

They still call it a “greeting” in the new English Roman Missal (at least, that’s what I recall from the samples because I haven’t actually had one in my hand yet). I do not know what the typical Latin language Roman Missal says about this.

Brendan: do you have one, and can you check?

In my Latin Missal circa 1950s there is no title given to this. It simply reads “the priest says” I’m not proficient enough in Latin to read the general instructions on the opening pages, so I don’t know if it’s called a greeting.

Anyway, that’s a very long way of saying that “And also with you” was an attempt by the ICEL translators to change the meaning of this liturgical action and make it into something non-liturgical and more secular.

In Latin (GIRM ¶ 46), the action is called salutatio, a greeting or salutation. I’m not sure where some of your criticisms come into play, since ICEL was not responsible for the Latin text, nor were the drafters of the Latin working off an Eastern exemplar. And I know of no evidence that “Dominus vobiscum” is traditionally seen as a blessing in the Latin rite; you’d expect at least a sign of the cross or something if it were. Neither, I think, is there any evidence that ICEL wished somehow to make the greeting “non-liturgical and more secular,” but rather to avoid the clericalization inherent in a lopsided greeting, and to prevent confusion (Why peace merely with his “spirit”? What does that mean? Why not peace with all of him? What is the difference? Is it even possible to wish “peace to the spirit” of a layperson? If so, would that be better or worse than wishing “peace to them” simpliciter?). The result, as you well know, was a translation that was both unfaithful and bland, but there is no need to impute the motivations you seem to find.

Incidentally, the revised translation of the GIRM with American adaptations is online here from the USCCB.

 

[FrDavid96]

In Latin (GIRM ¶ 46), the action is called salutatio, a greeting or salutation. I’m not sure where some of your criticisms come into play, since ICEL was not responsible for the Latin text, nor were the drafters of the Latin working off an Eastern exemplar. And I know of no evidence that “Dominus vobiscum” is traditionally seen as a blessing in the Latin rite; you’d expect at least a sign of the cross or something if it were. Neither, I think, is there any evidence that ICEL wished somehow to make the greeting “non-liturgical and more secular,” but rather to avoid the clericalization inherent in a lopsided greeting, and to prevent confusion (Why peace merely with his “spirit”? What does that mean? Why not peace with all of him? What is the difference? Is it even possible to wish “peace to the spirit” of a layperson? If so, would that be better or worse than wishing “peace to them” simpliciter?). The result, as you well know, was a translation that was both unfaithful and bland, but there is no need to impute the motivations you seem to find.

Incidentally, the revised translation of the GIRM with American adaptations is online here from the USCCB.

I knew one of the translators personally (though not at the time, but in the late 80s early 90s). That was his explanation. They wanted it to sound like an “everyday greeting” and the response “and with your spirit” just sounded too liturgical. “And also with you” sounded more everyday.

Yes, the “Dominus vobiscum” is not the same as the texts used in the East, but they are similar. I’m not suggesting that a Latin priest should (or ever did) make the cross at that point. He should not. I’m only bringing it up to show that the liturgical moment should be seen as indeed something liturgical and not akin to what we would do on the street. I did hesitate while I was typing because I know from past experience that as soon as we start talking about Eastern liturgy, the thread goes off on tangents. I do hope I haven’t started something here.

 

[ProVobis]

I knew one of the translators personally (though not at the time, but in the late 80s early 90s). That was his explanation. They wanted it to sound like an “everyday greeting” and the response “and with your spirit” just sounded too liturgical. “And also with you” sounded more everyday.

Yes, the “Dominus vobiscum” is not the same as the texts used in the East, but they are similar.

I read somewhere that in the 60’s the ICEL (or maybe it was the Anglicans) first rendered “Dominus vobiscum/Et cum spiritu tuo” as “May the spirit of the Lord be with you/And also with you.” The Catholic side objected and went with the “The Lord be with you” and kept the “and also with you.” (The “also with you” had already been set up that way in one of the older missals.)

What’s interesting though is that the subjunctive “The Lord BE with you” is not a subjunctive in the English Hail Mary. Or in the Polish texts, where it is “Pan z wami” meaning “IS with you (plural).” In fairness to the ICEL, though, Polish (as probably other Slavic tongues) seem to have the ability to capture the Latin nuances better than the English.

 

[Brendan]

Thanks for the correction.

I was looking at the GIRM the USCCB has posted in their “New Roman Missal” section, and thought that it was in fact the new GIRM. I now know it’s not.

I’ll keep that in mind from now on.

I had heard about the GIRM changes during the summer. I finally found it in the print edition that the USCCB has for sale.

 

[louis91766]

The universal norm is kneeling to receive Communion. … kneeling to receive is acting against the norms in the US.

Sounds confusing.

 

[FatHead]

Does the changes forbid kneeling to receive the Eucharist? My understanding is the PJP said kneeing was okay?

it has always been ok. it was, and it still is.

I also understand (is this correct) that lay females can be alter servers as children but this was a USCCB change and not a Lumen Gentium/Vatican endorsed change.

hmm… lay females of any age are allowed to serve, but having males, and specifically boys is preferred.

Finally, is anyone printing an updated Mass card to reflect the upcoming changes?

the one from andwithyourspirit.com is quite nice, and very sturdy. ive held one in real life, and would reccemend them to everyone. perfect for sticking in the hymnal.

 

[louis91766]

I have searched through several threads and am unable to find an answer regarding this,
If someone such as Father Serpa or similar could answer this would be great.

Does the changes forbid kneeling to receive the Eucharist? My understanding is the PJP said kneeing was okay?

I also understand (is this correct) that lay females can be alter servers as children but this was a USCCB change and not a Lumen Gentium/Vatican endorsed change.

Finally, is anyone printing an updated Mass card to reflect the upcoming changes?

Please respond, even if it is only to me via email.

Thank you

I had a similar question on whether or not in the reformed Mass, if is declared that the Blood of Christ was shed for many. I know that they changed the teaching in the New Mass in the USA when they declared that the Blood of Christ was shed for all.