Changes to NO mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ACatholicWife
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

ACatholicWife

Guest
I heard that there will be changes in the NO mass, including changes in some of the responses and the increased use of Latin during mass (like on EWTN). Have I heard correctly? If so, when will the changes take effect?
 
A new translation of various texts which has been in progress for years was recently approved by the U.S. bishops, and submitted to Rome for final approval. This is a more litteral translation compared to before. Depending on the response from the Vatican to approve the translation or request additional changes, the changes will probably not be implemented for at least a year.
 
Don’t expect any mandated Latin. I am hopeful for a better translation.
 
I’d like to attend a Novus Ordo done in the Tridentine style with the priest facing the altar, communion rails and the congregants kneeling at them, incense latin hymns (not crappy modern music that’s not fit for mass), lots of icons, and a more gothicesque style cathedral/church, and lots of reverence for the Lord. I hope I can at least find a mass like this if I can’t get to the Tridentine Mass I’ve found.
 
Don’t expect any mandated Latin. I am hopeful for a better translation.
In the new Compendum to the Catechism it does have the Latin translations of most of the noramal prayers and the Holy Father has said he would like to see at least some of the prayers done in Latin, Our Father, Glora, Sanctus and the Kyrie restored to Greek. As far as the Mass itself, I agree, I don’t believe mandated Latin will make a comeback anytime soon…
 
I’d like to attend a Novus Ordo done in the Tridentine style with the priest facing the altar, communion rails and the congregants kneeling at them, incense latin hymns (not crappy modern music that’s not fit for mass), lots of icons, and a more gothicesque style cathedral/church, and lots of reverence for the Lord. I hope I can at least find a mass like this if I can’t get to the Tridentine Mass I’ve found.
I’ve never seen many icons at Traditional masses. You would be more likely to find them at an Eastern Liturgy or at a Pauline Rite that is influenced by the Orthodox traditions. Many of them are nowadays incidentally. Communion rails are gone in most places and very hard to come by. Good luck on your search though.
 
I found one almost like what I mentioned except they don’t use the communion rails and the altar is facing the people rather than ad Orientem.🙂 I’ll live, it’s fine by me, but maybe in the future they’ll use the rails. In the meantime, I can only pray that a Tridentine mass is going to start being offered at a Parish nearby me. O my hopes!
 
QUOTE=ravenonthecross;1500625]I’d like to attend a Novus Ordo done in the Tridentine style with the priest facing the altar, communion rails and the congregants kneeling at them, incense latin hymns (not ****** modern music that’s not fit for mass), lots of icons, and a more gothicesque style cathedral/church, and lots of reverence for the Lord. I hope I can at least find a mass like this if I can’t get to the Tridentine Mass I’ve found.

I have heard of a 1965 missal which may or may not be
traditionalromanmass.blogspot.com/
 
I heard that there will be changes in the NO mass, including changes in some of the responses and the increased use of Latin during mass (like on EWTN). Have I heard correctly? If so, when will the changes take effect?
Greetings! This is my first post here and I am also interested in this developing story. In fact there will be a “New Missal” introduced sometime in 2008 that will include a faithful translation from the latin (finally!). What is unclear is whether or not there will be any other changes to the new Missal. We do know that the changes are considered significant enough that Bishop’s Conferences are preparing special “formational materials to assist Bishops in introducing the new Roman Missal.”

See the following for more details:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20061205_press-release-vc_en.html
 
I hope it includes, ‘Lord I am not worthy that you should come under my roof’ instead of ‘Lord I am not worthy to receive you’. My personal favourite. 😉
 
I hope it includes, ‘Lord I am not worthy that you should come under my roof’ instead of ‘Lord I am not worthy to receive you’. My personal favourite. 😉
I understand that it will include this ‘correction’ among many others.
 
Let me start off by saying I am looking forward to the new translation, and think it is needed. However, this is not the right time for them. We are barely forty years after a major council, this is always a time of confusion. To change the responses again (for the third time in many people’s lifetime) would not be pastorally advisable. Even if that were the only issue, waiting another decade would be wiser.
The Church moves in decades and centuries, not in months and years. However, it seems the impatience of the modern world has influenced even the Church.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday
 
Let me start off by saying I am looking forward to the new translation, and think it is needed. However, this is not the right time for them. We are barely forty years after a major council, this is always a time of confusion. To change the responses again (for the third time in many people’s lifetime) would not be pastorally advisable. Even if that were the only issue, waiting another decade would be wiser.
The Church moves in decades and centuries, not in months and years. However, it seems the impatience of the modern world has influenced even the Church.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday
I want to preface this by saying in advance, that I don’t mean this rant against you personally at all.

Whenever I hear people say that a change in translation would be “pastorally inadvisable” I can’t help but think they should have thought of that when they made the changes in the first place!!

[Ok, I admit, I’m not talking about the change from Latin to English because I was too young to remember. But I do remember when they changed some of the Mass parts away from things such as “Oh Lord, I am not worthy that Thou should come under my roof. Speak but the word and my soul shall be healed.”]
 
I want to preface this by saying in advance, that I don’t mean this rant against you personally at all.

Whenever I hear people say that a change in translation would be “pastorally inadvisable” I can’t help but think they should have thought of that when they made the changes in the first place!!

[Ok, I admit, I’m not talking about the change from Latin to English because I was too young to remember. But I do remember when they changed some of the Mass parts away from things such as “Oh Lord, I am not worthy that Thou should come under my roof. Speak but the word and my soul shall be healed.”]
I do not believe the other changes were pastorally advisable at the rate they were undertaken. But, two hasty changes are not better than one hasty change. Just give the Church time. The last forty years are only 1/50th of the life of the Church, a mere blink of the eye.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday
 
I do not believe the other changes were pastorally advisable at the rate they were undertaken. But, two hasty changes are not better than one hasty change. Just give the Church time. The last forty years are only 1/50th of the life of the Church, a mere blink of the eye.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday
We must recognize, however, that this is an initiative of Rome in cooperation with Bishop’s conferences. It would appear that the competent authorities indeed find the changes necessary and pastorally advisable.
 
We must recognize, however, that this is an initiative of Rome in cooperation with Bishop’s conferences. It would appear that the competent authorities indeed find the changes necessary and pastorally advisable.
True, and I will defer to their teaching and guidance in all things. I was merely posting some personal misgivings.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday
 
I want to preface this by saying in advance, that I don’t mean this rant against you personally at all.

Whenever I hear people say that a change in translation would be “pastorally inadvisable” I can’t help but think they should have thought of that when they made the changes in the first place!!

[Ok, I admit, I’m not talking about the change from Latin to English because I was too young to remember. But I do remember when they changed some of the Mass parts away from things such as “Oh Lord, I am not worthy that Thou should come under my roof. Speak but the word and my soul shall be healed.”]
Pardon me for a moment if I just make one observation that I’ve been thinking about regarding this for a long time (I’m not one of these people who favor inclusive language or a diddling about linguistically with the Mass to “keep pace” with contemporary times, indeed, I wish we used “thee” and “thou,” etc.): What really IS the problem with “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you?” That’s what we’re actually DOING at that point. We’re not receiving Him under our “roof.” He isn’t coming to our house, as He had started out toward the centurion’s in the NT (from which we take the words, I grant you that), He’s coming into US. I don’t see why this is such a big problem.
 
Let me start off by saying I am looking forward to the new translation, and think it is needed. However, this is not the right time for them. We are barely forty years after a major council, this is always a time of confusion. To change the responses again (for the third time in many people’s lifetime) would not be pastorally advisable. Even if that were the only issue, waiting another decade would be wiser.
The Church moves in decades and centuries, not in months and years. However, it seems the impatience of the modern world has influenced even the Church.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday
From what I understand, when the Mass was finally allowed to be said in the vernacular, various nations rushed out translations so that the Mass could be said immediately, with the expressed understanding that a better, more universal translation would be prepared when time allowed. Other reforms were higher in priority in the beginning. What resulted was a poor translation that differs dramatically depending upon what English speaking nation you’re in. For example, there are substantial differences between the English used in the Mass in England, the U.S., and Australia. What the Vatican has done is finally come back to the issue to clean up the language and make it as accurate as possible (and also to create a universal English translation). This was always meant to take place as part of allowing the vernacular, and in terms of church time, they’ve gotten around to it pretty quickly.

Is this the right time for this? Absolutely! The NO attempted to fix some specific problems and issues with the old Mass. Some changes worked, some did not, and some were never intended. After forty years, it is now possible to identify some lingering problems. The goal of the pope now seems to be to work toward what many call the “reform of the reform”, to clean up those pesky trouble spots and make the best Mass possible. The language issue is just one part of this. Other things will probably follow.
 
My Question is this: Why did the Tridentine Mass need reforming? I mean, that they could of just translated it into the vernacular and kept the mass’s structure and style the same, instead of Protestantizing it! :mad: I hope they go back to the old style of the Tridentine Mass, but with a Reverent Vernacular Translation of the Tridentine, with some of the added readings that the Novus Ordo Missae added. I think that would have been a better solution, but I trust that God will guide the Holy Pontiff towards making the best decision whatever it may be. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top