Concern over the new Missal translation

[benedictgal]

I recall a responsum ad dubium where the CDWDS clarified the use of prefaces, and gave a rather strict understanding of “proper preface” so that this limitation does not apply as often as many of us think. Your PV might be able to use EP4 more often than he thinks (perhaps, weekdays in Advent?)

I’ll look around, and in the meantime, if anyone has the link, please post it.

That is good news. I am tired of hearing EP 2 every weekday. Yippee!!

 

[tee_eff_em]

How many times in your everyday language do you use the words consubstantial, inviolate, unvanquished, etc.

Probably about as often as I use the words *begotten *or *crucified *(for example) in every day language…

tee

 

[Tradycja]

The new translation is a lot more theologically correct. Why wait? That is absurd. [SIGN]We want it yesterday!!! [/SIGN]

 

[Alex_Luciano]

I was thrilled when I first learned about the new translation of the Mass. I reviewed it on the USCCB website and honestly could not find anything like what Fr. Ryan wrote about in an article for America Magazine americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=12045&comments=1#readcomments. I find that in many cases the people who are against these changes are the same ones who are responsible for our lazy liturgies and the lack of proper Catholic catechesis at our RCIA programs. Many are also “progressive” priests who have no problem in denouncing the Church’s authority and her teachings. At least that is what I have seen. It seems like spiteful (not reasonable or of good faith) resistance of the new Missal is just a symptom of an underlying dislike of traditional and orthodox Catholic teaching. In liberal Catholic journals like NCR or America the comments by users are very slanted and they invariably move from the Missal to other things like denouncing the Church’s teaching on male priesthood or contraception. Many of these people just don’t see the Church as an institution setup by Christ as the means to salvation, rather they see it as a big charity and social club, the religion they just happened to be born to. Whats sad is that many of those people are our liturgical directors and parish leaders. Our liturgy has suffered enough watering down, its about time we bring back a sense of sacredness to our liturgy. We seriously need to teach our faithful of Christ’s True Presence, this new Missal won’t fix everything, but at least it’ll be an opportunity at catechesis and perhaps we can regain some of the awe and mystery that our Mass has lost.

 

[GwenL]

I haven’t yet seen a comment on what I think is a significant change in the Nicene Creed: from “we” believe/confess to “I” believe/confess in several places, starting at the top.

I’m not too worried about biasing other responses I think this change is great. If you are really thinking about what you are saying, it can be easy to kind of “slide along” with “we believe.” But when you say “I believe” you focus more on what the words are.

Here’s another change I really think is great:
Current: Happy are those who are called to his supper.
New: Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb.
I’d rather be blessed than happy! I think even “Joe Catholic” would rather be blessed than happy, and is smart enough to figure out the difference.

Yet another:
Current: but only say the word and I shall be healed.
New: but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
How could the current/old translation have missed out on healing my soul???

The language of the priest’s parts is better, too. It’s much clearer that the priest is talking to God (for the most part, during the liturgy) and leading us in worship. That can be confusing for a newbie, especially with the priest facing the congregation.

Wondering what the more seasoned Catholics think?

Here is a very handy side-by-side comparison: usccb.org/romanmissal/examples.shtml

 

[Digitonomy]

I haven’t yet seen a comment on what I think is a significant change in the Nicene Creed: from “we” believe/confess to “I” believe/confess in several places, starting at the top.

I’m not too worried about biasing other responses I think this change is great. If you are really thinking about what you are saying, it can be easy to kind of “slide along” with “we believe.” But when you say “I believe” you focus more on what the words are.

That is interesting. I’m not sure I completely buy your argument, but it may be a reason the “we” was changed to “I” in the Latin long ago.

 

[Digitonomy]

Probably about as often as I use the words *begotten *or *crucified *(for example) in every day language…tee

I’m not sure crucified is a good example - I hear that outside of its biblical context at least a couple times a month.

 

[ishii]

I was thrilled when I first learned about the new translation of the Mass. I reviewed it on the USCCB website and honestly could not find anything like what Fr. Ryan wrote about in an article for America Magazine americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=12045&comments=1#readcomments. I find that in many cases the people who are against these changes are the same ones who are responsible for our lazy liturgies and the lack of proper Catholic catechesis at our RCIA programs. Many are also “progressive” priests who have no problem in denouncing the Church’s authority and her teachings. At least that is what I have seen. It seems like spiteful (not reasonable or of good faith) resistance of the new Missal is just a symptom of an underlying dislike of traditional and orthodox Catholic teaching. In liberal Catholic journals like NCR or America the comments by users are very slanted and they invariably move from the Missal to other things like denouncing the Church’s teaching on male priesthood or contraception. Many of these people just don’t see the Church as an institution setup by Christ as the means to salvation, rather they see it as a big charity and social club, the religion they just happened to be born to. Whats sad is that many of those people are our liturgical directors and parish leaders. Our liturgy has suffered enough watering down, its about time we bring back a sense of sacredness to our liturgy. We seriously need to teach our faithful of Christ’s True Presence, this new Missal won’t fix everything, but at least it’ll be an opportunity at catechesis and perhaps we can regain some of the awe and mystery that our Mass has lost.

Amen. The priest who wrote the America magazine article, also loudly proclaimed his disappointment in a homily upon hearing that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger had become our next pope. The priest is generally an (name removed by moderator)iring homilist and has served his parish for many years, but its obvious that he is in favor of keeping the language of the liturgy the way it is, rather that reforming it. It is odd, and a bit ironic, that the “progressives” are opposing these liturgical reforms.

Ishii

 

[ChadS]

That is interesting. I’m not sure I completely buy your argument, but it may be a reason the “we” was changed to “I” in the Latin long ago.

I think in Latin the first word of the Creed is “credo” which properly translates to “I believe” and not the current “we believe.” So changing the way we say the creed is more gramatically correct, not to mention that the previous post makes a good point that saying “I” can help us more readily focus on what we are supposed to believe and profess as individuals.

ChadS

 

[tee_eff_em]

I’m not sure crucified is a good example - I hear that outside of its biblical context at least a couple times a month.

You and I run in different circles.

Of the example words [user]ChemicalBean[/user] posted, I probably hear *inviolate *a couple of times a year in every day language. (But that’s the circles I run in)

tee

 

[Bailey2]

The problem, as I see it, is that too many people (not you) want to present “Joe Catholic” as not having enough intelligence to understand, or even learn a few new vocabulary words. The “gibbet” is a good example.

Most Catholics don’t even attend Mass on Wednesday of Holy Week. Those who do, tend to be the most faithful parishioners–

*What “Joe Catholic” needs *is a sacred liturgy which will lift him upwards, **not a dumbed-down childish “Dick and Jane” **rendering of the prayers of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Well good morning to all! I was being joe catholic mother after my last post: carting my teens to their assorted (secular) activities such as tutoring and hockey practice (violent activity I might add–like football but faster ). Then, I greeted my joe catholic husband who just finished working a 14 hour day (like a couple of people on this forum who contribute rarely that I have PM’ed with).

I now respond at 6 a.m., after morning prayers, which I get up at 5 a.m. to do before the kids get up and I have to go to work (P/T thank God!) in a poor inner city middle school on the border of the city’s “war zone.” (how many of you good people know what a war zone is or have worked in one? )

That is what I mean by joe catholic (except for the war zone part). The catholics who don’t make it to daily mass and are therefore “less faithful” because of course, it is difficult to make it to daily mass when living a joe life. And of course, they are not dumb anymore than the poor are “losers” and “sinners” going to hell because they are non religious and in survival mode or on drugs, in gangs, or have parents incarcerated or dead (3/4 of the kids I work with are in those categories along with homeless and hungry literally).

They and joe are “Dick and Jane,” suffer the little children in catechesis and rubrics, and so most probably not “faithful to the magisterium” according to all you good people here discussing and making subtle judgements about them in your own “more faithfulness.” What joe catholic needs, Fr.D, is less subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle talking about them as if they are a “them” in the Church).

I mean no disrespect in saying all that and I say it with good cheer. I have the time to be on these forums and learn because my joe husband works 14 hour days, loves his family, and does what is right while being a cradle but “cafeteria” Catholic.

So, please in your discussions here and in traditional section especially, try not to look down on us as not true, less faithful, and lesser Catholics who know the liturgy as “good,” “pretty,” and “hey.” We are the ones choked by worldly cares.

This is what I meant by advocating for joe.
With heartfelt smiles and charity :grouphug:
Bailey2

PS. The good thing about liturgical changes is that it should at least for a little while, catch joe’s attention that something new is going on. In terms of catechizing joe, may I suggest something my pastor did. He instituted a “3 minute catechesis” just before the official start of mass via sign of the cross but after the procession. I am sure he will use that same forum to discuss the new changes in liturgy. Our joes are used to learning in small bits each Sunday and the response has been favorable though there are always a few who watch their watch and time the 3 minutes— but they are the minority.

I apologize the length. Off to my joe mom day. I am late!

 

[FrDavid96]

Well good morning to all! I was being joe catholic mother after my last post: carting my teens to their assorted (secular) activities such as tutoring and hockey practice (violent activity I might add–like football but faster ). Then, I greeted my joe catholic husband who just finished working a 14 hour day (like a couple of people on this forum who contribute rarely that I have PM’ed with).

I now respond at 6 a.m., after morning prayers, which I get up at 5 a.m. to do before the kids get up and I have to go to work (P/T thank God!) in a poor inner city middle school on the border of the city’s “war zone.” (how many of you good people know what a war zone is or have worked in one? )

That is what I mean by joe catholic (except for the war zone part). The catholics who don’t make it to daily mass and are therefore “less faithful” because of course, it is difficult to make it to daily mass when living a joe life. And of course, they are not dumb anymore than the poor are “losers” and “sinners” going to hell because they are non religious and in survival mode or on drugs, in gangs, or have parents incarcerated or dead (3/4 of the kids I work with are in those categories along with homeless and hungry literally).

They and joe are “Dick and Jane,” suffer the little children in catechesis and rubrics, and so most probably not “faithful to the magisterium” according to all you good people here discussing and making subtle judgements about them in your own “more faithfulness.” What joe catholic needs, Fr.D, is less subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle talking about them as if they are a “them” in the Church).

I mean no disrespect in saying all that and I say it with good cheer. I have the time to be on these forums and learn because my joe husband works 14 hour days, loves his family, and does what is right while being a cradle but “cafeteria” Catholic.

So, please in your discussions here and in traditional section especially, try not to look down on us as not true, less faithful, and lesser Catholics who know the liturgy as “good,” “pretty,” and “hey.” We are the ones choked by worldly cares.

This is what I meant by advocating for joe.
With heartfelt smiles and charity :grouphug:
Bailey2

PS. The good thing about liturgical changes is that it should at least for a little while, catch joe’s attention that something new is going on. In terms of catechizing joe, may I suggest something my pastor did. He instituted a “3 minute catechesis” just before the official start of mass via sign of the cross but after the procession. I am sure he will use that same forum to discuss the new changes in liturgy. Our joes are used to learning in small bits each Sunday and the response has been favorable though there are always a few who watch their watch and time the 3 minutes— but they are the minority.

I apologize the length. Off to my joe mom day. I am late!

Bailey,
Please take the “Joe Catholic” sentences in context. Here’s what I wrote:

Those who do, tend to be the most faithful parishioners–let’s face it, it’s not easy to make time to go to daily Mass on Wednesday, when people are also going on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and even Sunday (if they’re not at the Vigil)–even those who want to go.

In other words, I was saying that it is indeed difficult for many Catholics to make daily Masses, especially Wed. of Holy Week. I wasn’t criticizing them for not being there, but saying that in our society attending daily Mass is not easy. Catholics who are lukewarm in their faith won’t make that extra effort, and aren’t going to show up on Wed. and so won’t even hear the word gibbet. Saying that those who attend are more faithful is not at all the same thing as saying that those who are absent are less faithful. Many faithful Catholics would love to be at Mass that day, but just can’t make it.

It’s not the people who support the new (first) translation of the Mass who are belittlling the average Catholic. It’s quite the opposite. What we are saying is that the average Catholic should be shown more respect; rather than those who oppose the translation who claim that the average Catholic isn’t intelligent enough to understand the words. I’m the one who is offended when the “average Catholic” is insulted in such ways.

In these threads, I’ve been consistently saying that we need to give average Catholics more credit and recognize the fact that they are perfectly capapble of both understanding and implementing the translation.

The translation is not at all difficult, and making the transition will be quite easy. However, those who oppose the translation are trying to make this into some monumental task that will confuse people. It’s not anywhere near as drastic as they claim. The average Catholic is more than intelligent enough to understand “we used to say ‘and also with you’ but now we say ‘and with your spirit’” Simple enough, now let’s move on. We aren’t going to have Catholics pulling their hair out and screaming “I can’t take it! I just can’t handle this! It’s too much for me!” which is exactly what the opponents of the translation want us to think.

 

[Bailey2]

Bailey,
Please take the “Joe Catholic” sentences in context. Here’s what I wrote:

Those who do, tend to be the most faithful parishioners–let’s face it, it’s not easy to make time to go to daily Mass on Wednesday, when people are also going on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and even Sunday (if they’re not at the Vigil)–even those who want to go.
.

I apologize; didn’t see that part … hmmm, perhaps we see what we want to see. I’ll have to think about that…

But in defense of “luke-warm” Catholics, I appreciate when you particularly are kind enough to notice when others (not yourself, nor several wonderful people I have met here) set them apart in the sense of being not “real,” “true,” or otherwise “faithful.”

With regard to the liturgical changes, I agree with what you say, which is what I said above… most parishioners are going to shrug their shoulders and move on. I have heard many however say that they feel returning to the “old” words is another sign of the Church going “backward”. I understand this is all the result of some kind of “false Vatican II” practices. However, these people and I think they are in the majority, are interpreting and experiencing this “tightening the reigns” as a rejection of the way they were raised and have practiced the faith for years. The exact same thing occurred when Vat II changes were implemented. Many left then too; or harbored resentments. Now some of them who stayed feel vindicated; at least I’m hearing some of that tone also.

So, I do think educating the masses about the language with excerpts from the actual Vat II documents, etc at Sunday masses, a little at a time, is a good idea.

So padre (as we say down here), again I apologize for above! Perhaps being one of the majority and also one who has worked with the Catholic depressed in a past professional life, I still feel a tad defensive about all this self-proclaimed “orthodoxy” I read about here and hear about in little parish cliques. And while I may be wrong in that defensiveness, I am working on it. But I do know that most who feel it are drifting further away, feeling a “leaner, purer” Church is slowly weeding them out to the fringes anyway. (again, probably what the pre-Vat II people felt in the 60’s)

(oooh guys; this should be a different thread! Back to it…!)

My vote: changes are good and I get the extra bonus of fond memories of my mother during the “through my most grievous fault” part; though I’m not sure yet how I will address the depressives.

 

[japhy]

Frankly I was rather hoping someone WOULD present some sort of an argument in favor of this or just about anything on this website so I could try to understand how a thinking person might possibly support it.

Instead of “wait”, we should put our energy into studying and catechesis. Hold “practice Masses” to help both priests and laity get used to the prayers. Stuff like that. Read a book…

 

[Digitonomy]

I think in Latin the first word of the Creed is “credo” which properly translates to “I believe” and not the current “we believe.”

Exactly.

ChadS:

So changing the way we say the creed is more gramatically correct,

Neither is more grammatically correct than the other, but the new translation is more faithful to the typical Latin.

ChadS:

not to mention that the previous post makes a good point that saying “I” can help us more readily focus on what we are supposed to believe and profess as individuals. ChadS

Yes, that’s two of us that have now mentioned GwenL’s comment. My point was that her insight may have been exactly the intention when the Latin was switched to credo long ago, rather than credemus.

 

[SMHW]

Really, so have the Germans, Poles, etc…

I asked our pastor, who is from Slovakia, about their translations. They use “And with your spirit” and “consubstantial” in their translation.

Here is the Dutch version, for example

“En met uw geest.” “And with your ghost\spirit”

And the Polish

“I z duchem twoim.” “And with your spirit”

I know that the original English translation used in the United States was, “And with your spirit.” But I can’t seem to find my old 1966? St. Joseph missal and I don’t remember how the creed was translated. I don’t remember the word “consubstantial” but there are a lot of things I’ve managed to forget in 40 years.

 

[ChadS]

Neither is more grammatically correct than the other, but the new translation is more faithful to the typical Latin.

That’s what I meant, not grammatical.

ChadS

 

[Joannm]

I know that the original English translation used in the United States was, “And with your spirit.” But I can’t seem to find my old 1966? St. Joseph missal and I don’t remember how the creed was translated. I don’t remember the word “consubstantial” but there are a lot of things I’ve managed to forget in 40 years.

My 1959 Missal says “of one being with the Father”

 

[rinkevichjm]

Really, so have the Germans, Poles, etc…

I asked our pastor, who is from Slovakia, about their translations. They use “And with your spirit” and “consubstantial” in their translation.

Here is the Dutch version, for example

“En met uw geest.” “And with your ghost\spirit”

And the Polish

“I z duchem twoim.” “And with your spirit”

The Slavic languages still have declension and differentiate between the nominative and the prepositional object: thus spirit can be assumed to be used by the Nominative subject already expressed. It doesn’t look like Dutch has that any more much like English. The only question I would have is if the preposition implies an instrumental use of its object such as the Lithuanian does with “ir su tavo dvasioje” (which means the same as “ir tavo dvasioje” as the instrumental noun is required with the prep. su (with)) In English, however, the nominative and prepositional object typically use the preposition with to show jointness or simple association rather than usage so a verb should really be added to clarify the meaning i.e. “And with your spirit leads”
But let’s face it the new translation is much closer to the Latin Meanings than the 1973 translation: why are we waiting for this?

 

[Phemie]

I’m not sure crucified is a good example - I hear that outside of its biblical context at least a couple times a month.

Ditto and I probably use it myself a couple of times a month in conversations that have nothing to do with Jesus.