Has your parish or diocese said anything about the new translation of the Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter japhy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

japhy

Guest
My parish’s Pastoral Council (of which I am a member) has updated its Three-Year Pastoral Plan to include the following:

Liturgical Formation: To catechize and prepare our parish community for the eventual implementation of the revised texts of the Roman Missal so that this new translation bears abundant fruit in the vibrant and authentic worship of our parish.


  1. *]Raise awareness of this new translation among our parishioners and catechize them as to why this translation is important.
    *]Form our parishioners in the language of this new translation, leading them to embrace the beauty of the liturgy of the Church and to appreciate what is being prayed.
    *]Affirm and celebrate this new translation, leading our parishioners to be able to fix this language in their hearts and enabling them to truly pray as the assembly of the Church.

    I gave my pastor and the director of faith formation at my parish complimentary copies of my book. Regardless of whether my book is well-received, it pleases me greatly that we will, as a parish, receive the new translation in joy and obedience.
 
Funny you should mention this. Having read your book, I am now in the process of drawing up a syllabus for our Spring 2009 Diocesan Adult Regligious Education Course schedule. The diocesan director is supportive of this and we want to put together a package to submit to the Chancery. We already have a very devout, intelligent and orthodox prelate in mind to teach the course.

I have given myself a deadline of Friday to get this done. While there may be some who would suggest waiting for the USCCB to do something, or the FDLC, I am leery as to how that process will work. Having been to some of the FDLC meetings, I am also leery of how they will present things and I also have a certain guarded measure of distrust about the group and the Southwest Liturgical Conference.

Furthermore, this will be a much easier way of getting the word out in our diocese. One of my dearest priest friends of mine also wants to hold a class in tandem with what we are proposing so that the priests will: (1) learn what corresponds to them and (2) review the GIRM and RS, as there have been too many strange things happening in our diocese.

Please pray that the Chancery will be receptive to both courses and to the prelate that we want to teach them.
 
We haven’t heard ‘boo’ on the topic. I have talked about it with some members of the choir and friends but there has been nothing official. I found myself having to explain to the pastor that the new Canadian Lectionary wasn’t the translation we were talking about.

When I asked him, the Bishop told me they were working on teaching materials at the national level. I’m hoping that they will start with explanations sooner rather than later but after the news last week the focus is going to be on the wayward bishop for a long time and stuff like this new translation will probably be forgotten until almost the last minute.
 
benedictgal said:
While there may be some who would suggest waiting for the USCCB to do something, or the FDLC, I am leery as to how that process will work
Click to expand...
Bishop Serratelli of Paterson, NJ – the chairman for the USCCB Committee on Divine Worship – has a copy of my book with him right now at the FDLC meeting being held right now. I’ll be meeting with him in the near future. 🙂
benedictgal said:
… review the GIRM and RS, as there have been too many strange things happening in our diocese.
Click to expand...
Yes, the new translation (that is, the implementation of the third edition of the Roman Missal) is the perfect opportunity for a review (and implementation!) of the Missal’s General Instruction as well as the other liturgical instructions published since 2002, most notably Redemptionis Sacramentum.
benedictgal said:
Please pray that the Chancery will be receptive to both courses and to the prelate that we want to teach them.
Click to expand...
Prayers going up!
 
I’ve heard nothing at all. Is the new translation out now? What is the timeline for implementing it?
 
Michael_Welter said:
I’ve heard nothing at all. Is the new translation out now? What is the timeline for implementing it?
Click to expand...
The new translation is in the process of being finalized and approved. The implementation dates are either Advent 2010 or Advent 2011. Advent 2011 is more likely. When catechesis begins in earnest is something I hope to find out soon, when I meet Bishop Serratelli.
 
japhy said:
The new translation is in the process of being finalized and approved. The implementation dates are either Advent 2010 or Advent 2011. Advent 2011 is more likely. When catechesis begins in earnest is something I hope to find out soon, when I meet Bishop Serratelli.
Click to expand...
I just hope this all happens before December 21, 2012. I would love to experience the new translations before the Mayan prophecies kick into gear. 😃

Seriously, I just got off the phone with our diocesan adult religious education director. Now he wants to see the book. He really wants to get this thing rolling. I told him that he could order it. He would have to pry it from my cold fingers.

Oh, I don’t know if he was referencing your book or Spirit of the Liturgy, but, my PV talked about active participation in the Mass today and how we have lost sight of its authentic interpretation.👍
 
ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.

CANON I.–If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacriflce is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.

CANON II.–If any one saith, that by those words, Do this for the commemoration of me (Luke xxii. 19), Christ did not institute the apostles priests; or, did not ordain that they, and other priests should offer His own body and blood; let him be anathema.

CANON III.–If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a [Page 159] bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.

CANON IV.–If any one saith, that, by the sacrifice of the mass, a blasphemy is cast upon the most holy sacrifice of Christ consummated on the cross; or, that it is thereby derogated from; let him be anathema.

CANON V.–If any one saith, that it is an imposture to celebrate masses in honour of the saints, and for obtaining their intercession with God, as the Church intends; let him be anathema.

CANON VI.–If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.

CANON VII.–If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.

CANON VIII.–If any one saith, that masses, wherein the priest alone communicates sacramentally, are unlawful, and are, therefore, to be abrogated; let him be anathema.

CANON IX.–If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct22.html
 
Califman831 said:
CANON I.–If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.
Click to expand...
I’ve not said that.
Califman831 said:
CANON II.–If any one saith, that by those words, Do this for the commemoration of me (Luke xxii. 19), Christ did not institute the apostles priests; or, did not ordain that they, and other priests should offer His own body and blood; let him be anathema.
Click to expand...
I’ve not said that.
Califman831 said:
CANON III.–If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.
Click to expand...
I’ve not said that.
Califman831 said:
CANON IV.–If any one saith, that, by the sacrifice of the mass, a blasphemy is cast upon the most holy sacrifice of Christ consummated on the cross; or, that it is thereby derogated from; let him be anathema.
Click to expand...
I’ve not said that.
Califman831 said:
CANON V.–If any one saith, that it is an imposture to celebrate masses in honour of the saints, and for obtaining their intercession with God, as the Church intends; let him be anathema.
Click to expand...
I’ve not said that.
Califman831 said:
CANON VI.–If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.
Click to expand...
I’ve not said that.
Califman831 said:
CANON VII.–If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.
Click to expand...
I’ve not said that.
Califman831 said:
CANON VIII.–If any one saith, that masses, wherein the priest alone communicates sacramentally, are unlawful, and are, therefore, to be abrogated; let him be anathema.
Click to expand...
I’ve not said that.
Califman831 said:
CANON IX.–If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.
Click to expand...
I’ve not said that.

Thanks be to Almighty God!
 
Phemie said:
???

How is a more faithful translation ‘liberalization’??
Click to expand...
Because if they wanted a faithful translation of the mass they could have easily returned to the Latin mass. I am interested to see how this book will handle multilingual masses and the forking over of priestly functions over to the laity. We have a multilingual mass coming up and during the celebration of our lady of Guadalupe. Which language should take priority. Previously it has been English despite the fact that the majority of parishioners are Spanish speaking. We also have a few fillipino membres, for which there is no part of ceremony conducted in their language. Latin United us under one universal language.
 
Califman831 said:
Because if they wanted a faithful translation of the mass they could have easily returned to the Latin mass. I am interested to see how this book will handle multilingual masses and the forking over of priestly functions over to the laity. We have a multilingual mass coming up and during the celebration of our lady of Guadalupe. Which language should take priority. Previously it has been English despite the fact that the majority of parishioners are Spanish speaking.
Click to expand...
Then, your solution is to follow what Pope Benedict XVI recommends in Sacramentum Caritatis:
  1. None of the above observations should cast doubt upon the importance of such large-scale liturgies. I am thinking here particularly of celebrations at international gatherings, which nowadays are held with greater frequency. The most should be made of these occasions. In order to express more clearly the unity and universality of the Church, I wish to endorse the proposal made by the Synod of Bishops, in harmony with the directives of the Second Vatican Council, (182) that, with the exception of the readings, the homily and the prayer of the faithful, it is fitting that such liturgies be celebrated in Latin. Similarly, the better-known prayers (183) of the Church’s tradition should be recited in Latin and, if possible, selections of Gregorian chant should be sung. Speaking more generally, I ask that future priests, from their time in the seminary, receive the preparation needed to understand and to celebrate Mass in Latin, and also to use Latin texts and execute Gregorian chant; nor should we forget that the faithful can be taught to recite the more common prayers in Latin, and also to sing parts of the liturgy to Gregorian chant. (184)
Click to expand...
My parochial vicar did this last Christmas when our pastor decided to have a bilingual Mass. The first reading and psalm were in Spanish, and we used English for the Epistle and the Gospel. But, for the Liturgy of the Eucharist, my PV used Latin. That is how you solve that situation.
 
Califman831 said:
Because if they wanted a faithful translation of the mass they could have easily returned to the Latin mass. I am interested to see how this book will handle multilingual masses and the forking over of priestly functions over to the laity. We have a multilingual mass coming up and during the celebration of our lady of Guadalupe. Which language should take priority. Previously it has been English despite the fact that the majority of parishioners are Spanish speaking. We also have a few fillipino membres, for which there is no part of ceremony conducted in their language. Latin United us under one universal language.
Click to expand...
This ‘book’ will only be in English so how/why would it handle multilingual Masses? Anytime I’ve experienced a Mass in two languages, two Sacramentaries were used, one English, one French, both approved by Rome.
 
Califman831 said:
I am interested to see how this book will handle multilingual masses and the forking over of priestly functions over to the laity.
Click to expand...
My book does not address multilingual Masses; I defer to the Pope’s words in Sacramentum Caritatis that Latin should be liberally employed in liturgies at which people of many nations/languages are present.

As for “the forking over of priestly functions over [sic] to the laity,” my book does not at all address that, because it has NOTHING to do with the use of a sacral vernacular in the Mass. I’m against the clericization of laity and the laicization of the clergy.

I would love to see Latin employed more liberally in the Mass regardless of who’s present.
 
japhy said:
My book does not address multilingual Masses; I defer to the Pope’s words in Sacramentum Caritatis that Latin should be liberally employed in liturgies at which people of many nations/languages are present.

As for “the forking over of priestly functions over [sic] to the laity,” my book does not at all address that, because it has NOTHING to do with the use of a sacral vernacular in the Mass. I’m against the clericization of laity and the laicization of the clergy.

I would love to see Latin employed more liberally in the Mass regardless of who’s present.
Click to expand...
It appears I jumped the gun in this case. Much luck with your book and future efforts brother.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top