Having a Tough time

[HelenRose]

My 85 year old Mother is absolutely livid that they use the word “consubstantial”, because, she says “nobody knows what it means” (and she’s probably right about that.) She is very upset about the changes. I do not remember her being upset about the changes after Vatican II, though. She was quite happy with them and the Mass in the vernacular.

Me–I’m in my 60’s and go with the flow. but I’m not crazy about “consubstantial” either.

One thing that I do like about “consubstantial” is my rather silly objection with the expression “one in being with”.

One time I had a picture come in to my mind of hippies in a field as ‘one in being with’ the daises.

I couldn’t shake this picture so when “consubstantial” became the word, I realized that this word had very little opportunity for the my imagination to play games with me.

 

[LilyM]

I know where you are coming from. I’m still not comfortable with the translation. For me, I miss the beautiful Eucharistic Prayers from the Sacramenary. I feel like the Church is depriving us of our right to pray in the vernacular. The new words are just not in the English language we speak.

But ‘the English language we speak’ varies hugely depending on time, place and context.

For some, a mass in the English they speak might start with the greeting “sup bras” and proceed in similar teen lingo equally alien to speakers of Standard English.

Similarly, being Australian, Mass in the English that is spoken in some parts of my country might commence with 'G’day cobbers".

So the first question is WHOSE ‘English language we speak’ gets priority and why?

The second is - what is the purpose of the speech? As a lawyer, the ‘English language I speak’ changes a lot depending on whether I am speaking to a judge in court, to my friends at a party, or my five year old niece when I’m playing with her.

So the changes in the language of the Mass are meant to get us to reflect in a new way on what the Mass actually means. We are worshipping God, the almighty, our creator, our King, judge and Saviour. The previous language was simpler and more egalitarian, perhaps, bit is that always a good thing? More specifically, is it a good thing to be addressing God in this fashion?

Language affects our behavior too, and I can’t help but wonder is some of the less desirable behavior we see at Church - the lack of prayerful silence before and after Mass, the really offensively immodest clothing worn by some - isn’t a result of the fact that the language of the Mass does not impress enough upon the congregation that Mass is a time for solemnity and reverence, not a time for loud social chitchat, a time not to dress as if you’ve been out all night Saturday partying and not been able to change prior to Mass and so on.

 

[Anna_Claire]

The new translation is not about the change as it is about words that do not engage or draw people in. So far, for me and many others it has caused pain and sadness. What is wrong with this picture? It is an incorrect comparison to say it’s like in the 60s and 70s when the mass changed. Most Catholics were excited and looking forward to change. Only a small percentage were not. The church moved forward without all the bad feelings, sadness and pain this new translation is causing. Some may say there were many who remained attached to the Tridentine, but the truth is it was a small percentage and later they were granted an indult. It would be great if another indult were granted for use of the Sacramenary, but I don’t think that will happen.

 

[LilyM]

The new translation is not about the change as it is about words that do not engage or draw people in. So far, for me and many others it has caused pain and sadness. What is wrong with this picture? It is an incorrect comparison to say it’s like in the 60s and 70s when the mass changed. Most Catholics were excited and looking forward to change. Only a small percentage were not. The church moved forward without all the bad feelings, sadness and pain this new translation is causing. Some may say there were many who remained attached to the Tridentine, but the truth is it was a small percentage and later they were granted an indult. It would be great if another indult were granted for use of the Sacramenary, but I don’t think that will happen.

This is absolutely not true. A lot of people alive at the time can tell you of family, friends or acquaintances who were indeed very upset, confused and saddened by the changes. Or that they personally were upset, confused or saddened by them. Perhaps this was more true of the older generation at the time, or less true of the younger generation (ie the bulk of those who are still alive today).

Societies like the SSPX and SSPV broke away from the Church in huge part due to their dislike of the changes in the Mass. And plenty stayed then as you stay now, not at all excited or inspired about the liturgical changes but resigned to them while wishing for something better.

 

[Sunbreak]

I’m not struggling with the mass changes but I have to think about what I am saying instead of it being automatic. I have to use the book because I don’t have it all memorized now.

I lived through the 60’s changes and I disagree that most people welcomed those. Most of the people I knew thought the mass in the vernacular seemed really strange at first and seemed to be missing something. But, we didn’t have a choice and most people didn’t freak out about it. Personally, I really don’t miss the Latin. What I miss is the quiet.

As for the latest changes, I think some are good and should have been instituted a long time ago. For example, the “and with your spirit” is more in line with the spiritual intent of the mass instead of the “and also with you” that made it seem like the priest was saying hi and everyone was saying hi back at ya. Consubstantial - well I think they could have done without this word. And some of the word changes seem so minute that I wonder why they bothered.

 

[ATeNumquam]

Whew!!

Such a relief to find people here (like Anna Claire!) who are struggling with the new translation. I thought I’d be the only person on CAF who was not 100% positive!

Here in NZ we have had the peoples’ repsonses and the major part of the Mass since Advent 2010 so we have them all down, plus the chants.
So, I have got used to those and there are only a few places where I choke a little. I have accepted it in the best spirit I could.

My problem is with the new Eucharistic prayers. We have only had these here for about a month.
I am one who found the “old” ones prayerful, simple and dignified. I know the new ones are an attempt to be more faithful to the Latin - but, alas, they seem to be using Latin sentence formation as well, and for me it doesn’t work in English. I find the Eucharistic prayers (esp. the first) full of long convoluted sentences and tortured phraseology. I am afraid it will turn people away, and I struggle to see how they were approved.
Bear with me, please! I am not used to them yet. I have been a faithful and obedient Catholic ever since I converted 45 years ago (just post-Vatican II so I have no Latin Mass background). I am “married” to the Church for better or worse, and by the grace of God I hope to remain till I die.
But I am distracted at the very part of the Mass where I want to be the most attentive by this unwieldy (to me) use of English. It may be meant to instill an aura of reverence and mystery, but I feel that for pastoral reasons it will not work.

And I do have a university education where English language and literature were part of my studies, so I am not unfamiliar with older usages of English - not boasting, just saying that perhaps I am more sensitive to English usage.

Expecting to be flamed, but hoping to find some help here!