Revisions to Catholic Mass Take Effect on Sunday

[CMatt25]

Great. The sooner you stop whining, the better.

Your “reasonable translators and theologians” we’re rejected by the Vatican and the other English-speaking countries, and the more accurate, superior translators and theologians were approved. “And with your spirit” and “consubstantial” are more accurate than the translation for fourth graders which you prefer.

Do people need or should they need above a 4th grade reading comprehension level to participate in the Mass?

 

[CMatt25]

The previous translation was a thoughtful use of modern translation tools, including dynamic equivalence. It is not accurate to call it “a rough ‘paraphrase’ at best.” It is reasonable to debate whether “and with your spirit,” or “consubstantial with the Father” are meaningful to modern English speakers, or whether “et pro multis” is best translated “for all” or “for the many.” I’m familiar enough with the debate to appreciate that reasonable translators and theologians disagree with you and with those responsible for the New Missal.

My comments above were not based solely upon one Mass. I’ve read the literature presenting the changes to the Missal and the arguments for and against. I think the new Missal offers us a poor rendering of the Latin original and results from a bad process, but that doesn’t matter much. Like others in the U.S., Canada, the U.K., and elsewhere in the English-speaking world, I’ll make do. The new Missal will not increase the reverence of the Mass or my appreciation of it – to the contrary – but there are other, far more important, battles to fight.

I agree with what you’ve said here. And neither does it increase my reverence or appreciation either. To the contrary as you said.

 

[CMatt25]

Btw, as Catholics, we are supposed to know the common prayers in Latin, according to the Pope. It is the language of the Church, so it would be a good thing to learn.

But when Jesus began His Church, He or His disciples or the believers in Acts 11 whom we are taught were first called Christians, didn’t pray in Latin. They spoke in their language of the day. Alan 55 posted “the new language was kludgy, archaic, and certainly led no one to a deeper appreciation for the Mass” at his parish this past Sunday. I can understand why. It’s not how people commonly speak.

 

[irenaeus1]

I disagree. I believe that the ‘new’ translation will eventually bring about more appreciation and understanding of the Mass, as well as a more reverent tone. I don’t know what all the protest is regarding a more accurate translation anyway. Phrases such as “pro multis” and “Credo” and “mea maxima culpa” and “et cum spiritu tuo” and “sub tectum meum”, etc. that are now actually being translated are all in the Mass of Vatican II. We are just now getting to hear it accurately.

 

[rlg94086]

Do people need or should they need above a 4th grade reading comprehension level to participate in the Mass?

No, but the Mass shouldn’t be dumbed down to the 4th grade level, as it was.

 

[rlg94086]

I disagree. I believe that the ‘new’ translation will eventually bring about more appreciation and understanding of the Mass, as well as a more reverent tone. I don’t know what all the protest is regarding a more accurate translation anyway. Phrases such as “pro multis” and “Credo” and “mea maxima culpa” and “et cum spiritu tuo” and “sub tectum meum”, etc. that are now actually being translated are all in the Mass of Vatican II. We are just now getting to hear it accurately.

Exactly. The problem was that it was translated poorly in the first place. The Mass itself has not changed.

 

[rlg94086]

But when Jesus began His Church, He or His disciples or the believers in Acts 11 whom we are taught were first called Christians, didn’t pray in Latin. They spoke in their language of the day. Alan 55 posted “the new language was kludgy, archaic, and certainly led no one to a deeper appreciation for the Mass” at his parish this past Sunday. I can understand why. It’s not how people commonly speak.

As I said, some people probably prefer The Living Bible to a good Bible translation, as well. Also, I don’t think judging the results after the first Mass is very fair. People are adjusting.

 

[CMatt25]

No, but the Mass shouldn’t be dumbed down to the 4th grade level, as it was.

If the Mass was previously “dumbed down” as you, not I, put it, participants at a wider variety of levels could more equally participate and comprehend. Both you and I and the person in the pew next to us who might or might not be at our reading levels. I can recall in the 60s when speaking liturgy in the vernacular finally came into being, how many young and old alike were pleased. They were finally able to understand the words and the meanings in their own language. They were in essense able to get more out of the Mass. If these Catholics left the practice of the faith afterwards, it was because of other reasons. IMHO these revisions are not a step which will bring them back. So I just simply see no benefit whatsoever by making these changes in the Mass language.

 

[CMatt25]

As I said, some people probably prefer The Living Bible to a good Bible translation, as well. Also, I don’t think judging the results after the first Mass is very fair. People are adjusting.

Right but with Bible translations you have a greater choice. Some people might prefer the Good News Translation bearing the Imprimatur of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and you might prefer one that you perceive to be good.

As far as judging based on one Mass, I haven’t a clue why you bring that up. As I recall Alan55 explaining, his comments “were not based solely upon one Mass”. That he has “read the literature presenting the changes to the Missal and the arguments for and against.” So good well meaning folks may simply have to agree to disagree I suppose.

 

[CMatt25]

if people leave the church of some changes to the language then me thinks they would have found another reason to leave.

I agree unless this facilitates them leaving.

 

[rlg94086]

If the Mass was previously “dumbed down” as you, not I, put it, participants at a wider variety of levels could more equally participate and comprehend. Both you and I and the person in the pew next to us who might or might not be at our reading levels. I can recall in the 60s when speaking liturgy in the vernacular finally came into being, how many young and old alike were pleased. They were finally able to understand the words and the meanings in their own language. They were in essense able to get more out of the Mass. If these Catholics left the practice of the faith afterwards, it was because of other reasons. IMHO these revisions are not a step which will bring them back. So I just simply see no benefit whatsoever by making these changes in the Mass language.

As I said, some prefer The Living Bible because it is easier to read and “in their own language.” The Mass is like the Bible. I’ve never claimed that the new translation will bring people back, so I have no idea why you are bringing that up. .

The “benefit” is a better translation that matches the rest of the universal Church. Your opinion on the benefits, quality, etc. are immaterial. It’s a done deal. If Catholics leave the practice of the faith because of the new, better translation, then it will be for other reasons. If they didn’t “get enough” out of Mass because it was in Latin, then they missed the point of the Mass entirely.

 

[rlg94086]

**In my parish, the new language had people tied up in knots trying to say “And with your spirit” instead of “And also with you.” I saw none of the “greater reverence” that was advertised, only laughter at collectively messing up this simple phrase several times. ** The new language was kludgy, archaic, and certainly led no one to a deeper appreciation for the Mass. I suppose that in 30 years’ time, we’ll grow used to the new Missal. Not a change for the better, IMHO.

As far as judging based on one Mass, I haven’t a clue why you bring that up. As I recall Alan55 explaining, his comments “were not based solely upon one Mass”. That he has “read the literature presenting the changes to the Missal and the arguments for and against.” So good well meaning folks may simply have to agree to disagree I suppose.

I brought it up because I read his post. Please note the bolded portion above. It was based on one Mass, and the parishioners were adjusting to the new translation for the first time. Even after practicing the changes during Schola practice for weeks, I messed up during the Mass.

It has nothing to do with the quality of the translation. Old habits take a few usages to break. When I started attending Mass, it took me months to adjust to the difference in th Our Father from the Protestant churches I belonged too.

 

[Elizabeth502]

If Catholics leave the practice of the faith because of the new, better translation, then it will be for other reasons. If they didn’t “get enough” out of Mass because it was in Latin, then they missed the point of the Mass entirely.

I have a good memory of my childhood education (which was excellent, by the way, and thanks to fantastic parents and schooling, my vocabulary was atypical. ) However, I am fairly certain that in 4th grade I did not yet know the meaning of the word “consubstantial,” or even, “grievous.” And most certainly I was not yet in a position to grasp the theological concept of “consubstantial with The Father.” (Abstraction in children occurs a couple of years after that; it’s part of the development of cognition in the human person.)

This is why there is this thing called catechesis. I didn’t have to ask for someone – when the time came, and I could connect abstract thoughts – to explain consubstantial, because my catechesis was structured and anticipatory. But as less good as catechesis is now, both adult catechetical materials and juvenile catechetical materials are, right now, available to all Catholics in the developed world.

The Church does not expect 4th-graders to understand all of the vocabulary of Mass, let alone all of the concepts in the way adults eventually understand them. The Church does expect, however, Catholics who are Confirmed, and certainly Catholics above the age of 18, to inform themselves about vocabulary and theological concepts which they find difficult (to understand or to accept).

The intellectual appreciation of the Mass --and the Faith in general-- will always be in some sense dependent upon any person’s level of literacy (and inquisitiveness about the intellectual concepts). However, the experience of the Mass transcends language, and is as spiritually accessible, as experientially accessible, to the uneducated as to the educated.

 

[CMatt25]

It’s a done deal. If Catholics leave the practice of the faith because of the new, better translation, then it will be for other reasons. If they didn’t “get enough” out of Mass because it was in Latin, then they missed the point of the Mass entirely.

Yes I know it’s done. And yes I agreed in another post that if a Catholic leaves the practice due to this, there would be other reasons. Other than perhaps if this is the last straw for some and it facillitates them to do so. I do disagree though if they didn’t get enough out of Latin Mass, that they missed the point. They understood the Eucharist. But it was still just nice for them to finally understand what was being said throughout the entire Mass. That said if someone else wants to attend Latin, then that’s fine. Like the Bible, the more translations, the better. I always say the best translation is the one that will get the person to read it.

 

[CMatt25]

I brought it up because I read his post. Please note the bolded portion above. It was based on one Mass, and the parishioners were adjusting to the new translation for the first time. Even after practicing the changes during Schola practice for weeks, I messed up during the Mass.

It has nothing to do with the quality of the translation. Old habits take a few usages to break. When I started attending Mass, it took me months to adjust to the difference in th Our Father from the Protestant churches I belonged too.

Yes but he posted beyond the one you read.

 

[rlg94086]

Yes but he posted beyond the one you read.

How could he have gauged a change in reverence by parishioners prior to the first Sunday of Advent? Is he psychic? No. He just doesn’t like the translation; decided it won’t lead to increased reverence; and then confirmed his pre-conceived notions after the very first Mass. Hardly credible.

 

[CMatt25]

The Church does not expect 4th-graders to understand all of the vocabulary of Mass, let alone all of the concepts in the way adults eventually understand them. The Church does expect, however, Catholics who are Confirmed, and certainly Catholics above the age of 18, to inform themselves about vocabulary and theological concepts which they find difficult (to understand or to accept).

Yet there was a time when the Church confirmed 5th graders. Now perhaps in some respects today’s 10 yr old is yesterday’s teen. But I doubt with respect to Mass vocabulary and theological concepts that one grade level would have given a 10 yr old back then that much more vocabulary or understanding than a 9 yr old.

 

[CMatt25]

How could he have gauged a change in reverence by parishioners prior to the first Sunday of Advent? Is he psychic? No. He just doesn’t like the translation; decided it won’t lead to increased reverence; and then confirmed his pre-conceived notions after the very first Mass. Hardly credible.

As credible I suppose as about anyone else’s notions about a translation.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Yet there was a time when the Church confirmed 5th graders. Now perhaps in some respects today’s 10 yr old is yesterday’s teen. But I doubt with respect to Mass vocabulary and theological concepts that one grade level would have given a 10 yr old back then that much more vocabulary or understanding than a 9 yr old.

You missed the point. I was not confirmed in 5th grade, but in 7th. I don’t know of anyone who was confirmed in 5th grade at any time except when/if the Sacraments of Initiation are all given “simultaneously” (even in infancy).

The point that you missed is that intellectual understanding is not expected of 4th, 5th, 6th, or even 7th graders. Modest intellectual understanding would be available to a 6th grader, because that’s when his brain is capable of abstraction for the first time. As the Catholic grows intellectually and spiritually, both understanding and appreciation grows. As I mentioned (or implied), that’s even true of adults. Witness the many adult Catholics who testify that since attending some particular seminar, theological series, listening to a series of programs, reading certain material, etc. – they now understand the Mass (or some aspect of the Faith) more fully.

Mass is not catechesis. Mass is celebration, ritual, encounter, and opportunity for grace (in both the Hearing of the Word and the Reception of the Sacrament, within an experience of community which adds a further experiental dimension to it). There is a secondary opportunity for catechesis through the homily (if well done, which many are): that informal catechesis from the presider sometimes involves “only” the application of the scripture readings, and/or feast day signficance, to our everyday practical & spiritual lives. The homily sometimes additionally makes explicit reference to the relationship between some aspect of the Mass (Offertory or Eucharist, for example, or wording of the Mass prayers) to our lives. I’ve heard such informal catechesis being done in live homilies and in EWTN Mass homilies.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

As Stephen Colbert pointed out, the new name of Consubstantial is Istanbul.