Revisions to Catholic Mass Take Effect on Sunday

[Catholic_Press]

Roman Catholics who go to church Sunday will participate in a Mass that will sound different from any they have attended before.

More…

 

[Alan55]

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.

 

[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.

Nice. You are judging it based on one day.

I get that some people will prefer the poor translation because they are used to it, but I’m sure that they will get used to the better translation. And, it won’t take 30 years. People will have it memorized within a couple of years at the most. As a convert, I had to memorize parts of the Mass. It didn’t take that long, and it was foreign in nature. I’m sure when the poor translation first came out in the early 70s, it took a while to learn.

As far as the reverence/appreciation, actual results may vary. For people who don’t show any reverence or have appreciation for the Mass, I don’t think any translation will make a difference.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

I have been impressed with the new mass translation.

I listened to it on the radio, and for the first time I did not wince at Catholic mass language.

It is much closer to the Latin, and, perhaps inadvertently, closer to the elegant liturgy of the Anglicans. We have used elegant English liturgy for, something more than 450 years. Almost there, and now, with the ordinariates, you have a way to celebrate the mass in the language of Queen Elizabeth I. All I can say is

WELCOME HOME, CATHOLICS!

now, just say, “and with thy spirit”

 

[rlg94086]

I have been impressed with the new mass translation.

I listened to it on the radio, and for the first time I did not wince at Catholic mass language.

It is much closer to the Latin, and, perhaps inadvertently, closer to the elegant liturgy of the Anglicans. We have used elegant English liturgy for, something more than 450 years. Almost there, and now, with the ordinariates, you have a way to celebrate the mass in the language of Queen Elizabeth I. All I can say is

WELCOME HOME, CATHOLICS!

now, just say, “and with thy spirit”

The problem with the previous translation is that it was rushed and written for a fourth grade reading level. Had they done the job right the first time, no one would have complained…except maybe those with only fourth grade reading level.

 

[puzzleannie]

may I suggest that since most of our preparation has been focused on the people’s responses that we now take time to really listen and read the changes in the priestly prayers, especially the Eucharistic prayers, and seek out programs, such as Dr. Edward Sri’s that explain the meaning of the scripture to which the new translation returns. Very moving, very educational, very enlightening as the scriptural basis of the mass becomes so much more clear.

 

[rlg94086]

may I suggest that since most of our preparation has been focused on the people’s responses that we now take time to really listen and read the changes in the priestly prayers, especially the Eucharistic prayers, and seek out programs, such as Dr. Edward Sri’s that explain the meaning of the scripture to which the new translation returns. Very moving, very educational, very enlightening as the scriptural basis of the mass becomes so much more clear.

Agreed. Our priest provided us with 7 hours of instruction (1 hour per week during our adult faith formation). He went through all the changes - including the priest’s, which are more extensive. I love the new translation.

 

[JaMc]

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.

It’ll take time to get used to it, but probably not 30 years. The previous one was, in actuality, not even the 1970 Missal of Paul VI - it was something else entirely. Basically, a rough “paraphrase” at best. If you went to a library and got the “official” Latin copy, the response is, and always has been, “et cum spirit tu tuo,” and the words of consecration of the cup are, and always have been, “et pro multis.” By NO stretch of the imagination do these translate into “and also with your” or “and for all.”

Now, for the first time, we are ACTUALLY celebrating the Mass of Paul VI using the 1970 Missal, in the Vernacular.

 

[Alan55]

It’ll take time to get used to it, but probably not 30 years. The previous one was, in actuality, not even the 1970 Missal of Paul VI - it was something else entirely. Basically, a rough “paraphrase” at best. If you went to a library and got the “official” Latin copy, the response is, and always has been, “et cum spirit tu tuo,” and the words of consecration of the cup are, and always have been, “et pro multis.” By NO stretch of the imagination do these translate into “and also with your” or “and for all.”

Now, for the first time, we are ACTUALLY celebrating the Mass of Paul VI using the 1970 Missal, in the Vernacular.

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.

 

[beckers]

I have been impressed with the new mass translation.

I listened to it on the radio, and for the first time I did not wince at Catholic mass language.

It is much closer to the Latin, and, perhaps inadvertently, closer to the elegant liturgy of the Anglicans. We have used elegant English liturgy for, something more than 450 years. Almost there, and now, with the ordinariates, you have a way to celebrate the mass in the language of Queen Elizabeth I. All I can say is

WELCOME HOME, CATHOLICS!

now, just say, “and with thy spirit”

I love ‘with they spirit’. We use “thy” with the Out father so why not with the rest of the mass? I go to an Anglican Use church so i use the “thy spirit” and when i go to mass at a different church i still say it. Its hard not too. Of course this week i decided to go to latin Mass so they only part that was different was when we said the creed in English otherwise sounded like every other sunday.

 

[beckers]

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.

It will not take 30 years for people to get use to it. When i started going to Anglican Use mass it took me about 1 month or 2 to get use to saying “with thy spirit” and sometimes i still use the hand outs. It makes me more focused in the mass and i had to learn the why behind the differences.

Well first off its not a “fight”. For some reason people are so up in arms over the changes. The translation we have been using is only like 40 years old. That is a drop in the hat compared to the rest of our church history. So you stumble for a little while. It makes you think about what you are saying. After a few months you will be a pro and if you mess up…so what? God cares more that you are there then if you stumble. Believe me my latin isn’t pretty but i try when i go to the Mass.

I have been going to different masses throughout the Galveston Houston Diocese and the priest have been doing a really good job of explaining the changes and easing people into it. The hard ones, i think will be the creed and the “under my roof”.

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

 

[rlg94086]

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.

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.

 

[rlg94086]

**The translation we have been using is only like 40 years old. **That is a drop in the hat compared to the rest of our church history. So you stumble for a little while. It makes you think about what you are saying. After a few months you will be a pro and if you mess up…so what? God cares more that you are there then if you stumble. Believe me my latin isn’t pretty but i try when i go to the Mass.

Exactly. 40 years is nothing. We won’t even be talking about the previous translation in a few years. No one will be pining for the “old days.”

 

[incense]

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.

Good post. One can translate word for word or meaning for meaning. Ideally they should be the same, but not always. (My priest said he found the new translation charming, but dreaded the one sentence paragraph prayers because the lack of punctuation was translated exactly too.)

So the real question is how soon before we see the church double in size? That’s the promise of the people pushing the different translation style, right? The reason so many people left in the 70s is because of a bad translation, so now the opposite should happen, right? Or what say you that what will really happen is nothing, so there will be a push for more and more Latin or some other change, because that will become the real reason people left.

 

[rlg94086]

**So the real question is how soon before we see the church double in size? That’s the promise of the people pushing the different translation style, right? **The reason so many people left in the 70s is because of a bad translation, so now the opposite should happen, right? Or what say you that what will really happen is nothing, so there will be a push for more and more Latin or some other change, because that will become the real reason people left.

I haven’t heard that.

The reason for the change was to bring consistency between all the English language liturgies and closer to the Latin and other language translations. For example, we have been the only language to say “and also with you.” The other languages have the equivalent of “and with your spirit.”

We are a universal Church.

 

[rlg94086]

Good post. One can translate word for word or meaning for meaning. Ideally they should be the same, but not always. (My priest said he found the new translation charming, but dreaded the one sentence paragraph prayers because the lack of punctuation was translated exactly too.)

So the real question is how soon before we see the church double in size? That’s the promise of the people pushing the different translation style, right? The reason so many people left in the 70s is because of a bad translation, so now the opposite should happen, right? Or what say you that what will really happen is nothing, so there will be **a push for more and more Latin **or some other change, because that will become the real reason people left.

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.

 

[JaMc]

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 suppose it’s a question of whether the priority should be on making it easy to read, follow along, and respond, or if the priority should be on accuracy. My “vote” is for accuracy - the prayers of the Mass, especially the Eucharistic Prayer, are something we don’t want to take any chances with, in my opinion. Also, personally, I like the new translation, and I think I can get used to it after a few months, but, of course, not everyone will. The Church can’t make everyone happy - there’s an element of personal taste, and everyone’s tastes are different. I didn’t really care much for the previous translation, but I didn’t lose any sleep over it.

Interestingly, a while back, Pope Benedict XVI was saying a Mass in Latin (but Ordinary Form), and they had subtitles. The subtitles seemed to resemble more the new translation than the previous one. But, I was looking at an old Latin-English missal the other day, and I think the Confeiteor still needs a bit of “work.”

 

[rlg94086]

I suppose it’s a question of whether the priority should be on making it easy to read, follow along, and respond, or if the priority should be on accuracy. My “vote” is for accuracy - the prayers of the Mass, especially the Eucharistic Prayer, are something we don’t want to take any chances with, in my opinion.

I agree. While “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word, and I shall be healed” is a beautiful, prayerful response; the Latin is a biblical quote translating to “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.”

For me, it is the differerence between reading The Living Bible versus reading a good, Catholic translation.

 

[lowell_mass]

I bet that by Christmas I won’t even remember how to respond in the old ways.

 

[CMatt25]

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.

I agree with your sentiments regarding the new language and it not being a change for the better.