So, how did the new translation go down at your parish?

[hn160]

Does the Lutheran service use the Nicene Creed? If so, are the words “consubstantial
with the Father” used? I would be interested in knowing. I have no problem with the new translation at all, but am curious as to how other denominations translate this phrase.

We use the Nicene and the Apostle’s Creeds, the Apostle’s at Baptisms.

 Nicene Creed
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible
and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only‐begotten Son of God, begotten of His Father before all
worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one
substance with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our
salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary
and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was
buried. And the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures and ascended into
heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father. And He will come again with glory to judge
both the living and the dead, whose kingdom will have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and
the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spoke by
the prophets. And I believe in one holy Christian and apostolic Church I acknowledge one
Baptism for the remission of sins, and I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of
the world to come. Amen.
Us men means all people.
Christian: the ancient text reads “catholic,” meaning the whole
Church as it confesses the wholeness of Christian doctrine.

 

[Chris_McAvoy]

of one substance with the Father,

This is the most common traditional translation of that part of the Nicene/Constantinopolitan Creed in the anglican & lutheran protestant communions as well as english liturgies of the Eastern Orthodox catholic christians communion(s).

 

[JReducation]

Instead of paying attention to what Protestants use it might make more sense to care what the Eastern Orthodox “catholic” christians use. They are the only other church that has a recognizably legitimate Eucharist and legitimately ordained clergy and sacraments according to the Latin Catholic belief. (even if they are considered schismatic).

Whoah!

Be careful not to turn a Caesar salad into a fruit salad. There are Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.

Eastern Catholics are Orthodox who are in communion with Rome, but retain their autonomy. They are truly Catholic and truly Orthodox.

Orthodox Christians are in schism with their Catholic counterparts, ie. Greek Catholics and Greek Orthodox.

That being said, all of them celebrate a valid and licit Eucharist.

However, I would not look to the East for the wording of the mass. Their theology is different from our own. We have one common doctrine, but not a common theology. In other words, we do not explain and define doctrines the same way. We are different, but not juxtaposed.

A better direction to look to, if we want to get a grip of how our translation should go would be to the Spanish speaking countries. Their translation is almost impeccable. There are a few glitches, but they are minor.

I know that one of the glitches is in the words of consecration. It says, “For you”. The English translation said “For all” The Latin says “for you and for the many” Another that I have noticed is “Lord I am not worthy that you should enter into my house”. The reason for this was probably the fact that “roof” is not the way that Matts Gospel is translated. It actually says “house” in the Spanish translation. But even with “house” instead of “roof”, it’s much closer to the original Latin.

On another note, this morning at mass, the priest started to laugh at himself and had to apologize. The deacon went up to read the Gospel. “The Lord be with you.” The entire congregation answered, “And with your spirit”, except the priest. It’s a small chapel. Therefore, he could be heard saying “And also with you.” We’ll get it right by Christmas. Of course, then we’ll bring back the Gloria and that will be another period of transition.

It’s great to be Catholic. There is always something to look forward to, even it just makes us look silly.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

 

[Phemie]

Am I the only one who is wholeheartedly against these changes?

I’m not a “liberal Catholic,” but I’m a strong, 33-year-old, cradle Catholic and the old translation is all I have known. My feelings are if the old translation is wrong, then why didn’t they get it right the first time? The old translation was plenty good enough before, and now all of a sudden it’s not? Give me a break.

Unfortunately, I know I won’t be able to find a church that will use the old Mass, so I will either have to come to grips with the changes or find a new religion.

It really bothers me that the Vatican will do this to me and take away the sacred liturgy from me.

Apparently I’m in the minority . . .

I want my old Mass back!

It’s the same Mass, the words have just changed slightly and they gave us back what they’d removed.

 

[pnewton]

It really bothers me that the Vatican will do this to me and take away the sacred liturgy from me.

Apparently I’m in the minority . . .

I want my old Mass back!

I understand the emotion, but we must not let emotion drive us past reason. The Mass belongs to no person and the Vatican surely did not take aim at hurting anyone. There are many others that simply do not like the idea of a change that requires them to learn something new, or prefer smoother words to more stilted words. Realize that this latter is a preference. There are many faithful Catholics that have chaffed under the irritation of more dynamic translations (pro multis comes to mind) yet stay with the Church. As Peter said, “Lord, to whom shall we go. You have the words of ever-lasting life.”

Now these people will be pleased and others will be irritated at the changes. The important thing is that Peter’s point remains.

 

[JReducation]

Am I the only one who is wholeheartedly against these changes?

I’m not a “liberal Catholic,” but I’m a strong, 33-year-old, cradle Catholic and the old translation is all I have known. My feelings are if the old translation is wrong, then why didn’t they get it right the first time? The old translation was plenty good enough before, and now all of a sudden it’s not? Give me a break.

Unfortunately, I know I won’t be able to find a church that will use the old Mass, so I will either have to come to grips with the changes or find a new religion.

It really bothers me that the Vatican will do this to me and take away the sacred liturgy from me.

Apparently I’m in the minority . . .

I want my old Mass back!

If you feel that you have to find a new religion, you may want to pray for the grace to understand your attachment and ask for the grace of detachment. One must be attached to the sacrifice of the mass, not to the words and rubrics of the mass. The words and rubrics have been in a state of transition since the time of Peter.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

 

[Miriam1947]

Am I the only one who is wholeheartedly against these changes?

I’m not a “liberal Catholic,” but I’m a strong, 33-year-old, cradle Catholic and the old translation is all I have known. My feelings are if the old translation is wrong, then why didn’t they get it right the first time? The old translation was plenty good enough before, and now all of a sudden it’s not? Give me a break.

Unfortunately, I know I won’t be able to find a church that will use the old Mass, so I will either have to come to grips with the changes or find a new religion.

It really bothers me that the Vatican will do this to me and take away the sacred liturgy from me.

Apparently I’m in the minority . . .

I want my old Mass back!

But the Vatican gave you back the sacredness of the liturgy and in so doing has enriched the prayers and made it stronger spiritually. It is the English speaking world which has had the changes. The Spanish Mass translation didn’t change because it was correct to start with. Besides it is the priest’s prayers that have had the most changes. The new Eucharistic prayers are awesome.

When the Mass first started in the vernacular it was supposed to be a translation from the Latin. That is not what happened in the English translation. It was dynamic equivalence and did not hold true to the Latin. There were even parts that were not translated at all.

The old translation was never a good one and that along with the terrible catechesis that many Catholics have had in the past 40 years or so, has given us the falling away of Catholics from the very church that Christ himself founded.

ask.com/wiki/Mass_of_Paul_VI

Revision of the English translation

On 28 March 2001, the Holy See issued the Instruction Liturgiam authenticam. This included the requirement that, in translations of the liturgical texts from the official Latin originals, “the original text, insofar as possible, must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses. Any adaptation to the characteristics or the nature of the various vernacular languages is to be sober and discreet.” The following year, the third typical edition[47] of the revised Roman Missal in Latin was released.

These two texts made clear the need for a new official English translation of the Roman Missal, particularly because the previous one was at some points an adaptation rather than strictly a translation. An example is the rendering of the response “Et cum spiritu tuo” (literally, “And with your spirit”) as “And also with you”.

Give it time, you may actually come to like it.

 

[peregrinus_sg]

However, I would not look to the East for the wording of the mass. Their theology is different from our own. We have one common doctrine, but not a common theology. In other words, we do not explain and define doctrines the same way. We are different, but not juxtaposed.

While the Eastern Churches have their unique expressions of theology, we have the same faith, the same Sacraments and the same Holy Orders. So it is always appropriate to see how they, especially the Eastern Catholics, translate and explain because there cannot be a fundamental irreconciliable difference, as long as we bear in mind the paradigmatic differences.

That said, where we share the same liturgical texts, there would be little harm in taking a leaf from their translations. Among them are certainly the translations of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, the institution narrative, the response to the Priest’s greeting etc.

We have a lot more in common with the Eastern Churches than with liberal Protestants.

 

[peregrinus_sg]

I’m not a “liberal Catholic,” but I’m a strong, 33-year-old, cradle Catholic and the old translation is all I have known. My feelings are if the old translation is wrong, then why didn’t they get it right the first time? The old translation was plenty good enough before, and now all of a sudden it’s not? Give me a break.

I think you will be hard-pressed to find any knowledgeable person who judges the old translation was “plenty good enough”. Ever since it was published in 1973, it has been critqued as tin-ear and a weak paraphrase of the original Latin. The expectation was that the text would be revised shortly, but I guess in the Church, we do think and move in centuries.

So no, it didn’t suddenly become bad. It served its purpose somewhat, for longer than it should.

And nobody knows why the original texts were translated so poorly. It’s not like they had no English texts to take reference from even though they were pressed for time. Some people would like us to believe the old rules approved by the Apostolic See were the reason for the inadequate translation, but many other languages, even non-European languages for which a literal translation from the Latin would be most difficult, did not manage to achieve the state as the 1973 English texts. There is also another English translation done in the same period that were far more faithful to the original texts than ICEL’s 1973 texts.

The only thing I can think of that makes sense to me is that it was a trial that God was pleased to send us. But as with all trials, he gave us the relief. Deo gratias!

 

[opus101]

I think you will be hard-pressed to find any knowledgeable person who judges the old translation was “plenty good enough”. Ever since it was published in 1973, it has been critqued as tin-ear and a weak paraphrase of the original Latin. The expectation was that the text would be revised shortly, but I guess in the Church, we do think and move in centuries.

So no, it didn’t suddenly become bad. It served its purpose somewhat, for longer than it should.

And nobody knows why the original texts were translated so poorly. It’s not like they had no English texts to take reference from even though they were pressed for time. Some people would like us to believe the old rules approved by the Apostolic See were the reason for the inadequate translation, but many other languages, even non-European languages for which a literal translation from the Latin would be most difficult, did not manage to achieve the state as the 1973 English texts. There is also another English translation done in the same period that were far more faithful to the original texts than ICEL’s 1973 texts.

The only thing I can think of that makes sense to me is that it was a trial that God was pleased to send us. But as with all trials, he gave us the relief. Deo gratias!

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Am I the only one who is wholeheartedly against these changes?

I’m not a “liberal Catholic,” but I’m a strong, 33-year-old, cradle Catholic and the old translation is all I have known. My feelings are if the old translation is wrong, then why didn’t they get it right the first time? The old translation was plenty good enough before, and now all of a sudden it’s not? Give me a break.

Unfortunately, I know I won’t be able to find a church that will use the old Mass, so I will either have to come to grips with the changes or find a new religion.

It really bothers me that the Vatican will do this to me and take away the sacred liturgy from me.

Apparently I’m in the minority . . .

I want my old Mass back!

Your kidding right.
First of all The Mass has not changed so no one has Taken your Mass away.
Second and just a little bit snide here, imagine how a lot of people felt in the 60’s and 70’s when we really did get a whole new Mass.
Third the word to the Mas have not really changed as the Mass was written in Latin to begin with and the Latin has not been changed.
Fourth the English translation that we have had since the 70’s not incorrect, but was not completely true to the Latin and took the English speaking world out of unison with the rest of the world as Most all others were a more direct word for word translation.
Fifth there are some that use the English to translate into their native language and with the English not being a word for word it was further removing those form what the Latin said.

and my last point is found in the Creed the Latin reads
“Visibílium ómnium et invisibílium.”
we used to say this as
" seen and unseen"
we now say
" visible and invisible."

seen and unseen is not the same as visible and invisible. From were I sit in my house house my car is unseen by me however it is not invisible. These little difference in wording are why the new translation had to be done.

lets look at when we used to say I am not worthy to receive you. to me it says I am not worthy to come forward to receive the Eucharist. While this is very true the prayer was a direct reference to the scripture were the Lord healed the servant of the Roman centurion. Matthew 8:8 “And the captain in answer said, Lord, I am not good enough for you to come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be made well.” I makes us look at it is by Christ word and command and our humbly asking that we are healed.

 

[DCNBILL]

Am I the only one who is wholeheartedly against these changes?

I’m not a “liberal Catholic,” but I’m a strong, 33-year-old, cradle Catholic and the old translation is all I have known. My feelings are if the old translation is wrong, then why didn’t they get it right the first time? The old translation was plenty good enough before, and now all of a sudden it’s not? Give me a break.

Unfortunately, I know I won’t be able to find a church that will use the old Mass, so I will either have to come to grips with the changes or find a new religion.

It really bothers me that the Vatican will do this to me and take away the sacred liturgy from me.

Apparently I’m in the minority . . .

I want my old Mass back!

I am sorry that you feel this way.

It may help you to reflect that the Mass is not about the “Me” it is about the worship of God and all that entails, including present ourselves humbly before our Creator who has given us this great gift of the Eucharist. If we reflect on what is happening in the Mass rather than what we “get out of it” or how we think it should be, we will be able to enter into a deeper communion with our Lord and fulfill the purpose of the Mass.

 

[pollycarp]

How’d it go? Awful. The elderly priest had trouble with the original English translation, and now this, and the people repeated the old words, never mind looking at the card. I won’t be back for a while. Going Byzantine - I think God’s will for me right now, with the farther-away Latin Mass when I can.

imho, an eggbeater was put to holy Mass in the 60’s and now they’re trying to scrape the dried yolk off the walls. Difficult.

 

[raaucoin]

In our parish, I actually felt a strong sense of community as we all struggled (and giggled a bit). Every so often our priest looked up as if to say OOPS! I did it again. For the first time at Mass it felt there wer no “experts.” We were all in it together Priest and parishioners. I couldn’t help but think what a great time for someone to “Come Home” for the holidays who might feel a little self-conscious. They’ll get to see that no-one seems to be perfectin word or deed, but we are all standing together as a loving community determined to praise God.
What a beautiful gift it is. We made mistakes,and still- the Sacrifice was offered, God got praised- and folks hung around a few seconds longer after Mass to talk about the experience and we all said “See ya next week”!

 

[NOLA_Nole]

Your kidding right.
First of all The Mass has not changed so no one has Taken your Mass away.
Second and just a little bit snide here, imagine how a lot of people felt in the 60’s and 70’s when we really did get a whole new Mass.
Third the word to the Mas have not really changed as the Mass was written in Latin to begin with and the Latin has not been changed.
Fourth the English translation that we have had since the 70’s not incorrect, but was not completely true to the Latin and took the English speaking world out of unison with the rest of the world as Most all others were a more direct word for word translation.
Fifth there are some that use the English to translate into their native language and with the English not being a word for word it was further removing those form what the Latin said.

and my last point is found in the Creed the Latin reads
“Visibílium ómnium et invisibílium.”
we used to say this as
" seen and unseen"
we now say
" visible and invisible."

seen and unseen is not the same as visible and invisible. From were I sit in my house house my car is unseen by me however it is not invisible. These little difference in wording are why the new translation had to be done.

lets look at when we used to say I am not worthy to receive you. to me it says I am not worthy to come forward to receive the Eucharist. While this is very true the prayer was a direct reference to the scripture were the Lord healed the servant of the Roman centurion. Matthew 8:8 “And the captain in answer said, Lord, I am not good enough for you to come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be made well.” I makes us look at it is by Christ word and command and our humbly asking that we are healed.

No, I am not kidding. I feel like the Mass HAS changed and that it HAS been taken away from me. I’m sorry, but it’s how I feel.

I promise you that I am really not trying to be difficult or pick a fight on these boards. On the contrary, I’m trying my best to come to grips with it. That’s why I’m on this board now.

As I said in another thread, 1+1 is always 2. It does not change over time. I find it completely baffling how on the Feast of Christ the King, it’s as if they were saying that 1+1 is 2, but then on the First Sunday of Advent one week later, they said “Oh, no. 1+1 wasn’t 2 before.” I find it ironic that if a parish offered at least ONE Mass a Sunday with the old translation for those of us who are against the new translation, then that would be in defiance of Rome and that priest could get in trouble–never mind the fact that it’s EXACTLY what we have been doing for my entire life, thus implying that what we’ve been doing up unto this point has been wrong.

I’m speaking about my own experiences–and the old translation is all I have known. I had absolutely no idea that there was ANYTHING “wrong” with it until a year and a half ago.

I’ll be going to Mass again next Sunday. Hopefully this will grow on me, but for the time being, I’m unhappy about it.

And yes, I realize that I’m apparently in the minority.

Thanks for letting me vent.

 

[vz71]

I’ll be going to Mass again next Sunday. Hopefully this will grow on me, but for the time being, I’m unhappy about it.

And yes, I realize that I’m apparently in the minority.

Thanks for letting me vent.

Vent away.
Are you angry that things changed or angry that you were taught something that was not entirely correct?

 

[JReducation]

No, I am not kidding.

I’m speaking about my own experiences–and the old translation is all I have known. I had absolutely no idea that there was ANYTHING “wrong” with it until a year and a half ago.

I’ll be going to Mass again next Sunday. Hopefully this will grow on me, but for the time being, I’m unhappy about it.

And yes, I realize that I’m apparently in the minority.

Thanks for letting me vent.

My friend, the problem may not be completely you, but shared. Part of it lays in these fora. Catholic online fora should have a filtering system; but, unfortunately they don’t. People often come on to these fora and write as if they were conversing in the same room with their audience, where the other person can see you, hear you and stop you to ask questions as you go along. When they write that way on a board, they can inadvertently mislead and confuse people. This is one of those situations.

The word “wrong” has been thrown around on CAF to describe the previous edition of the Roman Missal, as if one were throwing rice at a wedding. I’m assuming that this is still done. Be that as it may.

The proper way of explaining this is that the committee that translated from the Latin to the English used a method that is called, Dynamic Equivalence. Dynamic Equivalence does not mean “wrong.” They were trying to get the translation to sound smooth as opposed to clunky. Whenever you translate anything literally, it’s going to sound clunky. To give the words some rhythm and cadence, they replaced the words with synonyms. When they couldn’t find a good synonym, they simply dropped the word altogether. This is where the problem began.

When you go from “I’m not worthy that you should come under my roof” to “I’m not worthy to receive you” the translator is thinking of “I’m not worthy to receive you [in my home],” which would be the dynamic equivalent to “under my roof”. However, the person in the pew does not know the mind of the translator and probably does not know the origin of the sentence, which is from the Gospel of Matthew. In his or her mind, the statement means exactly what it says, “I’m not worthy to be receiving you in Holy Communion;” but that’s not what it said in Matthew’s Gospel, nor in the Latin text.

The original text in Hebrew lays out for us a scenario where the speaker sees himself as a sinner who is unworthy to receive Jesus in his home or abode. That whole idea of Jesus entering our abode, which is our person, is lost when you take out “under my roof.” When you lose that, you lose sight of the fact that in Holy Communion, we receive Christ and Christ enters. There are two parts here. We do the receiving and Christ does the entering. In the dynamic translation, there is mention of half of what’s happening. It only mentions us receiving the Lord, but fails to mention the Lord freely entering into our space.

It’s not that “I’m not worthy to receive you” is wrong. That’s perfectly true. The problem is that this sentence does not convey the fact that Jesus is choosing to enter our physical space even though we’re unworthy. There is a difference between something being wrong and something being an incomplete idea. The original idea was complete in the mind of the translators, but it was not conveyed to the people in the pew who are saying the prayer.

The Holy See sat back and observed for a number of years. It concluded that this translation does not work. Because people don’t realize the full meaning of the statement, the way that it’s written. Therefore, the Holy See says, “We’ve watched to see what happens and we observe that this translation does not work. Go back and do a literal translation. Focus on the sentence, not on the rhythm.”

The Church likes the idea of the mass available in both Latin and the vernacular, as long as the Latin and the vernacular are true to the meaning of what is happening at that moment. When the meaning is not clear or lost, then the liturgists have to do whatever it takes to recover it.

This re-translation is not about righting a wrong. It’s about recovering meaning that was lost, because the method used to translate did not do what they hoped it would do. They hoped that it would preserve the meaning and sound fluid. Well, it sounded fluid, but it lost the full meaning of what’s actually in the Latin missal.

That leads to my final point. The missal is not being re-edited. This is the same missal that was issued by Pope John Paul II back in the 1990s. They had to redo the translation from Latin to English. For many people, especially the priests, this is even more difficult than going from Latin to the vernacular. That’s probably easier. When you go from your language to your language, you tend to switch over to auto pilot. At least, when you’re going from one language to another, you tend to be more focused. In auto pilot, your mind wants to go to what is familiar. For some people, it will take longer than it will for others. Language is not an easy thing for many people, even when it’s going from your language to your language. For daily mass goers, it’s going to come faster. As they say, “Practice makes perfect.” Well . . . almost.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

 

[AmandaH]

Not very well, I’m sad to say. People mostly muttered their way though it and some seemed downright mad about it. I really don’t understand the anger and hostility.

One of our local news stations did a story on our bishop “banning” the holding of hands during the Our Father - which he did not…just stated in his decree of the new translation that it is not in the rubrics for the Mass and therefore should not be done - and by people’s responses, you’d have thought he just damned everyone to Hell. It saddens me that folks are too wrapped up in the little things and not focused on what is happening on the altar. Why am I the only one in my area that seems to get that and not feel dejected for being ‘told what to do’ by the Church. I personally welcome the changes and appreciate the sense of renewal it brings to me Mass-going experience.

I guess folks just really hate change.

 

[RosalieM]

It’s got me looking forward to going to Mass. Last Sunday when the changes were implemented, I attended my parish’s gregorian chant mass. So I didn’t really get the whole thing til I went to a couple of daily Masses. And even then the Creed wasn’t recited. (They may just be trying to get “and with your spirit” for starters.)
I think I’ll have to memorize the Creed and the Gloria as homework. And there I was trying to tinker with Latin in the gregorian chant mass.
Ha! That’ll learn me.

 

[YoungCanRCMale]

Here’s how it went down at my parish and with me personally:

General
Went to the 1230pm mass. Had to lector regardless so it wasn’t by choice. Priest has us rehearse a couple of times “and with your spirit” and commented that at prior masses we “were batting around 50%, so if we get that here we are off to a good start.” Ended up using setting A from the CCCB “Celebrate in Song” by a Fr. John Angeles out west from the Praries. Music went well obviously because we’d been doing that at prior masses (however no prep for the laity was done: We only had the pew cards the day of the new translation and my church wasn’t giving out any handouts on the new translation, just bulletin inserts of which my youth ministry leader says “no one reads the bulletin”.). Yeah we all stumbled a bit though. Altar Servers and choir and cantor did their usual. The priest gave a decent homily not of his usual kind (he’s a more scholarly/academic type of priest) and ended it with the analogy of Children, who want to learn everything they can from knowing people and so we should approach the liturgy that way (as well as talking about Advent too). He didn’t really stumble on the new translation actually (though I think he’s had sneak peaks all along from being on committees in Ontario or Canada.)

Specifically Me
Here’s the response I’ve been posting on my blog. Did any of you feel the same? It’s not the usual post-new Novus Ordo experience:

"Coming up to the new mass, I was filled with excitement and curiosity. I’ve seen countdowns for the new translation and read many interesting things from blogs on the blogosphere (Fr Z’s, Catholic Knight, Vox Cantoris, …), got a series of handouts from the internet from my archdiocese that explained the translations, an app from Cale Clarke called “The New Mass” for Iphone (which has a more biblical explanation of the changes for Why’s), and a pew card for the new responses. Fr. Z’s blog especially gave me more to look forward to wordwize as he has masterfully shown how pitiful the 1973 ICEL translation is and how it butchers many of the collects into wimpy feel good “prayers.”

So what happened when I got to my parish? The same old usual. Same old procession, same old 4 sandwich hymns from our current Parish only hymnal (not Gather thankfully!), Homily, consecration, etc. Though it was cool to hear the new eucharistic prayer and collect. Reflecting on the Mass, I didn’t feel at all elevated in soul and body. I felt like it didn’t do what it was being touted to do by everyone, the blogosphere, the diocese, etc. Even with a Catholic colleague at work we agreed the effect wasn’t pronounced as it should have been. Were it not for my lectoring and a decent homily by my priest who usually goes far out into academia land (as he was/is involved in teaching and committees in the Church so that’s his audience 85% of the time), it would have been even more saddening. Mind you my parish isn’t as bad as many of these other parishes when it comes to liturgical abuses post vatican II. The most “out there” things we’ve done is have poor quality sermons and the replacement of the Crucifix on our headstone on the altar be replaced with an Icon of Christ blessed by an archbishop of the Diocese. So maybe since there wasn’t radical changes, maybe there was nothing to notice?

There is a few small gems of hope though out of it today. I helped an older lady in her 40’s once with the responses using the pew card. I saw a young elementary school boy and his mother do a simple/moderate bow before receiving the Eucharist. Also, I gained an even further appreciation for the TLM, for even a simple low Mass would have seemed better for me today. While I do acknowledge that as a whole, this is a good start to correcting the damage done to the laity of the Church over the last 40+ years, personally the New Translation was a letdown for me this Sunday and ineffective. That or maybe I should considering transferring to my Mother’s new parish for Novus Ordo things (where there are good traditionally minded Novus Ordo priests)."