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

[Chris_McAvoy]

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.

JReduction appears to have forgotten the meaning and origin of the creed itself, coming from an ecumenical council, which was ment to point to the theology we did all agree on, with the purpose of overcoming any localized cultural differences.

The theology of the Eastern Orthodox Churches and Latin Catholic Churches in their most traditional forms have more in common with each other than they do with the Protestant forms.

So to look for the Eastern Orthodox for a translation of the Creed would certainly be a reasonable healthy question. And in fact to look for a traditional translation of the mass would also not be unreasonable considering that they have a number of thriving western rite parishes using an english translation of the latin mass in the USA.

And when I added the word catholic at the end, I purposefully left it lowercase so as not to confuse anyone.

 

[LinuxUser]

I know we already have the merged anticipation thread, but no one has started a thread about the post-implementation process yet, so I’m giving it a go.

How did the new translation work out the first time at your parish?

Did people catch on well?

Anyone have a massive stroke like some feared? (kidding obviously)

Any comments good or bad from Father in the homily or otherwise?

Any comments good or bad from the laity after mass?

Have at it.

The people in the pew were having none of it and used the old responses. It made me happy I don’t like the wooden translation

 

[Melchior_1]

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.

Father Donahue from the Companions gave several seminars about the new translation, and he said exactly this.

 

[JReducation]

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.

I have witnessed what appeared to be anger, but I believe that the anger is not so much at the fact that the wording changed. For me, this has been a frustrating wee, because I keep getting lost. At that moment when I feel frustration, it’s not with the Church. It’s because I’m lost.

For example, Tuesday was All Saints Day for Franciscans. Now we have this translation of the mass and on top of that, we are on a different calendar from the rest of the Catholic Church. No big deal, right? Afterall, the religious orders don’t follow the liturgical calendar. The liturgical calendar is only for religious congregations and secular laity. Order have had their own calendars for centuries. No big deal?

It is when you have to swap books and on top of that, you have a change in wording. Now you feel that you need 15 fingers instead of ten. If you’re someone like I am, who is not too bright, you get lost trying to find the right page in the missal and keep in mind the new wording. Arrrrrggggggggggh.

Is it the Church’s fault that I’m dumb? No. Is it the Order’s fault that I’m dumb? No. I can’t be angry at either, though I may displace that anger. The truth is that I’m just frustrated, because I want perfection from me. It’s very human to feel uncomfortable and angry when we’re lost, even if it’s for a few seconds.

I believe that when people don’t realize it’s just a natural feeling of disorientation that will go away in a few days, they get angry a the Church or the bishop or whomever they think is causing their disorientation, forgetting that we’re always going to be disoriented here and there. At times, there is a humorous side to it.

I can also understand the angst that people may have felt when they heard that the holding of hands had been banned, when in fact, no one had mentioned it. They were blindsided. How did he media get that wrong?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[pnewton]

JReduction appears to have forgotten the meaning and origin of the creed itself, coming from an ecumenical council, which was ment to point to the theology we did all agree on, with the purpose of overcoming any localized cultural differences.

I assure you he has not forgotten his history. It is just that history does not apply to translating. Rather, when one goes about translating, one’s theological bent might color the was something is translated. This is the danger of Protestant translators of the Bible, even though these translations are still mostly good, especially the more literal translations.

When it comes to the liturgy, you want the translators to be of one mind with the Church. Could an Orthodox scholar be a part of this? Sure, as long as he was able to compartmentalize his differences and had the extreme discipline to think like a Catholic. The same would be true for any other non-Catholic. But at the end of the day, what would be the point? There is no advantage to ecumenism in translating a Catholic-specific liturgy.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

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.

Have you even stopped to look at the reasons for the New Translation? I pointed out a couple in the last post. No one is saying the for the last 40 years what we have been saying is wrong what is being said is that there is a better way to say it. A more clear way to say it, a way that communicates what the meaning of what we are saying is.
I am sorry that I can not empathize with your unhappiness about the translation as I just do not understand it. the Order and the rubrics of the mass are unchanged. some of the words have changed to better reflect the original Latin. The mass that you have always known is still the same mass.

 

[drforjc]

The people in the pew were having none of it and used the old responses. It made me happy I don’t like the wooden translation

So disobedience makes you happy, then… Hopefully they will come around soon.

 

[mary_bobo]

To answer the OP, it went fine for us. We had cards in the pew that featured the new responses and after the first “and with your spirit”, our pastor said,“very good.” I am sure it will be strange to those who only have known the NO, but for those oldsters like me, it takes us back to the original translation. I always had a hard time saying and I shall be healed" I always thought to myself “and with your spirit”. So to those who are new to this, lighten up. It is not nearly so difficult as the change to NO was to those who remember the TLM. You’ll get the hang of it before long.

 

[zeland]

A few observations.

Being out of town for the Thanksgiving weekend, this past Sunday I attended Mass at a very orthodox parish in the Detroit area. The Mass went very well, with the pastor paying precise attention to the new changes and explaining things when necessary. The official USCCB Mass cards were in the pews for all to follow, and everything went well. For the cards, see:
archindy.org/worship/files/Pew%20Cards%20of%20the%20Roman%20Missal.pdf

This is a large, very traditional parish where most everyone kneels for communion and receives on the tongue, and with daily Mass attendance being very large.

However, back in the liturgical jungle of darkest Afric… oops, aha, I mean northeast, Ohio, the reports from friends at my home parish were not as encouraging. The Mass cards were nowhere to be found, and while the changes were in the missaletts, the missaletts are not well organized and are hard to follow. At the daily Mass I attended yesterday, many of the people are still giving the old responses.

So let us hear how things are going at your parish. Advent blessings to all.

 

[nickybr38]

I attend a VERY liberal parish (with a non-liberal priest - go figure) and the changes went smoothly. The cards were provided to every parishioner. There was an overhead whenever we needed to pay attention to a change in whatever.

The only mistake happened at the very end… I don’t know why but everyone seemed a bit lost when it came to ending the Mass.

I was concerned because there was NO PREPARATION prior to Advent - which I found very odd … but things went well. And we’re an older parish so it’s surprising.

 

[YoungTradCath]

This thread can probably be merged with this one:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=619838

 

[Matthew_Holford]

archindy.org/worship/file…n%20Missal.pdf

This link doesn’t work.

 

[pilots13]

At our parish seemingly everyone except me (including the priest) had been saying “May the Lord accept this sacrifice at our hands, for the praise and glory of God’s name, for our good and the good of all God’s Church.”

That’s how people should be saying it. God is not a he. God is God. It was a male dominated society hundreds of years ago which made God a he. I for one, and I think most Catholics of my generation and my parents generation, understand this and make the appropriate changes to refer to God as God.

That for one is one thing I wish they would have fixed the God/he in the new translation. But that would be the Vatican looking forward with the rest of society to the 21st century, vs backwards to the 14th century.

 

[Cristiano]

That’s how people should be saying it. God is not a he. God is God. It was a male dominated society hundreds of years ago which made God a he. I for one, and I think most Catholics of my generation and my parents generation, understand this and make the appropriate changes to refer to God as God.

That for one is one thing I wish they would have fixed the God/he in the new translation. But that would be the Vatican looking forward with the rest of society to the 21st century, vs backwards to the 14th century.

Jesus told us to call the Godhead “Abba” (Father) then we should be using He when referring to Him. The Catholics that make the changes from He to God simply do not understand Jesus’ instruction.

 

[pilots13]

Feel sorry for the Christmas Catholics. they have NO idea what they are in for.

Anyone worried that this is just one more thing that might drive more Christmas/Easter Catholics away? Not only are they not dedicated Catholics, but now they have no idea what’s going on in the Mass.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Anyone worried that this is just one more thing that might drive more Christmas/Easter Catholics away? Not only are they not dedicated Catholics, but now they have no idea what’s going on in the Mass.

I figure most of them probably won’t even notice.

 

[YoungTradCath]

That’s how people should be saying it. God is not a he. God is God. It was a male dominated society hundreds of years ago which made God a he. I for one, and I think most Catholics of my generation and my parents generation, understand this and make the appropriate changes to refer to God as God.

That for one is one thing I wish they would have fixed the God/he in the new translation. But that would be the Vatican looking forward with the rest of society to the 21st century, vs backwards to the 14th century.

 

[pilots13]

I just don’t get why people are complaining about the translations. I am sure some places prepared the faithful better than others. I know that many older people are set in their ways, and don’t wish to change what they have been doing for so long.

I do like the new translations. Much more faithful to the Latin it was translated from. I still will never get where “et cum spiritu tuo” got translated in the first place to “Also with you” instead of the “And with your spirit”.

The old translation was more to the common vernacular. “Slang” to use a very loose term. (Hence why it was “One in being” vs “consubstantial.” I had never heard of the word before this new translation. So I looked it up in the dictionary: “of the same substance” aka, one in being) They worked most of the “Spirit” stuff out and replaced it with “you” because people can relate to praying for, or God being with, themselves vs being with their spirit or soul and almost not caring about the human form. I’ve seen old bulletins from my parish form pre-Vatican 2 and it’s all about saving your soul, and very little about the human person that soul is part of. I for one feel that if I’m praying for myself or for “you” that I’m praying for your whole person, body, soul, spirit, all of it. The original Latin text goes back to an era when that’s all the Church taught: you must do this and this to save your soul or save your spirit!

My complaint about the new translation has nothing to do with it’s implication in my parish, but rather the translation itself. I fell it’s the Catholic Church taking another step backwards towards the pre-Vatican 2 Church. This might make my grandparents happy, but it’s distancing itself from my parents (who were in high school during V2) and completely alienating my generation (whom most of has never seen a real Latin mass before). The Church needs to realize it must move forward and appeal to my generation, or in 10, 15, 20 years when my grandparents generation has all passed on, there will be no one left in Churches. Why have I now “greatly sinned?” Why is it “through my fault x3?” Why is it my spirit and not my whole self? This is classic guilt and human conceived notions which drove much of my parents generation away in the 50’s (causing Vatican 2) and will continue to drive Catholics away today.

//end rant

 

[pilots13]

Jesus told us to call the Godhead “Abba” (Father) then we should be using He when referring to Him. The Catholics that make the changes from He to God simply do not understand Jesus’ instruction.

God is usually characterised as male in Biblical sources, except: female in Genesis 1:26-27[5][6], Psalm 123:2-3, and Luke 15:8-10; a mother in Hosea 11:3-4, Deuteronomy 32:18, Isaiah 66:13, Isaiah 49:15, Isaiah 42:14, Psalm 131:2; a mother eagle in Deuteronomy 32:11-12; and a mother hen in Matthew 23:37 and Luke 13:34.

Thank you Wiki! Basically, God has no gender, so why MUST we refer to God as a he? Yes, Jesus referred to God as Abba, but he also referred to God as a mother hen. So which Jesus is right?

 

[Brendan]

The old translation was more to the common vernacular. “Slang” to use a very loose term. (Hence why it was “One in being” vs “consubstantial.” I had never heard of the word before this new translation.

You should have heard of a similar word “Transubstatiion” in regards to the Eucharist.

Where the Substance of bread and wine cease and is replaced by the Substance of Christ.

The concept of “One in Being” is incorrect. It is a statement of existance. There is no existance apart from God, so just about everything is “One in Being” with the Father. The Keyboard you are typing on, the grass on the lawn etc…

Substance is a statement on the Nature of something. That characistics that set it apart from everything else.

While the grass on my lawn is “One in Being” with the Father, it is not of the same substance as the Father. It is not Divine.

Christ (as well as the Spirit) are Consubstantial with the Father, they share the same Divine Essence, the same Divine Nature.

So the old translation said nothing really about the Nature of Christ in relation to the Father, the new one does.