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

[JReducation]

I saw the same thing in my parish. The priest was much better (aside from when he couldn’t find the right page once and said they arranged the new book totally differently), but people weren’t paying as much attention to the pew card thingies and there were more mistakes than last time.

This is a common complaint by priests and deacons. The new book is arranged differently. Some of them don’t have the tabs. You have to remember whether the Eucharistic Prayer is the blue ribbon or the red one. The one that we just put away is organized much like the breviary, with the ordinary in the middle, the seasons at the front and the commons in the back. If you’re on the 2nd Sunday in Advent, you just went to the very front. This one seems to have a different logic to it. We have the Spanish and the Creole edition. I want to sit with these two and the English to see how similar or different is their organization. When I have time and the desire. It’s not really a need.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

 

[RosalieM]

The Latin version of the Nicene Creed was being said at mass long before Martin Luther was a twinkle in his great-great-great…great grandfather’s eye.

This is what I hear each Sunday at my parish gregorian chant Mass. The schola cantorum sings lines and then we sing lines. It is musically exactly like the Papal Masses. Funny thing, I’ll probably learn it in Latin before I re-learn it in English.

 

[opus101]

Well, as I stated before, we have had zero preparation for the new translation, except to hear Father make snide comments about it or make fun of it ( “Wait 'til you hear YOUR parts if you think mine is weird!” ). Last Sunday AND today we omitted the Creed! When asked about it after Mass, Father said it was because “Technically, we haven’t learned the new one yet.”

But we had both pew cards AND an extra sheet (with music for the Lamb of God, etc.) that also had the text of the new Creed translation on it. All we had to do was simply read it!

Is it okay to omit the Creed for a reason such as this?

 

[Miriam1947]

Well, as I stated before, we have had zero preparation for the new translation, except to hear Father make snide comments about it or make fun of it ( “Wait 'til you hear YOUR parts if you think mine is weird!” ). Last Sunday AND today we omitted the Creed! When asked about it after Mass, Father said it was because “Technically, we haven’t learned the new one yet.”

But we had both pew cards AND an extra sheet (with music for the Lamb of God, etc.) that also had the text of the new Creed translation on it. All we had to do was simply read it!

Is it okay to omit the Creed for a reason such as this?

If you can’t get your priest to come to the party, tell the bishop. This priest sounds like he doesn’t like the new translation and is going out of his way to make sure his parish (his children in Christ who he is responsible for) have no way to learn this beautiful translation.

I would call the bishop so fast it would make Father’s head spin.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Well, as I stated before, we have had zero preparation for the new translation, except to hear Father make snide comments about it or make fun of it ( “Wait 'til you hear YOUR parts if you think mine is weird!” ). Last Sunday AND today we omitted the Creed! When asked about it after Mass, Father said it was because “Technically, we haven’t learned the new one yet.”

But we had both pew cards AND an extra sheet (with music for the Lamb of God, etc.) that also had the text of the new Creed translation on it. All we had to do was simply read it!

Is it okay to omit the Creed for a reason such as this?

No. You need to report your priest immediately to your bishop. He is endangering the faith of his congregation, and that is inexcusable. Write a letter and have it sent off as soon as possible. I really can’t believe how low some people have come.

In fact, just as Miriam has said, call him in addition to the letter.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

The priest was much better (aside from when he couldn’t find the right page once and said they arranged the new book totally differently)…

LOL, yes the Roman Missal is arranged differently than the previous Sacramentary and has caused some confusion for us priests however apparently we’re not as confused as the laity. I used one of the alternate greetings for Mass this morning and the congregation made no response, none, zero. I laughed and said “let’s try this again…”

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

No. You need to report your priest immediately to your bishop. He is endangering the faith of his congregation, and that is inexcusable. Write a letter and have it sent off as soon as possible.

I don’t think anyone’s faith is endangered by delaying saying the Creed for a few weeks. Its not right, but its not the end of the world. The bishop’s office can be contacted and someone from there will probably contact the priest.

I really can’t believe how low some people have come.

I don’t think its a matter of stooping to anything. Its probably just a well intentioned but incorrect attempt to implement the new translation.

 

[Miriam1947]

Well, as I stated before, we have had zero preparation for the new translation, except to hear Father make snide comments about it or make fun of it ( “Wait 'til you hear YOUR parts if you think mine is weird!” ). Last Sunday AND today we omitted the Creed! When asked about it after Mass, Father said it was because “Technically, we haven’t learned the new one yet.”

But we had both pew cards AND an extra sheet (with music for the Lamb of God, etc.) that also had the text of the new Creed translation on it. All we had to do was simply read it!

Is it okay to omit the Creed for a reason such as this?

I don’t think anyone’s faith is endangered by delaying saying the Creed for a few weeks. Its not right, but its not the end of the world. The bishop’s office can be contacted and someone from there will probably contact the priest.

I don’t think its a matter of stooping to anything. Its probably just a well intentioned but incorrect attempt to implement the new translation.

But his priest has not even tried to implement the new translations and if fact has been making snide remarks about it. This is not a well intentioned but incorrect attempt. This is plain ole regular disobedience.

It’s not as if we were told about the new translation yesterday afternoon at 4:15.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I don’t think anyone’s faith is endangered by delaying saying the Creed for a few weeks. Its not right, but its not the end of the world. The bishop’s office can be contacted and someone from there will probably contact the priest.

I don’t think its a matter of stooping to anything. Its probably just a well intentioned but incorrect attempt to implement the new translation.

I meant that post more along the lines of the snide comments made by the priest. That does really have a massive effect on the congregation’s beliefs. I know, I’m a layman myself. If I saw a priest make nasty comments about the new translation when I first converted, I’d have thought it was okay to negatively criticize everything the Church does and that it somehow gave me a license to do the same as him.

There is a level of malice by the priest as per what the poster said, and that’s what made me reply in the way I did. Whether or not his inner disposition is one way or another, his outward portrayal of it is that of negativity, and that can’t be all accidental. That is awful for the faithful. Leaving the Creed out by itself is wrong, in every instance in which it is supposed to be recited. It’s an abuse. By itself, I probably would have just recommended speaking to the priest about it. But that, along with the snide comments he makes (as per the poster), deserves, in my opinion, going a little further than that.

 

[JReducation]

Slow down folks. You’re having a CAF Attack.

First of all, things don’t always sound the way that they are meant when they are read via computer.

No. You need to report your priest immediately to your bishop. He is endangering the faith of his congregation, and that is inexcusable. Write a letter and have it sent off as soon as possible. I really can’t believe how low some people have come.

In fact, just as Miriam has said, call him in addition to the letter.

The answer that you will get from the chancery will be, “Thank you for calling. We will look into it.”

The Chancellor or the Vicar General will call him and ask, if he has a problem. He will explain his problem and they will deal with it together much more calmly than you folks are dealing with it. Why is that? Because even though the priest should implement the changes, souls are not going to be lost because of a delay or because of idiosyncratic behavior. It’s not like he’s preaching heresy or stealing from little old ladies.

But his priest has not even tried to implement the new translations and if fact has been making snide remarks about it. This is not a well intentioned but incorrect attempt. This is plain ole regular disobedience.

It’s not as if we were told about the new translation yesterday afternoon at 4:15.

Let’s take this in two parts.

First: If he’s making silly remarks, it is very unfortunate and maybe imprudent to do so.

Second: If he is truly disobedient, that’s for his bishop to decide, not the faithful.

I meant that post more along the lines of the snide comments made by the priest. That does really have a massive effect on the congregation’s beliefs. I know, I’m a layman myself.

Catholics of many years would just blow it off as “Father is at it again.” I’ll tell you why I say this. If someone is that goofy as to make such silly remarks about this, he’s probably made other silly remarks in the past. People don’t suddenly go from having common sense to being goofy. His congregation has probably heard him say other goofy things in the past. People know this and roll their eyes.

If I saw a priest make nasty comments about the new translation when I first converted, I’d have thought it was okay to negatively criticize everything the Church does and that it somehow gave me a license to do the same as him.

Leaving the Creed out by itself is wrong, in every instance in which it is supposed to be recited. It’s an abuse. By itself, I probably would have just recommended speaking to the priest about it. But that, along with the snide comments he makes (as per the poster), deserves, in my opinion, going a little further than that.

The word “abuse” is thrown around in CAF like rice at a wedding. Not everything that happens and should not happen is an abuse, nor is every omission an abuse. There are some things that are wrong, but do not constitute abuse. Church law is not that rigid. For something to be considered liturgical abuse it has to be bigger than omitting the Creed. It is an omission that should not happen.

Let me tell you why it’s not an abuse. It does not alter the liturgy in any way. It is part of the mass for every solemnity. Sunday is a solemnity, but the Creed is not essential to the mass. If it were essential, it would be said at every mass and it’s not. If you leave out something essential or your tamper with it, that’s an abuse.

You should not make your own rules and leave out the Creed on a Sunday. The priest has to get with the program and do all of the parts of the Sunday mass. This is very true. It’s not a cause for CAF Attack. That’s my version of a CAF heart attack, by the way, not an attack on someone.

Hey, once in a while you have to get creative in order to describe a situation.

Take it easy. Ask Father when he plans on doing this. If the third Sunday comes and it has not happened, send a polite note to your chancellor. Don’t bother the bishop. He’s probably a busy man and will give the note to the chancellor anyway or to the Vicar General. If there is an auxiliary, he gets it. It all depends on the size of your diocese.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[iloveangels]

I remember, off the top of my head, Scott Hahn telling a story where he and a friend of his (can’t remember who) were meeting with a couple of Muslim men for discussion at a restaurant, and the meeting was cut short by the Muslims because Scott kept referring to God as Father, and the Muslims were highly insulted and considered that an insult to Allah. They got up and left and refused to speak any more with them. They apparently do not consider God in fatherly terms as we do, but more as a Master-slave relationship. I am sorry, but I cannot remember which TV program on EWTN this was.

That’s true. I’m a convert. Long, long ago, before I was Catholic or even Christian, I dated a Muslim man for a while and learned a lot about their religion. I never became Muslim because I didn’t like it, and it turned out I didn’t like my dating buddy much either in the long run. They have very much a slave/master dynamic in their heads when they talk about God. And actually, they have slave/master dynamics going on a lot of other topics too, if you want to know the truth. It’s aggressively weird.

 

[iloveangels]

Not to sound prideful in any way (and not to sound like I’m attacking), but I find that there are many young people out there who are more mature than the physically-adult.

BTW, count me in to the young supporters of the new translation.

I used to teach high school, and you know what? You’re right. There are always some young people who have a lot more sense than some older ones. I always thought they were refreshing and they gave me hope for the future. Still do.

 

[JReducation]

That’s true. I’m a convert. Long, long ago, before I was Catholic or even Christian, I dated a Muslim man and learned a lot about their religion. I never became Muslim because I didn’t like it, and it turned out I didn’t like my date much either in the long run. They have very much a slave/master dynamic in their heads when they talk about God. And actually, they have slave/master dynamics going on a lot of other topics too, if you want to know the truth. It’s aggressively weird.

This is off topic, but just my observation. They actually do recognize the fatherhood of God, but they don’t realize it. They give God all of the paternal attributes. However, I think that referring to God as “Father” makes them very nervous. My guess is that this is due to their fear of “humanizing” God in any way. That’s their whole problem with the Incarnation. “God can’t possibly have anything in common with man, because man is evil.”

In my opinion, their problem is caused by very poor anthropology. The minute that you get into “man is evil” the idea of God having any attributes that sound human goes out the window.

Yet, if you read their literature, listen to their songs and their language, they speak about all life coming from the hand of God. God is the one who corrects and disciplines. He gives the laws and sets the expectations. He protects. At the end of time, he judges. That’s God the Father. But that word “Father” is a stumbling block for them. I think it’s because it’s a word that is also used by human parents and nothing human can be good. Therefore, you can’t use human terms for God.

It’s very poor anthropology, in my opinion. But I respect their love of God.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[iloveangels]

Just to add to this, I think a good thing to remember is that fatherhood and, more rarely, bridegroomhood (if that’s a word) are applied to God in the Christian tradition not as a nice little metaphor that appeals to us and which might be changed to fit changing sensibilities but because those human relationships actually reflect in a special way the relationship between God and the universe or God and the human soul. Family relationships are a reflection of the relationships pertaining to God, not the other way around, and so calling God Father is not an arbitrary choice but really does reflect the reality of God’s relationship to us better than 'Mother" for instance.

Yes, and if you go back to ancient times, many of the near eastern deities were goddesses, including those the Jews found in Egypt and Babylonia. The goddess cults of Babylon, in particular, the Jews viewed with horror. These cults were polytheistic and had myths that were very popular, accompanied by displays of gross immorality at large festivals.

Christianity, and Judaism before it, has always characterized God as a Father and always as masculine, never a goddess and never feminine. When I hear this bit about God being a mother or a female, I just chalk it up to the ignorance of someone who doesn’t know much Old Testament history.

 

[iloveangels]

This is off topic, but just my observation. They actually do recognize the fatherhood of God, but they don’t realize it. They give God all of the paternal attributes. However, I think that referring to God as “Father” makes them very nervous. My guess is that this is due to their fear of “humanizing” God in any way. That’s their whole problem with the Incarnation. “God can’t possibly have anything in common with man, because man is evil.”

In my opinion, their problem is caused by very poor anthropology. The minute that you get into “man is evil” the idea of God having any attributes that sound human goes out the window.

Yet, if you read their literature, listen to their songs and their language, they speak about all life coming from the hand of God. God is the one who corrects and disciplines. He gives the laws and sets the expectations. He protects. At the end of time, he judges. That’s God the Father. But that word “Father” is a stumbling block for them. I think it’s because it’s a word that is also used by human parents and nothing human can be good. Therefore, you can’t use human terms for God.

It’s very poor anthropology, in my opinion. But I respect their love of God.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Br JR OSF,
Yes, it’s something like that. God is considered altogether other, and viewed with a lot of fear and respect. Sometimes they seem to “avoid” him altogether and misbehave for a while and then come back, which is treated a little differently than we might–indulgently even. They don’t talk about that much amongst each other, either. It’s sort of considered human frailty. The only thing that comes even close to the Jewish days of atonement (Yom Kippur) or our Sacrament of Confession is Ramadan, which comes off as being sort of a long drawn out New Year’s Resolution with fasting. It’s a new start of sorts. And it’s also very much of a community or family occasion with certain dishes served after sunset and certain kinds of manners, customs and so on observed.

Islam is also a large religion with a lot of diversity-Sunni & Shiite and divisions within those. There is such a thing as Muslim saints among some of the smaller groups, but most of their holy ones are prophets and historical figures. They don’t have as many saints as we do, and certainly not for the same reasons.

 

[benedictus2]

Well, as I stated before, we have had zero preparation for the new translation, except to hear Father make snide comments about it or make fun of it ( “Wait 'til you hear YOUR parts if you think mine is weird!” ). Last Sunday AND today we omitted the Creed! When asked about it after Mass, Father said it was because “Technically, we haven’t learned the new one yet.”

But we had both pew cards AND an extra sheet (with music for the Lamb of God, etc.) that also had the text of the new Creed translation on it. All we had to do was simply read it!

Is it okay to omit the Creed for a reason such as this?

Don’t you have the cards (the one with the responses and prayers) at your church? So why should this be ommitted? I would assume that most church goers are literate, and so can read.

We started the new responses last January but others started after Pentecost. The priest at one of the churches here would quickly wave the cards to signal to the people that they need to use these.

 

[benedictus2]

I don’t think its a matter of stooping to anything. Its probably just a well intentioned but incorrect attempt to implement the new translation.

Based on what the poster wrote, I would say it is stooping. I know a few priests who have ridiculed the translation right out in the open hoping to probably sway the opinion of the people.

One priest said of the “And with your spirit” that he did not understand why it had to be changed (yes he said it right there at Mass).

If he, a priest, cannot even be bothered to understand the need for the changes, then how can he effectively convey this to the people.

After Mass, I said to him that the Archbishop has written a most enlightening and beautiful explanation for this change and I said maybe he can explain it to the congregation. All he said was they can read it themselves. I thought to myself, perhaps you’re the one who needs to read it.

And yet this priest has time to read New Age stuff and even put this on our weekly bulletin.

 

[CatholicZ09]

This morning at Mass the responses went a lot smoother. About 98.5% of the congregation remembered “and with your spirit.” The prayer right after the preparation of the altar gets people the most now - the one that says, “May the Lord accept this sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of His name for our good and the good of all His Holy Church.” That one extra adjective at the end gets everyone. It does seem like the smallest changes can be the most problematic.

It seems like a lot of people also remembered nicely the “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof…”

With all that said, my parish and I’m sure the majority of Catholic parishes across the country are getting the hang of the new translation. It’s really going much smoother than I thought at first.

I still wish that we would do the Confiteor.

 

[iloveangels]

Don’t you have the cards (the one with the responses and prayers) at your church? So why should this be ommitted? I would assume that most church goers are literate, and so can read.

We started the new responses last January but others started after Pentecost. The priest at one of the churches here would quickly wave the cards to signal to the people that they need to use these.

Well, you know, you should pity the man his anger and pray for him. And then just keep saying the responses correctly, and wear him down gently but consistently. This translation isn’t going away anytime soon. He’s going to have to get used to it sooner or later.

If it gets really aggressive and after you give it a while, a couple months, it’s still going on, the bishop does need to know, but in a decent way. Don’t write an angry ranting thing yourself! It won’t help. Write a nice letter and let the bishop know so he doesn’t get blind-sided about what his priests are doing. He probably doesn’t like unexpected surprises any better than you do.

 

[opus101]

Don’t you have the cards (the one with the responses and prayers) at your church? So why should this be ommitted? I would assume that most church goers are literate, and so can read.

We started the new responses last January but others started after Pentecost. The priest at one of the churches here would quickly wave the cards to signal to the people that they need to use these.

Yes, we have the cards with the responses. We were given the cards to “hold” for the past several weeks, but didn’t go over anything on them! I asked about this, and was told that we were supposed to be reading over the responses to become familiar with them …(during Mass!). After Mass, we were told to make sure to leave them there because of the small number of copies. We did absolutely nothing with them except hold them for awhile, then set them down.

I too wonder why we just didn’t read the Creed form the cards. I didn’t understand what he meant by “Technically, we haven’t learned it yet”. Technically, we haven’t learned anything else either, but we used the cards for most of the other parts today (not all).