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

[benedictus2]

Well, you know, you should pity the man his anger and pray for him.

Oh no. I think I may have conveyed that wrong. I like the fact that he waves it to signal that we need to read from them. This makes the people aware that they need to pick up the card and read. He did this at the beginning, at the Gloria, Creed and the Proclamation of Faith. Now most people don’t even refer to the card save for the Gloria and creed because everyone seems to have got it down pat.

 

[benedictus2]

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).

He doesn’t like it and he is making it known. He is staging a little rebellion.

 

[patrick457]

He doesn’t like it and he is making it known. He is staging a little rebellion.

Something that he is not entitled to IMHO.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

But his priest has not even tried to implement the new translations

Not exactly true. They did include “and with your spirit” at the first Mass. And this week the OP mentioned that there were pew cards in place and that the Creed was omitted. There was no mention of the old sacramentary being used so I’ll assume he’s doing the opening/closing and Eucharistic prayers from the new Missal.
Based on that info I would assume the priest is implementing the new translation extremely slowly.

and if fact has been making snide remarks about it. This is not a well intentioned but incorrect attempt.

Snide remarks are unfortunate but that doesn’t mean he has no intention of fully incorporating the new translation. There’s lot of things we don’t like in life but do anyways, even if we drag our feet.

Secondly, he might have a significant number of parishioners who aren’t happy with the new translation and this is his clumsy way of appealing to them. He might be doing the old “I don’t like it either but we’ll move forward together…”

This is plain ole regular disobedience.

Its an unfortunate situation. Whether it rises to the level of disobedience isn’t a judgment we can make over the internet.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

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.

Its unfortunate that a priest would publicly voice such opinions. However, its not heresy to not like a translation. Plenty of Catholics complained about the last one.

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]

He probably understands the reasoning behind the change, he just doesn’t agree with it.

He doesn’t like it and he is making it known. He is staging a little rebellion.

Once again, just because someone is a little misguided in their implementation doesn’t mean that they are staging a rebellion. For all we know he moves slowly with all new projects…

 

[JReducation]

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.

One of their saints is St. Francis of Assisi, especially among the Palestinian Muslims. These Muslims have grown up with 800 years of Franciscan presence, including Francis himself. When Francis and his brothers first arrived, they called them Suffi (sp?).

In speaking to a few friars in Washington, DC where the headquarters for the Custody of the Holy Land is now, the friars once told me that the Muslims really do treat God as a father with all of the attributes of a father. They see man as being unable or unworthy (I can’t recall the word that he used) to approach the holy, because he will defile it in some way. That’s the whole big thing with no pictures of the Prophet Mohammed. He’s too holy. A common man has no place even contemplating him.

From listening to this friar and having worked closely with a Muslim who worked for Catholic Charities, I found that they are very loving people, but have a very different view of humanity. It almost makes Calvin look like a Greek Party Boy.

Those who have converted to Catholicism, after leaving the region, obviously, express a sense of relief that they can approach God.

The Franciscans in the Palestine and the Trinitarians in Egypt have been very influential in conversions without ever proselytizing. I believe it’s because people notice their familiarity with God and man and realize that one can do both and still be holy. That would be my guess.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

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.

It might alienate some, it might endear him to others…

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.

I remember posts on this forum praising and laughing right along with priests/laity who made jokes about the previous translation. Indeed there are still occasionally nasty comments about the previous translation. Why is it ok in one set of circumstances but not another?
These things happen, people have opinions. That’s life.

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.

The priest may have experienced significant negative feedback about the new translation and is simply trying to prod the parish along. Perhaps he’s trying to show them he understands their reaction and is hoping that he can slowly prod them forward.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t see the malice that you folks see. Maybe some of you need to live in a religious community for a few years. You find that some of the kindest, holiest and most prayerful men can also be the biggest babies when they don’t like something.

I remember when our superior said, “Let’s take the EF for a test run.” We had a few men who reacted as if you were torturing them. They pouted, whined, dragged their feet on this. They didn’t even have to celebrate the mass. It was going to be done by a Franciscan of the Immaculate. All we had to do was to learn the prayers so as to respond, because we don’t do the silent EF. Franciscan tradition has always been dialogue, even in the Tridentine form.

Anyway, after it was all said and done, these big pouters came out of the mass saying, “That wasn’t too bad.”

I wanted to hit them. For two weeks they didn’t say much, because the superior would crack them if they did, but you could see it in their faces, that they looked as if they were getting ready to go to a funeral.

My point is that human beings can often do this and there is no malice involved. It’s just resistance to something new or even a little fear. If you’re a pastor, you’re probably getting it through both ears.

Ear one: This is great.

Ear two: Why do we have to do this?

Pastor’s brain in the middle: OH GOD . . . why have they put me in this situation?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[benedictus2]

Something that he is not entitled to IMHO.

Is he? As a priest? At mass?

If he who is tasked to explain this to the laity is unable to communicate the importance of the change then that is terrible.

He is supposed to shepherd them right.

The mass is not supposed to be the forum for his opinion.

 

[benedictus2]

Its unfortunate that a priest would publicly voice such opinions. However, its not heresy to not like a translation. Plenty of Catholics complained about the last one.

It may not be a heresy to not like a a translation but it sure is bad shepherding to use the Mass to voice his distate for it.

He probably understands the reasoning behind the change, he just doesn’t agree with it.

If he understands it then why say he does not understand the reason for the change. If he does understand it then why not explain that understanding to the congregation? I think he wants to influence the congregation to his way of thinking as regards the new translation.

Once again, just because someone is a little misguided in their implementation doesn’t mean that they are staging a rebellion. For all we know he moves slowly with all new projects…

Sorry but I disagree with that. I think it is a mini rebellion as far as he will get away with. I have encountered too many priests who do this. One ommited the penitential rite as he felt it was not necessary, then another made their own Proclamation of Faith, then another uses every opportunity to blast the Church heirarchy! Another also told me that “there are no absolutes” which is pretty much an atheist dictum.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

It may not be a heresy to not like a a translation but it sure is bad shepherding to use the Mass to voice his distate for it.

Yes and no. Its just a translation, its not the deposit of faith.

If he understands it then why say he does not understand the reason for the change. If he does understand it then why not explain that understanding to the congregation? I think he wants to influence the congregation to his way of thinking as regards the new translation.

I understand the new kickoff rules for the NFL and I understand their reasons. I think their reasoning is flawed. However in speaking to someone about it I might simply say, “I don’t understand why they did that…”
He probably has read the reasoning behind the change and merely doesn’t agree with it.

Sorry but I disagree with that. I think it is a mini rebellion as far as he will get away with. I have encountered too many priests who do this. One ommited the penitential rite as he felt it was not necessary, then another made their own Proclamation of Faith, then another uses every opportunity to blast the Church heirarchy! Another also told me that “there are no absolutes” which is pretty much an atheist dictum.

Ah, so because you’ve encountered others that you thought were in “mini rebellion” you are assuming someone you’ve never met and have only a small bit of information about from an internet forum is also in mini rebellion?
Prejudging someone based on someone else doesn’t seem very sound to me…

 

[odile53]

I don’t know if we had some lax Catholics coming back to Mass for the first time who didn’t know about the changes, some functional illiterates, some holdouts for the obsolete responses, or a combination of all of the above, but I’d say probably fifteen percent of the people used the old responses. The “and also with you” was the most glaring. Quite a few of those of us who are getting comfortable with “and with your spirit” took it on ourselves to try to drown out the “and also” gang. By the middle of Mass, it started to sound like an attempt on our part to shout them down. The priest, who is also a professor at the Jesuit college, was still prompting us in very professorial style. Before we sang the final hymn, after he had given the dismissal, Father said, “Okay, A minus this week!”

It was a decided improvement over the first week of Advent. That was a pathetic mangle!

 

[GaryTaylor]

Right, The “and also with you” seems to be the stumbling block. I’ll tell you though, while I belong to one parish and have since Baptism as a child. I attend three Catholic Churchs. One because I just really like the Father, and go their for confession. The other because its one block from my home. So if I’m running late I"ll go their.

However, I pretty much agree with what odile53 said above. Their’s a bit of confusion in all three of the churchs. Most knew the changes were coming, others found it…well similiar to the 60’s. The “Not Again” response came.

All in all though I believe the CC did a much better job prepairing the church this time than the 60’s. I believe I received a notice approx 1-year ago from the Benedictine Monks explaining the entire change. EWTN, it was disscussed often here. So exactly, had you been involved to any degree, then it wouldn’t have been a surprize. And the change would have been clearly understood as to the “why”. Which btw was for a very good reason.

Ironic though all three handled the situation different. My church just has the New M. and added the prayer to St Michael at back in at the end of the Mass. No surprize though since its St Michaels CC. The other has a seperate pamphlet with the noted changes in it, and where they appear in the mass. And yet the third church has the changes included in its weekly pamphlet/flyer of notice’s, events etc. So they all handled it slightly different.

Its like anything with humans, they just do not want their comfortability disturbed. And for many this is what it is. They know the old version and just feel put-out having to learn again.

Peace

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well the USA basically was the worst translation worldwide. The eastern countries and most of the West has had great translations. So there’s been no need to correct the wording. I believe the other change came in the Spanish language which were not as severe as the USA, so it was slightly tweaked. For example no where in the world was “I” translated as “We”. So yes the USA needed upgrading.

I don’t believe its matter of likes or dislikes, its a matter of need.

Peace

 

[Phemie]

All in all though I believe the CC did a much better job prepairing the church this time than the 60’s. I believe I received a notice approx 1-year ago from the Benedictine Monks explaining the entire change. EWTN, it was disscussed often here. So exactly, had you been involved to any degree, then it wouldn’t have been a surprize. And the change would have been clearly understood as to the “why”. Which btw was for a very good reason.

That varied greatly by parish.

I was visiting a parish at the end of September and they had the “Celebrate in Song” & pew card in the pews and they were practicing a new Mass setting in preparation for the early implementation of the sung responses that had been requested by the CCCB.

By contrast, our pastor refused to discuss any of the changes before he was reassigned at the end of August. The new translation was never mentioned until mid November and the priest who is overseeing the parish until they find us a new pastor contradicted everything the liturgy person said and told us to keep doing everything we’d been doing, that he totally disagreed with the changes. Not once were the new responses ever spoken in the church until the day of their implementation; needless to say confusion reigns. To make matters worse, we still don’t have a copy of the Roman Missal and the priest who’s been with us for the past two Sundays was celebrating Mass using a missalette.

Those who had been looking forward to returning to the kneeling posture (we were directed not to kneel at all 12 years ago) were greatly disappointed when, on the first Sunday in Advent, we were told to keep standing at the Consecration and make a profound bow after the Elevation when the priest genuflects (the priest we will most often see at the altar refuses to genuflect at that time). No explanation of why we aren’t to comply with the GIRM.

 

[MissRose73]

At my mother’s parish, they stand during the Liturgy of the Eucharist for the most part. They have no kneelers there at all. The only sitting happens is when people sit down during Communion before its their turn to go up and receive then sit down again after receiving.

 

[vz71]

2nd week, and things appear to be going smoothly.

My initial worries concerning the actual ideas behind the new translations not being put out were unfounded…our priest has begun explaining the differences and why as we go.

There actually is some improvement. The choir (if you can call an organ player and one singer a choir) has committed fully to the new words and are attempting to follow along the chant music that is there.

Perhaps this is a misuse of the silence that should be observed before Mass, but I believe this to be a worthy exception…assuming they stop once everyone gets it.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

Actually, with the many “-m” and vowel endings, it is much more singable in the Latin.

 

[patrick457]

Is he? As a priest? At mass?

If he who is tasked to explain this to the laity is unable to communicate the importance of the change then that is terrible.

He is supposed to shepherd them right.

The mass is not supposed to be the forum for his opinion.

Indeed you’re right.

 

[pray4peace]

Well, half the people responded correctly at Mass Sunday . I noticed a lot of people put down the cards after awhile, and saw a lot of the cards fall to the floor as they slide out of the pew holders very easily.

I found myself trying to say the responses louder than usual to keep from hearing the wrong responses. Also, I seemed to be on a mission to follow along and keep up instead of praying and focusing on what was going on at the altar.

I think a lot of what the priest says, and some of what we say is not easy to understand, and does not flow well overall.

I guess it is going to take some time to get this right.

I thought going from Latin to English was easier because the whole thing changed and they printed the whole Mass for us to follow and we read it easier through to the end.
The cards are not that easy to follow especially when it has two Creeds, and A, B, C responses or says sometimes said or not said. I think it is not easy for most people to follow along with the cards.

I think it might be easier with a Missal, just my thought on it.

Blessings,