The New Roman Missal as viewed on PBS

  • Thread starter Thread starter sambos671
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sambos671

Guest
I enjoy watching Religion and Ethics Newsweekly on PBS and they covered a story about the New Roman Missal. We all wait with trepidation and anticipation of the new Missal that will come out later this year. What I found curious and a bit disturbing was the number of priest and layity that have serious problems with this new Missal. It seems to me from some of the exerpts I’ve read that the translation is closer to the latin intention translation. As I view it Liturgy is reflective of the ancient faith made ever new in our spirits. In some senses I think there was a mistake in 1973 when the Mass translation was more contemporary than reflective of our ancient faith. Now that we are going back to more accuracy we can be put in mind of the consistency of our faith reflected in the liturgy through the centuries. Why then the hooplah and the discent of priest of whom some its seems will “bad mouth” this liturgical work to their parishoners? The comon complaint by these decenting priest seems to be that their layity will not recognize or understand what is being said. Isn’t that a Catachesis issue that should be resolved during training, and homilies? One of the things I point to in our Catholic faith is that it is the faith that goes back to our beginings not a new faith containing new rules as is often accused against us. Now that we are going back to a more accurate translation from the latin it seems our case is even more solid that it is the ancient faith. Why then discourage the faithful from its participation?
 
What I found curious and a bit disturbing was the number of priest and layity that have serious problems with this new Missal.
Click to expand...
How many Cardinals, Archbishops and Bishops did they have on that had serious problems with the new Missal?

To what end is the Body of Christ served, when priests and laity talk to a non-Catholic, non-Christian radical left media outlet who is biased against the Catholic Church?
 
Well, it is PBS, after all. What else did you expect? A glowingly positive acceptance of the Church and her teachings?
 
We all wait with trepidation and anticipation of the new Missal that will come out later this year.
Click to expand...
Really?

The Missal is online. Anyone can read through it.
 
Most of my Parish hasn’t. I personally look forward to it.
 
Barbkw said:
How many Cardinals, Archbishops and Bishops did they have on that had serious problems with the new Missal?

To what end is the Body of Christ served, when priests and laity talk to a non-Catholic, non-Christian radical left media outlet who is biased against the Catholic Church?
Click to expand...
I’m actually in agreement with you there. And I think it happens far to often. I find it more divisive than helpful
 
Dale_M said:
Here is the link to that episode of Religion and Ethics Newsweekly
pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/episodes/may-20-2011/the-new-roman-missal/8850/

You can either read the transcript or watch the video
Click to expand...
With regard to the director of faith formation in the beginning, too bad the altar rails are not returning. As a Catholic that typically attends Mass in the Ordinary Form and at times in the Extraordinary Form, I look forward to the new addition of the Roman Missal.
 
Perhaps, and this is just speculation, one of the reasons for the dissension is that the new Roman Missal is more of a literal translation of the Latin Vulgate which may not reflect the intent.

For example in the NRM: Priest: Dominus vobicsum (The Lord be with you)
People: Et cum spiritu tuo (and with your spirit)

The current translation (the one is current usage) of Et cum spiritu tuo is: And also with you.

The argument is that the literal translation only blesses “the spirit” rather than the totality of the person – body, mind and spirit.

So we are reverting to a time when only the spirtual was valued and not the whole person. This means we are reverting back to old theology. Yet, the Mass is Jesus sacrifice and Jesus died for us as a totality (human and divine), not only spiritually.
 
I taped this EWTN program (DISH Channel 261) and began watching it this morning.

If reairs June 3 and on June 4th

A New Translation for a New Roman Missal - EWTN Presents

The Third Edition of the Roman Missal was announced by Pope John Paul II in the year 2000.

After nearly ten years of work, an English-language translation of the Latin text was recently approved by the Holy See.

In this presentation, Msgr. James P. Moroney provides an introduction to the translation.

Airs June 1 at 10PM,
June 3 at 1PM &
June 4 at 5AM. (60 mins.)

I checked on EWTN youTube and I don’t see it listed there yet.
 
😦 I stopped reading the text after the director of religious education inserted dislike for altar rails, and referred to head-coverings as “kleenex”. She obviously has no respect for traditional practices and thinks them stifling. Let this report be damned to obscurity forever. :mad:
 
Benay said:
Perhaps, and this is just speculation, one of the reasons for the dissension is that the new Roman Missal is more of a literal translation of the Latin Vulgate which may not reflect the intent.

For example in the NRM: Priest: Dominus vobicsum (The Lord be with you)
People: Et cum spiritu tuo (and with your spirit)

The current translation (the one is current usage) of Et cum spiritu tuo is: And also with you.

The argument is that the literal translation only blesses “the spirit” rather than the totality of the person – body, mind and spirit.

So we are reverting to a time when only the spirtual was valued and not the whole person. This means we are reverting back to old theology. Yet, the Mass is Jesus sacrifice and Jesus died for us as a totality (human and divine), not only spiritually.
Click to expand...
Benay, the phrase “Et cum spiritu tuo” is addressed only to a priest, never to a lay person.

At ordination, the Holy Spirit imparts a special mark on the soul of the man who is becoming a priest, and when we say “and with your spirit” we are recognizing this and praying that God will be with him in his exercise of his priestly functions. It has nothing to do with “the totality of the person, body, mind and spirit.”

If one is praying, for example, the Liturgy of the Hours in a group of laypeople, the phrase is (or should be) changed to “Lord, hear our prayer” “And let our cry come to you.”

I hope that makes sense. Our pastor some time ago gave a workshop on the new translation, and he explained it much better than I can. And you could hear the "oh!"s and intakes of breath as people throughout the hall grasped the deeper meaning that had been obscured all these years by the poor translation.
 
GloriousOrder said:
😦 I stopped reading the text after the director of religious education inserted dislike for altar rails, and referred to head-coverings as “kleenex”. She obviously has no respect for traditional practices and thinks them stifling.
Click to expand...
I think that is a mis-reading of her intent. Rather, she was referring to how some parishioners might fear traditionalist practices being re-instituted. She said there is no reason to have such fears.

Here is the quote:
CREPEAU: I don’t want you to think of this as, “Oh great, come Advent I’m going to walk into church and the communion rail’s going to be back and ladies are going to have to wear Kleenex on their head and oh me, oh my.” That is not what is happening here.
Click to expand...
 
Dale_M said:
I think that is a mis-reading of her intent. Rather, she was referring to how some parishioners might fear traditionalist practices being re-instituted. She said there is no reason to have such fears. …]
Click to expand...
Dale_M, the very fact that she felt a need to give the warning hints at her priorities. I was looking at the second-layer of intent, as it were, not only the outward appearance. Her anxiety over communicating this caution gives us an idea of her goals. We must judge sayings by the proper objects and final causes implicit in them. A cause can be seen from its effects, after all. 🙂
Stitchwort said:
Benay, the phrase “Et cum spiritu tuo” is addressed only to a priest, never to a lay person.

At ordination, the Holy Spirit imparts a special mark on the soul of the man who is becoming a priest, and when we say “and with your spirit” we are recognizing this and praying that God will be with him in his exercise of his priestly functions.
Click to expand...
My goodness, what a huge revelation! I had no idea! Thank you for that, S.W. 😉

I believe in the O.T., a greeting was “The Lord be with you”, and the response was “The Lord bless you”. The mystery of the Spirit remains with priests by their holy ordination. Bravo!
 
Stitchwort said:
Benay, the phrase “Et cum spiritu tuo” is addressed only to a priest, never to a lay person.

At ordination, the Holy Spirit imparts a special mark on the soul of the man who is becoming a priest, and when we say “and with your spirit” we are recognizing this and praying that God will be with him in his exercise of his priestly functions. It has nothing to do with “the totality of the person, body, mind and spirit.”

If one is praying, for example, the Liturgy of the Hours in a group of laypeople, the phrase is (or should be) changed to “Lord, hear our prayer” “And let our cry come to you.”

I hope that makes sense. Our pastor some time ago gave a workshop on the new translation, and he explained it much better than I can. And you could hear the "oh!"s and intakes of breath as people throughout the hall grasped the deeper meaning that had been obscured all these years by the poor translation.
Click to expand...
Thank you Stitchwort, this is a very helpful explanation and not one I had heard before. We have not yet received any instructions on the new Missal. We won’t receive any until September so we are left with questions that are unanswered. Your answer is great and I thank you.
 
Religion and Ethics Weekly is far from even handed and unbiased. They are far more Protestant (and anything else) friendly, than they are Catholic accurate.

I would have been shocked had they actually interviewed priests and parishioners who are actually looking forward to the new translation. But then again, that doesn’t make for compelling news now, does it. :rolleyes:

~Liza
 
laszlo said:
It is a deliberate action to promote disunity in the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Don’t need PBS for that. There has been a very vocal anti-translation component railing about the language of the new Missal for at least the last 4 years and some complaining the loudest are bishops and priests.
 
sambos671 said:
I enjoy watching Religion and Ethics Newsweekly on PBS and they covered a story about the New Roman Missal. We all wait with trepidation and anticipation of the new Missal that will come out later this year. What I found curious and a bit disturbing was the number of priest and layity that have serious problems with this new Missal. It seems to me from some of the exerpts I’ve read that the translation is closer to the latin intention translation. As I view it Liturgy is reflective of the ancient faith made ever new in our spirits. In some senses I think there was a mistake in 1973 when the Mass translation was more contemporary than reflective of our ancient faith. Now that we are going back to more accuracy we can be put in mind of the consistency of our faith reflected in the liturgy through the centuries. Why then the hooplah and the discent of priest of whom some its seems will “bad mouth” this liturgical work to their parishoners? The comon complaint by these decenting priest seems to be that their layity will not recognize or understand what is being said. Isn’t that a Catachesis issue that should be resolved during training, and homilies? One of the things I point to in our Catholic faith is that it is the faith that goes back to our beginings not a new faith containing new rules as is often accused against us. Now that we are going back to a more accurate translation from the latin it seems our case is even more solid that it is the ancient faith. Why then discourage the faithful from its participation?
Click to expand...
Well I can’t speak to the entirety, but I will tell you a true story that makes me believe this.

About a year ago I went to a workshop on the new translation. I was sitting at a table with several sisters (not sure what order they belonged to) and they were very upset at what they were hearing.

One of them even declared at the end of the workshop (after the priest was done and talked about the Holy Spirit’s part in this) “This is not inspired. This is not of God”

SOOOO…yea some are very unhappy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top