The next several months should be very interesting

[m134e5]

I went to a church this weekend for confession, and they had copies of the revised English text placed in the hymnal racks in the pews. As I was praying, I overheard a man in his 70’s or so talking to his wife about the revisions. He said “why do they have to change things? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” I didn’t say much, because I was just there for confession and had to leave, but it. They’re changing it because it IS broken, and I wondered how readily he embraced the changes in the 60’s and 70’s (coincidentally, when he was close to my age). I think the next several months will be very interesting, to say the least.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Most Catholics probably don’t even know that the current translation isn’t very faithful to the Latin, as most Catholics aren’t on forums like this one. Your fellow parishioner is an example. Therefore, a lot will probably not understand why they’re having to learn new responses. There will be the ones who reject the new, more correct edition with hisses and sneers (read: ultra-liberals). But, I venture to say that the majority of Catholics will just go along with it and won’t even care.

 

[Cat]

Oh, for heaven’s sake, it’s hard for some elderly people to see anything change. Just be nice and stop assuming things about people.

There’s a good chance that the elderly gentleman has been attending Mass for all of his 70 plus years–that’s an honorable record and one that God will rewarrd. And there’s also a good chance that the elderly gentleman has given a lot of money to his parish, and is involved in several ministries, including prayer ministries, at the parish. We should be glad that he has been faithful for so many years, and if it’s hard for him to see a change, well, that’s what being old does to you sometimes. There are young people who hate to see things change–my 25-year-old daughter is one of those people.

The changes in the translation aren’t that drastic, and within a few months, everyone will have forgotten all about the old translation.

 

[James_Trevor]

I know it’s bad, but I can’t wait to see the look on the faces of all the Christer’s when they show up this year and everyone’s pretty much got the new translation memorized.

That said, I’m joyful that we are starting to see return of some Latin roots around here. Next thing you know we’ll be using the Agnus Dei.

 

[Timothysis]

They’re changing it because it IS broken

The liturgy of the Mass certainly isn’t “broken.” It is just being refined to be the best that we can offer. Even the Tridentine missal has areas that are deficient, but the siege mentality about Quo Primum prevented anything to be done about it. Pope John XXIII was criticized for adding St. Joseph’s name into the Canon. Horrors!!! Why does every topic have to swing from one extreme to the other?

 

[hilde_the_dog]

We will have had classes and articles in the bulletin and announcements from the ambo before mass begins explaining the changes - yet I have faith that the vast majority of those who attend will have no clue or fail to remember what will transpire. People are not very observant of things that go on around them unless it deals with them directly. so once the changes occur and they do not know the correct responses they will suddenly pay attention.

 

[puzzleannie]

I ). I think the next several months will be very interesting, to say the least.

I agree, judging by Sunday, they first day we “practiced” with new pew cards, we will find out who can actually read. (think I will offer large type editions for sale as a fundraiser for CCD).

I can sympathize with the older gent, and wonder why when we had a perfectly acceptable English translation in the late 60s–almost word for word with the new one–a committee made up of incompetents (it took them at least 3 tries to come up with approved versions for each of 3 revisions over the last 30 years) had to be convened to mis-translate the Mass. From my perspective the most aggravating thing about the changes that have rolled over us periodically since 1965, is that they keep changing. It is deja vu all over again, as Yogi Berra would say.

 

[silicasandra]

I agree, judging by Sunday, they first day we “practiced” with new pew cards, we will find out who can actually read. (think I will offer large type editions for sale as a fundraiser for CCD).

And who the habitual latecomers are. We are having “practice” at our church for 15 minutes or so before Mass every Sunday. I’m happy to have another reason to push my husband out the door a little sooner! (He would be fine with arriving a minute before Mass begins, but I need some time to settle and collect my thoughts first! )

 

[m134e5]

I can sympathize with the older gent, and wonder why when we had a perfectly acceptable English translation in the late 60s–almost word for word with the new one–a committee made up of incompetents (it took them at least 3 tries to come up with approved versions for each of 3 revisions over the last 30 years) had to be convened to mis-translate the Mass. From my perspective the most aggravating thing about the changes that have rolled over us periodically since 1965, is that they keep changing. It is deja vu all over again, as Yogi Berra would say.

I took what he said to mean that he thought the translation we currently use is good enough.

 

[mritosa]

I am trying to figure out what the real objections are. I don’t mean the “if it ain’t broke …” nonsense. I have heard cited real objections to how things will be different, from a content perspective, but I can’t seem to nail down anything to really talk about. If all it is is people going to be unfamiliar, then it seems about as interesting as a tap on the opposite shoulder.

I have heard, for instance, that the new translation is considered sexist. This seems like something to be talked about. Anyone know of why someone would say this?

 

[YoungTradCath]

I am trying to figure out what the real objections are. I don’t mean the “if it ain’t broke …” nonsense. I have heard cited real objections to how things will be different, from a content perspective, but I can’t seem to nail down anything to really talk about. If all it is is people going to be unfamiliar, then it seems about as interesting as a tap on the opposite shoulder.

I have heard, for instance, that the new translation is considered sexist. This seems like something to be talked about. Anyone know of why someone would say this?

Using correct grammatical conventions of our English language is not being sexist. “The one who…” versus “He who…” or something to that effect. I am fully supportive of using whichever phrases are most faithful to the Latin. People obviously are confusing this new translation in some cases with a completely new missal. I’m not saying you are, I’m just going off observations of others at my parish. It’s not a new missal. It’s just a new translation of the same missal that’s been around since 1970. If people want to complain about sexist language, then they need to take it up with the only default version of the missal, which is the original Latin.

The people who complain about this do so because they feel like the suffrage of women should extend so far into our lives that we have to change the meanings and translations of texts that pull from extremely ancient sources. If someone writes a book, and uses the term “he” to represent an unidentified man or woman, should that person’s book now be edited to replace that word just to please some upset group? I think that’s utterly ridiculous, especially considering that we’re not talking about just some book, but the Roman Missal.

Translate faithfully without regard to things like this.

Additionally, the content is not changing. The content of the original Latin is only being more faithfully represented by the English translation. Seriously, should each translation in each individual language change fundamental aspects of the original Latin during the process just to please a group of people? That’s beyond ridiculous, not to mention it creates even more of a rift between us and our Catholic brethren in other nations. “Oh, my translation says this…” “Oh, no, that’s not right. Look here, mine says something quite a bit different about the same subject…” Our political correctness is crippling us.

 

[Ter1]

I have heard, for instance, that the new translation is considered sexist. This seems like something to be talked about. Anyone know of why someone would say this?

I heard that so often that I decided to check it out. This is the response I came up with. By the way, I haven’t finished reading the entire Missal (I’m as far as the Ritual Masses pg. 1000 and something) if I need to change what I say I’ll edit it, but based on patterns to date I don’t think so.

I have come to the conclusion that those who are calling for the New Missal to be rejected because of its ‘sexist’ and ‘anti-woman’ language have not actually read it. In the entire Missal there are two instances where the word “men” is used (not counting the occasional specifically male usage e.g. Common of Men Saints). One of these instances is the Creed, presumably because the translators didn’t feel they had any right to mess with the words of an official statement of faith that has been handed down to us from various Church Councils. In all other instances they have gone to great lengths to avoid using the words ‘man/men/he’ when speaking generically. The new form of the Fourth Eucharistic Prayer is a good example of this. In the New Missal the first part of the prayer does use ‘man’ and ‘he’, since it refers to Adam.
It then continues:
“For you came in mercy to the aid of all, so that those who seek might find you.
Time and again you offered them covenants and through the prophets taught them to look forward to salvation.
And you so loved the world, Father most holy, that in the fullness of time you sent your Only Begotten Son to be our Saviour.
Made incarnate by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary, he shared our human nature in all things but sin.”

In contrast, the Old/Existing Missal reads:
“… but helped all men to seek and find you.
Again and again you offered a covenant to man, and through the prophets taught him to hope for salvation.
Father, you so loved the world that in the fullness of time you sent your only Son to be our Saviour.
He was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary, a man like us in all things but sin.”

In summary, the words ‘man/men’ (generic) occur just over six times in the entire Missal (over 1,000 pages of text) and only three of these are texts that are required to be used, the rest are optional Prefaces etc. These three texts are (1) The Creed, (2) The Preface for the 25th of March, and (3) The prayers for the Feast of St Bridget of Sweden, which speaks of "the New Man”, presumably taken from her writings. I do not see how such a Missal can be spoken of as ‘full of sexist language’ and ‘offensive to women’.

 

[Ter1]

I heard that so often that I decided to check it out. This is the response I came up with. By the way, I haven’t finished reading the entire Missal (I’m as far as the Ritual Masses pg. 1000 and something) if I need to change what I say I’ll edit it, but based on patterns to date I don’t think so.

Having finished reading the Missal, I need to change my figures - ignore my previous post!

I have come to the conclusion that those who are calling for the New Missal to be rejected because of its ‘sexist’ and ‘anti-woman’ language have not actually read it. In the entire Missal the word “men” is used 3 times (not counting the occasional specifically male usage e.g. Common of Men Saints). One of these instances is the Creed, presumably because the translators didn’t feel they had any right to mess with the words of an official statement of faith that has been handed down to us from various Church Councils. In all other instances they have gone to great lengths to avoid using the words ‘man/men/he’ when speaking generically. The new form of the Fourth Eucharistic Prayer is a good example of this. In the New Missal the first part of the prayer does use ‘man’ and ‘he’, since it refers to Adam.
It then continues:
“For you came in mercy to the aid of all, so that those who seek might find you.
Time and again you offered them covenants and through the prophets taught them to look forward to salvation.
And you so loved the world, Father most holy, that in the fullness of time you sent your Only Begotten Son to be our Saviour.
Made incarnate by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary, he shared our human nature in all things but sin.”

In contrast, the Old/Existing Missal reads:
“… but helped all men to seek and find you.
Again and again you offered a covenant to man, and through the prophets taught him to hope for salvation.
Father, you so loved the world that in the fullness of time you sent your only Son to be our Saviour.
He was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary, a man like us in all things but sin.”

The word ‘man’ occurs more often, 9 times, often in reference to the ‘Creation Account’.

In summary, the words ‘man/men’ (generic) occur a dozen times in the entire Missal (1,400 pages of text) and only 6 of these are required to be used, the rest are optional Prefaces etc. The 6 occurances are:
(1) The Creed - ‘men’, once;
(2) The Preface for the 25th of March - ‘men’, twice;
(4) The Preface for the 5th Sunday of Ordinary Time - ‘man’, once; i.e. ‘you formed man in your own image and set humanity over the whole world’;
(3) The prayers for the Feast of St Bridget of Sweden, which speaks of becoming "the New Man” (twice), presumably taken from her writings.

I do not see how such a Missal can be spoken of as ‘full of sexist language’ and ‘offensive to women’.

 

[MissRose73]

I am looking forward to the changes to come to the Ordinary Form. Now, if more modesty in dress and a bit more quiet before Mass would come with that too, that would be a bonus for me.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I think priests should repeat, until they are blue in the face, that this is the case of an improved translation, because the one used since the 1970s was simply not correct. Maybe people will listen and accept that explanation eventually, rather than make up silly excuses because they are too lazy to figure out why the changes are needed.

 

[Ter1]

I think priests should repeat, until they are blue in the face, that this is the case of an improved translation, because the one used since the 1970s was simply not correct.

So true. A translation should give us what the text says, not (as the 1970s one did) what Mr. X thinks the text should have said. I think that much of the trauma and objections to the OF was fueled by the translation. People thought the ‘new Mass’ did away with x and y, when it did nothing of the sort. I do know that much of what my Father deeply regetted losing in the ‘new Mass’ has actually been replaced by this translation.

 

[EasterJoy]

I think it is going to cause just about as much stir as when the parish has to learn a new Mass setting. The first reaction is “What was wrong with the old one?”, but if the new one has any worth at all, in a few months the response changes to, “You know, this new one is really kind of nice. I’m glad we learned it.” A few people wish for the old one back, but there’s nothing they can do, so they learn to live with it. I do not expect some sea change in what people wear, how they act, or any of the rest. Because the new language is more pointed with regards to the theology of what happens at Mass, there might be some changes in how deeply they understand the liturgy. I am hoping, but I am not holding my breath.

Why? I knew a priest who occasionally asked the assembly a very elementary question about the readings to start his homily. Unorthodox, but that’s not the point. Without fail, people had to whip out their missals to look for the answer to his question. If people can’t even tell you the rudiments of the readings they just heard, how likely is it that they know what the changes were in the Eucharistic Prayer?

Ineritia is a very strong force. Most people, not being liturgical scholars and not being that wound up in the finer points of aesthetics, are just fine with any ritual that remotely fitting, once they become accustomed to it. Even if they have opinions of their own, what they mostly want is to put something in place and leave it that way, so they know what to expect. They’ll grumble at this change, some loudly, but in the end they’ll go along with it, and then it will be done, and they would grumble all over again if it were to be put back the old way.

Still, this is nothing like as much of a change as changing from Latin to English, from ad orientum to ad populum, and from having an altar rail to losing it. Anyone who leaves over a change from a simplified translation to a more literal translation was looking for a reason to walk out.

This is not going to take that long. The biggest round of questions will come on Christmas Sunday, because there will be a sudden infusion of people who haven’t been to Mass in over a month, and it will be new to them all over again.

 

[jcupach]

I’m kind of scratching my head on this. Is “visible or invisible” better than “seen or unseen”? Or my favorite-“consubstational” (probably misspelled) over “one being”. Everyone stopped and mumbled over that word.

“And also with you” vs. “And also with your spirit”.

And what is with the beating against our chests?

Maybe these changes are more in line with the Latin, but that doesn’t mean it’s better.

 

[MarkThompson]

And what is with the beating against our chests?

You mean you haven’t been doing that since 1973 like you were supposed to?! It’s always been there!

 

[Will_S]

I’m kind of scratching my head on this. Is “visible or invisible” better than “seen or unseen”?

The wall behind your head is unseen, but not invisible.

Or my favorite-“consubstantial” (probably misspelled) over “one being”. Everyone stopped and mumbled over that word.

The problem here is that “one in being” just doesn’t mean what the text is trying to say. The meaning of the text, in fact, corresponds to no word in English, so the Latin word was coopted into English as consubstantial. Yes, the word does require explanation. But the concept being affirmed needs explanation, so that’s just the way it has to be.

“And also with you” vs. “And also with your spirit”.

The Latin text is “et cum spiritu tuo” which means exactly “and with your spirit”. So this was changed in favor of an accurate translation. Many other languages got this right back in the 1970s and so don’t have to change it now. (German, for example, has always said “Und mit deinem Geiste” which means “and with your spirit”).

And what is with the beating against our chests?

As Mark mentioned, that has been part of the Mass since 1970. The change here, though, is that originally “mea culpa (beat), mea culpa (beat), mea maxima culpa (beat)” was translated as “through my own fault (beat)”.

The new translation correctly retains the three-fold accusation “through my fault (beat), through my fault (beat), through my most grievous fault (beat)”. Once again, other languages correctly translated this back in the 70s and it is a non-issue.

Maybe these changes are more in line with the Latin, but that doesn’t mean it’s better.

Anything more in line with the Latin is better, because the Latin text is the normative text.