was it wise to change the mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter captainmike
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

captainmike

Guest
i’m a recent convert–about five years ago. i’m a traditionist. i became catholic because of its orthodox teachings. i am not a progressive either religiously or politically.

but i can’t help wonder this, “will i ever get used to the new mass?” i know it’s only been a few weeks, but:

and with your spirit

consubstantial

through my most grievous fault

oblation

under my roof

will this ever sound normal to us? does it make bringing visitors to the Church easier or harder? does it make it more or less likely that our children will stay in the Church, as opposed to being lured away by something more modern-sounding?

even though I love the Church, I can’t help but wonder whether it was wise to make these changes.

I guess only time will tell. smarter and holier men than i have spent a lot of time considering it.
 
It makes sense to me, because it makes the Church more unified. For example, in French, the response has always been “et avec Votre Esprit”, which means, “and with Your Spirit”. So making the English liturgy closer to the Latin makes the whole body of the Church closer together and stronger.

God bless.
 
If you’re a traditionalist, then you should be content with the changes.
 
The only complaint I have is that these changes to the translation were not made sooner. They are simply more accurate that what we’ve been saying.

On a pragmatic level, these changes to the words have helped me be more attentive to what I’m saying at Mass. When I’m more attentive to what I’m SAYING, I am more likely to be more conscious about actually PRAYING these words. While the Holy Mass is obviously ritualistic, it’s not meant to be recited by a bunch of robots.

captainmike - you say it’s only been a couple of weeks, and you’re wondering if you’ll ever get used to these changes. My parents and grandparents had to go through the language of the entire Mass changing. Also many other things about the Mass changed seemingly overnight. One example is the priest used to perform the consecration with his back away from the congregation. They went from receiving Holy Communion on their tongue while kneeling at the Communion rail, to receiving on their hands while standing. They seem to have adjusted okay, and I’m sure we all will too.
 
hannajomar said:
The only complaint I have is that these changes to the translation were not made sooner. They are simply more accurate that what we’ve been saying.

**On a pragmatic level, these changes to the words have helped me be more attentive to what I’m saying at Mass. When I’m more attentive to what I’m SAYING, I am more likely to be more conscious about actually PRAYING these words. While the Holy Mass is obviously ritualistic, it’s not meant to be recited by a bunch of robots. **captainmike - you say it’s only been a couple of weeks, and you’re wondering if you’ll ever get used to these changes. My parents and grandparents had to go through the language of the entire Mass changing. Also many other things about the Mass changed seemingly overnight. One example is the priest used to perform the consecration with his back away from the congregation. They went from receiving Holy Communion on their tongue while kneeling at the Communion rail, to receiving on their hands while standing. They seem to have adjusted okay, and I’m sure we all will too.
Click to expand...
I agree with the section that I have hightlighted in bold. I believe that our whole congregation is more attentive to what we are saying, and I have heard that the older members who remember the Mass being in Latin like the changes because they are much closer in meaning.

DGB
 
I can appreciate your angst, because I was away from the church for more than 50 years, and have returned only about 8 years ago. I fell away gradually when I was in the Navy.
I was raised and educated in a Jesuit Parish, and started to learn Latin in the first grade. By the time I became an altar boy in the 4th grade, I knew what every prayer in the Mass meant in English. When the big change came in the '60’s, I was on active duty in the Navy and only attended Mass a couple of times, so I never became familiar with the English language Mass.
When I returned to Mother Church 8 years ago, what a shock! The English Mass was more like something out of the Episcopalian Church than the Roman Catholic. Many of the prayers weren’t even a close translation! It was like a Protestant go loose within the translation team. I was especially upset, because every Sunday Missal in the US had a perfectly good translation, approved by a Bishop prior to 1962. However, I accepted it out of obedience to Holy Mother the Church.
I can really appreciate the concern of Pope JP II, who was fluent not only in Latin, but in English, when the post Vatican II translation was called to his attention! He immediately commissioned the translation we have now. It was personally approved by our present Pope, who is also fluent in English.
So, be not concerned, but appreciate the beauty of the translation…which is exact in both word, syntax and intent. The flow of the language and its rhythm is very close to the original Latin. You are suffering less than those of us who had to make the change from Latin to English!
 
captainmike said:
i’m a recent convert–about five years ago. i’m a traditionist. i became catholic because of its orthodox teachings. i am not a progressive either religiously or politically.

but i can’t help wonder this, “will i ever get used to the new mass?” i know it’s only been a few weeks, but:

and with your spirit

consubstantial

through my most grievous fault

oblation

under my roof

will this ever sound normal to us? does it make bringing visitors to the Church easier or harder? does it make it more or less likely that our children will stay in the Church, as opposed to being lured away by something more modern-sounding?

even though I love the Church, I can’t help but wonder whether it was wise to make these changes.

I guess only time will tell. smarter and holier men than i have spent a lot of time considering it.
Click to expand...
Noithing was changed. It was a correction of a terrible translation. There have been major controversies over the translation and Rome finally insisted it be done right. You came too late to be aware of this.

It is understandable that what was familiar to you and comfortable being changed to something unfamiliar is a bit strange. Imagine what it was like for people and priests who had the Mass turned inside out and upside down a few decades ago. It was not a phrase here or there, but a radical departure from anything familiar.
 
captainmike said:
i’m a recent convert–about five years ago. i’m a traditionist. i became catholic because of its orthodox teachings. i am not a progressive either religiously or politically.

but i can’t help wonder this, “will i ever get used to the new mass?” i know it’s only been a few weeks, but:

and with your spirit

consubstantial

through my most grievous fault

oblation

under my roof

will this ever sound normal to us? does it make bringing visitors to the Church easier or harder? does it make it more or less likely that our children will stay in the Church, as opposed to being lured away by something more modern-sounding?

even though I love the Church, I can’t help but wonder whether it was wise to make these changes.

I guess only time will tell. smarter and holier men than i have spent a lot of time considering it.
Click to expand...
Let me tell you this not-so-smart and not-so-holy woman’s humble opinion. All those words and phrases you listed, were in the original English Masses said in the late 1960s. It is nothing “new.” It was new to me then, because I had been reared with the Latin Mass. When the first translations came to us, those were the words, those were the phrases, the same as in the Latin. We said (three times) “I am not worthy for You to come under my roof…” because that is what the Latin says, and the Latin says it because that is what the centurian said to Christ, when he asked Our Lord to cure his daughter.

These are not the “changes.” The “changes” were what those lovely words and phrases were “morphed” into, without any permission from the Vatican.
 
Don’t feel disheartened.

We will adjust.

Personally, I love the changes and the challenge of trying to remember to say them. I am focusing on part of the Mass that have been overlooked for too long.
 
George_Stegmeir said:
…every Sunday Missal in the US had a perfectly good translation, approved by a Bishop prior to 1962.
Click to expand...
I would disagree with being “perfectly good.” Actually many of the handmissals had imprimaturs, which weren’t approvals per se but statements that the material inside was free from doctrinal errors. Not all the translations were the same, some using more archaic words than others. (One even told me that “and also with you” was listed in his missal.) And all had copyrights, which meant, except for the Latin and personal use, they couldn’t be that easily convertible into liturgy. The translations were meant as guides only. The choirs weren’t even permitted to sing them.
 
Peggy_in_Burien said:
These are not the “changes.” The “changes” were what those lovely words and phrases were “morphed” into, without any permission from the Vatican.
Click to expand...
Those changes were the previous issue of the Roman Missal which was translated and issued by the Vatican. So, yes, those changes did actually come from the Vatican.

What I don’t get why things had to be so literally translated. I understand changes like “and with your spirit”, but I don’t get why some things have to sound so wordy, or you have to use phrases like “under my roof.” I know it’s what the Latin literally says, but is it better to literally translate it, or to translate it in a way that it both says the same as the Latin, but is also clear, and easy to understand?
 
from my Lutheran staqndpoint (only just now in RICA) and having participated in the mass in the origional way, ( The Lutheran mass is relatively the same as the Catholic. .) . it actually amazed me how similar, yet more beautiful and different the Latin mass was in the few Catholic churches who still do it. I felt as though there was something missing.

I am currently in RICA and am totally enjoying the depth of the meanings of all the changes. In short, it’s abut time…
 
The Mass did not change in any way.

Certain wording in the English translation were changed to reflect more closely their scriptural roots and to conform more closely to the original Latin. Yes it was wise a) because the Church has done it under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and b) because the English is now more accurate and more closely conveys the meaning of the original words.

It is interesting to me that those recently received into the Church and those now in RCIA, formerly of another Protestant denomination, actually appreciate the new translation more because they already know those scriptures and see how the new wording better coincides with them.
 
pilots13 said:
Those changes were the previous issue of the Roman Missal which was translated and issued by the Vatican. So, yes, those changes did actually come from the Vatican.

What I don’t get why things had to be so literally translated. I understand changes like “and with your spirit”, but I don’t get why some things have to sound so wordy, or you have to use phrases like “under my roof.” I know it’s what the Latin literally says, but is it better to literally translate it, or to translate it in a way that it both says the same as the Latin, but is also clear, and easy to understand?
Click to expand...
What’s the point in translating something, especially something as complex as a missal, if you’re just going to change 90% of what it says? There’s no point in calling it a “Roman Missal.” There’s no point in it being part of the Roman Rite. It’s something else. My observations are simple, but do you see what I’m saying?
 
No one gave a “rip” about opinions back in 1969-70. Personally, I think the changes in the wording are much better. Now if we could only convince the “powers” to incorporate some decent music, then maybe I could attend the OF more frequently. Currently attending the EF more and more.
 
YoungTradCath said:
What’s the point in translating something, especially something as complex as a missal, if you’re just going to change 90% of what it says? There’s no point in calling it a “Roman Missal.” There’s no point in it being part of the Roman Rite. It’s something else. My observations are simple, but do you see what I’m saying?
Click to expand...
Good points since this particular “Roman Missal” won’t be used by much more than 5% of Roman Rite Masses.
 
Here is an article in which an English professor compares the linguistic accuracy of the former (pre-Advent) English missal with the Latin originals, then compares the current revised missal with both the former version as well as the Latin prayers. We are now hearing English prayers which accurately reflect the Latin for the first time since Vatican II was enacted. IMO, it is a huge improvement.
 
ProVobis said:
I would disagree with being “perfectly good.” Actually many of the handmissals had imprimaturs, which weren’t approvals per se but statements that the material inside was free from doctrinal errors.
Click to expand...
imprimatur is the Bishop’s permission to print the book.

nihil obstat certifies that it contains nothing contrary to faith or morals.
 
YoungTradCath said:
What’s the point in translating something, especially something as complex as a missal, if you’re just going to change 90% of what it says? There’s no point in calling it a “Roman Missal.” There’s no point in it being part of the Roman Rite. It’s something else. My observations are simple, but do you see what I’m saying?
Click to expand...
If the Mass was not translated from the Latin there would be two ways a Catholic could have any understanding of the meaning of the prayers. One would be to understand Latin and the other would be to follow the Mass being said in Latin with a missal that had the Latin and the vernacular side by side.

The latter method was employed by most Catholics in the days before the new Mass of Paul VI who wanted to follow the prayers of the Mass. Very few knew Latin. A good portion of Mass attendees did not follow the prayers at all. They just showed up and were present. Some prayed a rosary while the priest said the Mass.

The prayers of the old Mass and the old Mass itself were all very beautiful and I think gave one a better sense of the meaning of the Mass and Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary. I prefer it to the new.

But the only way 99% of the people had any idea of what was going on was by following a translation. There always were translations and they were the only way the vast majority of Mass attendees had understanding of the Mass.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top