was it wise to change the mass?

[YoungTradCath]

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.

Okay, yes. I was under the impression that most Catholics were taught at least the Order of Mass Latin in CCD or Catholic school as kids and teenagers back in the day. Even if they weren’t, is it hard to learn, what, six prayers in Latin? Six prayers that never, ever, change (well, the Agnus Dei did, but only rarely). They never change. Two of them are omitted on some days, but they never change. I don’t doubt that people back in the day were, for the most part, disconnected from what was happening at the ambo and the altar. But that doesn’t mean we should condemn the liturgical practices, many of which (use of Latin) are perfectly licit and, indeed, used today. Liturgical catechesis, starting with the young kids, is the solution, not the wholesale pawning (and I use that term strongly) off of our liturgies to make them more “inclusive” or whatever.

 

[Petergee]

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?

Seriously, has anyone ever left the Church because the words of the liturgies were not “modern sounding” enough for his taste?

I suggest the changes will if anything have the opposite effect. When people go to a church, they don’t expect or want to hear the same type of language used at a backyard barbecue. When they do hear this, it jars, it sounds wrong, it sounds like it is just a bunch of people trying to be “hip” and entertaining, not like people trying to connect with God.

 

[Cat]

To the OP–relax, hang in there. We’ll all learn it eventually.

Do you remember how long it took you to learn the Mass after you converted? It took me and my husband almost two years to learn all the responses. (The older you get, the slower the brain works.)

So give yourself a few years.

Personally, I think it’s very kind of the Catholic Church to not give up on the people in the U.S. Even though our literacy rate keeps dropping, our dropout rate keeps rising, our standardized test scores keep plummeting (compared to the rest of the world’s countries), and our American version of “English” keeps deteriorating into “text talk,” the Church still roots for us and still believes that we Americans can actually understand big words like “consubstantial.” Maybe if the Church keeps believing in us, we’ll all start believing in ourselves and doing better. Wee am smart!

 

[Edmundus1581]

To the OP–relax, hang in there. We’ll all learn it eventually.

Do you remember how long it took you to learn the Mass after you converted? It took me and my husband almost two years to learn all the responses. (The older you get, the slower the brain works.)

So give yourself a few years.

**Personally, I think it’s very kind of the Catholic Church to not give up on the people in the U.S. ** Even though our literacy rate keeps dropping, our dropout rate keeps rising, our standardized test scores keep plummeting (compared to the rest of the world’s countries), and our American version of “English” keeps deteriorating into “text talk,” the Church still roots for us and still believes that we Americans can actually understand big words like “consubstantial.” Maybe if the Church keeps believing in us, we’ll all start believing in ourselves and doing better. Wee am smart!

Not sure is approval from outside America is appropriate, but I like that! Anyway, here in Australia we’ve got the same version, so I guess it’s a vote of confidence in the Aussie intellect also!

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

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?

Translating is as much art as science. In politics, when a non western nation issues a statement there’s a plethora of translators and culturally knowledgeable people who are involved in explaining what the statement means.

And even in the new translation there are still things that are in English that are not in the original Latin and there are still debates amongst knowledgeable Latin scholars as to what is a “better” translation.

 

[ProVobis]

Okay, yes. I was under the impression that most Catholics were taught at least the Order of Mass Latin in CCD or Catholic school as kids and teenagers back in the day.

Even before Vatican II, there was declining interest in learning Latin. If taught at all, it would be in high schools, not early on where it could have done some good. (Perhaps one of the reason for Pope John XXIII’s Veterum Sapientia?) One of the better selling handmissals, St. Joseph’s, stopping printing the Latin propers of the day in the 50’s as the Mass reforms were well under way. That seemed to have set the tone on the focus of the Mass in Latin to reading only the translation. And if you didn’t have a translation in front of you, you might be tempted to pray the rosary, which was heavily encouraged in those days, seeing how the nuns would walk around the church and classrooms with heavy rosary beads tied around their waists.

 

[YoungTradCath]

And even in the new translation there are still things that are in English that are not in the original Latin and there are still debates amongst knowledgeable Latin scholars as to what is a “better” translation.

This is true, but what we have is about as good a translation as possible without bordering on the unintelligible.

 

[MarkThompson]

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.

That’s true, although personal missals were practicallly unheard of before about the 1930s. Prior to that, if you were taking a book to Mass at all it would have been a book of prayers, not a hand missal. (This is why you may hear people talking about having their father’s missal from 1940, but never their grandfather’s from 1910.)

Okay, yes. I was under the impression that most Catholics were taught at least the Order of Mass Latin in CCD or Catholic school as kids and teenagers back in the day. Even if they weren’t, is it hard to learn, what, six prayers in Latin?

Regarding the ability of average folks before Vatican II to speak and understand Latin prayers, I thought the following item from the 1901 volume of the American Ecclesiastical Review was of interest. The Review was a very orthodox and practical journal for priests; in each issue, it ran a section answering questions submitted by priests concerning any number of rubrical, historical, ecclesiastical topics and other miscellanea. They’re actually quite fascinating to read. In this issue it was asked whether the Leonine Prayers (the prayers after Low Mass) were to be said in Latin or in the vernacular. The answer was given (bracketed translations mine):
Resp. The rubric that accompanied the decree of the Sovereign Pontiff with regard to the saying of the prayers after every low Mass, stated that the prayers were to be recited alternatim cum populo, that is, the congregation is to respond and take part in the prayers. Since the faithful outside the Latin countries would as a rule be unable to answer the Salve Regina, and the Ave Maria, in Latin, the obvious sense of the rubric is that these prayers are to be said in the vulgar tongue. Such is actually the interpretation of the Roman periodical, Ephemerides Liturgicae, which replies to the question : “Qua lingua, h. e., utrum Latina aut vernacula (preces praedictae sunt recitandae)?” "In what language, that is, whether in Latin or the vernacular (the aforesaid prayers are to be recited)?] as follows, “Lingua vernacula alternatim cum populo adstante.” “In the vernacular alternatim with the people standing present.”]
In other words, it was generally understood in 1901 that a congregation would not even be able to recite the second half of the Hail Mary in Latin. That’s certainly to be regretted, but on a purely empirical level it should give you a hint as to how to evaluate claims like “most people would have known the whole order of Mass by heart.” It should also provide some idea of why, 65 years later, so few people were sorry to see the Latin go.

 

[YoungTradCath]

In other words, it was generally understood in 1901 that a congregation would not even be able to recite the second half of the Hail Mary in Latin. That’s certainly to be regretted, but on a purely empirical level it should give you a hint as to how to evaluate claims like “most people would have known the whole order of Mass by heart.” It should also provide some idea of why, 65 years later, so few people were sorry to see the Latin go.

On a slightly tangential level, I find that rather embarrassing.

 

[MarkThompson]

On a slightly tangential level, I find that rather embarrassing.

No doubt. On the other hand, I think it is less embarrassing to learn that Latin was never really a robust part of most people’s spirituality, than to think that it had been, but then in the blink of an eye everybody threw it away in a sudden fit of madness. It’s all about perspective!

 

[Newbie2]

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.

Exactly.

It will sound normal. It takes a month to change a “habit”, and that’s working on it daily. Give it time.

 

[pilots13]

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?

I never suggested changing 90% of it. And really, it comes down to translation. The last version was translated from the same texts as the current version is. And I bet if we re-translated the Mass 30 years from now, there would be tons of changes again. Why? Because diffrent people are translating a between two languages that don’t perfectly translate between each other. I came across a video of a priest explaining the basis behind the changes, and he notes the Latin word “quaesumus” which he notes can be translated as “we pray,” “we beg,” or “we beseech you.” I’m sure those aren’t the only three ways quaesumus can be translated. So why use wordy language like We Beseech vs more common language like We Pray (just as one example).

Or another
“Through Him, and with him, and in him, O God, almighty Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, forever and ever. Amen”
vs
“Through Him, with him, in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, All Glory and honor is yours Almighty Father, for ever and ever. Amen.”

Do they not say the same thing? Was it so important theologically to add the word “and” twice and move the “Almighty Father” before “in the unity…” instead of after it? It feels like they added words, just to add words.

 

[MarkThompson]

Or another
“Through Him, and with him, and in him, O God, almighty Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, forever and ever. Amen”
vs
“Through Him, with him, in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, All Glory and honor is yours Almighty Father, for ever and ever. Amen.”

Do they not say the same thing? Was it so important theologically to add the word “and” twice and move the “Almighty Father” before “in the unity…” instead of after it? It feels like they added words, just to add words.

In producing the new translation, they didn’t use the old translation as a starting point and then say, “Do we really need to change this?” You’re right, it probably would not have been necessary to insert an “and” here or there, if that’s how they were looking at it. Rather, they translated it afresh, from the ground up, so that question was not presented.

 

[couponfit]

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.

Visitors won’t notice. We make those “changes” but they are not “changes” in the word or the revelation. Rather they were also the literal words. The church switched to a translation style for Americans to make the words understandable to the congregation. Some countries never switched to the meaning based translation and have been using words like consubstantial since anyone can remember.

But regardless of the translation method, the word is the same. As for me personally, I like the changes because they let me think about what the words and the message really mean to me. The changes highlight the essence of our faith to some degree.

 

[revert_jen]

does it make bringing visitors to the Church easier or harder?

I was talking to someone who had recently attended her first Mass and is thinking about the possibility of converting, and she said it was nice that she wasn’t the only one who was a little confused about what to say next.

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?

Given the number of children who left the Church when it was more “modern-sounding” (myself included), I don’t think the numbers will increase. Personally, I didn’t leave for a church that was modern-sounding, I left for a church that used the King James Bible in its services. Praise Jesus I came back, without regard to the modernity of the language. If the more accurate language helps people to really understand and believe in what is happening in the Mass, then I think it will be more likely that people would stay in the Church.

–Jen

 

[ProVobis]

I came across a video of a priest explaining the basis behind the changes, and he notes the Latin word “quaesumus” which he notes can be translated as “we pray,” “we beg,” or “we beseech you.” I’m sure those aren’t the only three ways quaesumus can be translated. So why use wordy language like We Beseech vs more common language like We Pray (just as one example).

As more Latin scholars enter the Catholic world, another change will be imminent and I wouldn’t be surprised if they won’t bring in as many English cognates as possible. For example, “multitude” for “multis,” etc. and throw out these soon-to-be-archaic English words like “beseech,” etc. which have no Latin roots. Besides who’s to say whether “beseech” even comes close to the Latin meaning of “quaesumus”? It’s only been an educated guess so far that it has.

That IMO would bring it closer to the Latin without actually re-introducing the Latin grammar back into the Mass. But will that make everyone happy?

 

[ProVobis]

Exactly.

It will sound normal. It takes a month to change a “habit”, and that’s working on it daily. Give it time.

It’s good to know that those who formed the habit of saying “et cum spirituo tuo” all these years don’t have to worry about changing habits soon.

 

[pilots13]

That IMO would bring it closer to the Latin without actually re-introducing the Latin grammar back into the Mass. But will that make everyone happy?

What do you mean by Latin grammar? Like actual Latin, or something else?

 

[ProVobis]

Given the number of children who left the Church when it was more “modern-sounding” (myself included), I don’t think the numbers will increase. Personally, I didn’t leave for a church that was modern-sounding, I left for a church that used the King James Bible in its services.

But at one point the KJV was the “modern-sounding” Bible. Didn’t St. Thomas More even make a point about not allowing any (more) English translations of the Bible at the time?

 

[ProVobis]

What do you mean by Latin grammar?

The “-us,” “-orum,” “-um,” “-ibus”… endings that define usage in a sentence. You know, all the stuff the Anglophones despise.