Will new Mass translate into a deeper faith?

[Tigg]

This is why I don’t think it works well among most lay people. Most do not have the concept as the priest being brother who leads in prayer and adoration. Among lay people the focus seems to be on the community.

Thanks for your post. I completely agree. There is that moment of disunity and momentary “discombobulation” (for lack of a better word) between those who extend the gesture as a show of good-will toward neighbor, and those who are simply not comfortable in doing so.

So - may I address my previous question directly to you, JR regarding the orans position. I have to agree with louis when he says the Church cannot make up it’s mind about the rubrics. We were all recently told by our pastor (via the former bishop) that we should copy the priest in this gesture, and yet, years ago, in another diocese we were told it was reserved for the celebrant only who is praying in his ministerial capacity on behalf of the entire church and that even the deacon (who assists) may not do it. Some believe this unimportant, but it illustrates a contradiction and if we cannot be obedient in small matters, however will we be obedient in the larger? And I’m one who has distinctly seen, over time and in many ways, a blurring of the lines between priest and laity.

Don’t mean to put you on the spot, but how do you understand this? (Maybe I’ll take a poll on the answer.)

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I doubt it. We all knew what the old forms of the Gloria and the Creed ( for example ) meant. The new ones are just clumsy. I’ve heard the arguments for the change, pretty poor if you ask me. " And with your spirit." may have sounded wonderful to the Latin ear, in fact I like it in Latin but it sounds dumb in the vernacular. The old way was more natural and we all knew what it meant.

 

[MusicforMovies]

Unfortunately, I can’t take credit for it—it comes from a mow sadly-defunct site called the Society for a Moratorium on the Music of Marty Haugen and David Haas, which had dozens of hilarious paradies of some of the more dreadful concoctions the “Spirit of Vatican II” hippies came up with.

Another one I remember:

*Awake from your slumber, arise from your sleep;
The homily’s over, it wasn’t too deep.
He spoke of a ‘journey’, well, what else does he say?
We’re all part of a ‘story’ as we go on our way.

So let’s sing a ditty to God,
It’s a way we can all be together.
And we’ll be the City of God
If we tell his story once more.

We’re all part of a journey, to ‘I-don’t-know-where’,
But that isn’t important, so long as we’re here.
Be part of the story of me and of you,
And don’t worry asking if the story is true.

No, just sing a ditty to God,
It’s a way we can all be together.
It would be a pity for God
If we told his story no more.

So come if you’re ready, the meek and the smug,
For God is a Teddy, he’ll give you a hug.
And take consolation, till next time we meet,
As you go on your journey, God’s in the back seat.

So just sing a ditty to God,
It’s a way we can all be together.
It would be a pity for God
If we told his story no more.*

Oh my… … having spent eight years as a music director at a Catholic church - that parody is rather a bit spot on I’m afraid. As a composer I find that writing for liturgical use to be rather frightening myself. If I’m writing a hymn I use Scripture straight - I can’t compete with God so why try… I prefer the older hymns myself due to theological content; something that seemed to disappear during the 60s - Present day. As far as music style… simple, pure, prayerful is best - at least in my opinion.

 

[MusicforMovies]

I doubt it. We all knew what the old forms of the Gloria and the Creed ( for example ) meant. The new ones are just clumsy. I’ve heard the arguments for the change, pretty poor if you ask me. " And with your spirit." may have sounded wonderful to the Latin ear, in fact I like it in Latin but it sounds dumb in the vernacular. The old way was more natural and we all knew what it meant.

I rather like the new translation myself; if you are familiar with the English Translation of the Pre-Vatican II missals there doesn’t seem to be much difference between that translation and the new one. If we aren’t going to have it directly in Latin; we should at least have a proper translation into English. ‘And with your spirit’ reminds us of a spiritual reality - not just the material one that is implied by a generic ‘you’. ‘Consubstantial’ doesn’t bother me either; five seconds with a dictionary “…of the same substance” solves any confusion. I’m in my early 30s so I’m not saying this as an old timer. I’m all for solid foundations in the Faith.

 

[Yerusalyim]

I doubt it. We all knew what the old forms of the Gloria and the Creed ( for example ) meant. The new ones are just clumsy. I’ve heard the arguments for the change, pretty poor if you ask me. " And with your spirit." may have sounded wonderful to the Latin ear, in fact I like it in Latin but it sounds dumb in the vernacular. The old way was more natural and we all knew what it meant.

I have to agree with you. I’m NOT a fan of the new translation…nor am I a “liberal” Catholic. The new translation’s language is stilted, and to me takes away from the mass.

This is old news, really. The Church has been having battles about liturgical language almost since its inception. I’m currently reading A History of the Czech Lands and back before AD 1000 there were battles about language…people were imprisoned and even killed over this stuff…some thought the mass should only be said in the “holy languages” of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew" though I’m not sure what qualified Latin and Greek as “holy languages.”

I’m sure that by the time my 5 year old son is my age THIS translation will feel natural to him…and when it’s changed again he’ll be uncomfortable with it. Look, if the translation conveyed the meaning of the Latin mass (which it did) then why make these changes?

If the Church wants us to have a more prayerful attitude at mass there are better ways to accomlish this.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I have to agree with you. I’m NOT a fan of the new translation…nor am I a “liberal” Catholic. The new translation’s language is stilted, and to me takes away from the mass.

This is old news, really. The Church has been having battles about liturgical language almost since its inception. I’m currently reading A History of the Czech Lands and back before AD 1000 there were battles about language…people were imprisoned and even killed over this stuff…some thought the mass should only be said in the “holy languages” of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew" though I’m not sure what qualified Latin and Greek as “holy languages.”

I’m sure that by the time my 5 year old son is my age THIS translation will feel natural to him…and when it’s changed again he’ll be uncomfortable with it. Look, if the translation conveyed the meaning of the Latin mass (which it did) then why make these changes?

If the Church wants us to have a more prayerful attitude at mass there are better ways to accomlish this.

Excellent. I grew up with the Latin Mass and it was probably thirty years before I fully recovered from all the changes. Now I am 99.9% reconciled, even if the Mass is 100 % vernacular. The only thing I would like to see dropped is the " sign of peace " the " for Thine is the Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory. " That last bit was never in the Mass at any time anywhere as far as I know. And of course I would like to see Latin restored to the " Responses of the Laity " such as the Creed and the Gloria, Angus Die, etc. Otherwise I was perfectly content.

 

[incense]

I think it’s a conspiracy by Catholic publishers to get people to buy copies of the daily prayers so they can make some more money. Then they can charge more for one with translations.

I try so hard to follow those prayers, but just get lost each time. Pay attention. I’m not talking about the peoples’ responses, I’m talking about the priest’s prayers. I listen and think, okay, I got that, then another phrase slightly off is added, and I think, okay, I’m still following, then another phrase and I’m totally lost as to the point. I feel like I’m listening to my dearly departed father-in-law tell a story. He was going down the street, the one that was just paved, because it used to have holes and a kid on a bike fell because of one, and he needed to get some bread, because Kathy was having a party, she throws a really good party, but the Jones throw good ones too, I got stopped at a stoplight…

Maybe I don’t need to know what’s being said, but then why am I required to say “amen”? Obviously it’s a lie, I only have clues to what was said and prayed for. Now I trust my Church and priest to be saying the right thing, but I so enjoyed praying with my heart as I heard the words prayed by the priest.

And two posters have different reasons for why “and with your spirit” is better. I’ve heard lots of others. It’s a small change that doesn’t mean much either way to me, I just think you’re all full of hogwash with your superior attitudes. I guess I should really be thanking God that you’re rescuing me from being less of a Catholic than you Latin mass people. Your attitude that the people who go to an English mass aren’t quite as holy or educated in the faith as you is coming across loud and clear. Ever notice that the people who speak so much about being religious do so because no one would ever realize it from their behavior?

 

[MusicforMovies]

And two posters have different reasons for why “and with your spirit” is better. I’ve heard lots of others. It’s a small change that doesn’t mean much either way to me, I just think you’re all full of hogwash with your superior attitudes. I guess I should really be thanking God that you’re rescuing me from being less of a Catholic than you Latin mass people. Your attitude that the people who go to an English mass aren’t quite as holy or educated in the faith as you is coming across loud and clear. Ever notice that the people who speak so much about being religious do so because no one would ever realize it from their behavior?

Hi I was just giving my own thoughts about ‘And your Spirit’ as a purely subjective individual opinion. i.e. - what it means to me.

I’ve actually never been to a traditional Latin Mass so I wasn’t trying to say that Latin was better than English. My own feeling was that - simply as a matter of translation - if the new translation is more faithful to the actual Latin than that is a good thing. Words matter.

From a pragmatic perspective, having been involved in several bi-lingual, and multi-lingual masses there was something about the universality of one language (Latin) anywhere in the Western world being used for the Mass. (Not including Eastern Churches which have retained their individual langauges - i.e. Aramic if you are Chaledon Catholic and so forth).

Pros and Cons to both - at the end of the day… the Church approved a revised translation so I obey and keep my eyes on Christ.

 

[ProVobis]

I doubt it. We all knew what the old forms of the Gloria and the Creed ( for example ) meant. The new ones are just clumsy. I’ve heard the arguments for the change, pretty poor if you ask me. " And with your spirit." may have sounded wonderful to the Latin ear, in fact I like it in Latin but it sounds dumb in the vernacular. The old way was more natural and we all knew what it meant.

I agree. Personally I like the sounds of “-us,” “-orum,” “-ibus,” “Deo,” “Deum,” “sanctus,” “excelsis,” etc. English is too everyday. God deserves better.

I’ve actually never been to a traditional Latin Mass so I wasn’t trying to say that Latin was better than English.

The New Mass can be entirely said in Latin too. It’s awesome.