Replies to five objections about the new Missal translation
If you follow Catholic news at all, you probably know that the Vatican has approved a new English translation of the Roman Missal. It will be implemented throughout the States starting Advent 2011. This new translation is not without controversy, however, so I thought I would address five of the most common objections to the new Missal:
1) The new translation is not needed
Many complain, “where is the need for this translation? who is calling for it?” I think the fact that we have seen a tremendous drop in regular Mass attendance over the past forty years should be reason enough. Of course the existing translation is not the only – or even main – reason Mass attendance has plummeted, but it surely doesn’t help. And the new translation is more catechetical: it teaches more deeply the truths of the faith, and we should not underestimate how much impact hearing the same words every week of our lives can have on a person.
2) There will be too much confusion with the new translation
I have heard numerous people complain that the changes will cause much confusion in the pews, as some people respond “and with you” (the current response) and others respond “and with your spirit” (the new – actually old – response). I have to admit – I have a hard time taking this seriously, considering the fact that forty years ago the Mass was radically changed overnight, from Latin to English. If the Church survived that change, I’m sure it will survive this relatively minor one. There are sure to be some hiccups along the road, but I’m willing to bet that by Lent of 2012, just about every parish will no longer have any problems with implementation.
3) The new translation is too literal
Many don’t realize that the translation currently in use at the Mass isn’t exactly a translation; it is more of a paraphrase. When a Mass is promulgated, there is one “official” text: the Latin. Then it is translated into all the languages of the world. When the English translation we use was made forty years ago, the translators actually paraphrased the text in many places, and thus replaced the official words with what they felt was more appropriate. Advocates of such a process believe that this allows the language of the Mass to more fully reflect the culture of each particular people. The problem with this is that we no longer had a truly unified worship across the Latin rite, as our “translation” did not always reflect the same realities as other translations, or as the Latin. By sticking more closely to the Latin, we are more in tune with the mind of the universal Church, not the mind of some group of 1970′s liturgical gurus.
4) This is a “step backwards”
Some (notably Fr. Thomas Reese) have argued that this new translation is actually a “step backwards.” By this they feel that by having a more faithful translation we are moving back to a pre-Vatican II day. Frankly, this is their argument about any change that incorporates more traditional elements of the Church. What they do not understand is that very few Catholics want to go back to the 1950′s, but we do want to incorporate the whole of our tradition. One of the great annoyances I had as a Protestant was that we didn’t appreciate history at all; to us, Church history was the first century, the early 16th century and the last 20 years. But as Catholics we incorporate all of our tradition into our practices, and this new translation is taking us out of the 1970′s time capsule we have been in and better incorporating all of our tradition.
5) The new translation will be too hard to understand
Another argument against the new translation is that it uses words that are too difficult to understand, like “ineffable.” On its face, this is a very demeaning attitude. America is the most educated nation in the history of the world, and some people don’t think we will understand a word like “ineffable?” And even if someone does not, they can just look it up that week and for the rest of their Mass-attending life they will know what it means. Furthermore, “dumbing down” the liturgical language can have many negative side-effects. The Mass is not something we experience once and then never again; we celebrate it every week (even every day). If we use dumbed-down language, we are likely to be easily bored with it (as has in fact happened), and we are going to see the Mass not as something that lifts us up to heaven, but that keeps us here on earth. Language that is more lofty than everyday language can remind us of the solemnity of the mysteries we are celebrating.
Pray for our bishops and pastors that they might be able to properly implement this new Missal and that it might help the faithful to more fully worship our Lord in spirit and truth.
I have a few more (facetious) objections:
1. The “through my fault, through my fault , through my most grievous fault” emphasizes our Catholic guilt too much. Are we going back to that pre-Vatican II notion of sin again? What a step backwards!
2. If people start going to the dictionary and looking up words like “consubstantial” it might get them curious to learn other things about their faith they might have missed. We can’t have that.
3. Some people only go to Mass on the occasional wedding or funeral or sometimes Christmas and Easter. They would be too confused and they might decide never to come back to Mass again. (honestly, I did hear this raised as an objection.)
I’ll buy the drinks November 27, 2011!
But doesn’t “And with your spirit” suggest the notion of two separate entities: the corporeal body and the spirit? Aren’t we hearkening back to the old heresy of dualism?
Maybe we should throw out the liturgy, hire a band like Third Day, turnd down the lights and call it a Church.
Ooh, think of all the money we could make from T-shirts. We could use all that money to buy new folding chairs and put a coffee bar in the narthex.
How much do you guys think we could get for a gold tabernacle on Craig’s List?
Anita,
A valid concern, but let me mention a couple of things that should alleviate that concern:
1) The Christian liturgy universally has included the response “and with your spirit” since the first days of the Church. Both the Latin rite and the Eastern rites include “and with your spirit” and you see this in the liturgical rites of the early Church. So the Church which has fought so strenuously against dualism has never seen a problem with this response.
2) When we enter into the Liturgy, we are in a sense leaving this world and entering into the heavenly world. We are supposed to lay aside our earthly cares, as the Eastern liturgy says. We are to lift up our spirits beyond our earthly bodies and worship our Lord in spirit and in truth. None of this means we reject the body, but we do need to see that our current earthly bodily existence is not the final phase of our lives and that there is something more we are striving for.
The American and other modernist “liturgists” showed no understanding of human nature, nor compassion for the laity, when they rapidly introduced multiple versions of English even prior to Rome’s approval, and they ridiculed those who found it difficult to adjust, or disapproved on aesthetic or theological grounds. Now their ox is being gored and t hey scream like crazy, and to boot forced the process into a multi-year one that has been making beaucoup bucks for the liturgical publishers (someday someone should investigate a financial connection).
Lets not stop here! Return the tridentine rite to OF status and give us the Latin in Latin. you cannot mis-interpret that which is in the original. You mention the decline in Mass attednance over the last forty years; I offer the Novus Ordo Misae and all the other V-II inspired(un-official) changes as a major contributor to this decline.
what is really behind these objections to the New Roman Missal? It has not even come out, yet, by which we can evaluate everything in its entirety, other than bits and pieces thrown around by so-called knowledgeable leaders.The concern projected is over how the alleged simple-minded laity would understand it. And yet, Jesus preached his revolutionary ideas to his simple-minded Apostles and disciples despite their inability to grasp his message right away. Can we not, like them, learn to trust that the Holy spirit is moving through the Curch?
Prefered the Mass, and the Sacraments of the 1950′s.
I never went for the changes when they brought in
that table in the sanctuary on the First Sunday of
Advent in 1964, in which I still remember very well.
I’m a convert and came into the Church after Vatican II. Few years later starting going to the Tridentine (approved) Mass for approx. 11 years then had to leave because of circumstances. Attend Novus Ordo now and love both when done with devotion. I look forward to the new translation. Will welcome the “through my fault, etc” return. I do wish they would turn the altar back around so Priest and people both face same direction for more of the feeling of everyone offering to God.
I know that there is a lot about my Church and Religion that I do not know. I do, however, know what it is about my Church/Religion that I love. I love the way it warms me on a cold day and cools me on a hot day. The words spoken in Church are comforting to me at least.
I for one do indeed miss the “old Churchh”. For me it had more meaning, more substance if you will. I remember taking 12 years of Latin and loving every minute of it–even the minutes I didn’t love I loved.
And, God and the Music Director forgive me, but we could do with a lot less music and more praying the “old Mass”. There is just too much singing–and this from a retired Choir Director.
New Catholics and children who go to public schools don’t know what even goes on at Mass like we used to. Remember the washing of the hands, and the words that were spoken for all to hear?
Enough of me. I love my Church and will pray daily that all who have left find their way back before time ends.
Many English-speaking U.S. Americans don’t realize that the ‘new’ translation will finally match what the Spanish translation of the N.O. has been all along. My whole life, I’ve attended Masses in both English and Spanish, and had always wondered why they didn’t correspond in many simple but important ways. I believe that for Spanish-speaking folks here in the US, this isn’t going to be a big deal at all. For my part, I’m going to try to help people understand that this is about language, clarity and better comprehension of theological and liturgical concepts. It’s NOT about a power-struggle between two Catholic factions.
I’m with D. Morgan! As a late 1960s convert I had to make an archaeological dig for the beauties of the Faith and the beauties inspired by the faith — bongos, guitars, and crude felt banners are patronizing.
And to those in authority: DON’T patronize me or any of the faithful.
The new Mass contains nothing like the suggested changes enumerated by Vatican II. The post-Vatican II Mass reflects the thinking of dishonest “reformers” who had effectively lost their faith to heretical notions before Vatican began. It is a scandal that that Mass was ever promulgated. The pope is attempting to set things right. The complainers and haters know very well what is happening, and so they screech like banshees, offering all kinds of absurd excuses as to why an accurate translation is unneeded, even unwise.
One of your readers stated the “through my fault, through my fault , through my most grievous fault” emphasizes our Catholic guilt too much.
Too much? We don’t have enough guilt to even make a thorough Confession of our sins anymore. Most Catholics that I know have lost the meaning of sin, what the Eucharist is, and even in many ways the presence of God. The Lord comes to us in our humility. Think about the Passion of Jesus.
Greg -
I thought everyone knew I was only kidding! I LOVE the new translation, especially that part! I’m sure the Devil hates it, though, he doesn’t want us thinking we have got to confess anything.
Kathy
Thanks opponents for looking out for all us stupid laity!
I much prefer “…in my thoughts, in my words, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do.” Sin can be failure to do something. Consider Matt. 25, v. 31-46.
Also, something not mentioned by the comments above: If you have attended an English language mass in Canada, you discover a variation in the Nicene Creed. In Canada, Jesus “descended among the dead; and on the third day, rose again.” My understanding is that the new Missal will be common over the entire English-speaking world (Australia, Scotland, Wales, Canada, as well as the USA.
A uniform translation seems preferable.
TeaPot562
I’m rejoicing that the date has finally be set for the new translation. As a convert to the faith, I say, bring it on! I’m glad to say “And with your spirit,” acknowledging that the priest is acting in the spirt of his ordination as a priest. One of these days I hope to make it to a Latin mass, as I’ve never that the experience.
So, your so-called “replies” to objections do not address, or even attempt to address, the merits of those objections, but merely consistent of essentially saying that the Church has been wrong and the Church has been in error these last 40 years.
That, and setting up a bunch of strawmen (like blaming the exodus from the Church on the current English translation, when the United States has actually had LESS of an exodus than have those other nations whose translations from Latin to Spanish or German or French or Italian, etc. have been undeniably closer to the Latin).
Your approach really is not helpful.
I do wish they would turn the altar back around so Priest and people both face same direction
Another strawman and mischaracterization. When the priest and people are on opposite sides of the altar they DO face the same direction. They all face the altar. God is at the CENTER of worship.
“If the Church survived that change,”
…but, you see, it only barely survived.
Fortunately for Christians, Providence preserves the Church even when foolish make-your-own-liturgists all go off on their own little liturgical joyrides for a few decades (i.e. less than two percent of the total life of the Church).
p.s. My condolences to you Mr. Sammons on the Lawyer Bender’s having discovered your blog, apparently…
I am so excited for the new translation. The priest at my parish led a 4-week class on the new translation. The language is sublime! Many of the words and phrases bring to mind Old Testament types of the mass, and tell the story of salvation history. This serves to tie us to our spiritual ancestors Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, Moses, etc. Really makes you feel like a member of the “cloud of witnesses” or communion of saints.
I’ve been to Mass often in both Spanish and German and am very glad that the continuity will be restored.
I just wished they had put Howdy Doody time (the peace) at a more opportune, appropriate time along with the improved translations.
I’m also hoping some of the local spirit of V-II types will learn what the subjunctive and or conditional tense is (The Lord BE with you, not IS with you.)
Good job, Eric,
Are they changing the horrible translation of the Our Father so that we can stop praying that God not lead us into temptation? Is that really something God would do? The Spanish version is much better – no nos dejes caer en tentacion – don’t let us fall into temptation.
Et introibo ad altare Deum. I will go unto the altar of God. To God who gives joy to my youth.
I am not ordained. I have been around for a few years. I teach 7th grade religious education (CCD). One of my lessons is for every student to take a missal and highlight every first person pronoun in the Eucharistic Prayer (pick one). Then we try to answer the question: “whose prayer is it?” The real answer is that it is MY prayer. If I remove my own attention and presence from those pronouns, I’m not ‘attending’ Mass. MY prayer is in English. Since I have not completely memorized all 4 Eucharistic Prayers, it is much easier if the congregation is praying along with me, but I can muddle along or just talk to God when the vernacular has been Latin, Spanish, German, Swedish, or whatever. Is it really “prayer” if I am engrossed in the struggle to remember or translate the ‘correct’ words? I’ll buy a missal after the waves of the new prayers settle down.
Another class is to compare the 4 Scripture passages on the consecration at the last supper. We focus on the ‘imperatives’. Take an intimately close look at Luke 22:19-20. There is no “take” and no “eat” … there is only “do”. If the responsibility for this “do” passes on to me, what exactly is the “this” that I am supposed to do? I pray the words of the consecration, and not necessarily silently. I can even do this in Moho, Peru, where the priest is not on either side of the altar, except for maybe once a year, and who cares which side then.
I read somewhere that in the ‘early church’ the entire congregation said all of the prayers of the Mass aloud. Who ‘reformed’ that?
I would hope to be considered reasonably articulate and the prayers of the Mass fit me well with only one glaring exception … the acclamation: “When we eat this ….. (no, they’re not really saying this, are they?) and drink this ….. (I’ve never drunk a ‘cup’ before!)”. So much for transubstantiation!
There is a delicate balance between ‘contemplative’ and ‘charismatic’. I learned late in life that at the core of every charismatic there must be a contemplative, because what would I do on a desert island or in a jail cell? However, all of you must remember that “we” are the community of the Kingdom; we must love our neighbor as ourselves; we are called to share the Good News IN the world; and that “we” have to recognize that there are “charismatics” among us and, like it or not, they bring a wonderful lively aspect of the Spirit into our midst. Yes, they try to join hands during the Lord’s Prayer, but for God’s sake, don’t kill them off. (Did you know that the rubrics for Mass allow “family members” to join hands during the Lord’s Prayer? Let’s just use Eucharistic Prayer 3 … “Father hear the prayers of the FAMILY You have gathered here before You” and we’re safe!)
Blessings in abundance, all the best, and ENJOY!
Art in Carlisle PA USA
Deal Lade,
sorry, but the Spanish is less accurate to the Greek of the Gospels.
The Gospels say μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν,
in which the negative exhortation is in the second person singular. It’s “lead us not into temptation.”
…and that’s the Gospel truth…
Objections, Objections!? Live with it, accept it. love it like we had to since 1964. I was raised with the Latin Mass, alter boy too, and when it was changed it was as if I lost my best friend. You should have been around then to hear the objections, and I still object to the new Mass. Fortunately, I can still go to a Latin Mass, or go to a Byzantine Liturgy, here I feel like I have gone to Mass
My parish bulletin recently published a comment by Fr. Richard Hilgartner, associated director of the USCCB Secretariat of Divine Worship that explained the reasoning behind the “And with your spirit” response. It is “an invocation to the priest as he celebrates the Mass, a reminder that he is not acting on his own, but in the person of Christ.” The language we will be using from Advent 2011 will highlight this important distinction which the current “and also with you” does not convey to us at all, but gives the mistaken impression we are simply saying you too. With the current language we are in danger of loosing the bedrock of our faith and do not even realize what we are loosing! I can not wait till Advent 2011 and wish we could have started using the new translation this Advent in the Year of Our Lord 2010.
Greetings to all,
I for one am greatful for the New Missal! I am greatly concerned with those that have a problem with it. Are we all not Roman Catholics? Are any of us part of the Magesterium? Are anyone of us a Doctor of the Church? Is Catholicism today, a religion for us to shape and practice the way we would like it? The last I checked Christ went to the cross willingly to die for us. Are we all not to be faithful servants and complain?
God Love You
Another strawman and mischaracterization. When the priest and people are on opposite sides of the altar they DO face the same direction. They all face the altar. God is at the CENTER of worship…
…correction, Mr. Bender, they all face the dinner table that replaced the true altar…
…and let’s assume that your point has even a smidgen of merit…theen why was such a visibly disorienting change made in the first place…if, as you say, everyone should be facing the altar, such was the case for several hundreds of years, why not simply continue it without making such an obvious agenda driven change, particularly one that was made prominent by Continetal reformationists four hundred some odd years ago…hmmm?