I’ve only been to Mass once since the new translation and found it difficult to participate. I imagine many Catholics who attend at Christmas and Easter only will feel it is an extra barrier to their involvement with the church. I understand the arguments for the new translation and don’t disagree with them: I just think pastorally, at a time when so few English speakers are attending regularly, it is a mistake to so drastically change the script so that it is impossible to join in. All that Catholic school indoctination has gone to waste! :P

Ronan, its really not that hard…most of our congregation had it mastered in a few weeks and I went to a Catholic Funeral Mass in mid-Dec and every last person there (and the place was packed) had it down cold. I find it refreshing that the Church doesn’t treat us like dolts who are to stupid to learn something new, she acts like she has full faith in the capacity of our intellect to learn something new - I would hate to imagine the opposite.

“So few english speakers attending regularly” - I know not where you are but our Church is standing room only for all the Sunday Masses every week, I wish we had more seats. The larger Parrish in town has to have Easter Mass at a Convention Center to accommodate everyone.

I will freely admit I don’t understand the “twice a year” Mass attendance. What the Church teaches is true or its not. EIther the Creator of the Universe shows up at the consecration or He doesn’t. You either believe it or you don’t - whereupon it effects your life or it doesn’t.  I double-dog-dare you to go to daily Mass for a full week and reassess the change on your life and the place of Christ in it.

Good response Mark!

I don’t really understand the fuss about the new translation.  When I read such doleful comments I want to intone: It’s not that hard. It’s not that hard. It’s really not that hard!

It seems ironic also that people complain of such minor changes less than a generation after the massive changes (and contemporaneous failures) in the transition from Latin to English.

The church could switch and speak nothing but Swahili and I will still go. While it is great to hear the word and prayers, at the end of the day I need the Eucharist, which is why I’m there.  Stop complaining stop worrying and pray.

If Christ could be so humble then we should do likewise.

I was watching a Christmas season story on television one Monday morning in early December.  The story was so traditional; it got me to thinking about the way things used to be.  Thinking about tradition brought me to the changes in the Catholic Liturgy of the Mass.  I am struggling with the changes; I notice others are also having a difficult time.  I have told myself that I should not lose track of who I am glorifying at Mass.  When I have to think about what I am supposed to say, I lose track of who I am saying it to.
I feel like I am being forced to read from a teleprompter instead of from my heart.  I have decided that who I am praying to is more important than the changes in the prayers.  I stay focused on God; I pray with the words I have been using most of my life.  I am 77 years old, I don’t mind change, I mind being changed.  We are in the season of Advent; it is the beginning of the New Year, it seems logical to start these changes at the beginning. 
What bothers me is, I feel, that when we should be concentrating on the birth of Jesus, we are focusing on the liturgy changes.  What is so wrong with “and also with you”?  instead of “and with your Spirit.”  Do you feel that the lay person understands the word “consubstantial” more than “one in Being with the Father”?  Why change the words “Lord I am not worthy to receive you but only say the word and I shall be healed” to “Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.”  This is supposed to be an invitation to Communion; “Lord I am not worthy to receive You” vs. “I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof”?  To me, there is a hint of removing the real presence of Christ from the Eucharist.  This is just my opinion.  Stay focused on the birth of Jesus for Christmas and the Holy Family for as long as you live.  Pray from your heart not from a teleprompter.  God Bless us all everyone.

I am struggling with the changes; I notice others are also having a difficult time.  Some priests are also having difficulties with the changes. I understand that parts of the Mass were left out. 
I have told myself that I should not lose track of who I am glorifying at Mass.  When I have to think about what I am supposed to say, I lose track of who I am saying it to. I feel like I am being forced to read from a teleprompter instead of from my heart.  I have decided that who I am praying to is more important than the changes in the prayers.  I stay focused on God; I pray with the words I have been using most of my life.  I am 77 years old, I can handle change, I just don’t like being changed again.  We are in the season of Advent; it is the beginning of the New Year, it seems logical to start these changes at the beginning. 
What bothers me is, I feel, that when we should be concentrating on the birth of Jesus, we are focusing on the liturgy changes.  What is so wrong with “and also with you”?  instead of “and with your Spirit.”  Do you feel that the lay person understands the word “consubstantial” more than “one in Being with the Father”?  Why change the words “Lord I am not worthy to receive you but only say the word and I shall be healed” to “Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.”  This is supposed to be an invitation to Communion; “Lord I am not worthy to receive You” vs. “I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof”?  To me, there is a hint of removing the real presence of Christ from the Eucharist.  This is just my opinion.  Stay focused on the birth of Jesus for Christmas and the Holy Family for as long as you live.  Pray from your heart not from a teleprompter.

Ronan, I guess I;m puzzled as to why the new translation is such a barrier, given that the churches have cards in the pews giving the responses. I guess it is too much to ask someone to have to pick up a card and read from it? Perhaps they need to examine why they are going to church in the first place. If I sign up for a Spanish course at my local community college then only attend once in the semester, do I have a right to complain that the course is too hard to understand and the teacher is thereby making it too difficult to learn Spanish? You only get out of something what you are willing to put into it. Sorry if this seems harsh, but we already have enough lukewarm Catholics, we need people who are committed and “on fire” with their faith.

I believe the old translation was captured the beauty and majesty of God as well.  Many seem to suggest that it was mere humble, plain-speak, and it was far from this.  The new translation is faithful to the Latin, and is beautiful in places in its own right (pun intended).  However, the new translation has limitations as well.  “he himself took the chalice”.  Common folks, was that exact translation necessary?  Liturgy wars.  No one wins.  I find it SO sadly political in the Church that people of good will cannot be honest.  The old translation had beauty.  The new translation has beauty.  But neither are perfect and need changes.  I look forward to the next round of changes (20 years?) to this current translation.  In my view the translators were a little TOO faithful to the Latin in some places making the English awkward and bizarre at times.

After the radical change in the 60’s when we actually lost our Catholic identity, the new changes are so few and not much of a change at all. However, they really need to do something about the singing of the Gloria. The few words that were changed have made the song unattractive,boring and difficult to sing. I suggest that a new tune be established to fit the singing of the ‘Gloria’ that should be a glorious song to sing.

@Delano: Yeah, I’m a fan of the new translation and I find “chalice” a little awkward and needlessly archaic. The only time someone today uses “chalice” ourside of Dungeons and Dragons is when he or she is referencing The Court Jester. Ah, c’est la vie.
 
What I object to most, however, is the statement and the attitude that the translation “serves” the theologians rather than the common people. Good grief. The very _point_ of good theology is to serve the common people, to ground our lives and enable us to understand why what we do is important and good. The reason why serving the poor is so absolutely necessary is not so much because Jesus was poor. No, the the main reason is that he was “consubstantial with the Father”. That Jesus Christ, in his full human nature, was also God, means that human nature everywhere, every human being you see, is an icon of Christ, therefore of God. To cut those strong and established theological tethers that ground our daily lives to the truth about Christ is to abandon our language (and, hence, our theology, philosophy, and, ultimately, our practices) to the winds of changing human culture, winds that blow at gale-force in this country.
 
The idea that the precise and concise and extremely conservative language benefits theologians is absurd. The educated _do not need_ to be so conservative in their language. They know these truths much more fully and can often articulate them in any words they choose and still know what they’re talking about. It’s the man-in-the-street who needs to know that the word to describe Jesus Christ is solid and fixed and can be relied upon, like the Truth it represents and communicates.
 
Theology is not an elaborate word-game that the church made up to give employment to people not-quite-smart enough to be philosophers. It is an attempt to articulate as precisely as possible the life we live in Christ. Like everything human, it’s complex and difficult to understand, and in order to rely upon it, it must take that complexity and depth into account. To abandon precise language because it is, at first, somewhat difficult to understand, would be like abandoning standard mathematical notation every time someone comes out with a brand new, “easier” way of doing it. It’s not the mathematicians this would confuse. It’s the rest of us.

@Eugene,

I can appreciate your questions and I thought I would provide one answer.  A lot of the changes were explained to me as being more accurate to the English translations of the passages in Scripture that they reference.  My favorite change is one of the ones that you mention: “Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.”

That is taken directly from Luke chapter 7.  A centurion sent ment to ask Jesus to heal his servant.  When Jesus approaches the centurion’s house, the centurion stops him and says: “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof but only say the word and my *servant* shall be healed.”  Christ commends him for his incredible faith saying “I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.”  We echo those words and receive the affirmation of Christ in our participation in the Eucharist in which Christ not only enters under our roof but enters into our very bodies.

I love the new translation and will soon have the words down well. I feel it is very uplifting and our priests like it as well.

I find it quite ironic that the very people who forced the Vatican II changes on our Mass, without any warning or preparation, are now finding this difficult. We believe as we pray.  I BELIEVE AS I PRAY.
We are not so stupid as to be unable to understand the purpose and meaning of these few changes.
I am only 59 years old.  I was in high school when the Novus Ordo came.  As a second grader, I had learned how to follow the mass in my missal with Latin on the left page and English on the right side. 
I suggest to all who are having trouble to look inside and see what the real issues are.  The translation is not the real problem.

Pray from your heart not from a teleprompter.

Everyone’s first attempts at saying the Hail Mary were likely full of stops and starts and mistakes until they had it down. What you are essentially saying is that because learning new changes takes time and doesn’t go perfect in the begining, we shouldn’t ever do them. Well, in that case, we shouldn’t have abandoned the Latin in the first place as Therese mentioned. So I have a hard time believing the teleprompter objection is the real objection.

But, but, but they DID say chalice!  This was the Passover meal, remember?  Jesus didn’t just pick up any old cup.  He picked up the *Passover chalice*!  Precision makes a difference to the meaning.

My personal favorite are the new closing prayers.  Some of the old ones read an awful lot like “Rub a dub dub; thanks for the grub!” overlooking the miraculous reality that we just ate Jesus, and that should knock our socks off.

Ding! Ding! Ding!  Therese wins by stating the true argument against the new translation.  This is exactly what I was thinking until I read your comment Therese, you beat me to it.

God Bless

Over the years since the introduction of the first ICEL translation, meant to make the sacred texts more “accessible” to the people, Mass attendance plummeted.  Consider the exalted language of the Byzantine rites which probably are attended in some cultures by worshipers humbler than in the Catholic Church. Those beautiful and transporting prayers are modeled on the worship of the angels and saints in Heaven, and Vatican II said that “song” comes to us in the Mass.  The new translation rescues us from pedantry.  When the Wise Men saw the Holy Child, they did not pat him on the head. “Prosekunesan” as used by St. Matthew means that they prostrated themselves in adoration. I haven’t seen much prosekunesan in our happy-clappy suburban ““worship spaces” in a long time.

Here’s the problem. Ordinary, vulgar Latin (the Latin of the people) has been translated into an English that is not of the people. 

Don’t get me wrong.  I like the stateliness of the new translation. 

But from a Latinist’s standpoint, something of the simplicity of the original language is lost.  People who do not have very much experience with different varieties of Latin, like most clergy, tend to think incorrectly that the Latin of the Novus Ordo is of a high linguistic register, simply because it is Latin.  Not so.  The language of the Roman Rite (contrast this with the Byzantine Rite!) is relatively plain and probably deserved a plainer translation.

I’m surprised that so many Americans have never attended a bilingual Mass in Spanish (or simply plain Spanish) Mass and heard all the standard responses such as “Con tu Espiritu”, or “Caliz de Mi Sangre” or whatnot. Somehow, that isn’t faith-shaking or non-humble when it happens there—why would it be a problem in English? I understand, it takes a while to get used to new responses (I’ve lived in places with 4 different mass languages), nobody likes change. But it will feel normal in a few months. And if you only come on Christmas and Easter, it will feel normal in a couple of years.

The common people are not STUPID and they do not need to be almost deliberately kept ignorant.  It used to be a whole lot more common than it is now to be at least passing familiar with Latin and Greek.  Why is it that such terms do not belong in our lexicon?  ‘Consubtantial’ is not that hard to understand; ‘con’ means ‘with,’ as any Mexican, Spaniard, or Italian will tell you, and ‘substance,’ put quite simply, is the stuff one is made of.  Why use three, four, or five words to express that truth when you can elegantly summarize in one?
Every church I have been to since the implementation has a helpful guide card.  So you feel like you are reading from a teleprompter?  Well, I used to not be able to string together a sentence in French; to be able to converse with maybe a child took me about four years.  Does anybody not feel a bit out of his depths when learning something new?  This time next year it will be a memory.  Why not practice memorizing one or two spots per week where you can put the card down?  Soon you’ll have them all learned.  That’s how I am approaching it, by putting one foot in front of the other, and I occasionally still screw up but I’ve almost got it.  Should you feel even more motivated, you can pick up Edward Sri’s study course, “A Biblical Guide to the Mass.”  I wasn’t all that gung-ho myself until I went through this program.  It’s full of a lot of interesting things I did not know and may increase your overall appreciation of where our liturgical customs originated.
-
Joseph Joyce—I’m not in love with every musical setting.  Some are better than others.

The common people are not STUPID and they do not need to be almost deliberately kept ignorant.  It used to be a whole lot more common than it is now to be at least passing familiar with Latin and Greek.  Why is it that such terms do not belong in our lexicon?  ‘Consubtantial’ is not that hard to understand; ‘con’ is with, as any Spaniard or Italian will tell you, and ‘substance,’ put quite simply, is the stuff one is made of.  Why use three, four, or five words to express that truth when one will do?
(cont’d)

Every church I have been to since the implementation has a helpful guide card.  So you feel like you are reading from a teleprompter?  Well, I used to not be able to string together a sentence in French; to be able to converse with maybe a child took me about four years.  Does anybody not feel a bit out of his depths when learning something new?  This time next year it will be a memory.  Why not practice memorizing one or two spots per week where you can put the card down?  Soon you’ll have them all learned.  That’s how I am approaching it, by putting one foot in front of the other, and I occasionally still screw up but I’ve almost got it.  Should you feel even more motivated, you can pick up Edward Sri’s study course, “A Biblical Guide to the Mass.”  I wasn’t all that gung-ho myself until I went through this program.  It’s full of a lot of interesting things I did not know and may increase your overall appreciation of where our liturgical customs originated.

I had to break up my previous comment so it would go through.
-
Maiki—exactly.  The huge Latino Catholic population may be wondering what the heck our problem is.
-
Joseph Joyce—I’m not in love with every musical setting.  Some are better than others.

Mark is bang-on with this one.  The Mass once again employs dignified, respectful language appropriate for worship.  The previous usages anticipated MySpace / Facebook twittering / tweeting.

Babel!  We should have kept the Latin, the universal language that allowed us to pray together throughout the whole world.  We’ve been squabbling about language ever since Vatican II.

The gnashing of teeth over this issue is increasingly tiresome. The previous “protestantization” of the Mass was painful for anyone raised in the pre-Vatican II world. The whining over having to make minor adjustments to a more correct liturgal form illustrates how on the entire continuum of our society from the educational to the sacred we have allowed far too much “dumbing down”. As mentioned in another post, visit a Byzantine Rite Mass or my own parish’s Anglican-use version of the Mass and revel in the sanctity and elegance of thess sacrifices. In my world, the Anglican-use Mass would be required of all parishes.

I haven’t had any problems adjusting to the changes.  I think we will all be used to the changes soon.  Gloria Enoch, SFO

If you look at a 1962 missal that has both the latin and english in it, you will notice that the NEW translation is not new but simply CORRECT.  I wonder why they would purposely mistranslate the latin into english THEY thought was BETTER.  Dumming down or wanting to be more protestant?  I would rather have the corrrect translation than an incorrect translation. If THEY would have gone with the correct translation back when, we would not be debating the change now.

I’ve been mulling over the premise of the original objection i.e. that the Magi found the Lord in “humility and poverty and simplicity”, and therefore we should be humble and poor and simple by shunning courtly language (and by extension courtly music, and art [which are also found in the new Missal] etc…).

It seems to me that the Christian has two duties. One is to serve ‘the least of these’ with whom Christ identifies Himself (as the original objection emphasised). Yet in the other duty, the right worship of God, we are more like the Magi than we are like Christ Himself. We do not enjoy the Beatific Vision in this life. We are not consubstantial with the Father. We need rites, and signs, and symbols, and God knows that, which is why He’s given us the Sacraments.

We find God in an even poorer, humbler, simpler state than the Magi - in the form of bread and wine. They brought Him “gold for the great king, frankincense for the true God, myrrh for his burial”, as the Benedictus antiphon for today puts it. Not cheap stuff! How can we be satisfied with offering Him less than the very best? Surely He deserves the best language, the best poetry, we can muster, which doesn’t even cost that much in the grand scheme of things.

I find the notion that liturgy’s purpose is to serve the least among us kind of curious.  The purpose of the liturgy is not directly to serve us, but for us via the priest and with the people assisting through their prayers to serve God. 
—
Jesus came to us in humility, but the Magi did not bring him humble gifts, rather they brought gifts fit for a king.  Indeed, I think we all need to keep this juxtaposition of opposites in mind when we worship and when we think about God.  God approaching us in any form is humility on his part; it would have been just as humble for him to have come as the greatest King on earth as it was for him to come in the stable.  He came in the stable so that it would be clear to us that he came in humility.  But we are called to respond with humility too; only in our modern day would we see that as speaking in the most common speech.  When one approaches one’s king, no matter how humble that king may be, your humility is demonstrated by doing your best to give him your best.

I am confined to a wheel-chair and have been home bound for two years. I pray Mass with ETWN and am no longer living in the USA. I used write and fuss that they used pray the whole Mass from Our Father through the end in Latin. I asked that they provide sub-titles but no go., I was speakinjg for the majority of their global and local congregation, I am quite familiar with the Latin and even can follow HH BXV1 in Italian when he is celebrating in an Italian city, for the Eucharistic prayer since it is obviously Latin-based. I was delighted when the new translation was introduced the entire Mass is in English. I cringe at some of the awkwardness but accept the changes, as noted here, one gets used to them and I Correct myself. My concern is why did EWTN with its global outreach to Catholics and all others decide that celebrating that much of the Mass in Latin and why so many clung to the Latin for Latin’s sake- I understand and reject the argument of the Pius V dissenters who say it is heretical. I would certianly prefer any English translation any day to Latin if I did not understand the Latin. Wanting us to pray with dignified language is one thing and laudable, even if it jars somewhat in places, but not having the slightest idea what the Eucharistic Prayer is saying in Latin escapes me as an acceptable expression of faith, devotion and a means of praying the central act of worship of the Faith.

Posted by HermitTalker on Monday, Jan 9, 2012 12:20 PM (EST):

“I would certianly prefer any English translation any day to Latin if I did not understand the Latin.”

*********************************************************

I know parishioners who won’t step into an English Mass because they only speak Spanish, refuse to learn English and scorn English as a liturgical language.

The logic they use is the similar to yours: Spanish is their language, and the Catholic U.S. is becoming Spanish-speaking majority: it’s not them who should learn English, but that English needs to give way to the majority, which is Spanish.

In other words, YOU need to learn Spanish.

I’m thankful for the new translation. I’m hoping that its introduction is part of a trend to reclaim a sense of beauty which aids Catholic identity and the transmission of the Gospel. What has been done for the text of the Mass must necessarily be accompanied by a restoration of beautiful music, beautiful architecture and visual art. Catholics seem to have forgotten that there are important ways to communicate the Gospel which are non-verbal: images, ritual gestures, etc. Truth, Goodness and Beauty have practically been removed from our vocabulary, leading to an impoverishment of life. Deprived of authentic beauty, it’s no wonder that people find cheap substitutes, whether it be cheap theology, cheap building materials or cheap music which require little investment of the mind and heart. Good translations require more from us, not less. Likewise, good music leads us beyond ourselves to God.

My $0.02 on this discussion about the Third Edition of the Roman Missal is that any change for those who dislike change is hard.  That being said, though a learning curve, I look at the change in the words of the Mass as a change for the better.  I definitely encourage the readers who struggle with this new translation to take some quiet time, look online for the new translations of the Eucharistic prayers, and sit down and pray and read them over.  I took the time to do this, and I found it was advantageous and helped me to enter into Mass so much better.  Perhaps invest in a copy of the New Daily Roman Missal.  We truly have become too well accustomed to addressing our Blessed Lord in buddy-language and making the Mass something that makes us comfortable.  I am glad the sun has set on this in the Western Church(finally).  Additionally, I would recommend to all who struggle with the new translation to read “Mass Revision” by Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers.  God love you.  ~Chris (orthodoxcatholicism.com)

I love the new translation, because I remember it and it stirs in my heart.  I remember when I was a little girl in second grade (1964) and preparing for my 1st communion and enriching my reading and the missalets had latin on the left page and English on the right page.  I learned to speak and participate with the latin but would match it up to the English for each response.  Later some masses were only using the English side and I remember these same words that we have reverted back to.  This is not a new translation we are moving back to the past translation of my younger years.  Again I love it and thank you for going back to this beautiful translation.

I love the new, or restored liturgy.  It is beautiful. Most of my fellow parishioners are not struggling with it and the daily Mass attendees have it down already. I certainly am not worried about the person who attends Mass only once or twice a year. Why a non-believing, non-practicing Catholic would care what is said at the Catholic Mass is beyond me.  The priests are the ones who are working very hard with the new liturgy and the ones I have heard are doing an incredible job. May more of the true Mass be restored.

Why does it matter so much about the new translations in Mass?  I’m just so glad to be at Mass, in God’s House with Him and able to receive His holy body and blood in Holy Communion.  That’s what is important.  And in God’s home I feel even more connected and can talk so much easier with Him.  Meditate on that and on Him, then the new translations won’t bother you so much.

I often hear mass in German and French.  The new English translation bring us more closely in line with what is already present in these translations.

Good work Mark! I’ve grown up with the Novus Ordo and still assist at Novus Ordo Mass. This new translation is an improvement. I prefer to assist at the Vetus Ordo.

I believe that I can participate at Mass even more so at the Vetus Ordo, and it makes me wonder why anyone would have trouble participating in the Novus Ordo with it’s new English corrected translation.

I am probably mistaken (as usual) but methinks that I have read that exact same quote regarding the poor at least having beautiful churches to go to in a grey world in tract from an Oxford Movement writer.

Could be one of those curious cases like when Robert Frost quoted a dying cardinal in a poem speaking about going many miles before he needs to sit down and take a breather.

1) Not only is God beauty, He created beauty, created the capacity for us to appreciate this beauty, and the ability within us to create beauty. What is Church art and architecture except a reflection of the God-created beauty around us?  Is it not natural that we would want to honour our God with the extraordinary talents He has given us?  Sadly, too many of the church barns in which we worship do not reflect that beauty, and, in the process, it is not as easy to leave behind the world and turn our hearts to God.

2) It is interesting in an era when most of us have learned computers, cell phones, texting, iPods - and more, the case is made that some of the poor laity will leave parishes because they are struggling with “consubstantial” and the more ornate language of the Revised Liturgy. I have often labeled myself a techno-minus, but suddenly I have become quite resourceful now that our household has received a gift of an iPad 2. It is, after all, relative.

As for me I love the Revised Liturgy.

I truly do not understand why some are having trouble with, or actually hate the new translation? Whose who post here are adults and as adults they should be able to do adapt quickly to a few changes in wording in the mass or any other document. My position may not make sense to some, but remember, how people took to the change in to switch from the Latin to English following Vatican II.No problem. So why all the fuss now?

When I hear many of the newly translated prayers I just can’t help thinking that this is how Yoda would pray.

The Mass isn’t about the laity. It is a sacrifice to God that we sinners participate in, to glorify and give homage to Our Lord and King for His incomprehendible love for us, remaining in the Most Blessed Sacrament. Why do people try to make it all about their own comforts and wants? Our Lady of Fatima stated clearly that Our Lord does not change, He was, is, and will always remain the same. We people on earth always want things and novelties to fit “our times”, thinking erroneously that God must conform to our ways and what we want. Sincere Adoration of the Most Blessed Sacrament is a wonderful way to grow in holiness and discernment of the Divine Mystery of the Mass. I pray more of the faithful will partake of this wonderful practice to understand and grow in their love of the Mass, and deepen their appreciation of what goes on at Mass for all, welcoming the deeper reverence of the translation we have been gifted with.

I love the new translation. Could I propose the next step be for parishes to start doing liturgical music the way the Church has been asking since before the Novis Ordo?!

Amen, Mark.  I hunger for language, art, music, and churches that lift my mind and soul to beautiful, higher things.  We need a liturgy that raises us up in every way, to remind us that God is magnificent and awesome.  I love the new translation, and now I’m praying for an overhaul of the music as well.

The original argument that your reader makes is the somewhat the same arguement i have heard protestants use against the Catholoic Church; i.e. we are to wordy, we use to many form-prayers, we are to structured. These arguements have their root in Calvin and unfortunately, some Calvin blew in the windows with that smoke H. H. Pope Paul VI spoke of.
I love the new translations and wish it had gone further. Pax Christi

God is there under the form of Bread and Wine.  How much more humble can God get? The uncontainable God in a little bit of flour and water!

As for us, how much can we humble ourselves?  We ask God for mercy (Kyrie eleison).  We repeat the Centurion’s words, “Lord, I am not worthy…” We make humble petition, supplication and praise when we offer up our prayers.  The priest even more so.  The “secret” or softly-spoken prayers are beautiful as well. 

There is a point when things liturgical can go overboard, but I posit that this age is more in line with Protestant and ancient iconoclasms than anything else.  I think we are more bound in the US to “go overboard” when our music takes precedence over the liturgical act, or when it draws more attention to itself than the Liturgy of the Word or Eucharist.  Or when we insist on recognizing everyone for everything.  Let us just rest for a minute in the silence and the beauty.

Just a thought - it is said (truly) that we should be humble. But this is not in opposition to the use of courtly language in mass, for we are not using this language to ourselves. By using using such courtly language when addressing God, we acknowledge in some small way how far above us He is - that is, we humble ourselves. If anything, using plan language in mass is to go in the other direction, to ignore the difference in station between man and God.
-
In other words, while it may be humble for a king to say “hey, what’s up” to a peasant, it is not humble for a peasant to say “hey, what’s up” to a King.

Mass is to be the one time each week EVERYONE gets together to worship a very holy God, our Father, from our heart.

When Isaiah was in the presence of the Holy, he covered his mouth, and said “woe is me” because he had “unclean lips”.  So whether or not our language is noble or Latin-based is irrelevant.  What matters is the condition of our collective hearts when we worship.

As for me, our new wording is so noble, I found myself tuning out - it does not flow as well.  I found myself focusing more on the priest, and seeing if the proper words are being said, like people still chuckle when some say “And also with you” instead of “And with your spirit”, or if they say “And also with your spirit” - it’s sort of silly.

So last Advent, I began to look at the readings more, and instead of sitting in the front row, as I did with the Novos Ordo, worshipping my little heart out, singing and being engaged in our collective prayer, I now sit in the very back row now.  I bring a Bible to Mass, so I can read all the verses that are left out. I’m surprised there were so many.

Yesterday, I read so much of the Bible verses that were left out that I realized the focus of the entire teaching was that Gentiles were being accepted into the fold, but that God will not forget the Jews.

No priest preached on that theme.  For some reason, priests begin their homilies now with either a fairy tale, or a story (true or not true) or believe it or not, a joke.  I get nothing out of it.  Since homilies only last 7 minutes, I listen with respect, and don’t say anything.  It wouldn’t do any good anyway.  Priests don’t listen to suggestions.  So when we are seated, I just read the Bible, out of everyone’s way, and it’s great.

I love the new Mass now, after having been sort of a part of it, for the past 7 weeks.  Not for the noble words, but because instead of joining in with the congegation in corporate worship, like I did with Novos Ordo, I do my own thing in the back row now, & I can really, really learn a ton.
Knowledge of God IS worship!

Instead of saying “And with your spirit” when priests say, “Peace be with you”, I just softly say “Thank you” to myself.  It’s a lot easier, and much more reverant, rather than feeling silly by not remembering the proper Vatican-approved language.  Problem solved!  God gets the glory!

I understand the reasons, and in time I am sure I will not be tripping over the new language.  But for right now I am a tired, busy mother of 8 who never misses mass and often attends without my husband because he is in the National Guard.  You will have to excuse me if it takes me a little longer.  My older children seem to enjoy it when I trip up and have to remain silent because I have forgotten, again, the new responses.  Life is ever changing and we must all change and adapt with it or be left behind. I just never thought I would be left behind during the mass.

Posted by Richard on Monday, Jan 9, 2012 3:02 PM (EST):When I hear many of the newly translated prayers I just can’t help thinking that this is how Yoda would pray.

Best comment on this topic I have ever seen.

The thing about this is, this is not a NEW translation! I found my grandmother’s old Mass book from the 1940’s, opened it up, and to my surprise, the “new” changes are in there! The only difference was instead of saying, “It is right and just,” the Mass book says, “It is meet and just.” So we are not doing anything new at all, just going back to the basics!

I just wish people would stop complaining about changes to the words we use at Mass.  Trust the Church to do the right thing.  It has the Pope, theologians, the Magesterium, and translators.  I don’t know of any person alive who can know as much and more than all of those put together.  Kick back and enjoy the beauty and meaning of the words we now use.  Praise God for the new translation.  Amen.

the changes aren’t THAT many ...  BUT language fit for a KING !  Praise to You, Lord Jesus Christ, King of endless glory.

pax et bonum
Joan

@Susan
—
I love the new translation. But so far my record for doing it right is two “and also with you”‘s in a single mass. I wouldn’t call it being left behind if you mess up occasionally. Really, no one expects everyone to be perfect already, and even if making mistakes means we’re left behind now at least everyone is going stop at the correct translation and we’ll get a chance to catch up. The only way to be left behind in any real sense is to stop moving forward.

Ok…I agree with some of the changes…but am I the only one who thinks of soggy hosts when we ask the dewfall to come upon our oblation?  And seriously….when we quote Jesus, why do we use the word “chalice”....which is not in any Biblical translation I know of?

Love the new translation…hate the new music/chant. The Canadian “approved” chants are positively funereal. Can’t wait for some renegade Glorias to appear (and/or be approved).

I’m thrilled with it! to the extent I bought a daily Missal from Midwest Theological Forum so I can study the new translations and become familiar with them to participate all the more.

I can see where those not familiar with the Bible would have issues and people who attend only at Christmas and Easter may not like it, this is a translation of the Latin Rite (i.e., the thing we’re translating from is written in Latin).  It is altogether appropriate that we have a translation of the Latin not a “this is kind of what the Latin means” explanation.

I love the new Mass.

SO tired of the whiners.  And especially Creasters whining?!  Get over yourself, you weren’t even familiar with the previous translation!  I agree, the complaints are getting tiresome.

Well, I don’t know about all that but I really do wish they had left the Gloria and the Credo alone, the new translation for those is anything but courtly. And the new melodies being use for the Gloria around here is just too difficult for any but trained voices.

It is not, “impossible to join in”. There are countless resources available to learn the new chants and responses outside of just going to Sunday Mass. Even someone such as myself who has trouble quoting even the most well known bible verses, has had no trouble learning the new mass translation and following along. I see this as a “non-issue” - don’t complain, just go to church.

For my part, the problem we face here is identical in every way to problems faced in every aspect of the Church from “how do we evangelize” to “how do we get kids back to Church” to “how do we get attendance up.” There are two distinct ideas of what Catholicism is…

    One “camp” stands for a Catholicism which is sacrament-centered and the primary focus is saving souls by means of grace and the treasures of the Church.

    The other “camp” stands for a Catholicism which is community-centered and the primary focus is living the Christian life as perfectly as possible for it’s own sake.

    Some priests, bishops and laypersons are preaching and living one and some are preaching and living the other.

    The problem is that they don’t blend and they don’t co-exist. They are mutually opposed. As a Church (laity and clergy), we’re going to have to face this problem and confront it. Otherwise, we’re just going to keep butting heads and wondering why we can’t agree on anything at all!

I trust the Church because I am not the master of the liturgy. I have seen a welcome change in my congregation- more focus and yes, more reverence. It is like we pushed a reset button for the better. Learning something new requires effort and any Nike commercial will point out the value of effort. So why not put in a little effort and see if the new language takes you where you have not been before. I thank God that I returned the Church and I thank God that the church is in charge of the liturgy, not me.

Frankly, opponents and proponents are making too big a deal of saying “and with your spirit” instead of “and also with you.”  The issues (if there really are any) are more of a noticeable thing for English speakers as opposed to Italian, French, Spanish and languages that are more related to Latin.  For non-European languages, it is probably a wash.

In 6 months nobody will be talking about this.

“I appreciate my reader’s desire to remind us that Christ has humbled himself and that we are to humble ourselves too.  However, I think he makes a fundamental mistake in misreading Scripture to say that there is therefore no place for the exalted, the resplendent, the magnificent and the glorious (which is what the Mass is intended to lift our hearts and minds to contemplate).”

We always set up these false either/ors, rather than embracing the both/and.  This is a very human tendency.  That we can recognize that we are to be humble, and yet also to exalt, is not a required choice, but, in both humility and exaltation, to recognize the fullness of Christ, the human and the divine, the both/and.

Abslutely beautiful! I love ithe new translation.

I find nothing glorious or uplifting in the new translation.  Others may disagree.  But far from an opportunity to become more engaged in the Mass, the changes push me away, not draw me in.  Perhaps, like the original disciples, some of us will resort to gathering in secret, for fear of the authorities, to celebrate the Mass in the way to which we had been accustomed prior to Advent, so that we may once again experience the richness and closeness to God that has now been taken away from us.  For those who feel equally enriched by the new translation, we will be happy to let you continue to experience that as well.  There is room for all of us at the banquet.

Beautifully said Mark & Fr. Barron.  LOVE the new translation!  Thank you for giving me a way of explaining WHY we’re changing the language.  God bless you both.

I feel bad that there are so many that let a few changes become obstacles in their spirituality.  Many of those that I have heard complain rarely attend mass.  I feel they are using it as another excuse to not attend.
Focus on the sacrifice of the mass, the food that you will receive for your soul. 
There are so many things to love about Catholicism.  Please do not let some translation changes obstruct your view of what you really came to see.

Saying that the language at mass should be only plain English is like saying that churches should be plain wood and rock with no beauty because Christ was born in a stable.

Can’t get much out of it if you have only been to mass once since the end of November.  Why don’t you try once a day.  Then you may get it.  Not that different really from before.  I don’t get all the hubbub.  Liturgy of the Word-Liturgy of the Eucharist.  Same there.  I can say ‘And with your spirit.’  Not a hard one.  Amen, Alleluia, no, those haven’t changed.  Easy.  No one follows the missal during the consecration anyway.  The choir usually sings the ‘Gloria’ so we are off the hook there.  I actully learned the ‘Apostles Creed’ when I was a kid so I think I’ll eventually get the ‘Profession of Faith’.  I know what consubstantial means.  Doesn’t every Catholic?  Santus, looks like they changed the first line to ‘God of hosts’.  Wow!  Not much for me.  Hey, if I pay attention during the consecration then I may understand better to how to give glory to God, the creature of the heavens (pretty vast the last I looked) and the earth and little old me too.

@Liz: “If Christ could be so humble then we should do likewise.”

Yes, we should submit to the will of the Church, as he would want us to.

I am old enough to remember well before Vatican II, the churches were full for many more Masses then we now have per parish,  the seminaries were full ,the convents were full , Catholic schools were full and taught by religious, people went to confession regularly, now people who used to be Catholic are the second largest religious group in the US . It’s well past time that the Church do something!!!!! The Mass changes certainly can’t hurt , it’s about time !!

What exactly do you think the Church should do?  She invites daily.  People have to be open and willing to go to The Church.  How many of us pray for vocations, are willing to let our children be the priests, deacons, religious?  Or do we want other mothers and fathers from other countries to send us priests?
Being Catholic is not easy, no one said it would be.  I believe that by going to Mass on Sunday and receiving the Eucharist once a week is not enough to help us in our battle against daily evil encounters in this world.  All you have to do is turn on the tv or the computer to see what is happening to our young people.  Parents play a huge part in this formation of our young people.  The Catholic Church cannot do it alone.

I appreciate my reader’s desire to remind us that Christ has humbled himself and that we are to humble ourselves too

That is true, and in fact, the new translation does precisely that.  By exalting God more, it necessarily humbles us.  Exalted language directed toward God has that very purpose in mind.  The previous translation, which tried to “level the field” linguistically between God and us, so to speak, did the exact opposite.

Our parish, myself included, still has a bit of practical trouble with the translation - old habits are hard to overcome.  “And also with you” comes out so reactively.  But with time and practice, it should get better.  In fact, it would probably have been easier to go to Latin than try to use a different English phrase.

I would think it would be easier for the twice a year Mass folks - it’s not like they have any ingrained habitual responses.  Now seems the perfect time to change the wording - while all these churches are so empty ;)

I am a convert - now four years into my journey and I just don’t see any issue (grumpy folks).  The way I see it - during the holidays or Holy Days there is a general increase in the number of folks attending mass.  Observing that many really don’t “participate” because they do not know the prayers / responses - the new translation placese everyone on an equal foot.  Here’s how.  At our parish we purchased special Mass Cards so that everyone could track the changes and say the prayers / responses correctly.  Because EVERYONE had a card NO ONE felt “weird” to follow along.  Therefore, more participation! 

I remember this - the more I participated in mass during the process of my conversion the more it all made sense.  Thanks Vatican / Pope / Catholic leaders for helping provide a more accurate translation for prayers / responses.  Everyone else - lighten up!

God, intrisically, is already exalted.  Nothing we say or do will change that.  God surely has no need of us using exuberant, fawning, or groveling language in order to feel even more exalted(though to be sure, if it somehow makes people feel better to do so, that’s up to us).  If you want God to be far off and virtually inaccessible, fine.  I want to experience the closeness that I find through the use of comfortable, easy-to-understand, familial language.  The New Mass does not provide that.

@Carl on Monday, Jan 9th, 6:50pm

Thanks for the honesty regarding your mental image about “soggy hosts” when you hear “descend upon them like the dew fall”.

Note: this is my own personal commentary. I think these words are meant to remind us of how God fed Isreal with the sacred manna which came down from heaven in the morning dew when they were traveling through the desert. It was this same manna that Christ speaks of when he says “Your fathers ate manna in the desert and died. He who eats this bread shall live forever.” and they responded, “Master, give us this bread always”.  So when you hear the, “Let your spirit descend upon these gifts like the dew fall” think of being stranded, hungry, and wandering in the desert. And the priest, in the person of Christ, the fulfillment of Moses, is going to feed you with a Manna “descending from heaven like the dew fall”, by the power of the Holy Spirit. This Manna will bring you eternal life, and this new Manna is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

I don’t understand all the bickering about the new changes in the Mass.  I am 70 years old and it isn’t the first change I’ve experienced.  I find it so similar to the Mass I learned as a young girl that was in Latin.  The wording, a lot of it I find it refreshingly wonderful to hear it again today, in English.  I love the new wording and stop the gripping, no matter how you fell it is still the Mass, the same Euchrist.  God love the priests, they have more changes than we do.

Bob, why do you think that the new translation, and even the Latin Mass, makes God seem “distant and inaccessible”?  I don’t think that’s true at all.  What I experience is something bigger than myself and, yet very, very intimate and accessible, precisely because of the Eucharist, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

You say that nothing we say or do can ever change the reality of God being exalted.  On the contrary.  Words and our posture of worship affect our perception and reception of whom we understand God to be.  It is not primarily the familiarity of the words that provide comfort;  ultimately, it is the Living Word which we imbibe—the Word Made Flesh.  God came not primarily to meet us where we are, but to first meet us where we are and then take us out of ourselves and ultimately exalt us.

The old language was more familial, more “human”.  But does anyone think of this…we are praying to GOD.  We are not equal to Him, we come no where close to His power and holiness.  If we were speaking to a King, we would address him as Your Highness.  Our bishops, I believe, we address as Your Eminence.  We are not cutting ourselves off from our relationship with them by addressing them in this manner, but we are acknowledging their position and authority they hold within the church.  In the general population today there is getting to be less and less respect for one another.  Please think on a higher level; think about whom you are addressing.  I praise God for this shift to a higher language.

I haven’t found it that hard. The first time I thought - what’s the big deal.  Use the cards and missal.  It caused me to pay attention more. Some of the language is pre-Vatican which I remember from my youth.  I love saying “And with your spirit”.  Therese, I liked your comment.

The new translation is just perfume on a pig. Go to the true mass and stop whining!

WSquared, you have really answered your own question.  It comes down to one’s personal experience and perception of that experience.  I cannot fault those who say their experience is enriched through the use of words like “chalice,” or even the Latin Mass.  Words and posture do affect our perception of God.  I find the Mystery is much more meaningful when it involves words I can relate to.  I can relate to a “cup.”  I can’t relate to a “chalice.”  A cup draws me in; a chalice pushes me away.  It’s not right or wrong; it’s my experience.  Jesus related to people on their level.  He told parables about fishermen, farmers. and servants—-who in many cases were people like themselves. The parables involved experiences that were often similar to theirs.  Familiarity = relevance.

Marci: I never stopped using some of the responses that I used as a convert in 1949.  How glad I am they are back.  I will always miss the Tridentine Rite. Pope St. Pius V was right about Changing the Mass. .

I have been a priest for nine years and grew to love celebrating Mass and found that it to be a great prayer for me and those participating in the Mass.  In order to prepare for the implementation of the new translation, I studied and our Liturgy Committee went to great lengths, months in advance, to prepare our parish to celebrate the Mass with the new translation.  I have to say our people picked it up very quickly.  We have worship aids in the pews which most people continue to use. As for me, I find the new translation to be very cumbersome. I do not speak the way the prayers are written and it truly has taken the prayer out of the Mass for me.  So much concentration is required to say the prayers as they are written that the meaning is lost and they have just become spoken words and not prayers. I hope that there will be some revision of the prayers so that they comfort with how speak.

Both of the previous posters named Bob are making the same point I have.  Words gain or lose their power because they are or are not relevant to the user/listener.  Bob R has not stopped using the responses that were relevant to him as a convert.  Those responses were obviously deeply meaningful to him, and I would in no way denigrate that view.  In the same way (same, not similar), I have not stopped using the responses that are equally meaningful and relevant to me.  Father Bob finds the priest’s prayers, as re-worded, to have lost much, if not all their meaning.  The changes affect me the same way.  Meanngful prayer is something to be spoken from the heart, not something that is read off a cue-card.  Bob R can now be happy and give responses that more closely match what he loved as a convert.  I can still find some measure of happiness in continuing to use the pre-Advent 2011 responses that I love.  My prayer for you, Father Bob, is that you will be emboldened to make the wording of your prayers more relevant and meaningful.  The new missal weighs a ton, and hardly anyone outside of the clergy has a clue what the words to most of the prayers are.  I hope you will find a way to work some adjustments into those prayers, so that you too will again the experience the joy you had following your ordination. Only the most narrow-minded could possibly object.

I am pleased with the translation, but if it had been the correct translation of the Latin in the first place we would not be having this discussion. It was a mistake to water down and change the meaning in the first place.
It has also been done with the gospel readings—the poetic was removed.

My husband and I are both parish musicians and have to lead the congregation in learning the new mass music! At first it was a struggle, but as we’ve moved forward we’ve come to realize that we, and the congregation, has to PAY ATTENTION at mass! We have to think about what we are saying, or reading from the pew cards, rather than saying prayers and responses by rote. We actually LISTEN to our pastor as he, too, struggles with the changes. As a couple, as a family, as a parish, we are now discussing the pros and cons of the changes. We are actively engaged in the entire mass. I for one think that is a plus! If you question the why behind the changes, study all the hand-outs your paish has provided in the past year. Learn the “why’s” behind the decades-long discussions and decisions made by many, many church leaders. Difficult as it is, change allows us to learn and grow.

Bob, I think you’re making a lot of things all about you.  The question still remains in terms of why these particular changes, and indeed what the original Latin has to tell us about what we profess to believe in the first place.  There is a difference between “and with your spirit” and “and also with you,” for one thing.  “And also with you” may seem friendlier, and somehow more “relevant” because it doesn’t supposedly “push us away,” but “and with your spirit” leaves no doubt in our minds as to who a priest is and who and what he is supposed to be for us. 

Also, you didn’t address what I’d said earlier about how God meets us where we are, but he doesn’t leave us there.  Instead, he brings us out of ourselves in order to exalt us.  Further to the point, I should also point out that Christ made his message relevant to humble workers and fishermen, definitely.  But when he started in on the Bread of Life discourse (“unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you shall have no life within you”), that repulsed a lot of these same people—those disciples who did not go about with him any longer.  When he turned to the twelve, he asked “do you wish to leave also?” they replied, “Lord, to whom would we go?  You alone have the gift of everlasting life!”  So is this mostly about gathering people in, or is also about something more?  That’s just as important—perhaps even more so—than just making things relevant and “not pushing people away.”  Besides, when we feel alienated or pushed away, how much does that also have to do with ourselves not wanting to give something a chance?

WSquared, I respect that you find great relevance in what we profess to believe when you either hear that expressed in Latin or in a more literal English translation of it.  But it just doesn’t work for me.  If that makes the issue “about me” so be it.  Don’t you sometimes experience one of those “aha!” moments when you realize a new insight into a reading you’ve heard dozens of times previously—-and say to yourself, “Now I finally get it!”  Or have the same experience during a particular homily?  For others, who hear the same reading/same homily, it just doesn’t carry the same impact.  Yet on another occasion, the roles/impact may well be reversed.  If saying “and with your spirit” creates within you a clearer understanding of who a priest is, I’m happy for you.  Since that is not my experience, and does nothing to make me feel the least bit exalted, I’ll stick with “and also with you.”  I’m confident God doesn’t mind in the least.  The Bread of Life discourse was indeed difficult for many to accept.  But nowhere in the Gospels is it recorded that Christ during that discourse also said that one had to repeat what a certain centurion said before following through on that directive, except don’t say “servant” but say “soul” instead.  Feeling alienated may indeed have something to do with not wanting to give something a chance.  It may equally well have something to do with irrelevancy.  And aside from the person involved, who can say with certainty which is correct?

Our church is not a democracy, and it ought not be one.  But I’d feel better had parish priests, such as Fr. Bob, been polled about the changes, prior to all the work that went into them, and prior to implementation.  It’s still not too late to do it.  Perhaps a six month and a yearly review of how the changes are being accepted is in order.  It could be done by the office of worship in each US diocese, and the results given to the USCCB and to Rome.  It would be a courtesy to parish priests and to lay people, showing what everyone feels about this is important to decision-makers.

The Roman-rite Mass starts with Latin- so even if one ‘likes’ to say “and also with you” that is a complete mis-translation of “Et cum Spiritu Tuo”—- “Credo” is I believe not WE believe

I can see the longer opening prayers taking some time to translate, but the parts of the people’s responses are very easy- and I didn’t study much Latin.

While I am all for pastors being pastoral- but if the people want a drum set emotional experience with pop songs and meMeME- they have that with the Protestants. We need to be who we are.

I know who I am.  I am Catholic.  Not a robot.  Not someone who willingly sets aside my uniqueness every time I enter the door of a Catholic church in my parish or any other.

What’s the greaters challenge of the new translation: the people who refuse to embrace the new changes b/c they just don’t like change. When will americans, and the anglo speaking people in general, realize that the REST OF THE WORLD has been praying this revised way since days past. In other words, these new prayers, which are beautiful (if you take the time to pay attention them instead of being stubbornly opposed to them) emphasize the Universal/Catholic element of our faith, that we all pray in unison, the same words, albeit in our own language. Bottom line: readers can complain all they want, but that won’t change things back. Just get with the program people. A little bit of obedience to the magisterium does the soul good.

Plus, the changes for the laity are really not that many! Just a few words here and there. The priests are the ones that take the brunt of the changes, the length of their prayers are what has tripled in length. And their prayers are now more beautiful as well (if you take the time to read the missal when the priests are praying, you will see for yourselves). But in reality, acceptance comes from the top down: if the parish priests are the ones complaining that they don’t want to make the extra sacrifice to say the longer prayers then this trickles down to the people in the pews, who see it as an inconvenience rather than a blessing. Seems ironic that these priests, who are called to be “other Christ” cannot take on this little sacrifice when compared to the greater sacrifice of our Lord. All this complaining, of the priests and the laity just comes down to people disliking obedience, and self denial and wanting their own way all the time.

There’s plenty of room in the Church for liturgies that provide relevance to both the priests and the laity.  Room for the Mass in Latin, in “new” English, and in the English of the past 40 years.  Everyone can pick the one that speaks to them.  Everyone’s happy.  Except the narrow-minded.  I’m perfectly capable of forming my own conscience and can do so regardless of what the parish priest, the bishop, the archbishop, the cardinal, or the pope has to say.  And it’s not an issue of “inconvience”; it’s an issue of relevance.  You find beauty in the new words and prayers.  Great.  Some of us don’t.  There’s room for both of us.

Bob—Nancy Pelosi has certainly not let any priest, bishop, cardinal nor even the Pope form her conscience. Are you in her league too?. How about the 10 Commandments? Do you have your own set of those too?
The Mass changes were so small that it is hardly worth complaining, the priest has most of the work. Also there are far more Churches in this large city that play it loose and sloppy.  Those who prefer the old way (traditional) have always been OUTNUMBERED.

I was speaking of my conscience.  I do not presume to know or speak for anyone else’s conscience.  Whether the changes are small or large are a matter of personal opinion.

People’s negative reactions to the new translation seem to be disproportionate to the actual changes. There may be a greater conflict in their hearts than just the difference between “chalice” and “cup”. There were times in my life and there will be times in the future, when I don’t want or agree with what the church proposes. This is because I am human, an individual, unique, but like all, prone to concupiscence.  In these times I try to remember the words of St Anselm who said.
“No Christian ought to discuss whether something that the catholic Church believes in her heart and confesses with her mouth is indeed as she says or not; but rather, always maintaining and loving the same faith without doubting and living in accordance with it, he will humbly investigate, as far as he is able, why it is so. If he understands, let him thank God, and if he cannot let him not lower his horns to attack but bow his head to adore.”
If the language pushes you away at the moment, focus instead on the intimacy of our Lord sharing with us his body and blood. Pray and allow nothing to push you away from such an act love.

END OF STORY!! Thank you Matthew—that sums it up!

“People’s negative reactions to the new translation seem to be disproportionate to the actual changes. There may be a greater conflict in their hearts” SO TRUE MATTHEW!!

NOTE TO ALL: these are not really changes, but rather a return and restoration of how the prayers should have been from the beginning when the Latin was made into the vernacular. Our parish was treated by a great presentation from Dr Jerry Galipeau at gottasinggottapray.blogspot.com, the actual editor of the new missal, who enlightened us on why these changes happened. As it turns out Blessed Pope John Pail II would travel the whole world celebrating Mass in different languages. It is then that our Blessed Pope realized that what he prayed in one language was not the same as what was prayed in another while celebrating Mass, so he asked for the prayers in ALL languages be conformed to the original Latin so that the Church would pray as one. So, just know that what we pray now in every engilsh speaking parish is what is being prayed in every french, spanish, protoguese, german, italian (insert language here) around the world. I really wish that people, instead of complaining of the changes, would seek to understand what they mean and educate themselves. There are plenty of resources out there, including some from our own Bishops webiste. If they did this, they would embrace them fully because there is a beauty behind each one.

“People’s negative reactions to the new translation seem to be disproportionate to the actual changes. There may be a greater conflict in their hearts” SO TRUE MATTHEW!!

NOTE TO ALL: these are not really changes, but rather a return and restoration of how the prayers should have been from the beginning when the Latin was made into the vernacular. Our parish was treated by a great presentation from Dr Jerry Galipeau at his blog gottasinggottapray, the actual editor of the new missal, who enlightened us on why these changes happened. As it turns out Blessed Pope John Pail II would travel the whole world celebrating Mass in different languages. It is then that our Blessed Pope realized that what he prayed in one language was not the same as what was prayed in another while celebrating Mass, so he asked for the prayers in ALL languages be conformed to the original Latin so that the Church would pray as one. So, just know that what we pray now in every engilsh speaking parish is what is being prayed in every french, spanish, protoguese, german, italian (insert language here) around the world. I really wish that people, instead of complaining of the changes, would seek to understand what they mean and educate themselves. There are plenty of resources out there, including some from our own Bishops webiste. If they did this, they would embrace them fully because there is a beauty behind each one.

1. “...indeed, precisely the wonder that the Magi came to contemplate was not merely a baby, but a baby who was God.” ## As exegesis of Matthew 2, this is very dubious indeed. In Matthew’s theology, “son of g/God” is a royal title, not a direct & unambiguous ascription of Divinity. Mattyhew is concerned with the Davidic kingship of Jesus, not with saying “Jesus is God” - that crude kind of identification is later than the NT. When NT authors want to hint at such a thing, they have other ways of doing it. 2. The reply to the critic confuses how translated phrases strike the English reader, with why they are phrased as they are in Greek and Hebrew. That a Hebrew phrase is periphrastic, is not as such a marker of a high style of language for solemn purposes, but a result of how Hebrew grammar & syntax arranges words & cases. This is why “JHWH tsebhaoth”, “JHWH of hosts” (= “Yahweh who creates the heavenly armies” ?)is rendered as “ho Kurios ho Pantokrator” in Revelation 4.8 - the Greek translation is a *semantic* equivalent*, not a *verbal equivalent*, of the Hebrew title used in Isaiah 6.3 & elsewhere.  It means what the Hebrew idiom, at one stage of its history, signifies.

1. “...indeed, precisely the wonder that the Magi came to contemplate was not merely a baby, but a baby who was God.” ## As exegesis of Matthew 2, this is very dubious indeed. In Matthew’s theology, “son of g/God” is a royal title, not a direct & unambiguous ascription of Divinity. Matthew is concerned with the Davidic kingship of Jesus, not with saying “Jesus is God” - that crude kind of identification is later than the NT. When NT authors want to hint at such a thing, they have other ways of doing it.
2. The reply to the critic confuses how translated phrases strike the English reader, with why they are phrased as they are in Greek and Hebrew. That a Hebrew phrase is periphrastic, is not as such a marker of a high style of language for solemn purposes, but a result of how Hebrew grammar & syntax arranges words & cases. This is why “JHWH tsebhaoth”, “JHWH of hosts” (= “Yahweh who creates the heavenly armies” ?)is rendered as “ho Kurios ho Pantokrator” in Revelation 4.8 - the Greek translation is a *semantic* equivalent*, not a *verbal equivalent*, of the Hebrew title used in Isaiah 6.3 & elsewhere.

Michelle, it is entirely possible for the members of the Church to pray as one, while using different words to do so, depending on location.  The very fact that there are multiple versions of the Eucharistic Prayer for the priest to use speaks to the fact that not every celebration of the mass will involve the use of the same words.  In one place, Eucharistic Prayer I will be used, in another Eucharistic Prayer II, etc.  Until the day comes when the pope decides exactly what words can be uttered at each homily, determines exactly what songs will be sung, what the make-up of the prayers of the faithful will be, etc., there will continue to be differences from one parish to another.  In my view these changes are just changes for the sake of appeasing conservatives who never wanted to use anything other than Latin and who can’t stomach the idea of anyone being allowed to do otherwise.

Bob - I believe Matthew said it best: “People’s negative reactions to the new translation seem to be disproportionate to the actual changes. There may be a greater conflict in their hearts”. If you get a chance, head on over to Dr Jerry Galipeau’s page. You will be greatly enlightened. The attitude you currently have is depriving you from peace at Mass and from embracing the good messages that these prayers bring. Have you prayed and asked for our Lord to help you understand? If not, then this e-versation is pointless. I was too a bit hesitant w/the whole thing and wondered what was the point of change, until I decided to actually educate myself and try to understand why this was happening. And once I did it all made perfect sense. This is not an “us vs them” issue. If you see your faith in this way then you are in for some struggled the rest of your life. May the peace of Christ be with you on your journey.

Michelle, I looked the blog over.  Sounds like there’s a lot he doesn’t like, either.  If you have made peace with the changes, I really am happy for you.  I am more than familiar with the catechesis behind the change in words.  It fails to impress and is not convincing.  All of us struggle through our lives, in a variety of ways and for a variety of reasons.  Parishes also experience changes in the way things are done.  Some of those can be very troubling.  Some not so much.  Everyone finds ways of dealing with them.  Some go with the flow; some just go.  Others find ways of hanging on to the way things were before those changes were made.
I have found ways to hang onto the previous translation.  It doesn’t in any way change my opposition to the current translation.  But retaining (and using) what we have used for 40 years is how I cope.  I am not alone.  And gradually, in many places, we’ll see this new translation replaced with the old.  Thank you for kind wish at the end of your post.  And may I also say, with great gladness (as I do at mass), “And also with you.”

It was been changed to reflect a closer translation, but it seems some people think it was a personal attack.
The priest is the one that it most effects in his readings. Those in the pews have such a minor role, that it is puzzles me that they clamor to protest and whine. Forty years ago changes were forced on us and we managed to survive the test, so now it is time to move on—and get over it.

@Patt: I agree with you. Not sure why people take it as a personal attack. The Church, as our Mother, knows best, and is wise in instructing us in areas of liturgy, how to better elevate our hearts and minds towards God. There are plenty of areas in our life when we can pray as we please, in our own words, with our own expressions, and make those very personal. But the Mass is the quintesential time to worship in unison, and more than ever our hearts and minds should be united, and expressed in the unity of our words, to give Him due worshiop. People who wine and complain about these changes and stomp their feet on the ground and want to continuet to do their own thing remind me of little kids who do not want to follow the new rules that mom and dad have implented at home after assessiong the situation and realizing that change is needed. Mom knows best, as the saying goes. :0)

hah! I meand to say “whine”, not “wine” - On a side note, it does not hurt us in any way, and shows great respect to the greater authority of the Church, and might even help us grow a bit in humility, to give up our ways for the greater good of the Church. It is very sad to attend a Mass where some people are stuck praying the old prayers while the priest is leading the congregation in the new prayers. “A house divided never stands” can be also applied in this situation.

ML, I don’t think anyone who chooses to continue to pray the old prayers feels “stuck” in any way.  I suspect they find it both meaningful and empowering or they would not willingly continue to do so.  If the Church were to declare at some future point in time that we should all say “Mambo dogface to the banana patch” whenever the priest says, “The Lord be with you,” would you be equally quick to accept that and declare that this is another instance of the Church knowing best?  There are many ways in which people can express their unity, but I don’t think God is going to direct a temper tantrum at those of us who still say, “And also with you.”

ML, it looks as though some are not going to let it go, so your comment about people acting childish and immature since they did not get their way—does apply to them.  Almost comical.

Oh come on, Patt!  Childish?  Immature?  Is that how you characterize everyone who has an opinion different from yours?  What a dull world it would be if everyone had the same thoughts and opinions.

Actually, it would be kind of nice if all Catholics at least had the same opinion and thoughts when it came to worship and following the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Heck, I would settle on them just knowing the faith.  It has been the free for all with those thoughts and opinions in our liturgies and music and Masses that have brought us to such luke warm worship and lack of reverence in our churches. So as far as the restored translations of the liturgy go, if you can’t handle it, yes, you are immature and childish. Grow up and remember where you are and why.

The spiritual works of mercy are:

•To instruct the ignorant;
•To counsel the doubtful;
•To admonish sinners;
•To bear wrongs patiently;
•To forgive offences willingly;
•To comfort the afflicted;
•To pray for the living and the dead.
r

Deb, I agree. While I was working (recently retired) not one “Catholic” I met, at least 10 to 20—knew the first thing about the Faith. Others had not been instructed and had become Mormons or Protestants. So yes, when the ball was dropped after Vatican II—it seems the Faith was no longer taught. It is VERY SAD. These Catholics would come to me with questions (since I have taught a CCE class for the past 18 years). I would love to see UNITY brought back.

@Bob(postJan 16, 2012 8:17 PM) Actually, since I am not a priest, is it perfectly legit for you to tell me “and also with you”. If I were a priest, then the correct response would be, as we now say and is accordance with the latin original text   “And with your spirit”. Why? Because when the priest tells us “the peace of the Lord be with you”, he is acting in the person of Christ, in persona cristi, so therefore we wish peace back to the spirit of Christ w/in him. What a beautiful way to acknowledge the presence of Christ in our priests!!
@Patt(post Jan 17)- I agree, it is quite comical. Obedience and humility to the greater authority of the Church (ie:in situations like these) have paved the road of many saints!

Objection to the new translation is not limited to coming from the laity.  The number of priests who oppose the wording changes is greater than you may think.  But then I suppose there are some here who would take great pleasure in carrying their own 20-pound edition of the missal to mass and ensuring the priest said every prayer “correctly.”  No doubt such people would also immediately text any “transgressions” the priest made directly to the bishop, along with a call for immediate censure and removal of any priest who dare say anything incorrectly.

Deb, I don’t know how it’s possible for all Catholics (or anyone for that matter) to have the same opinions on worship and Church doctrine.  We are not programmed robots, incapable of personal decision-making.  We are human beings, delightfully diverse, and that is worthy of great celebration.  I don’t share your opinon that diversity leads to lukewarm worship and lack of relevance.  I find that it does just the opposite.  We can agree to disagree.  But there is nothing immature or childish about either of our points of view.

Michelle, I appreciate that you find beauty and relevance in “and with your spirit.”  I find beauty and relevance in “and also with you.”  I have never heard a priest say anything like, “Gee I’ve hated hearing ‘and also with you’ four times every mass the past 40 years.  Don’t you dare ever say that again!”

Bob, you worry me. To believe that we choose to follow matters of the Church and our Faith based on personal opinion and feelings is a slippery slope to head down. That’s what Cafeteria Catholicism is all about, and it has done no good to the Body of Christ. Where is the best place for a vacation? What is the best minivan? What is the most delicious restaurant? Who is the best football team? Is apple pie better than pumpkin pie? THOSE are matters of personal opinion. But not matters of the Church. Now, this is not to say that we can’t have personal reservations about certain things, but that is WAY DIFFERENT than saying “well my opinion is that I don’t like this and therefore I will not follow it”. Using that logic, Christ could have said “well, I don’t like this idea of the crucifixion, I don’t agree with it, therefore I will not do it”, and that would have been the end of our salvation story for sure! Or look at Mary, she didn’t understand when the angel Gabriel announced to her that she would bear God’s Son. But she embraced this, and humbly accepted this plan for her. She could have said “well, this makes no sense, therefor I will not do this” and end of story there too. I guess the important thing to realize is that even when we don’t understand something that the Church asks of us, we should want to, in right conscience and out of love for Her, defer to Her greater authority invested upon Her and leaders of the Church (Pope, Priests, Bishops) by Jesus Christ Himself. She is guided by the Holy Spirit. To willingly and stubbornly refuse to embrace what our Church leaders are handing to us ultimately harms us as members of the body of Christ and affects the Church at large. “Lord, help my unbelief” is a good prayer to keep on hand when we are struggling w/something. I pray you will once day come to that understanding.

Michelle, Deb, and ML—as you may have noticed a certain immature, character wants his way. So I guess the only motherly, kind thing to do is let him get in the last word before he has a tantrum. I am glad the translation was corrected to better reflect the Latin, I support the Magisterium and hope even more corrections are made. As for the minute amount of priests that have opposed it, they are still required to honor the changes. God bless you and thanks be to God for our One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith.

ML, the argument that one must always defer to the authority invested in Church leaders is the same that has been used to defend those who used that authority to engage in sexually abusive actions that literally destroyed lives.  I know what you are thinking—-there is no comparison between word changes and sexual abuse.  To which I would respond, there is no comparison between word changes and Christ’s acceptance of the crucifixion.  Let me hasten to add, Patt, that I am not having a tantrum, nor am I determined to get in the last word.  However this discussion ends, the likelihood that any of us will have changed our minds is remote.  And that’s fine.  Re-read my earlier posts.  I shared my views.  You have shared yours.  That’s the purpose of a forum.  To engage in civil discussion without resorting to labeling those with whom you disagree “immature characters.”  I was courteous and respectful of those with a different perspective.  Some responded in kind; others not so much.  I recognize and accept that there are those who willingly go along with anything a Church leader says, simiply because that person is a Church leader.  That’s their decision.  I require more than that.  And there’s room at the table for all of us.

Yes, Bob—there are lots of “cafeteria Catholics” at the table.

Bob - it is not an issue of MY views vs YOUR views. It is about what the Church asks of us, in Her knowledge and in Her wisdom, that will strengthen our faith. I hope one day our Lord floods your heart with so much love that you will freely choose to do what His spouse, the Church, asks of you, and let go of so much resentment that you seem to carry inside of you.
Patt, Debb and Michelle,let’s pray for our friend Bob - In today’s Gospel Jesus rebukes the pharisees for their hardness of heart, and all I could think about was Bob. And of course we need to pray for our priests, because they are the ones that need to set the good example for us. :0(
In closing, I would like to share, Prayer over the offerings - new translation - ” O Lord ... bestow graciously on us, we pray, the gift of unity and peace in your Church”

So many varied opinions and stated with such passion.  Isn’t it exciting to be back in the same situation we were in the mid sixties and early seventies?  Just like a stuck record!  I and all the priests I know dislike intensely the New Roman Missal, which by the way, isn’t really a missal at all but a Sacramentary and a very heavy one.  A missal contains all the texts required for the celebration of Mass.  How could our bishops, leaders and advocates of the people of God, thrust upon us this pompous, foppish book?I can imagine a bunch of Englishmen in powdered wigs reading it aloud with great joy.  Why were we allowed to use the beloved Novus Ordo Sacramentary for so long if this is what the Church wanted of us?  I don’t think this is good for any of us.  We are supposed to enter into the Mystery of God at mass, not be alienated by the wording of the prayers, which are a mystery in themselves.  It would seem that someone was aiming at using a lot of words and constructing enormously complex sentences with lots of commas.  They succeeded! I would like to return to the Sacramentary.  Why can’t we?  The militant traditionalists and the Anglicans were able to get what they wanted, so why can’t we?  Why wan’t we just start back using the sacramentary and await the discipline from the bishops.  They weren’t for much discipline in the past, so maybe they would just overlook a little dissent like they did over the past 40 years one more time.  I don’t expect to warm up to the New Missal any time soon.  Why do we have to place so much emphasis on the Latin Missal?  Who canonized Latin anyway?  The early Christians hated the Romans and their language!

May I as an English Catholic add to your very interesting forum.  I do not like many aspects of the new translation and I very much fear what our liturgy will be like when the Committees have re-translated the prayers of the Mass.  I used to find following the various Eucharistic Prayers a spiritual experience. No I find most of them wooden and lacking in spirituality.  I agree with Bob that there is room for difference in the Church - there are, after all “many rooms in my father’s house.  There are already a number of different litugical norms used in the Universal Church, particularly in England and Wales where we have the Ordinariate with their own liturgy. In the prayers of the Mass we pray to and praise God. In my opinion we should be allowed to do so in language that we know and understand and which moves us. We should not be tied to a wooden translation of the Latin.

@Fr. Dennis:

The ‘60s and ‘70s are over, and soon your generation’s project to remake the Church in your own image and likeness will be as well.

I will salute you with a tip of my powdered wig on your way out the door.

And then there were those who thought the first people to call themselves Christians would soon be out the door.  A funny thing happened.  Christians forgot to pay attention to them.

@Ronan:

The problem, actually, is that so much of the recent Catholic ‘indoctrination’ has been inaccurate.

This translation is the first step in putting right a lot of went wrong with the so-called the Mass of Vatican II. Check out www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/fessio_massv2_1_jan05.asp           Would anyone suggest that we translate Shakespeare into “modern” English? The beauty and the poetry, among other things would be lost. That’s what happened with the translation we’ve been using. Did the “old” translation say “sacred mysteries” to you? It said Cliff Notes to me.
The English translation we’ve been using is not only pedestrian and clumsy but theologically iffy. The accurate Nice Creed we have now is absolutely brilliant catechesis. That’s probably the reason that the “spirit of Vatican II”-ists hate the new translation. The Roman Canon (1st Eucharistic Prayer) is so richly poetic, solemn: order our days in your peace and command that we be delivered from eternal damnation. Compare the old and the new - what a lovely, reverent difference! I could weep!
  Fr. Brian Van Hove has a brilliant explanation for some of the “bad” theology in the liturgy. See “The Bitter Fruits of a Fashionable, Unserious Liturgist” : www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2010/bvhove_hovda_apr10.html A partial explanation of why so many Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence!  By the way, the French, Italian, and Spanish have been saying
“And with Your Spirit” for years. That’s what the Credo says. It’s what the authors of the Creed intended. They were acknowledging the fact the priest is acting in the place of Christ, through the action of the Holy Spirit. “And with You” is not only an inaccurate translation but bad doctrine about who and what a priest is and does.

The translation we had been using indeed did say “sacred mysteries” to me.

This translation is the first step in putting right a lot of went wrong with the so-called the Mass of Vatican II.

Right. 

It is wonderful to have the older responses restored to the Mass.  I am also glad to see the acclamation “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again” jettisoned.  It had no prior precedent in the Roman liturgy and needed to be removed.

The restored Mass texts are like a breath of fresh air.

Christine

This strangely old ‘new’ translation is a stumbling block to true prayer. Its convoluted and verbose style stands in the way of Jesus’s prophecy that we shall worship ‘in spirit and in truth’. The new translation indeed uses ‘courtly’ language…The language, perhaps of a Renaissance European court, the language of the fearful worldly subject addressed to a tyrant. But Jesus’s kingdom, as he said himself, is ‘not of this world’!
Jesus himself used ordinary straightforward language, the Aramaic of the common man. He even addressed his heavenly father in straight-forward language; he certainly didn’t ‘dare’ his disciples to say the ‘Our Father’!

I loved the Mass before this translation.  Now I either say the former words quietly to myself or I remain silent.  My husband (a convert) is convinced it was a ploy to take attention off abusive priests.

Maybe he’s right.

Christine21449’s husband makes a salient point.  When the new liturgy began 15 years ago, society throughout the developed world was different.

While the Vatican was busy producing new words for us to say from cardboard stock, “worship aids” we read to God every Sunday at Mass, Spain endorsed same-sex marriage.

Here in the US, those of us that are Pro-Life (churches AND business owners) are looking at being FORCED to violate our conscience due to the imposition of the HHS mandate.  The senate upheld it today.  This will be a hurdle.

Did bishops see this coming? (I doubt it) I think they had tunnel vision, knowing an internal church crises was about to hit.  I first heard about Fr. Marcial Maciel’s case 10 years ago, and by that time, it was old news to the Vatican.  So I too, think the new Mass translation is merely a diversion.

Although, the US bishops seem to be acting in good faith right now, and they are wise to build bridges alongside like minded non-Catholics, like Cardinal Dolan has done with the people from the Manhattan Declaration, an effort that would preserve Traditional Marriage.

Right now, I think it’s important to focus on matters of Eternal Value, and in creating an American society that will honor God.  We need to support and encourage our bishops, so that they will step to the plate and LEAD, as they were intended to do.

Leaders are also collaborative, team players with others of LIKE-MIND, like the people from the Manhattan Declaration.  In this moral battle we face for American religious liberty, there ought to be no one clammoring to be “King of the Hill.”  The only King is Jesus.

New translations is lousy!

This is a very poor translation that takes me away from God.  The mass has really lost its “vertical dimensions.”  I pray to God everytime I go to Mass that the God will send us wise bishops with a wise Pope who will provide us with a decent translation in my language.  The very strange use of the “chalice,” instead of the more accurate and dignified “cup” really takes aways from the Mass.  It is comical to think of Jesus raising a gold jeweled encrusted goblet at the Last Supper.  Didn’t anyone in the Vatican see “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade?”

The common man speaks! I am glad he did not sit on the board while the accurate translation was made.

Also, don’t you really miss the most beautiful and meaningful of the old Eucharistic Acclaimations:
“Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again.”  They even changed the wording on the other acclaimations to make then harder to acclaim!  Go figure.

No. The more ACCURATE translation is better. More elevating, after all it is directed to God, not man. Get over it.

Wow, Thomas….really?  The Mass according to Indiana Jones?!  I can tell you’re a really serious, thinking Catholic.

The new minor versions of the mass are ridiculous & awkward.Were now confessing Jesus went to hell——a place of damnation when we recite the Apostles CREED.sOMEBODY MIGHT SAY HELL IS A PLACE OF THE DEAD IN THIS TRANSLATION,YES THAT IS CORRECT BUT HELL IN TODAYS CULTURE/LANGUAGE IS UNDERSTOOD as a place of damnation.If people are saying we should change it to reflect the exact nature of scripture,then they^ll have no problem not calling a priest or pope father since christ claimed do not call anyone father except for your Father in heaven,the mass should be said in aramaic,Jesus language at the time.Thes pre vatican ii reactionaries want to go back to where a priest mumbled words at mass with his back turned against the people & have these same people pray the rosary at the same time cause they didn^t know what was going on to begin with.Hopefully a more consultative & collegial pope will come into election & put an end to thisuseless tinkering & tackle the real issues in the church. amen

The Apostles Creed is usually only said in churches where the pastor figures the members aren’t capable of actually memorizing the restored version of the Creed.
Kim, the language of the Mass was restored to what it was before it was very badly translated from the Latin Mass into the English. It has nothing to do with the exact nature of scripture at all and by the example you gave, you have no understanding of scripture eithe. You might want to take some Catholic Bible study courses and read the Catechism and then maybe these minor changes won’t be so difficult for you to understand.  God Bless and Good Luck.

The new translation, despite all the rah-rah hype, has been a total failure.  It is a Latinized translation grammatically, which simply doesn’t work when your language is Anglo-Saxon in origin.  The superabundance of phrases and clauses causes the priests to lose track of what is being expressed in the sentence.  Their hesitation and stumbling during the Mass is not an inevitable adjustment that will work itself out.  It is simply not knowing where the sentences in the prayers are going and thus not understanding what they themselves are saying or praying.  How can this in any way be called “vernacular”?  The people have already given up trying to follow these convoluted prayers.  The excessive grandeur in too many of the prayers is alienating, and not inspiring.  In the average American parish where more and more they are depending on priests who are foreign-born, and for whom English is a second language, the new translation could not have come at a worse time.  What were the bishops thinking??

I am a priest.  Born and raised in the USA.  In my priesthood, I have learned how to say mass in 2 languages other than English.  When I say mass in those languages, I know what I ‘m praying.  Strange to say, I can’t say the same for mass in my own language anymore.  The translation is a mistake, plain and simple.  I prep and prep for my mass, but the translation is a stumbling block to prayer. Whoever is responsible shows us in the prayers every day their ignorance of English sentence structure. And from a priest’s point of view, someone got too heavy-handed in their agenda. I have not heard one positive remark about the new translation from any of my brother priests.  Not one. I have always leaned in the traditional direction, but the bishops goofed on this one.  It’s time for a rollback.  The old translation was insipid.  But I’d rather pray in baby talk rather than be mute altogether.

Maybe it is a personal problem. Our priests are now singing the Mass for Sunday Liturgy and it is beautiful.  I am a daily Mass attender and I am captivated with the beauty of the new translation. Sometimes, when we just fight something, it never works. It becomes about us. I don’t see any hesitation in our priests or seeming difficulty in praying the Mass. If we are going to go for a roll back, lets roll it all the way back, to Latin and make the Mass serious again.

I agree with Fr. P. Prior to this New Liturgy, I participated in singing, etc, and always sat in the front.  Now, I sit at the very back and just do my own thing during Mass.  I rarely respond, sing only if the words and tune is familiar.

The good thing is I pray more, by really reading the Scripture for the day, even making notes about what I read.  But it’s supposed to be communal worship.  I should not be a lone ranger; I have Monday-Saturday to do my own Bible reading & Mass preparation.

I just feel alienated by the “new” words - many of them are just Pre-Vatican II, and not really new.  I still say, “It is right to give Him thanks and praise”, because it IS.

Sounds like just another case of a priest taking liberty with the Liturgy, because he knows so much more than the Church. People follow their leaders and if their leaders choose to not follow the Church, but their own ego, it is no wonder Catholics are so ignorant about their own faith and history.  Don’t put all the blame on the Bishops, you are showing where so much of the problem comes from in your remarks.

Deb and all:

“Msgr. X” and “Fr. P” are actually the same troll posting under different IDs.  The guy is not a priest.  He is a liar and is just here to cause trouble.  Don’t waste time arguing with him.  I’ve deleted “Msgr. X”.

Wow.  Really, I mean wow.  I don’t remember anything written by Msgr. X, but I was glad to see a priest weighed in with an opinion.  So if what you say is true, Mark Shea, thank you for the heads up.  What a shame.  One way or the other, Sunday Mass is worship to a holy God.  It’s to be directed upward, where we join in with the Communion of Saints in Heaven, and in communion with those believers on earth.  It is not for our own entertainment.  It’s all about Jesus.  He is risen.  He is risen, indeed.