Do words in new missal mean more?

Hi everyone, I am a new member and this is m first post. My question today relates to the new Roman Missal. I already detect negativity and objection to change among the more vocal members of our parish.

If the new words “mean the same thing” it won’t be worth the trouble to get everyone to use them. I would like to be proactive in my parish to campaign that the new words say it better than the old words. Trouble is, I don’t know the first thing about it. My winter project.

Is there a thread that discusses the new missal on the layman level? Suggest sources? I have seen a few comments about “With One Voice” and “Praying the Mass” but they were last summer.

Thanks for your site and for your help today. Happy New Year!

The new translation is exactly that a new, corrected, translation of what we are currently using. The Missal we use just now is itself a translation of the 1970 Latin original and in the last 40 years the Latin text itself hasn’t greatly changed apart from a few corrections here and there and the addition of new feast days for the new Saints. The English translation choose, as was the fashion at the time, to loosely translate concepts rather than literally translate texts; the new translation corrects this problem. The USCCB has some good resources on its website relating to the corrected translation

I personally am looking forward to the change. It’s good to know what actual words mean when translated or spoken. Otherwise it’s easy to say a word and not know truly what it means. I need to look into what all else is going to change. Once this change goes into effect, can a priest still use the old missal if he wants? I wonder if everyone in the US will catch on or if certain places will still be using the old translation because the priest is old school etc?

The only “Old Missal” the priest will be allowed to use will be the 1962 Missal for the extraordinary form of the Mass:) From the implementation date, the Mass most of us attend on a Sunday, when it is said in English, will be said using the new translation.

In most cases for the parts that the congregation has to say, it’s true that the words of the new translation will “mean the same thing” as the old translation. But correcting the people’s parts is really just a very small aspect of correcting the entire Missal – all the prayers for every day – almost all of which is to be spoken by the priest. In many instances, the words of the corrected translation do mean more. Here’s an example, the Prayer Over the Gifts from the Eighth Sunday in Ordinary Time:
God our Creator, may this bread and wine we offer as a sign of our love and worship lead us to salvation.
That’s the current (old) translation. Take some time to digest what it means. Now look at the new translation:
O God, who provide gifts to be offered to your name and count our oblations as a token of devoted service, we ask of your mercy, that what you grant as the source of merit you may also bestow upon us as a prize.
Or take the Prayer After Communion from the 28th Sunday in Ordinary Time. Old translation:
Almighty Father, may the body and blood of your Son give us a share in his life.
New translation:
Humbly we entreat your majesty, O Lord, that, as you feed us with the nourishment that comes from the most holy Body and Blood of your Son, you may make us sharers of his divine nature.
Or, perhaps the worst-written prayer in all of the current translation, the mind-numbingly bland Prayer After Communion from the 30th Sunday in Ordinary Time:
Lord, bring to perfection within us the communion we share in this sacrament. May our celebration have an effect in our lives.
“May it have an effect”? Gee, let’s not get too specific, shall we. Now look at the revised translation:
May your Sacraments, O Lord, we pray, perfect in us what lies within them, that the things we now celebrate in signs we may one day possess in truth.
You’ll have to take my word for it (I’ve checked) that the new translations accurately reflect the meaning that is in the Latin, and which was in many cases stripped out of our current translations.

The new missal will be a better translation of our present one. I think it is important to note that maybe the new missal will ‘mean more’. After all the word catholic means universal, and it is important that be all pray in the same way. That is one of the main reasons that mass has always been said in Latin, and also to ensure that the consecration is valid. I personally believe that the mass should always be said in Latin in order to maintain the universality of the Church. In fact it is my belief that the most pure form of catholic worship is in the 1962 missal. This is because it is a missal that is universally the same, no matter what country or even time you go to.

So the short answer is, personally I do think that it will mean more.

What do you mean by when you say he can use the 1962 Missal for the extraordinary for of the Mass? Is there certain days the priest can change up the words?

It is my understanding that even with the new English translation the priest is always given the option of saying the prayers in their Latin texts, even if in small parts, such as the Gloria or Sanctus. (The Latin texts will not be changing.) This is done on EWTN all the time without any problem and it might be a better option in bilingual parishes or where these new translations may not be accepted well. “Dominus vobiscum/Et cum spirituo tuo” is very much alive in the Church.

The Archdiocese of Philadelphia has a section of their website devoted to this topic along with links. Good luck on your winter project!

archphila.org/Roman%20Missal/Roman%20Missal.html

P.S. - When the 1970 missal replaced the 1962 missal people had to learn all “new” words. So for the last 40 years I have said the Mass one way. It will be a new learning experience for me but I trust the Church and if She says this is the better way to say the Mass I will live and learn. Maybe the more “vocal” at your parish need some humility…

a good example of the reason for the new translation is in the Creed

we currantly say " of all that is seen and unseen" well if I am at work my house is unseen we are going to be saying “all things visible and invisible” my house is visiable but not seen. see the difference? the New translation is more clear and concise language
much truer to the Latin and what the theology of the creed is saying.

Along with the “consubstantial with the Father,” this is very true. However, I wonder if this wording would have been accepted in 1970 when the Mass was made “easier to understand.” Just a thought.

Funny you mention Philly. . .when I was 11, in 1967, we used a translation there for 3 years which is (to my memory) remarkably similar to the new translation coming later this year, and THEN we changed to the 1970 translation.

So I learned Latin first, then the ‘1967 translation’, then 3 years later the 1970 translation which I have been saying for the last 40 years. . .and now I’ll be going back to something close to the 1967 translation again. Which is fine by me!

The new Roman Missal is not “the same thing in different words”. It is a much more accurate translation of the Latin into English.

As an example: In Latin, you have “Dominus Vobiscum” which means 'The Lord be with you." That is a very accurate translation from the Latin to the English.

The older translation of “Et cum Spirito Tuo” was: “And also with you”. That is nowhere even close to what the Latin was saying. The new Missal translates this very accurately as 'And with your spirit".

The new Roman Missal merely takes the Latin that existed, and gets rid of the “touchy-feely” stuff that was mistranslated in the 1960’s and 70’s, and provides a more accurate and faithful translation of the words.

Those that are “fighting” this translation are ill informed and as usual are those that simply can not and will not accept change.

No.

Within the Church there are two versions of Missal used for Mass, The Ordinary Form, and the Extraordinary Form. The Ordinary Form is often said in the local language (i.e. English) and is often said facing the people. this Missal was first implemented in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council and it is the Mass most of us attend on Sundays. It is for this Mass that the New translation will be implemented.

The Extraordinary Form is the older form of Mass, unchanged after the Second Vatican Council. It is still an esteemed and valid option for all Roman Catholics. It is said quietly, in the original Latin with the priest and people together facing towards the Lord.

Hope that helps clear it up

God Bless

After the first Sunday of Advent 2011, there are actually several choices for a priest. 1) A priest can use the 1962 Missal and say Mass in the Extraordinary form, in which case nearly all the prayers are in Latin. 2) he can say Mass using the new, approved English translation for the Missal, 3) he can say the Ordinary form of Mass in Latin or 4) he can say the Ordinary form of Mass in any other vernacular language using an approved translation.

He will NOT have the choice of continuing to use the English translation we are hearing today. That choice will be “off the table”. :slight_smile:

There are certain parts of the Mass where the priest can make some changes. These are indicated in the Missal with the directive “or other suitable words may be used”. But there are not certain days where the priest can make more changes than others. None of the prayers of the congregation have the option to “change up the words”.

What about him being able to use the Eucharistic prayer for children as seen here catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/EPC1-3.htm

Also, I don’t know exactly if I have ever attended a mass in the Extraordinary Form. How can you tell? There are certain places where I went to that say parts of the mass in Latin, like the prayers but they are mixed with American language. It makes me feel worthless when they do this because I don’t know the language and feel as if I can’t understand what they are saying. Is this an example of the extraordinary form? I’m looking forward to the new missal. I hope it will draw more unity towards the priest being forced to use the same basic principle of the mass. The reason I say this is because it seems to me that some priest seem to be getting away with running the mass certain ways they want by adding or doing a a Eucharistic prayer for children with absolutely no children present in the mass.

A priest can always substitute from approved options. The EPs for Masses for Children are approved texts, but as I understand them, can not be substituted for one of the other EPs at a Mass that is not primarily for children. You can’t say a Mass that is according to the normal Missal and then switch to one of the children’s EPs and then back to the regular missal for the remainder of the Mass. The whole Directory for Masses with Children and Lectionary for Masses for Children are going through a separate revision.

Also, I don’t know exactly if I have ever attended a mass in the Extraordinary Form. How can you tell? There are certain places where I went to that say parts of the mass in Latin, like the prayers but they are mixed with American language. It makes me feel worthless when they do this because I don’t know the language and feel as if I can’t understand what they are saying. Is this an example of the extraordinary form?

The Mass is written in Latin and then translated to other languages. The Mass can always be said in Latin or some prayers said in Latin with the rest in English (or another vernacular). The EF Mass is very different. Some of the ways you would be able to tell are: there are prayers said at the foot of the altar before the priest goes up to start the Mass; 2) there is only one reading before the Gospel on Sunday; 3) at the end of Mass, a final Gospel is read; 4) the only parts in English would be the homily and a re-reading of the Epistle and Gospel; 5) the priest would say almost all of the Mass facing in the same direction as the congregation; 6) there is more kneeling.

I’m looking forward to the new missal. I hope it will draw more unity towards the priest being forced to use the same basic principle of the mass. The reason I say this is because it seems to me that some priest seem to be getting away with running the mass certain ways they want by adding or doing a a Eucharistic prayer for children with absolutely no children present in the mass.

Unless the Mass is specifically for children (not just with some children present) one of the four EPs are supposed to be used. It’s already not allowed to do what you are observing. New rules won’t necessarily mean that priests who aren’t even following the existing rules will all of a suddenly start.

Yeah, the only reason I bring it up is because of a visiting priest filling in for our parish suddenly said the EP for children out of no where with 20 adults present during a weekday mass. I guess it’s ok if it legit.

I think you misunderstood me. What you describe was NOT legit. Just because the text of a prayer is approved does not mean the priest can use it whenever he wants. It was not licit to use one of the EPs for Children at a daily Mass that was not for children.

I brought this up in another thread forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=523283
Although it went a little off based of what I was asking I think. This priest is actually a retired priest and he’s been doing the mass. I don’t know if perhaps he forgot or it might have been a mistake? When things like this happen, what if anything can be done? Most people just say, well he’s the priest he can do what he wants. But we know that certain things take place which are not normative everyday. Makes me wonder if retired priest keep up to date with GIRM rules etc. Which brings up my question as to are all priest required to be taught how to say the new missal?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.