The New English Mass Translation Must Be Getting Closer!

This is the most positive step I’ve seen in a long time in getting the new translations implemented.

USCCB Meets with Publishers on Missal

From the Adoremus Bulletin:

adoremus.org/0509NewsViews.html

"Publishers of texts and formation materials for the new translation of the Missale Romanum (Roman Missal) are scheduled to meet in Washington on April 30 at the invitation of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Committee on Divine Worship and USCCB Publishing.

The USCCB intends to develop a comprehensive strategy and plan of action for introducing and implementing the new Missal — including both the publication of the liturgical texts and the development of liturgical and catechetical materials in preparation for the new Missal. Some materials have already been developed by the international “Leeds Group”, and by the US Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions (FDLC).

The USCCB representatives plan to inform participants of the anticipated timeline for publishing the ritual edition of the Missal and worship aids; and to initiate a conversation on other related publication issues for both English- and Spanish-language resources to aid in introducing and implementing the new Missal.

Monsignor Anthony F. Sherman is director of the Secretariat of the Committee on Divine Worship, and Paul K. Henderson is the director of USCCB Publishing."

As I recall, the implementation of the new mass came with almost lightning speed. It was a revolution. Clawing back the losses that came from this recklessness, has sure taken longer.

I wish I were invited. I’ve written a book and I’m waiting for copyright permissions to come through from the ICEL and CDWDS. I’m also submitting it for a Nihil Obstat from my diocese.

But this is very good news. Thank you for bringing it to our attention!

Now, here is an interesting question. Why would new resources be needed in Spanish, since the new translation of the Roman Missal affects only ICEL?

We have been using the Spanish-language version of the Roman Missal approved for use in Mexico by the Mexican Episcopal Conference. It is faithful to the Latin text and really does not need any changes.

Now, back in 2003, we were told during the FDLC meeting in San Antonio that a new translation of the Spanish-language Roman Missal would be in the works for use in the United States. That was six years ago and little to no announcements have been made regarding this matter. Our second (and former) diocesan director for Divine Worship was on the translation committee. Supposedly, the translation was ready to be sent to the CDWDS for the necessary recognitio. I am hoping that this will follow the guidelines set forth by Liturgiam Authenticam.

The upshot to all of this is that the days of Haugen’s Mass of Creation are now numbered, as well as Bob Hurd’s ghastly English/Spanish Mass settings. The new translations cannot come soon enough.

Yes we need to pray that all goes well tomorrow. And that composers are not allowed to take liberties with the wording of these new translations.

Leave it Francis Cardinal Arinze to set the record straight. This was one of his last acts as Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments:

Prot. n. 1464/06/L
Rome, June 23, 2008

Your Eminence,

This Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is pleased to enclose the decree by which it has granted recognitio for the territory of your Conference of Bishops for the new English-language transaltion of significant parts of the Ordo Missae as found in the Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia, including most of those texts used in every celebration of Holy Mass.

This Dicastery has no little satisfaction in arriving at this juncture. Nevertheless, the Congregation does not intend that these texts should be put into liturgical use immediately. Instead, the granting now of the recognitio to this crucial segment of the Roman Missal will provide time for the pastoral preparation of priests, deacons and for appropriate catechesis of the lay faithful. It will likewise facilitate the devising of musical settings for the parts of the Mass, bearing in mind the criteria set forth in the Instruction Liturgiam Authenticam, n. 60, which requires that the musical settings of liturgical texts use only the actual approved texts and never be paraphrased.

As regards the text enclosed, this Dicastery wishes to draw attention to the following points:

  1. The attached text is to be considered binding. For its part, this Congregation is confident that the universal use of these texts will greatly contribute to the building up of the Faith throughout the broad and diverse English-speaking world.
  1. It is to be borne in mind that use of this text is restricted by copyright. Therefore, all pertinent copyright legislation in civil law is to be observed in accordance with the statues which this Congregation approved for the Mixed Commission known as the International Commission on English in the Liturgy.
  1. Although the Mixed Commission took the initiative of distributing, along with these Parts of the Order of Mass, an adapted text of Eucharistic Prayer IV, Higher Authority has determined that as regards to either modification of the typical edition or the manner of translating it: non expedire.
  1. Likewise, the Holy Father has decided that , in response to a recommendation of the Eleventh Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (October 2-23, 2005), a selection of additional formulae of dismissal for the faithful should be introduced in n. 144 of the Missale Romanum and consequently these are include in the attached text.

With every prayerful good wish, I remain

Devotedly yours in Christ,

Francis Cardinal Arinze
Prefect

He certainly did not leave any wiggle room for Haugen,et al to paraphrase. I hope that the USCCB makes that perfectly clear during the meeting tomorrow. Maybe this is the Springtime we have been long awaiting.

As for the Spanish Missal: I don’t speak or read Spanish, but I have had occasion to look at the Missal. Could it be, at least in part, that the Mexican Missal does the same thing as the current English Sacramentary by using conclusions to the presidential prayers which were taken from protestant formulas (“in Jesus name we pray”) ???

Frankly, I’m not very hopeful on this one. The Church has been saying for decades that such paraphrases are not to be used. The result is that we even have documents coming from USCCB offices saying that paraphrases of the Ordinary of the Mass are just fine (see #188 in *Sing to the Lord *for example)

What we truly need is a change in attitude to accompany the changes in the text. Until that happens, I’m afraid we will continue to see changes made to the Mass, regardless of how often, or how strongly the Holy See instructs otherwise…

Here is the interesting thing. In the Roman Missal approved for use here in the US, there are two collects, the original one and an alternative one. The Spanish-language Roman Missal (CEM version) does not have this. To be quite frank with you, I never paid much attention to the conclusions of the presidential prayers. I will check up on that.

Furthermore, the CEM version does not have any musical notations that would allow the priest to chant the prefaces. From what I understand, the only Spanish-language Roman Missal that has it is the one approved for use in Argentina. To make matters even more interesting, the only Book of the Chair that I have seen comes from Spain. What is rather funny is that the Book of the Chair (approved for use in Spain) carries with it “canned” General Intercessions. Our deacon read from it (back when I was at the Cathedral) and one of the intentions was for the health and protection “of our great King (Juan Carlos)”. He quickly backtracked and changed it to our government leaders. :blush: I do hope that for y’all’s sake (and I mean priests/bishops), the USCCB had a light bulb monent and also made provisions for a Book of the Chair for y’all to use.

I believe that one of the reasons why the USCCB decided to come up with its own Spanish-language version of the Roman Missal was because not all Latinos in the United States are Mexican-American. There are Puerto Ricans, Cuban-Americans, Dominican-Americans, Hondurans, Salvadorans, et al who have different backgrounds. Obviously, the CEM version of the Roman Missal, the one we use right now, is tailored towards Mexican faithful because that is its origin. But, I suppose that there are some nuances to take into account (language usage, etc). However, I am hopeful that not too much damage was done. As far as I know, I have not heard whether or not the Latin Rite bishops have voted to send this translation to the CDWDS or if they are waiting to approve the new ICEL translations so that they can send the whole thing together. :shrug:

So does that mean that our version will include prayers for “our great King (Barack)”?

In South Africa, we’ve been using the “New Order of Mass” since the first Sunday of advent last year.

It caused quite a stir and the Southern African Bishops Conference came under fire for not reading its instructions from the Holy Sea…It became apparent that the head of the bishops over here, never read the full letter that said it is for scrutiny and not implementation. So it was implemented as a matter of urgency.

Then after a few months were contacted by the Vatican just to be told to revert back to the old Order of Mass… what an embarrassment! Anyways, many Catholics in South Africa complained at its implementation, the lack of consultation and explanation.

It was forcefully implemented without the laity and local Bishops and priest offering suggestions to make the ease of use for the South African English speaker and reader.

The New Order is also sexist, in it that it still makes references to “man” alone, something the Nuns here took offense to. It was also written in the local Catholic weekly (www.scross.co.za) by the laity that we reverting to a dormant words, and consider a “dead” language above all.

In any event, the Bishops applied for an exemption, where it was approved to save themselves from their idiotic behavior.

We continue to use the New Translation and were forced to be the examples for the catholic world.
:smiley:

Right, exactly the opposite of how it should have been done. :frowning:

Um, it’s not sexist. It’s English. And the laity weren’t the only ones with nasty letters… some priests and bishops wrote publicly against the new translation as well.

Um, it’s not sexist. It’s English. And the laity weren’t the only ones with nasty letters… some priests and bishops wrote publicly against the new translation as well.

:confused: In my opinion, Its not inclusive - no matter how you look at it. Vis-a-vis “nasty letters”, I won’t go that far. I think the reality of the subject spelt itself out over how it was dealt with. To this day, the SACBC has never sent out a formal letter to be read out before or after Mass explaining the reasons of its hastiness and “mistakes”, apologizing to the faithful.

The bishops are quick to do so with its Lenten Appeal though…
So what the public letters conveyed was really just the truth about the subject matter. I am also dismayed at the role of Vatican in all of this, and here I’ll keep my reasons to myself.

In any case, here in Southern Africa we have been through the process, and because both forms are right, priests` here either say the new order or the old, which makes the whole thing pointless.

Parish priests dictate which one goes. Similar to the law that allows The Blessed Sacrament to be distributed under both species or just the one.

So there you have it.
:shrug:

Right, and it’s not supposed to be inclusive. It’s supposed to be accurate. The word “man” in English can mean any human person or a male human person. The context provides the answer. If you think that when we say Jesus Christ came down for “us men” that we’re only talking about males, you’re incorrect, and you need to be catechized (or grammaticized) about the matter. If you think it’s sexist to say that Jesus Christ “became man”, you’re also missing it. This is why the new translations were supposed to be preceded by catechesis!

I will go that far. I’ve read some of them. Some are nasty, some are not. A lot of the COMMENTS to the articles are nasty and betray an anti-Rome agenda, to put it bluntly. The titles of some of these are alarming:

scross.co.za/2009/01/why-the-liturgical-anger-is-fair/
scross.co.za/2009/02/the-liturgy-lost-in-translation/
scross.co.za/2009/02/why-new-mass-translations-were-necessary/
scross.co.za/2009/02/mass-text-betrays-vatican-ii/
scross.co.za/2009/03/2350/
scross.co.za/2009/03/liturgy_risi/
scross.co.za/2009/03/i-am-church-too/
scross.co.za/2009/03/critics-should-know-better/ *
scross.co.za/2009/04/liturgy-from-zulu-to-english/ **

The letter with a * makes this point:
If we do not understand words such as “consubstantial” and “incarnate”, maybe it’s time for an improved catechesis, rather than a choice to join secular society and lower our standards in the Church.

Perhaps it’s time also to stop treating laity as imbeciles, incapable of understanding the truths of our faith expressed in appropriate language. The faith has been strong for many centuries, in an often-illiterate laity, despite the fact that the liturgical texts were in Latin, long considered as appropriate to address a holy God.
SPOT ON!

The letter with a ** makes this point:
We acknowledge our iniquity at the beginning of Mass through the penitential act, yet the word “holy” now precedes “Church”. The self-righteous can now be led to complacency and not be serious about our call for God to wash away our iniquity.
Lindi (the author) is referring to “… for the praise and glory of His name, for our good, and the good of all His holy Church.”

Lindi is not catechized properly. He (she?) does not know about Ephesians 5, and is completely forgetting that we acknowledge one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church in the Creed!

And that’s poor pastoral leadership, failing to repair an error in prudential pastoral judgment. I agree, such behavior isn’t helping the situation at all.

Right, and it’s not supposed to be inclusive. It’s supposed to be accurate. The word “man” in English can mean any human person or a male human person. The context provides the answer. If you think that when we say Jesus Christ came down for “us men” that we’re only talking about males, you’re incorrect, and you need to be catechized (or grammaticized) about the matter. If you think it’s sexist to say that Jesus Christ “became man”, you’re also missing it. This is why the new translations were supposed to be preceded by catechesis!

In catecheses, you are correct. However, we have words that will make the opposite sex feel more inclusive, and if we believed in a equal God that wants us to coexist, then he would want us to be more inclusive, not necessarily catechized - that takes on the interpretations of man.

You seem to be very angry with what the laity, the bishops and priests had to say regarding the New order of Mass. And seem to choose selectively letters that aids your point of view.

The one that aids you was written by someone who was taught in English as her second language. One of the respondents questioned her understanding of the language and asked her if it is correct in English to start a sentence with “AND”? - as it appears in the creed.

I think what you must remember is that WE collectively make up the Church of Christ, and so it is not one argument that will correct it all. The Church believes in reason, though it is selective in its approach.

Redemtionis Sacramentum encourages that the laity engage more with the church where it concerns the Blessed Sacrament. The approach of the laity and clergy is therefore intune with RS, to write letters and to make thier voice and concerns known.

I think the church leaders are way too concerned with grammatical issues than it is to lead people closer to God. The role of the church is not to condemn, question and isolate people, but to unite them by their virtue as Christians.

We are united by the Eucharist, not by words and its complex meaning, though this aids our faith and gives it deeper meaning.

I don’t agree with your premise. God would rather have us feel good than know the truth accurately? If you get hung up on “feelings”, then you’re going to need to get rid of a lot of other words in the Mass. Eucharistic Prayer I beseeches God that we be saved from final damnation! Surely, everyone’s going to Heaven, right?! And we still pray for the Jews and all non-Christians to recognize Jesus Christ! How insensitive.

The Church is not about “feeling included” or “feeling excluded”, because feelings can betray, feelings can lie. A person can feel included in the Church because they never hear about the gravity of their sinful lifestyles – casual sex, abortion, masturbation, rarely attending Mass, etc. – and yet might (to their utter misfortune) find themselves actually excluded.

The Church teaches the truth, and that requires catechesis. That’s what Christ commanded us to do, to make disciples by teaching them all that he had taught.

I posted the first nine links I found; some were pro, some were con.

I think the comments written by those who do not like the new translation reveal a lot of anger towards “Rome” and plain stubbornness: no humility at all. It seems to me that they absolutely refuse to be governed by Rome.

The Oxford English Dictionary seems to think starting a sentence with “AND” is okay.

I don’t understand what you’re saying there. Could you clarify?

R.S. is concerned primarily with abuses: doing things that shouldn’t be done (or not allowing things that are allowed). R.S. mentions the illicit changing of the words of the prayers, which happens almost ALL the time now.

I think the Church is concerned that English-speaking Catholics aren’t hearing and saying the right prayers, and that can lead to a distortion of the faith, which leads people away from God!

But if you change the words, you can change their meaning and distort our understanding of what the words are speaking about.

In the old translation of the Creed, we would say “[Jesus] was born of the Virgin Mary and became man.” That’s wrong on two levels: that’s not what the Latin says, and that’s not biologically accurate (nor what the Church teaches). Jesus was incarnate of the Virgin Mary and became man, as the new translation properly conveys. The old translation makes it sound as if Jesus was not “man” until he was born!

Language about the Eucharist must be exceptionally clear! What good is being united by a thing and believing in a thing if no one knows what that thing actually IS?! I’m not talking about full comprehension, but a Baptist, a Methodist, a Lutheran, an Anglican, a Catholic, and a Quaker are not united by the Eucharist, because they wouldn’t agree (be united!) on what (and WHO!) the Eucharist is.

You seem to draw more on the Feeling than the act of prejudice. Jesus commanded his apostles to baptize converts and to spread his gospels indeed. By praying for those who have not yet found Jesus, is certainly a good gesture not insensitive, as this is what Christ taught, but we certainly cannot be forceful of imposing our belief onto others, then we would be insensitive. Understand the differences.

I think we must be open to the idea that no two people who walk on this earth own the same attitude in life and persona, and we need to respect that. As Christians, using Christ as our example, he never excluded anyone, and so it would be fitting to practice this if we, like you, are to quote word for word the letters from the Gospels.

Christ was about truth, God was about feelings and truth - he became man to experience and teach us, and yes, and he had people’s feelings at heart. If he didn’t, would he be bothered at Cana if he had no feelings for his mother? Would he cure the lame, sick, the crippled or the blind? Would he resurrect Lazarus if Martha were not to ask him? Besides the other explanations, Jesus bore all these into context.

We accept the teachings of Rome due to the words spoken by Jesus to St. Peter. Unfortunately many “Holy” men has not acted upon the Holy Spirit appropriately– a church divided within; hence it is retrogressing in the hope to rekindle the days of before Vatican II. You probably one of them who wish this never came to be.

If you read the laity`s post in context, then “anger” would be over-bearing. RS states the faithful needs to engage, whether good or bad, the responsibility is on all to protect the Blessed Sacrament.

If the Pontiff were to instruct that all men masturbating be excommunicated - would you come forward and repent or admit? or all homosexuals, priest alike, to stop Celebrating Mass? would you be first in line? Ponder on that…

Some things work on principles, some on the stability of the organization and others on feelings. All of this affects the inner-workings of the Church, Period.

Regarding “AND”, it is poor sentence structure. If you didn’t know that, perhaps a crash course in English would do you good.

In any case, let’s question what the paedophilia did for the American church? Did it lead more Catholics home or astray? Astray, I’m sure. Hence most of your churches are lacking in parishioners. This I know.

So concerning themselves about grammatical issues does not do the trick, does it? Assuring people of Gods saving grace, his love and your commitment towards him and your neighbors would certainly gather more Catholics than concerning yourselves with words (of similar meaning) that Catholics give two hoots about. So how “seen and unseen” can lead Catholics away - I am yet to see, or would you write me a thesis on the subject that can only be proven in theory? Think about it.

I think what you are trying to do by quoting certain sections in my response, regarding the Eucharist, is really tacky. When speaking in a Catholic context, I would certainly not mean Protestants, but you dont see this, do you? Oh I forgot, everything becomes an attack on Rome.

So we should be like the Chinese, governed by our leaders, where we are not to think or do things without consulting Rome. Unfortunately we don’t live in your world, or in the Dark Ages. I would like to believe that we belong to a church that understands modern life, a shift very similar to that of the renaissanse. So RS grants us that opportunity to engage and reason with Rome. :wink:

So I repeat: I think the church leaders are way too concerned with grammatical issues than it is to lead people closer to God. The role of the church is not to condemn, question, impose prejudice and isolate people, but to unite them by their virtue as Christians.

We are united by the Eucharist, not by words and its complex meaning, though this aids our faith and gives it deeper meaning.

As “the opposite sex” I don’t feel excluded by the language. The language is poetic. Jesus emphasized humility. If we get wrapped up in the “inclusive language” rather than in the beauty of the Word of God, humility suffers. My ability to coexist with others isn’t dependent on inclusive language. If it were, shame on me.

As “the opposite sex” I don’t feel excluded by the language. The language is poetic. Jesus emphasized humility. If we get wrapped up in the “inclusive language” rather than in the beauty of the Word of God, humility suffers. My ability to coexist with others isn’t dependent on inclusive language. If it were, shame on me.

Taking this one step further: as a member of “the opposite sex,” I feel somewhat insulted and patronized by my betters and elders who assume I cannot understand standard, grammatically correct English, and must therefore be spoon-fed bizarre, gender-neutered language lest my delicate feelings be hurt. Pfft.

Margaret

Amen, Margaret! I agree completely.

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.