If you've heard the new Mass translations and want to stop them,

[hedgehog]

here's your chance:

http://whatifwejustsaidwait.org/

[hedgehog]

1. More info here:

http://www.ucanews.com/2009/11/30/humpty-dumpty-in-the-vatican/

[Matilda]

2. They're not new; they are a return to the old.

I remember many of the "new" phrases from when the Mass was first
translated into the vernacular; they are also in my old British Missal
from the 1960s, which has Latin on one half of the page and the English
translation on the other side. I don't actually remember the old full
Latin Mass, because when I came into the Church, it was already a
hybrid Mass - English, Latin, and Greek, but most of the "changes"
are words that are familiar to me.

Here is a link to the new wording:

http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/examples.shtml

I don't have a problem with it, because it is a more accurate
translation of the Latin, and in some parts of the Mass restores some
of the beauty that was lost with the later translation (some time in
the late seventies, I think).

I do find it insensitive that gestures and customs particular to various
cultures should not be incorporated, as has been done since European
missionaries first brought the Catholic faith to Asia. It's a very
imperialistic view and has no place in modern society.

[47of74]

3. I hope they don't

I hope they don't go back to having the priest say just about all the Liturgy of the Eucharist to himself. I've been to Masses said according to the 1962 rite and it did bother me a bit that just much of that part of the Mass was not said aloud. I think it's better to be able to hear what the priest is saying during this part of Mass.

[Matilda]

4. I agree, and it's also good that the people have more to say and do

than they did in "the old days".

I'd also hate to see a return to the priest facing away from the
congregation. I understand that he's facing east and not turning his
back on the congregation, but it does look as if he is.

I believe Benedict favours a return to the "ad orientem" position.
I think young people would find it very strange, and it would take
some getting used to again. I prefer to see the priest's face.

[47of74]

7. The way I understood the old position

It was more a matter of the people assembled together, and the priest at the head of the assembly, all facing the same direction as the priest offered the Mass. But I think the silence and the use of Latin made people passive observers at Mass rather than participants.

Where I live I actually can't think of any churches off hand that face east. Most of them face to the west, with a few facing north, and a few facing south. The parish I go to faces west.

[hedgehog]

9. Part of that was to emphasize that the priest stood

between the people and God.

All the faithful share in the
offering, even though the priest has a
unique role. He stands “in the person of
Christ,” the historic Head of the Mystical
Body, so that, at Mass, it is the whole
body of Christ – Head and members
together that make the offering.



http://www.dioceseoftulsa.org/eoc/eoc200909.pdf

[Matilda]

14. The priest does not stand between the people and God.

They stand TOGETHER before God, with the priest at the head.

[Matilda]

13. Priest and people facing the same direction

is called "ad orientem", and means "towards the East", because in early
times the churches were built so that when facing the tabernacle, priest
and people were facing east. Later, when some churches were built
facing west, the term "ad orientem" stayed, even though it was no longer
literally true.

It was believed at one time that the Jews always worshipped facing east,
and that was the reason churches faced east, but that's not true. Jews
always pray facing Jerusalem and that can be east or west, depending
where they are. So the practice was based on an error anyway.

[hedgehog]

5. I thought you were wrong about this being a return to older translations.

You're right though, the proposed Eucharistic prayers are very direct translations of the 1962 Roman missal. the problem is that the word of Consecration from that missal are not exactly drawn from Gospel. Instead of

"When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said:"

the priest will say

"In a similar way, when supper was ended, he took this precious chalice into his holy and venerable hands, and once more giving you thanks, he said the blessing and gave the chalice to his disciples, saying: "


I find replacing the vary stark words of the Last Supper with this superfluous language very jarring. All in all, I feel the new translation distances us from God with the priests standing in between.

[Matilda]

6. Some of the new'old translations are easy to assimilate, others do jar a bit.

I have a bit of an issue with the word "consubstantial" instead of "one in being with". The word's meaning is "of
the same substance", and theologically, I don't know whether that's the same as "one in being". But who today
would use that word, outside of a seminary?

Apparently, what we now use are the changes instituted by Paul VI, in the interests of making the Mass more
accessible, and I think that's generally good. In some places, the changes are a bit banal but in others, they
make the meaning clearer.

You might think common sense would prevail, but with the Vatican, things are never that simple.

[hedgehog]

8. I think it is a misnomer to say that the changes made by Vatican II

made the mass more accessible or more understandable, although that is certainly the case. The greater effect of the changes was to change the manner in which we relate to God. We went from a liturgy based on a God who is wholly other, wholly separate to Emmanuel, God with us. We went from an understanding of God present only in the Host displayed in the monstrance, a God only to be touched or approached by priests to God present in those around us. It is proper to maintain quiet attention at times in the Mass, but it is no disrespect to greet and acknowledge each other at other times. Some decry the loss of solemnity at Mass. On the other hand, if we fail to recognize each other, haven't we lost an essential element of Communion?

[Matilda]

10. The stated aim of Vatican II was that

"The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.

For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary."

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Mass_of_Paul_VI


Initially, what we had was simply the Tridentine Mass translated into local languages. Some other changes were
made, such as allowing the priest to face the people. The "Novus Ordo" became available in Latin in 1970, but it
wasn't translated into other languages for several years.

It was all about accessibility - allowing the laity to hear Mass in their own language and getting rid of arcane
terminology that nobody but the priests understood, as well as the laity taking more of a role in the presentation
of the Word and not feeling "shut off" from the priests, but being able to see them and hear them and understand
all that was happening throughout.

To my mind, they succeeded in making the liturgy more accessible, although sometimes at the cost of losing some of
the beauty (the words and phrases of the Tridentine Mass are often quite stunning, looking at it as pure prose).

It's a pity we can't combine accurate translations with beauty of language that can also be understood by all. I
don't see why it has to be "either/or".

[hedgehog]

11. Hmmm....

"...the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested,
..elements which were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded;

...elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored ...

That's what I said!

:)

I think the old Latin phrases get too much credit for beauty. I think the current stark Eucharistic prayer taken directly from Scripture is far more beautiful than the flowery latinate prayer soon to replace it. And don't get me started on substituting "consubstantial " for "one in being"!

Speaking as an Irishwoman, there is nothing beautiful about Latin in the wrong place, and nothing ugly about Anglo Saxon in the right place. Compare

"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!"

to

"We will prosecute the hostilities in the perimeter transitional areas, in the agricultural regions, in the urban zones, and at higher elevations. We will engage in no form of capitulation."

[Matilda]

12. Exactly.

Accessible - meaning "being within reach; easy to communicate with". And that's what I said; you chose to disagree
and that's your right, but I stand by my original words.

As for Latin - I quite deliberately made reference to it as prose, standing on its own and not stating a preference
for its use in the Mass today; I simply enjoy it for what it is - a beautiful, logical, and concise language.

And you are in error if you think that Latin itself, as used by the Romans, was as affected as your reinterpretation
of Churchill's great speech. Latin was the language of the common man in ancient Rome and had the same clarity
to them as Churchill's words do to us today.

[hedgehog]

15. Granted, the "translation" of Churchill's words is exaggerated.

There is nothing wrong with Latin in and of itself. Although I am not a Latin speaker, I know there are certain Latin writings that can not be translated without losing a certain essence. I would suggest that the Latin used by Churchmen has little to do with the Latin used on Rome's streets or even in the forum. The Latin used by churchmen is designed to separate us from God, to make God the other, to make Jesus over into the image of themselves. It doesn't matter whether you understand the Latin or not, the Jesus who

""When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said:"

is a different Jesus from the one who said:

"In a similar way, when supper was ended, he took this precious chalice into his holy and venerable hands, and once more giving you thanks, he said the blessing and gave the chalice to his disciples, saying: "

The first Jesus is the carpenter's son, the second is a monsignor at least!

All too often the notion that we should be preserving the Latin prayers of the Mass is accepted without examination. Many of those prayers enshrine concepts that we would disagree with today and certainly not make a point of in our prayers. I can't find the reference now, but what really set me off about the new translations was a discussion of one of the Advent antiphons. Essentially, the prayer thanks God for allowing Mary to deliver Jesus without rupturing her hymen! Imagine the mindset behind that prayer! It is not scriptural , but based on a medieval notion of human sexuality. Why in God's name would we want to preserve that? IMO, to do so is to deny the Living Spirit.

[Matilda]

16. Churchill would never have made the mistake of speaking in any other way

than how he did. He knew and understood all the uses of language, and he knew the British people. He always spoke
in ways that were clear and unambiguous.

Similarly, Latin itself is a clear and very precise language; more so than English. That doesn't mean that we
should still be saying the Mass and praying only in Latin, but what we read in English can be clear or it can be
woolly and it all depends on who is doing the translation. There are some things that need to be updated in
translation, but there are other things that we've been saying that don't truly reflect what was originally
written, and it's hard to understand why they've been translated in the way they have in the current Missal.

And Latin can't be blamed for the sexual hangups of the Vatican hierarchy. I absolutely agree that there is no
reason why Mary couldn't have given birth the same way as every other woman - it's only some silly old men with a
deep-seated fear of female sexuality who think that there's something dirty about Jesus coming down the birth
canal just like every other baby. Was he fully human, or was he not? If he was, he was born just like the rest of
us.

The idea of Mary remaining ever-virgin is also behind the stupid idea that she and Joseph never had any other
children, even though scriptures tell us that they did. Out of this fear of her as a sexual being grew the idea
that the siblings of Jesus were the children of Joseph by a previous marriage, and he was therefore much older than
Mary. There is no biblical evidence for this at all; it's a product of the Vatican tying itself in knots to prove
that Mary never really had sex.

[hedgehog]

17. I think we're more in agreement than not.

I'm beginning to think that Latin is the scapegoat here. The prayers shouldn't be judged on the basis of whether they were in the 1962 Latin missal or not, but on whether they are appropriate for communal worship today. I don't know the history of every prayer, but I suspect a lot of them date to medieval times with some updates at the Council of Trent.

I'm beginning to suspect that the people who did the English translations back in the 60's took a look at some of the prayers and took the opportunity of the translation to bring them more in line with how we understand our relationship to God today. It wasn't the best way to handle the problem, but it was a work-around that lasted for 40 some years. Although the new translation is clumsy because it imposes the structure of the Latin sentences on English, the real problem is that it is attempting to impose a mindset that a lot of us find unacceptable. Look into essays by people advocating a return to the pre-Conciliar Mass and you'll find people claiming we need to have the priest as the head of the congregation, that we are simple sheep, that the priest stands in for Jesus, that women's liberation is a dangerous thing, etc. I think it's not simply a matter of Americans unwilling to recognize authority or women demanding respect, it's also everything we've learned in the last 20 years about how the bishops conspired to protect the priests and each other rather than our children.

[Matilda]

18. Church Latin differs from Classical Latin mainly in the pronunciation of certain letters,

although Latin itself evolved through the ages, as all languages do, and the Latin of the streets differed from the
Latin spoken in the Senate, but the differences were like a regional English dialect is to Received Pronunciation.
They still understood each other.

I think what happened after Vatican II was that the Pope and well-intentioned bishops wanted to update the wording
of the Mass so that it became more relevant to today. I suspect it was a bit like adults trying to speak to
teenagers in their own slang - they don't quite get it, and it comes out sounding false. They certainly got rid of
a lot of arcane expressions, but the results weren't all really pleasing.

And to some, the translations were nothing less than heresy - hence the breakaway Lefebvre group. According to them,
some of the translations substantially altered the exact meaning of the words to the extent that they were changing
orthodox belief, particularly during the Consecration. I've read about it, but only a theologian or a true
Latin scholar could verify if what they say is correct, and I'm neither.

Now Benedict wants to take us back to the original English translations of the 1960s - some of it makes sense to me,
but some of it, I think, is simply taking things back to the days when the language was a barrier to understanding.
I'm a bit wary of it, but I'd like to hear an unbiased opinion from an expert who has no particular axe to grind.
Everything I've seen so far is either "Hallelujah, we're going back to the good old days", or "whatever they want
to change, I'm against it".

I think the whole exercise does illustrate one thing - that there needs to be more democracy in the Church. Changes
like this should be made only in consultation with bishops, who in turn have discussed the matter thoroughly with
scholars and the laity. We've all got a stake in this, and I don't like the idea of some personal whim of the
Pope being forced on us, whatever it is.

[hedgehog]

19. To me, it's not so much that the expressions are arcane, it's the attitude

that they express. In my mind, the 1962 Missal enshrined an attitude that Catholics were superior to all others because *****WE***** has the Eucharist and because ******WE****** had the living God on *****OUR**** altars, we approached with God's language (because obviously GOD speaks Latin) and with the phrases and words appropriate to approaching a benevolent despot. Only those who'd just gone to confession were worthy of Communion, and they were permitted only on sufferance. Of course, since the Pope, bishops and priests stand in for Christ here on earth, the same language applied to them. And of course, since the Pope, bishops and priests were Christ on earth, no one dared question their actions, even when those actions involved the rape of women and children or the cover-up of rapes.

I vaguely recall some clunkers in the early translations (and some of the early music was really bad, but that's an entire discussion in itself!), but I think the wording has been gradually smoothed out here and there. If I may make a comparison, I've cooked and baked some truly dreadful things over the years, some of which went straight out the door to the chickens! On the other hand, the food I put on the table today is a lot better than what I could manage 30 years ago because I learned from my mistakes and was always looking for something better.

The new translations (which I will stipulate are not always accurate translations of the older prayers) invite us to approach a God who loves us, who wants us to come home, who wants us to sit and eat at His banquet. We are all Christ here on earth for each other, whether as the Christ who needs comfort or the Christ who gives comfort. This is not to deny the real presence in the Eucharist, but to suggest it is something far greater and more magnificant than anything the old liturgy gave us.

The new liturgy is hard work. You can't sit back and let mysterious rituals sweep you away to be in the presence of a God who lives in the little gold tabernacle. (The Masons have mysterious rituals!) The new liturgy requires you to listen to the Word, take it into your heart, and see the presence of God in His everyday world.

I put it to you that one reason some are pushing the old liturgy is that the old liturgy trains us to be docile and to let others make all the decisions. I think the fact that you and I both demand more democracy in the Church is a result of years of exposure to the revised liturgy.

[47of74]

20. Reminded me of something that happened to my uncle one time

My uncle told a story about back in the old days he was at the rail receiving communion when the priest didn't quite get the host on his tongue right, and the host started to fall off his tongue. My uncle went and quickly pushed it back on to his tongue so it wouldn't fall off and on to the ground. Well, the priest saw that and he stopped what he was doing to tell my uncle that he was wrong to have touched the host with his hands, even to keep it from falling off his tongue and on to the ground. They were so convinced it was wrong for non-ordained hands to touch the host that they were willing to let it fall on to the ground. I'm glad we're finally getting past that now, and hopefully that car won't be jammed into reverse.

[hedgehog]

21. I'm afraid what we're about to see is what happens when a

car's transmission is jammed into reverse while the car is still traveling forward at 45 MPH!