114 days until the new Mass translation

Well, the critical edition (i.e. authoritative edition) of the novus ordo is the Latin text. This is the reformed mass of Paul VI that Buginini and his colleagues developed after the council. The vernacular translations should reflect this text.

The issue of translating certain texts like Et cum spiritu tuo one way or another rests on the theory of translation proposed. Whether the theory focuses on meaning or form is of utmost importance because underlying these theoretical approaches is a ertain theology, a particular worldview, a hierarchical or communitarian spirit. In a word, how you say something reflects, not necessarily the intent of the original as the political atmosphere of the present as it has been affected by centuries of human intrigue and power plays.

After Vatican II the translators espoused the principle of dynamic equivalence. Such an approach made sense since the spirit of the Vatican II age was to make Catholicism relevant to the age. Prior to Vatican II Latin was the norm of worship and communication in the church and conformity to Latin was unquestioned because it had been around for so long. But then we began to focus on the need to be relevant, to bring a living Christ to the world. Today the nostalgia for another age when conformity in the Latinist mode was seen as a unifying factor is now the driving factor -- not relevance.

Apart from the Mass greetings and interactions between priest and laity, apart from the possible fact that the new translations may contribute to a further separation of clergy and lay people -- apart from those considerations, I thing that the clergy themselves will be sorely tried by the new translation as they pray on behalf of the church in a stilted form that almost makes no sense.

I guess the feeling of the new translators is that God must be addressed in such a language. I wonder if they are looking for the day when we will return to the only "divine" language Latin.

After all the problems with the sex scandals, the 'body' just gave the Church too much trouble. So now lets just deal with the spirit!!

When will the archaic Lain text of the Mass be revised?

The new translation will bother us laity only if we let it. Whether the old, the coming new or the former Latin there has always been parts of the Mass that didn't sit well with some. Ignore what bothers you and move on or like the classic grey-haired women who used to say the rosary during the Latin Mass, just do your own thing. In hindsight, they were rebels (liberals, if you prefer) before their time.

The Lord be with you!
And with you!

What's wrong with that? Doesn't that "say it all"?
The "spirit" comes with "the Lord" at baptism, doesn't it?

RUBBISH for sure!

More nonsense!

I was forwarded the Thomas Fox article by the only priest in Scotland brave enough to stick his head above the parapet. Not only are we English speakers being obliged to use out of date language, but when the new translation gets to the central part of the mass, we are also reuired to accept a change in the theology of the mass.Instead of Christ's blood being being shed FOR ALL, we now must accept that it is shed only for many. Do we then assume that the rest of humanity is unworthy, and therefore damned?

When will Catholics and their clergy stand up against these totally unnecessary changes?

Interesting point, that this particular dialogue is the most common in the liturgy. It presents us with an opportunity, led by the Spirit: The priest's part remains unchanged: "The Lord be with you"; the people's part is where the change is being imposed; it's very easy to deny that unwelcome imposition, while also defending our right, guaranteed by the documents of Vatican II, to full, active and comprehending participation in the Liturgy, by simply answering the same greeting we've always heard with the same response we've always used in English: "And also with you".

“No. English is the only major language of the Roman Rite which did not translate the word spiritu. The Italian (E con il tuo spirito), French (Et avec votre esprit), Spanish (Y con tu espíritu) and German (Und mit deinem Geiste) renderings of 1970 all translated the Latin word spiritu precisely.”

Out of one side of their mouths they suggest that all the other languages are using the above translation correctly but yet out of the other side of their mouths they depart from the rest of the major languages when it comes to “the many”: http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=12641

Here is an excerpt:

“I recently returned from an international meeting (the general chapter of the Order of Preachers) in Rome, where the Eucharist was celebrated in the many languages of the participants. I was particularly interested to note how the phrase “pro multis” was rendered. What I discovered, in brief, is that in German, the Eucharistic prayer says “for you and for all” (“für euch und für alle”); in Spanish the text is “for you and for all men” (“por vosotros y por todos los hombres”); in Italian the text is “for you and for all” (“per voi e per tutti”); and in French the text is “for you and for the multitude” (“pour vous et pour la multitude”), which evokes the great multitude of the apocalypse in Rv 7:9 and 19:6. In none of these translations of the Latin “pro multis” is there the implication, unmistakable in the proposed English translation “for many,” of a less-than-universal divine will for salvation in the mystery of Christ’s death and resurrection. These translations, of course, were all made before the instruction Liturgiam Authenticam was issued in 2001 by the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship.” ----So I suppose everyone else is wrong except Rome in this instance and every other arbitrary instance ---yeah, right!

“Recent scholarship has recognized the need for a more precise translation capable of expressing the full meaning of the Latin text.”

If I had ever used this line in a college level paper it would have rightly been rejected if I did not follow up with citing this “scholarship”. It is one thing to just say it, it is something else to back it up.

Cheers,

"help for the priest to use the charismatic gifts given to him in ordination and in so doing to fulfill his prophetic function in the Church."

I wonder if pedophilia is one of those gifts? This whole area of the theology of charisms should be revisited. Gifts are called forth from these priests, not necessarily 'given' them as if somehow they are 'special'. What, God only gives gifts to ordained priests? Talk about creating God in the Roman Catholic image!!!
Kenan Osborne, OFM writes in his book, "Sacramental Guidelines", "The defined teaching of the church on sacramental character is twofold:(1)that a character is present in this sacrament is defined; what that character might be is not defined; (2)sacramental character is intrisically related to the non-repetition of the sacrament" (129).
I have encountered some priests that are bullies, arrogant, disrespectful and with no ability to engage with the parishioners--gee, I wonder if those were the gifts he received? Our last 'visiting' priest could not even maintain eye contact with parishioners in a conversation much less lead them in meaningful worship!

Cheers,

and the hierarchy (Bishops and Cardinals of America) think that THIS will increase participation in the mission of the church? Does anyone "think" this will have an impact on young people and the issues of social justice? Will "thou" or "I" or "we" make a difference in fighting the poverty (of spirit like so many of our politicians or the desperation of those without anything??
There is NOTHING to attract and hold younger people and middle agers. I am an "elder" and so tired of the posturing of the church officials. I am sorry for the dedicated men and women who forge ahead - those who live the gospel - as they are not supported by the leaders of the "Church" - they live to serve themselves.

I can't say that I am waiting with eager enthusiasm for the new translation to be put to use. "Et cum spiritu tuo" is also a bit of a pastoral problem. Many Christians of non-Catholic liturgical traditions worship frequently in Catholic churches and vice versa. Lutherans and Epsicopalians have not accepted these alledged impovements and will spontantaneously use the "old" form "And also with you". Likewise, Catholics worshiping in Episcopal and Lutheran churches will do just the opposite and use the "new "form,"And with your spirit". This creates a practical ecumenical problem and makes Vatican declarations about more use of common prayer to be somewhat more difficult to carry out. Why weren't the other denominations which to some degree share in our common Western litirugical tradition bought into the loop on the re-translation project.

One has to wonder why the insistence on such doctrinal purity with "Et cum spiritu tuo". The "Pater Noster" could also use some re-working. In the first place,the is no relative clause. The Greek simply reads, "Our Father in the heavens". The bread is not daily,but rather "superstantial". We should not be praying to be delivered from generic evil,but specifically from the Devil(Greek: "apo tou ponirou" i.e. "From the Evil One".) Using this as a translation could actually be a teachable movement in re-affirming of a belief in a personal focus of of evil,i.e. the Devil,an idea quite consistent with the thought of Blessed John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

"I have encountered some priests that are bullies, arrogant, disrespectful and with no ability to engage with the parishioners--gee, I wonder if those were the gifts he received? Our last 'visiting' priest could not even maintain eye contact with parishioners in a conversation much less lead them in meaningful worship!"

Well now, you have hit the nail right on the head! There are so many of these priests, who simply are not "persona Christi" as our ultra-right, traditionalists are so fond of quoting. There have been many, many female followers of Christ, who more than aptly personified Him in their ministries as leader, healer, teacher and preacher.

Since no one has mentioned the expression "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" yet, let me be the first one...
On the other hand, I do admit that the new "consubstantial with the Father" indicates better than "one in being with the Father" that we actually have no idea what we are talking about.

I wonder what would happen if the "faithful" simply remain silent during the "new translation" mass. Sit, watch and pray. "The Lord be with you" utters the bpriest or Bisoph and the people spea with their silence. They say: it is also our liturgy, our people work. We do not receive your changes. We are voting with our silence. How long would it take to abandon a slavish slavery to a trqanslted latin that simple does not speak to people today.

No matter what the translation, the real problem is that million-fold repetition turns prayers into stale formulas that are said over and over without much engagement or reflection until large sections of the Mass become so much babble, the priest and congregation "rattling on thinking that they will win a hearing by the sheer multiplication of words." (not my phrase)

That is hardly praying by any ambitious definition. This is prayer by ordeal.

Wouldn't deeply felt praying involve some shaping of what you say to fit what you want and need to say that day? How can this be done with such a large, cumbersome, and rigid text and ceremonial structure?

Try running 'et cum spirito tuo' through Google Translate. Hmmm, do you get 'And also with you'?

This is also the proper translation according to my well over-educated in Latin high school Latin teacher. I was in Catholic high school at the time of V2 and she was very pleased when the Church back then finally translated this often used phrase correctly "after centuries of using the wrong translation".

Her explanation made sense then and still makes sense today: for the Romans 'spirit' meant the entire person. Thus, 'you' and not 'with your spirit' is the proper educated translation because it is essential to reference the entire person in your translation if you want to be accurate. Too bad she's not around now to straighten out these current officials that are bastardizing translations.

A part of me just says we should expect better scholarship from Rome. Instead we get language barbarians who may have passed Latin I but surely would have failed the other four years of Latin that I had.

In the Apostles' Creed, the Father and the Son are both subsumed under one "I believe". Is someone in the name of literal accuracy actually advocationg the Sabellian heresy, without realizing it? "Lord of hosts" in the Sanctus. Whenever I hear the word "host", I think of someone who is granting me hospitality. Or maybe it refers to the "hosts' on the paten? The wording is ambiguous and might even lead to some misunderstanding among the uninformed. "Christ has died" is now eliminated as a Eucharistic acclamation,so now while the Eucharistic Prayer is directed the to the first person of the Trinity,the acclamation is directed to the second. This causes a disjunct of attention. (Some Episcopal versions have alternative texts in the third person,which is less disruptive to the focus of the prayer.)

"The expression et cum spiritu tuo is only addressed to an ordained minister. Some scholars have suggested that spiritu refers to the gift of the spirit he received at ordination. In their response, the people assure the priest of the same divine assistance of God’s spirit and, more specifically, help for the priest to use the charismatic gifts given to him in ordination and in so doing to fulfill his prophetic function in the Church."

Someone's been inhaling too much incense.

It's amazing how the most prominent and repeated objection here has to do with the liturgy being the work of the people and how the new translation ignores the will of the people, etc. You who spew this objection would be the first to ignore the fact that a vast majority of Catholics objected to the Novus Ordo and all of its radical changes (many which were not even written into it, i.e. versus populum) and yet it was still imposed upon them with little regard to their sensibilities. Now some relatively minor changes (by comparison) are coming about and you are screaming "foul" because they don't match up to your desires and horizontal theology. My prayer for you is that this small amount of medicine will help at least some of you to realize your errors.

Anglophone Roman Catholics have been given a new translation of the Mass. The Catholic hierarchy has called upon the faithful to welcome this event, calling it a return to fidelity to the original Latin, saying that it is more poetic and assuring us that it will inspire greater reverence.
This new translation is soon to be read and spoken aloud at Masses throughout the English speaking world. But for many, I believe, this new translation will come as a bit of a shock. It will feel like an imposition, a burden and a retrograde step that goes against the very spirit of Vatican II.
Verbose, alienating, divisive and pompous-sounding, these are just some of the descriptions that one can apply to this ‘new’ translation. Some myopic individuals may claim that its closeness to the ‘original’ Latin lends it greater reverence and authenticity but let us look at what Jesus himself said about authentic worship:
‘For the hour is coming …[when] those who worship must worship in spirit and in truth.’ [John 4 23-24]
Surely this must mean that genuine worship must be honest and from the heart in order to be truly meaningful. This requires straight-forward, plain language – not convoluted, awkward verbosity. Those who have foisted this stale but paradoxically ‘new’ translation upon us seem to have come to the peculiar conclusion that ‘more’ equals better, that verbosity equals genuine reverence and that the Latin language holds a special place in the heart of God. [Just as Arabic has a special, sacrosanct, place in Islam].
Those who look forward to the new translation coming to our churches are likely to be the same people who hanker after the Latin Tridentine Rite, who want to ban lay Eucharistic ministry and who also want to stop us receiving Holy Communion in the hand. These people are often swift to condemn and point the finger. They love to list rules and regulations and they have an unhealthy affection for the form of things, listing chapter and verse, statute and dogma in defence of orthodoxy and stern strictures whilst all the while Christian love and compassion are crushed by the heavy tomes of law, tradition and custom.
So what is it that we will be obliged to give voice to in just few months’ time? What words will be put into our mouths?
Well, our humbleness, guilt and humility are certainly emphasised and our complete and utter insignificance in the presence of God’s divine majesty is also celebrated. Priestly separation from his flock is reinstated and straight-forward English is sacrificed on the altar of Catholic conservatism.
Immediately, from the very exchange of greetings at the start of the Mass we are faced with a separation of the priest and his people.
The simple:
Priest: The Lord be with you
People: And also with you
Is replaced by the people’s response: ‘And with your spirit’.
This may be closer to the ‘original Latin’ but it certainly needs some explaining. On the surface, it really doesn’t seem to make much sense – though I’m sure the traditionalists will be happy with this reversion, and, no doubt, they’ll be rubbing their hands with anticipation at what follows…
In the penitential act, a simple and plain admission of guilt and sin is replaced by a really ladled-on thick emphasis on individual blame and culpability. ‘Fault, fault…grievous fault…’ There is certainly no doubt here. We’re not just ‘lost sheep’, we are all disgusting and undeserving reprobates destined for the everlasting furnace.
In the Gloria and elsewhere, God will now be addressed as ‘O God’ – a Latinate reversion that detracts from meaning and immediacy and which, in fact, looks and sounds just a bit silly.
The revised Nicene Creed replaces ‘we believe’ with ‘I believe’ – thus removing the collective nature of the prayer [logically ‘we’ includes the ‘I’ and recalls Christ’s words on collective worship ‘Where two or more people are gathered together in my name…’]
Also, ‘Consubstantial’ has replaced ‘One in being with the father’- Why? Perhaps because ‘consubstantial’ sounds more ‘holy’ or ‘respectful’. But what this really does is help to alienate people. Latinate words have greater cache; they have more ‘oomph’ with Catholic traditionalists who place greater emphasis on blind obedience and outward forms than on God’s work in the quiet of the soul.
As you continue to read through the ‘new revised’ Nicene Creed you will find an unnecessarily long sentence referring to the Holy Spirit. – it does rather go on, and on.
At the Ecce Agnus Dei, the congregation responds to the priest’s words with ‘Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof’. This may be in keeping with the original Latin and recall the words of the centurion, but in the context of the Mass itself, it is clearly verging on nonsense.
At the Hanc Igitur, the priest will now be obliged to say: ‘Graciously accept the oblation of your service…’ Thus further confusing the faithful and sending the more curious fumbling for their dictionaries. What is wrong with the word ‘offering’? Has it become soiled through over-use? Or is it simply too ordinary? Either way, this again is a silly change that will confuse people.
Soon afterwards, the Lord’s ‘cup’ has become a ‘chalice’. Now, of course, ‘chalice’ means ‘cup’ but it has acquired an overlay of meaning and an aura of specialness and separation from ordinary life [note the beautiful vessels on display in the Victoria and Albert Museum] . But, I should imagine that Jesus himself would have used the equivalent of a cup at the last supper, not a vessel that represented separation, earthly wealth and authority. After all, as he said himself, his Kingdom ‘Is not of this world.’
After the consecration, in the new translation, the priest is obliged to subject his congregation [feeling, I’m sure, more and more like an audience by the minute!] to two long, over-wordy sentences that are difficult to say and even more difficult to listen to. Is this what the Church hierarchy wants? In their eyes, so it seems, difficulty, verbosity and convolution of language are synonymous with holiness, authenticity and reverence. This equation is a distortion and runs contrary to Christ’s will, that we should worship ‘In spirit and in truth.’
On a lighter note, I see that, during the intercessions, we ask God to grant those who have died ‘a place of refreshment’. It’s nice to know that we may end up in a lovely celestial tea-house or heavenly pub garden.
To conclude; it seems that the new translation tries too hard. It labours at reverence. It strives towards holiness. It multiplies and embellishes in its attempt at authenticity of worship and in doing so it falls short. In fact, it runs contrary to the spirit of the English language itself and the nature of English speakers. We distrust verbosity, we are suspicious of the grandiloquent phrase and we look sideways at those who insist on using many words when a few will do.

We've been using the New Order of Mass in Australia since June. The rest (i.e. collects etc) will be the start of Advent. No problems (though a few people slip into the old one by habit), no protests, no one leaving the Church of God because of the translation.

What's all the fuss about? Some think the translation could have been better, some dislike the Latin text itself (good grief), but I personally find that the new translation brings out a greater depth and meaning, as per Vatican II. Good to know too that every Australian Bishop was consulted in the translation process, not like when the new Mass came in and none were.

Anyway, just to let you know, the sky hasn't fallen in.

I'll only adddress one point - the Creed. I may be standing beside you as we both recite the Creed, but I do not *know* for a fact that you actually believe what you're saying. I can only speak for myself.

The Novus Ordo says "I". My fellow Francophone citizens have always said "I" (formerly in Latin, and since Vatican II in French), and Ukrainian Catholic churches have always said Veruiu (I believe). That's good enough for me.

I'm quite comfortable reciting the Creed as "my", and not "our", profession of faith. To blindly assume that everyone at mass believes the same as me is outright hubris.

Boy, the Liturgists did quite the brain-washing job on most of the commenters here.

There is a Church with women and openly gay priests, less sins, and more tolerance and inclusion; its called the Episcopal Church. So why not just join that instead of harping over everything one does not like about the Roman Church?