The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionNew missal translation subtly moves church away from Vatican II
by Mario T. García on Nov. 29, 2011
Like my fellow bloggers, I also paid particular attention to the new changes in the liturgy at this Sunday's Mass.
Before Mass started, a woman who works in the parish explained that today, the first Sunday in Advent, we would commence these new changes. We were all provided not only with the new missals but also with prayer cards to make sure we became aware of the new word changes in our responses as well as those of the priest.
However, she did point out that there was a typo in one of the responses and brought our attention to it. This makes me wonder if similar mistakes might have occurred in other parishes throughout the country.
I noticed that some people in the pews prior to Mass examined the prayer card while others seemed lackadaisical about it. After the Mass began, only once did the priest, who was reading his homily, refer to the changes, and this was only in passing.
During the Mass, I found myself fumbling with the prayer card to see what the new responses were. I found this distracting, and possibly others did too.
Most people still responded "And also with you" rather than "And with your spirit." I think it will be a while before we become adjusted to this particular response.
In general, it seemed to me that my fellow parishioners did not seem to think it was such a big deal despite all of the hype about the new liturgy. If the word changes were aimed at inspiring a new spirit in the Mass, I don't think it accomplished this from what I observed.
In thinking about these changes, I want to share some personal reactions.
First, to me, these changes in a subtle way represent still another move away from the reforms of Vatican Council II. I think this is especially the case with Vatican II's emphasis that all of us as Catholics, clergy and laypeople, represent the church.
Symbolically, the priest now facing the congregation as well as the greater involvement of the congregation in the saying of the Mass framed this. The new response "And with your spirit," however, according to The Catholic Voice, published by the Diocese of Oakland, Calif., is supposed to stress the priest's ordination when the bishop confers the spirit upon him, and to remind us of his primacy.
I don't mind refreshing, in a sense, the priest's particular place in the church, but it seems to me that this ostensibly innocent new change detracts from the concept that all of us are vhurch. The change from "you" to "spirit" represents this moving away from this significant Vatican II reform.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
Secondly, the change in the response in the creed where we now are to respond "I believe" rather than the previous "We believe" is still another move away from the concept of "We are church." The new change focuses on individualism rather than the collective nature of the church that Vatican II stressed. We should not just be going to Mass to address God as individuals but as the people of God. Thus, the use of the "I" takes us away from this and disempowers us by emphasizing that we are largely on our own before the church.
Thirdly, the insertion of the term "consubstantial" also in the creed is too academic, and rather than making the Mass more accessible through words that people can understand and meditate, instead places the primacy on the priest's interpretation of the Mass. Rather than the "people's Mass," it moves us back to the "priest's Mass." At least the priest at my Mass should have taken the time to explain to people what "consubtantial" means rather than just reading from the prepared homily.
Finally, I think the work of the church should be at this point in history less focused on liturgical changes and more on the role of the church in the modern world, another emphasis of Vatican II. As I've noted before in other of my blogs, why is it that we never hear from the priests in their homilies anything about the church in the modern world? Why are the scriptures never addressed with respect to their social meanings apart from personal ones? People are suffering in this country, with an increase in poverty and joblessness and a loss of hope for the future. We have even more suffering in other parts of the world. Why aren't we as Catholics in our coming together in church and addressing these issues? Vatican II stressed the concept of "social sin," or the idea that sin is not just a personal matter but also a social one in the form of various forms of exploitation and discrimination. Why aren't we also addressing the social sins of the world?
I don't have a problem with liturgical changes if they don't move us away from the greater role of laypeople in the church and don't take us away from also facing the responsibility of the church to renew its commitment to Catholics' social doctrine to deal with the modern world and to teach about this in our services.
Mario: I appreciate that one
Mario:
I appreciate that one may like or not like the changes, find them difficult or easy, but the judgement that this is 'moving away from Vatican II' does not seem accurate. These are not new texts or changes to the Mass, but a new translation of the actual texts of Mass of Paul VI (Novus Ordo). The three instances that you cite are not new, but actually part of the Mass as promulgated by Vatican II, only now they are accurately translated to reflect what has actually been in the missal since Vatican II. If we desire fidelity to the Council, we should begin by actually saying (and praying) what the Council actually calls for.
On another note, it is usually not accurate to say "we never hear from priests in their homilies ...". There are a lot of priests (and deacons) and a lot of homilies. On average, I give anywhere between 10 to 15 homilies a week. This does not include special talks,classes and presentations. Most people only hear me once a week. Obviously, not every homily can be about the evil of abortion - which some would like to hear or evangelization which others would like to hear, or the saints, purgatory, Mary, Social Justice, marriage and family life, biblical scholarship, the church in the modern world, the moral law, sexuality, prayer, contemporary issues, parish finances, stewardship, discipleship, sin, redemption, grace or the liturgical year and the daily readings. For most homilists these topics do get addressed but not all of them all of the time. Hopefully what is given in the homily regardless of the topic can be applied to our daily lives and assist us in our faith journey.
After 61 yrs as a faithful
After 61 yrs as a faithful Catholic, trying to understand, defend, and explain the Church and it's clergy, I must admit is is all becoming wearisome. The evangelical preachers on the radio are much more interesting and better informed than most of our priests.,
Yeah but these evangelical
Yeah but these evangelical preachers are all talk and nothing else.
Dear “Padre Anonymous”. you
Dear “Padre Anonymous”. you write so well, especially when you state in closing: “Hopefully what is given in the homily regardless of the topic can be applied to our daily lives and assist us in our faith journey.”
I would amend your thought to include: “Hopefully WHAT IS CELEBRATED AT THE ALTAR and given in the homily ... can be applied to our daily lives and assist us in our faith journey.”
Having walked in your shoes for 30 years and now more than 30 years as a married father of a family I appreciate your getting right down to the “quid” of our Eucharistic celebrations: the only reason for our existence as Church = “the community of those who have “bought into” the life/death/resurrection PROJECT OF JESUS: Abbá – Father, Thy KINGDOM COME ONE EARTH as it is heaven.” Our precious community sharing in the Word, the Loaf and the Cup on Sunday is to RENEW THE COMMITMENT OF OUR LIVES TO THIS PROJECT OF JESUS.
Words are words: – I’ve celebrated in Latin, Spanish, Russian, Mískito, Creole English – All make little difference unless we know WHY we are celebrating. It’s difficult to grasp WHY WE ARE CELEBRATING unless we are convinced of ¿WHY WE EXIST AS CHURCH?
So Padrecito I wish you a long and fruitful life in your ministry.
Justiniano de Managua el 29 de nov. 2011
"to me, these changes in a
"to me, these changes in a subtle way represent still another move away from the reforms of Vatican Council II"
No, no, and no again! The translation is a better translation of the Mass of Pope Paul VI, the Mass of the Council. The new translation might therefore be a moving away of the false and dangerous misinterpretation of Vatican II that has engulfed the English speaking Catholic world. It is also, in fact, a moving towards the real desires of the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council.
Every other translation of the Mass throughout the world translates "Et cum spiritu tuo" as "And with your spirit". English speaking Catholics are not special or different. We're not Anglicans, we're internationalists, we're Catholic!
Stop misrepresenting the Sacred Council, return to the actual texts instead of the false so-called "spirit of Vatican II". Stop the rebellion, stop being an egotist ("to me" says it all!). Leanr some humility and begin being obedient to Christ's Church. No one is forcing you to stay within the sheepfold. There are plenty of ailing Protestant sects who would welcome you with some inane language and pretend reverence.
BRAVO!!!!!!!
BRAVO!!!!!!!
Some Christian you are - Do
Some Christian you are - Do it this way or leave! God is not amused.
Some comments... It amazes me
Some comments...
It amazes me that I never asked myself why we said "and also with you" in English when I knew the Latin original to be "et cum spiritu tuo" ("and with your spirit"). Why didn't I discern some particular agenda in so "free" a translation? Is the "y con tu espiritu" of the Spanish translation (or its equivalents in other major languages) somehow less "in the spirit" of Vatican II than the freer English "translation"?
I do value Vatican II's reminding us of the "priesthood of all believers," but I think some of us have taken this idea and run too far with it, some have gone as far as denying the distinctiveness of the priestly state itself. That distinctiveness is sacramental -- the priest, acting in persona Christi, is ordained to be a channel of God's grace to the laity.
Yes, let us recognize the humanity of our clergy. Yes, let us no longer flinch from calling them to account when they are corrupt. But let us never forget that they as the celebrants of the Mass ARE special and distinct. And that they are so does not make us who are not priests any less members of the Church. Vatican II did not teach that clergy and laity no longer have different roles within the Church; it only enjoined the clergy and the laity to be more active in performing their respective roles.
"I believe..." replacing "We believe..." in the Credo: I do not see this as a move towards individualism, to each believer cultivating a "personal relationship with God" that turns its back on communing with others. When all of us at mass each say in unison "I believe...," I don't need an explicit "We believe..." to feel our community in God.
"I believe..." focuses the one proclaiming it on his or her own personal commitment to the doctrines of the Credo. What "we" believe may not necessarily correspond to what "I" actually believe, particularly when, as so often happens, we are just repeating the Creed robotically. Saying "I" challenges me to take the doctrines for my own. That leads to true empowerment; "I believe..." is anything but groupspeak.
"Social sin": we must never forget that if we are to overcome social sins we must follow a path that is Christlike. The Christlike path to social reform is distinct from secular forms of mobilization; the latter have all too often become perverted by human sinfulness -- witness all the social revolutions that have gone murderously wrong. A definition of "social sin" that divides humanity into evil "exploiters" and righteous "victims" and pits the latter against the former does not represent a Christlike approach.
I am not saying that the oppressed should simply embrace their oppression, but rather that they should embrace their oppressors -- as Christ would. "Turn the other cheek" aims to lead an oppressor to repent of his oppressiveness.
Some comments... It amazes me
Some comments...
It amazes me that I never asked myself why we said "and also with you" in English when I knew the Latin original to be "et cum spiritu tuo" ("and with your spirit"). Why didn't I discern some particular agenda in so "free" a translation? Is the "y con tu espiritu" of the Spanish translation (or its equivalents in other major languages) somehow less "in the spirit" of Vatican II than the freer English "translation"?
I do value Vatican II's reminding us of the "priesthood of all believers," but I think some of us have taken this idea and run too far with it, some have gone as far as denying the distinctiveness of the priestly state itself. That distinctiveness is sacramental -- the priest, acting in persona Christi, is ordained to be a channel of God's grace to the laity.
Yes, let us recognize the humanity of our clergy. Yes, let us no longer flinch from calling them to account when they are corrupt. But let us never forget that they as the celebrants of the Mass ARE special and distinct. And that they are so does not make us who are not priests any less members of the Church. Vatican II did not teach that clergy and laity no longer have different roles within the Church; it only enjoined the clergy and the laity to be more active in performing their respective roles.
"I believe..." replacing "We believe..." in the Credo: I do not see this as a move towards individualism, to each believer cultivating a "personal relationship with God" that turns its back on communing with others. When all of us at mass each say in unison "I believe...," I don't need an explicit "We believe..." to feel our community in God.
"I believe..." focuses the one proclaiming it on his or her own personal commitment to the doctrines of the Credo. What "we" believe may not necessarily correspond to what "I" actually believe, particularly when, as so often happens, we are just repeating the Creed robotically. Saying "I" challenges me to take the doctrines for my own. That leads to true empowerment; "I believe..." is anything but groupspeak.
"Social sin": we must never forget that if we are to overcome social sins we must follow a path that is Christlike. The Christlike path to social reform is distinct from secular forms of mobilization; the latter have all too often become perverted by human sinfulness -- witness all the social revolutions that have gone murderously wrong. A definition of "social sin" that divides humanity into evil "exploiters" and righteous "victims" and pits the latter against the former does not represent a Christlike approach.
I am not saying that the oppressed should simply embrace their oppression, but rather that they should embrace their oppressors -- as Christ would. "Turn the other cheek" aims to lead an oppressor to repent of his oppressiveness.
The text of the Novus Ordo
The text of the Novus Ordo Mass is still (and has always been), "Et cum spiritu tuo." In other languages, like French, this has always been translated accurately, "Et avec votre esprit."
The fact that it now also is in English has nothing to do with Vatican II (since the Latin words were unchanged by the work derived from the council.)
Dear Persons in Power, I was
Dear Persons in Power,
I was so sad to see one word in particular that was added to the Penitential Prayer. It is the word 'greatly' before 'sinned'. Who is to judge that we have greatly sinned? I am thinking about the people who are trying to live a good life, such as my late mother. These people are devout and good people. Why do they now have to profess that they are 'great sinners'? This is going back to fire and brimstone thinking. Where is the attitude that God loves us and this is our time with him?
Would it be right for the saints to be told that they must pray saying that they are great sinners? I'm thinking about the late Pope John Paul. He was not a great sinner! He is a saint and in heaven. Who are the people in power that say he should pray that he had 'greatly sinned'? There are many saints living on earth that should not have to say this prayer!!!
We are a community of God living in his love. We should be celebrating that. We should not be dragged down to groveling but embracing and uplifting each other in support. The prayers of the church should support us in living a good life, not add chains around us. We are taught to live in the love and the joy of God. The prayers of the church need to follow through with this teaching!
Because this change was made by men I'm sure it can be changed again. I just pray that the changes will not take long.
In prayer,
Kris Abromaitis
Kris: this is simply a matter
Kris: this is simply a matter of humility. Do you not think that St. Paul was a devout and good person, yet he confessed himself to be the worst of sinners. We should always recall that sin is simply more than wrongdoing, but is an offense to almighty God. If your mother was as good as you think she was, then I'm sure she would not have been offended by such verbiage, and in fact, probably acknowledged it herself as she moved toward sanctity. If she prayed the Act of Contrition, then she certainly admitted that she detested her sins precisely because sins are an offense to God's divine majesty.
The Church is in urgent need
The Church is in urgent need of a crash course in Christianity and Catholics desperately need to absorb the holy scriptures into their very being. Then reject the collision course our bishops and pope are taking us to: a dangerous rebirth of romanticism, reaction to a world around them they don't understand, and a rapid regression to a mythic past.
Only the laity now are able to purify the Church by taking control of its organs of management and oversight. Start at your parish and work up.
The term "social sin" gives
The term "social sin" gives me pause. I know that is not the main theme. However, how does a group, i.e. "social", engage in sufficient reflection and full consent of the will as a group? Such a discussion and arriving at a consensus would take considerable time; more time than most groups would give to any discussion. I think that a new term is needed for the concept to be generally, or universally, accepted. How, exactly, does a group, i.e. social, sin?
I intend to stick with the
I intend to stick with the old saying and not learn the new ones. I think a lot of people will do this. There is no reason to change the words now. It will take a generation or 2 until this is accepted in the church. Is tge cruch abonaoning the lay people who are older
These changes are clumsy. How
These changes are clumsy.
How does this new translation help me become closer to God?
Maybe the changes are more reflective of the conservatives "flexing their muscles."
Post new comment