The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Bishops approve final translations of Missal
Nov. 18, 2009
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionBALTIMORE -- The U.S. bishops approved the English translation and U.S. adaptations of five final sections of the Roman Missal in voting on the second day of their annual fall general assembly in Baltimore.
With overwhelming majority votes, the bishops approved translations of the proper of the saints, specific prayers to each saint in the universal liturgical calendar; the commons, general prayers for celebrating saints listed in the "Roman Martyrology"; the Roman Missal supplement; the U.S. propers, a collection of orations and formularies for feasts and memorials particular to the U.S. liturgical calendar; and U.S. adaptations to the Roman Missal.
There was some debate on the floor about a separate piece of the translations -- the antiphons -- which has not come to the bishops for consideration, but instead has advanced through the Vatican's approval procedures without the consultation of the English-language bishops' conferences around the world.
But the final five sections of the missal before the bishops passed with minimal discussion and only a handful of proposed amendments to the texts.
Each translation needed to pass by a two-thirds majority of the Latin-rite bishops. Each of the five pieces received at least 88 percent of the bishops' votes.
It's been nearly six years since the U.S. bishops began considering pieces of a new English translation of the missal. In June they approved four texts, containing prayers and prefaces for various occasions, votive Masses and Masses for the dead; solemn blessings for the end of Mass and prayers over the people and eucharistic prayers for particular occasions.
During the bishops' spring meeting, Bishop Arthur J. Serratelli of Paterson, N.J., chairman of the bishops' Committee on Divine Worship, this summer warned the bishops that if they failed to approve the texts by the end of November, they risked being shut out of the process by the Vatican.
Each of the English-language bishops' conferences has gone through or is going through the same process. Once all the information is received at the Vatican, the Congregation for Divine Worship must grant its "recognitio," or approval, to proceed with the translations.
After the passage of the texts, the bishops returned to a concern raised by Bishop Donald W. Trautman of Erie, Pa., over a shortcut being taken by the Vatican in the process for approving the antiphons section of the missal.
Bishop Trautman pointed out that the body of bishops had never been given the chance to review the translations of the antiphons.
Bishop Serratelli explained that with the Vatican congregation pushing the bishops' conferences to speed up their work on translations, his committee had consulted and agreed to let the Vatican translate the antiphons. Cardinal Francis E. George, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, concurred and signed off on it.
But, Bishop Trautman noted, the shortcut violates the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, the Second Vatican Council document that ordered an extensive revision of worship so that people would have a clear sense of their own involvement in the liturgy.
"We are dealing with a significant doctrinal/magisterial issue," Bishop Trautman said. Despite the Vatican's sense of urgency in moving the translations along, "we don't want to send the message that we can bypass" that constitution, he said.
"We need to give our best efforts to the translation of the missal," Bishop Trautman said. "And on the antiphons we have given no effort."
Ultimately the bishops rejected Bishop Trautman's motion to have the USCCB hold off on submitting final approval of the missal translation until they had the chance to review the antiphons.
Instead, they approved a motion suggested by Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of Los Angeles and made by Cincinnati Archbishop Daniel E. Pilarczyk to formally approve the action taken by Cardinal George in agreeing to the Vatican congregation translating the antiphons.
The translations approved Nov. 17 will, like the previously approved sections, be compiled into a new missal for use in English-speaking countries. Bishop Serratelli said while the Vatican approval process moves along, dioceses will begin preparing to use the new missal translation when it is ready.
To help both priests and the laity prepare for the changes, the USCCB has posted catechetical materials at www.usccb.org/romanmissal.
Among the changes people will notice in the new translation is a rephrasing in the Nicene Creed. It will read, in part: "I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, ... begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father."
That section of the Nicene Creed currently reads: "We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, ... begotten not made, one in being with the Father."
In the "Ecce Agnus Dei," ("Behold the Lamb of God") the people will say, "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed."
Currently, they say: "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed."
Finally! Praise God!
Finally! Praise God!
Consubstantial? Oh, good
Consubstantial? Oh, good grief. Scholasticism rears its silly head. Somebody call Sarah Palin. It's probably headed for Alaska even as we speak. Do the bishops really need to wonder why their moral authority is in jeopardy when the niggle over angels on the head of a pin?
It is more than sad that
It is more than sad that Bishop Trautman was silenced. It seems that the bishops do not listen anymore to real pastoral concerns. the new translation will only fire back and might lead to an exodus from a worship that does not appeal to the faithful to the worship of born-again groups
These awkward and confusing
These awkward and confusing sentences are not going to go down easy with the vast majority of The People of God. The bishops have now proven they are bought and paid for shills of the men at the Vatican. The worst of this is how little the people in the pews, you know, the ones who make it possible for these clowns to live like kings in the palaces. The only way to claim our ownership in the Church is to stop giving these bishops our money. There are ample ways to contribute to Catholic Charities and organizations who feed, clothe and house the poor on this planet. These bishops must learn that we are not the little sheep who will follow them in blind obedience. Our time has come. We must demonstrate to them that we are not buying their disenfranchisement.
Now you know what it feels
Now you know what it feels like. Imagine the grief the Novus Ordo caused when introduced in the 60s.
I read over the side by side
I read over the side by side listing of the current mass and the new translation. I do not like the newest mass. It does not have holiness to it to me. Instead it has a shallow immature notion of Jesus and God, what with angels carrying stuff up to God etc. Crazy.
Does anyone know if the episcopal/anglican mass... the one where they do not hate gays and women (not the breakaway group of homophobes and misogynists).. is like the current catholic mass? our family would appreciate it so much if the mainstream episcopal/anglican mass was like the catholic mass.
BXVI is wrecking the church. One attack after another by him on the laity and the people of God.
Well, except for the fact
Well, except for the fact that the Anglican/Episcopal Mass does not have the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, yes it is very similar. So, if your family is willing to give up the graces and sharing in Holy Communion, receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ under the form of consecrated Bread and Wine, then by all means, attend the Anglican/Episcopalian liturgy.
But, forgive me for saying this, it seems that the Catholic Church does not have an immature notion of Jesus, but perhaps you do. If you are willing to give up the innumerable graces received by participating in, and receiving Holy Communion at, a valid and licit Roman Catholic Mass, all because you are upset about a translation of the Mass that is consistent with Scripture and Tradition and your perception that the Church "hates gays and women", that seems very immature to me. The Church is lessened by your choice not to attend Mass, true, but the real loss is yours, the loss of the Real Presence of Christ.
And, you might try reading some Scripture wherein the image of angels carrying our prayers to the Throne of God is often found. If the new translations are "immature", how much more "immature" must you think Scripture is, since most of those images come directly from Sacred Scripture.
Somehow, these beautiful images, carried over from Sacred Scripture and the older forms of the Mass, nourished the heats and souls of countless saints. Only in this day and age would we be arrogant enough to presume a greater spiritual maturity than our fathers and mothers in the Faith.
Oh please. Go read the Book
Oh please. Go read the Book of Common Prayer and you'll find the English there much more akin to the newly approved texts, not the current Mass.
Sorry, but the Book of Common
Sorry, but the Book of Common Prayer sounds much more like the recent translations that the horrible 80s version.
Yes, the Episcopal/Anglican
Yes, the Episcopal/Anglican mass is like the current Catholic mass. You are correct that Anglicans welcome and ordain gays. Women are entitled to accept being called to the highest positions, including deacon, priest *yes, they are called 'priests' not 'ministers,' bishop, archbishop and primate (an archbishop who oversees (not 'governs') the Anglicans within a country.
In the mass, Anglicans celebrate the Sign of Peace after the Confession and Absolution, just prior to the Offertory (Preparation of the Gifts.) Most Episcopal(U.S.) and Anglican(rest of world) priests will invite "all baptized persons" to receive Holy Communion. It is a real "family of God" experience.
Baptisms are celebrated within the Mass, welcoming the newly baptized into their new and visible Christian family.
I believe as you do, Johnathon, that "BXVI is wrecking the church." And 88% of the US bishops are letting him do it. That is the really sad, disgusting and dysfunctional reality.
I tried to answer your
I tried to answer your question, Johnathon, about the episcopal/anglican mass. I guess my answer did not pass the censors. Pity, you have good points and a good question. I am truly amazed and saddened about this. I am an Anglican Priest.
I understand the liturgy
I understand the liturgy varies from one Episcopal Church to the next, and even fom service to service within a single church, but yes, it should be easy to find a service which is essentially like the Catholic Novus Ordo mass, with which we are now familiar.
"In the "Ecce Agnus Dei,"
"In the "Ecce Agnus Dei," ("Behold the Lamb of God") the people will say, "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed."
Well, VOX CLARA and USCCB, thanks for your EXCLUSIVE insensitivity and un-awareness of all the HOMELESS people in yes, the English-speaking world, who, when seeking comfort and solace from their grim reality, may choose to attend a Eucharistic celebration, only to be reminded that they have NO ROOF of their own.
But on the other more INCLUSIVE hand, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer (GLBTQ) people should take heart to find this Scriptural allusion (Mt. 8: 5-13; Lk. 7: 1-10) to the Roman Centurion's emotional plea for his dying young lover placed just before the most INTIMATE part of the liturgy.
http://www.glreview.com/article.php?articleid=32
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Centurion.html
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html
You know, the greatest sin in
You know, the greatest sin in society these days is not the willful murder of an unborn child, or the terrorist blowing up a building, or sexual abuse of minors. No, it is insensitivity and exclusivity, apparently. Everything else is okay, as long as we include everyone and don't hurt anybody's feelings. Please.
The "Dominus Non Sum Dignus" ("Lord, I am not worthy...") is lifted almost directly from Scripture, particularly the section about "enter under my roof". So, I suppose Sacred Scripture should be changed to be less offensive or exclusive?
It is amazing what some people get upset about when they have too much time on their hands.
As to the other part of your comment, at the risk of being considered insensitive or exclusive, I will not even dignify it with a response.
Thank you for posing good
Thank you for posing good points for thought and discussion.
Are those afflicted with
Are those afflicted with sexual disorders any less deserving of healing and health? Jesus came to heal the sick and sinners after all.
I thought that one of the
I thought that one of the goals of Vatican II was to make the liturgy more scriptural.
Sacrosanctum Concilium 24: "Sacred scripture is of the greatest importance in the celebration of the liturgy. For it is from scripture that lessons are read and explained in the homily, and psalms are sung; the prayers, collects, and liturgical songs are scriptural in their inspiration and their force, and it is from the scriptures that actions and signs derive their meaning. Thus to achieve the restoration, progress, and adaptation of the sacred liturgy, it is essential to promote that warm and living love for scripture to which the venerable tradition of both eastern and western rites gives testimony."
The current wrecklessly inaccurate approximation obscures the connection between this prayer and the scripture and thus needs to be altered to reflect both scriptural passage and the Latin original of the Roman Missal. Moreover, the prayer may safely be understood with "roof" as a metaphor without any insult. If there is a problem, a little catechesis may be appropriate.
The current translations of
The current translations of the Church of England Common Worship books are far superior to the tortured English of this latest translation, now voted on by the Bishops in the English Speaking world! THey have the valuse of bing poetic and yet modern, i think the Episcopal texts are the same. The whole exercise is simply an exercise in Colonialism of the worst kind, if people actually knew just who is dealing with such weighty decisions in the Vatican they would quite rightly be appalled.
Isn't colonialism when you
Isn't colonialism when you settle members of your community in the middle of someone else's land and take control of it. Calling the translation process, "Colonialism of the worst kind," might elicit strong opinions from people in Latin America, Africa, Asia, and pretty much everywhere that literal colonialism actually took place.
Thank you. Can you give a
Thank you. Can you give a website where we can look up the Episcopal texts? If they are more prayable then perhaps the Episcopal Church can provide an easy process where we can enter it, much as the Catholic Church is doing for your homophobes and misogynists.
I just came from the
I just came from the discussion on the article on church governance and how the dumb laity is a thing of the past and that the bishops have to realize that the laity will not just sit down and take it. The laity, after all, is intelligent and can think for itself.
Now I come over here and find out that the laity is stupid and unable to deal with such concepts as consubstantial and might find the language of the new translation too confusing.
Note to liberals: you can't have it both ways. I have sympathy for one of your viewpoints, but not the other.
If Catholics cannot be taught
If Catholics cannot be taught the meaning of the word "Consubstantial" how can they be expected to understand the phrase, "one in being with" ?
The meaning of
The meaning of "Consubstantial" IS "one in being with". So why confuse the assembly with a word that any modern person would never speak when we have a phrase that we have been proclaiming in our Creed for decades?
If NCR and its readers hate
If NCR and its readers hate the translations, they you know the are good!
The United Independent
The United Independent Catholic Church will be using the Missal of Paul VI. The new translation makes no sense. What a mess!!!
The United Independent
The United Independent Catholic Church will be keeping the Missal of Paul VI. I have read the new translation....makes no sense
That would be in Latin,
That would be in Latin, Right?
It was about time the Bishops
It was about time the Bishops got around to approving the new missal translation!!! Bishop Trautmann's complaint that the laity would not understand the meaning of some words in the new translation, such as "consubstantial" and that by approving such a translation the Bishops were not being pastoral is ridiculous. FYI Bishop Trautmann, it's the duty of the clergy to instruct the "ignorant" laity, not to dumb down Catholic liturgy with the excuse of being pastoral!
Submitted by Fr. Rudy (not
Submitted by Fr. Rudy (not verified) on Nov. 18, 2009.
It is more than sad that Bishop Trautman was silenced. It seems that the bishops do not listen anymore to real pastoral concerns. the new translation will only fire back and might lead to an exodus from a worship that does not appeal to the faithful to the worship of born-again groups
reply
In what way was he silenced? He was allowed to speak. The other bishops responded to his concern about the antiphons by trying to find some kind of common ground. So, apparently, the definition of silence means 90% of your fellow bishops disagree with you.
Yes, the Anglican language is
Yes, the Anglican language is far superior to that of the new Roman translations. Ratzinger insulted Anglicans when John Paul II was Pope by stating that their orders were INVALID. They can trace their apostolic succession back to Saint Augustine who was the first Archbishop of Canterbury. They ordain women as priests. The Church of England is about to consecrate women as bishops. Centuries overdue and they do indeed hold just as much validity in their ordinations as the Orthodox priests and bishops. It;'s all a red herring because Rome does not wish to ordain women. It's called misogyny and Rome is going backwards. Roman Catholic leaders have a great deal to learn from Anglicans and as soon as this right wing reactionary era comes to a close, which will be much sooner than most Catholics imagine, we will have intercommunion and Trent will be but a distant nightmare.
My understanding of that is
My understanding of that is that the Anglicans modified their intent and understanding of priesthood in such a way that they failed to pass on the sacred character, and thus they lost Apostolic succession. Plus, obviously, any Anglican subset that has attempted to consecrate a bishopess would also have a break at least in her "line." But, I am no historian so don't take my meager knowledge to the bank.
Mr. Smith, I regret to inform
Mr. Smith, I regret to inform you that your worldview regarding Mother Church is the one that is coming to a close. The younger clergy are far more traditional and orthodox. The religious orders obedient to Rome and to Church teaching and tradition are growing. Younger people are far more "conservative" on issues of faith than their elder generations. The current crop of bishops are substantially more faithful to Church teaching and tradition than their predecessors (and all evidence is that that trend will continue).
Meanwhile, Rome is NOT going "backwards" -- it is going in the same direction we always have. The Church has NEVER ordained a woman, and the Church is maintaining its constant teaching and tradition. That the Anglican Church is doing so does not mean that the Catholic Church should. Bear in mind that the Anglican Church was founded due to the disobedience and lust of one man. That the church he founded should be disobedient to tradition and teaching should not come as a surprise.
Finally, if you are advocating for women priests and bishops, for intercommunion and for a faith that determines its beliefs by democratic process, the Anglican Church may be the one for you. Far be it for me to ever suggest to anyone that they leave the Catholic Church, but in some cases it may be the best option, particularly if they are so angry and unhappy with Mother Church, so filled with invective and hatred that they cannot see the truth and beauty of the Catholic faith.
Could you please tell me what
Could you please tell me what in the Council of Trent you disagree with. Have you even read the Council of Trent? And why should the Second Vatican Council (which I still have doubt that you have read one line of) be any superior to the other Councils from Nicea on?
Each Council answers the main
Each Council answers the main questions and needs of its era. Each one is equal in teaching authority, etc., but the latest one is best for its era. Therefore the Vatican Council answers our needs and questions better than any other.
Pace Trautmann-NOT
Pace Trautmann-NOT DOCTRINAL
There is NOTHING "doctrinal" about the Holy See translating the antiphonal texts. Bishop Trautmann is pushing a red herring, and the bishops erred--presumably in the name of "collegiality"--by agreeing to the Mahoney-Pilarczyk motion, which suggests that there is merit to the objection. (I guess, like a petulant child who "agrees" to do what his parents tell him, the bishops have "agreed" to let Rome do what Rome has the authority to do).
Sacrosanctam Conciliam 36.4 was written at a time when, for four hundred years, liturgical uniformity was wholly in the hands of the Holy See. In agreeing to implement vernacular texts, the Constitution expected that a "competent territorial" entity would assume responsibility for the "typical" text to be used in that region (as opposed to a 'let a thousand flowers bloom' liturgies of congregationally-driven churches).
But #36.4 makes explicit cross-references to SC # 22. Trautman is falling on his sword over 22.2, but I suggest he is playing fast and loose with the text, since the prior principle (in #22.1) says explicitly "Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, ON THE APOSTOLIC SEE and, as laws may determine, on the bishop" (emphasis mine). Perhaps Mahoney-Pilarczyk is a face-saving sop to DT over an issue that is finally ended with the approval of the reformed texts, but bishops aspiring to be moral leaders might first start with speaking the truth to the Bishop of Erie about his selective citation of texts. The era of reading Vatican II through selective lens (usually justified as the "spirit of the Council") is happily coming to an end.
I wonder if I would be
I wonder if I would be excommunicated if I continue to use the present translation to pray????? Bob Wenz
1. Is it only the English
1. Is it only the English version of the new Paul VI mass that is being revised into old English (not anglo-saxon)? I am not aware that the French version has been changed or ever will be.
2. Has some sort of punishment, including excommunication, been considered or even prescribed for those who continue to worship as before, since the English translation of the new mass was published in 1970?
Jonathan: I think you would
Jonathan: I think you would find the current Anglican Liturgy or Anglican Mass to be quite beautiful as it is practiced in Canada, the USA and England. Parts you will recognize as being virtually indistinguishable from the ancient Latin Rite liturgy, parts incorporate many of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council advances in the liturgy and parts are completely Anglican and will most likely be a joy to you. They vary from church to church, just like they do in the Roman Communion. Some are Solemn High Masses with full orchestra and choir, like the ones at Saint Mary The Virgin Episcopal Church near Times Square in New York City. Some Anglican Masses are complete Choral Eucharists and some are a simple and brief spoken Mass like many weekday Masses in Roman Catholic Churches. You might want to look at a website: Episcopal Life On Line. They have featured a full page ad that appeared in USA Today. It spells out their core beliefs and I think you, Jonathan, might find it of special interest as it addresses part of your question in your post in this thread. This ad, to me represents the true spirit of Vatican II and what it means to be a reformed and renewed Catholic. Check it out.
Now, according to this new
Now, according to this new translation, ("Behold the Lamb of God") the people will say, "Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed."
Anyone who is truly united to Jesus Christ already has received Jesus Christ and He has found them worthy, as by Faith they have come to believe in Him. To say "I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof" is to say that Jesus Christ has not been found by Faith and that His love for us is not within or under our roof. It's sort of a denial of Faith that Jesus forgives and loves those who love Him.
To add to the confusion to say "my soul shall be healed" instead of "I shall be healed" is a separation or division of my entire being which is united to Christ, not just my soul. Where did my heart, mind and body go in this translation? Those parts of me that make up the "I" is banished from this translation.
It is a spiritually confusing translation, and it seems that those who translated it are very spiritually confused.
What a shame.
Post new comment