Samples of the New Latinized Missal translations

Please encourage the slowing of these changes. We older catholics cannot accept anymore changes...Let's preserve what we have so we don't lose any more of our congregations.....

Nancy

Don't these bishops or liturgists have anything else to do? I don't see anything wrong with the texts we are using and are used to and the changes are weird.

The examples given do not offend me, a well-educated American, although it seems hardly worth arguing that "and with your SPIRIT" is something one might possibly hear or say in the course of a whole week (outside of church, of course). Does not "and also with you" carry the same message as a far more natural, elegantly English expression? Latin has ceased to exist in all but the back rooms of Vatican hallways and medical dictionaries. Why the need to step backwards when "and also with you" does the trick?

As for the selected Easter Vigil Collect, this is an entirely different story. I find the language in the "new" translation to be stilted, contorted and very unnecessarily exact . . . an obvious slave-translation joined at the head to the dead Latin original. Requiet in pace!

Why are so many current bishops -- most of whom have grown up and into the episcopacy AFTER Vatican II, and so have no idea of what the bishops of the world went through at that marvelous event -- so determined to undo what was wrought by the Holy Spirit through those bishops of Vatican II? The English of the Roman liturgy is NOT "broken" or defective in the US, UK, or anywhere else where it is in use. Latin was -- and is --lovely, but it is not the language of the people, anywhere. Is something wrong or defective with praying straight from one's heart in one's own everyday language? After 42 years in the priesthood, I fail to see the reformists' problem. Let's leave well enough alone and really engage the Church's serious problems -- here in the US and around the world.

As regards the “and with your Spirit” I am in no way offended by the choice of words but find this phrase to be puzzling. Was not the full meaning captured in “and also with you?” Is there some difference between “you” and “your Spirit?” It sounds peculiar and un-English. A needless specification of something completely understood with the present phraseology.

It’s quite a different story with the selected Easter Vigil collect. The language seems stilted, un-English, and loaded with too many subordinate thought expressions to be clearly understood by the listener. The present translation is, for me at least, a much better carrier of the thought. It is
direct, uncontorted and easily understood by native speakers of English where the “new” translation smacks of a foreign hand and thought structure.

I did not even have to stop and look for ways to proclaim that more smoothly; it just rolled off my tongue. Perhaps there are indeed awkwardly phrased prayers in the new translation, but none of those are among them.

I don't see what all the fuss is about. If this is the translation that the Bishops have chosen let us trust them and quit being so American and guestioning.

I find nothing all that inspiring about the current translations. They seem rather pedestrian, so not much is at stake in change. The new translation is closer to the Latin in concept. I assume Fr Ryan's parishioners are not idiots and will accept a little tutoring. The better comparison is not solely between the old and new English versions, but would also include the old and new Spanish versions to see if they are any worse than the English versions. By the way, why do the Spanish translations of Scripture get away with not being gender neutral.

So now we are to "pass over into the dignity of Israel"? I feel like passing out. These new translations are a farce!

Continue to do something changing for our liturgy, is very old and un gender language, use the inclusive language.

The Collect bothers you? It's read by the priest on time per year! I seriously doubt the people will be confused.

There is clearly an anti-Rome movement afoot when one sees these specious arguments proffered.

Just print and read the texts. It's no more a problem than any other textual changes.

Frankly, it'd be a whole lot more honest if the good Father and the posters simply plainly said they are really hacked that Rome has made this happen rather than try to hide behind their horror at the "stilted, un-English" translations.

The proposed new "latinized" Missal takes us back to the days of Archbishop Cranmer and the beginnings of the Church of England. Indeed, Cranmerian liturgical English-ing of Roman prayer played an important role in the shaping of the language in the 16th century, and has been carried forward in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. In light of this initiative Pope Benedict's invitation to disaffected Anglicans to convert to Roman Catholicism while retaining their Prayerbook therefore makes eminent sense.
However, there is NO SENSE to Roman Catholics of the 21st century reclaiming the peculiar language, cadences and forms of the antique Latin collect structure which was inspired by official pagan cultic prayer. The more so when a wonderfully contemporary Sacramentary had just been completed by an international body of scholars, with wide consultation, in the final years of the 20th century and was only awaiting the Congregation of Divine Worship's recognitio.
WHY must we the whole church be brought back to the 16th century Reformation by papal fiat? It should be only with kicking and screaming. The patterns of absolute monarchy do not work in any aspect of the church's life in the 21st century, and the current institutional collapse reveals that to all but the blindest of the faithful.
Vatican Council II pointed our way forward, in method as in perspective. Vatican bureaucrats should be granted no power to reverse what was agreed to by the global church gathered in solemn council.

It's time for all those in ecclesial authority here in the US to stand up for the people they are supposed to be serving - namely those of us out here in the pews. The prayers of the eucharistic liturgy need to be more intelligible to the average Catholic, not less - for whatever arcane reason! There seems to be an assumption that to serve the whims of the liturgical hierarchy is the same as serving the worshiping Catholic in the local parish - but this is clearly not so. Here serving the institution is the primary focus - not the flock. What happened to the collaborative sense, the spirit of "we're in this together?" C'mon, bishops and pastors - let's do what best serves the interests and needs of all!

Advent 2011 cannot come fast enough!!

I was working on an ivy league campus when the mass first could be celebrated entirely in english.

there was notable disappointment in the quality of the text . many of the catholic faculty were appalled . they felt there was no lack of catholic novelists , poets , scholars . these should have been tapped for translation .

the years have passed and we have come to live with that translation . is there any reason to expect that we will not find ourselves at home with the latest one ?

the new translation's success really depends on the skill of the celebrant in public reading . not many priests seem trained in this craft . too often the proclamation of the gospel and the praying aloud of the eucharistic prayers are marred by poor body language and unintelligent reading.

those who say that the new translation is linguistically unsound have not convinced me.

it is imperfect to be sure . it is also a step forward. but if priests , in general , do not learn to read effectively in public , parishioners will have to take time to catch on . that may be too much work for those very many catholics who have , through no fault of their own , little awareness of the mystery of the mass.

These examples must be the most benign of the whole package. Others I've seen are far more objectionable: "Joseph, husband of Mary" to "Joseph, spouse of the same virgin" and others I cannot remember to quote but that are truly horrible.

Run-on sentences, opaque meanings, stilted language....we need to see those examples included here.

When someone pointed out this article to me and told me about all the upset, I was expecting to find earth-shattering changes that would distort the meaning of the prayers. From the examples used here and others I've seen, it seems like they're only making very minor changes that bring us in-line with the translations used in the rest of the world. The changes are so minor that it makes you wonder why they're even bothering or why anyone cares. I agree that "And with your spirit" sounds funny and the phrase "and also with you" is totally sufficient. Still, the Vatican II generation went through much bigger changes than this and I have no doubt the Church will survive and thrive. Why the hubbub?

Now, I would certainly welcome a new translation of the Our Father. Except for that prayer, when was the last time anyone used "art" to mean anything other than the fine arts?

LOL! Looks like someone earned a perfect score in the masters course in obfuscation. Come! Follow me to the ELCA! There is plenty of room for EVERYONE!

I've got a better translation of the confetior:
I confess to almighty God, Blessed Mary Ever Virgin, Blessed Michael Archangel, Blessed John the Baptist, Saints Peter and Paul, All Saints and you Brothers and Sisters,
That I have sinned greatly in word, thought and action
By my fault, by my fault, by my greatest fault,
And I ask Blessed Mary Ever Virgin, Blessed Michael Archangel, Blessed John the Baptist,
Saints Peter and Paul, All Saints and you my brothers and sisters to pray for me to the Lord our God

Wow, I already responded to one of these web sites because I am concerned about any change made that would be grammatically incorrect and I also teach religious eduction to adults. Some people on this web site have already said it before my and the one I post here, but where are the very bad grammar translations talked about on the other web site I signed my name to? If these are the changes to be forced upon us then this is nothing more than a slight bump in the road of life. Not that tremendous car crash that I was expecting. What is being said and heard in the heart? Isn't that what Jesus told us to do and about how we should act? I'm still waiting to hear something significantly uncorrect before I really get going on this issue. Come forth with the translations that you are ranting about. Amen.

This is so unnecessary. The translations sounds like it was lifted from the "English" side of a bilingual Missal from 50 years ago.
. At least everyone will know where the expression "mea culpa" came from.
. Some of this sounds like slightly anglicized Latin "e.g. "consubstantial" (which triggered my spell checker) as in "consubstantialem patri".

I remember 40-odd years ago a translation of the Bible being read in church which referred to the coins in the parable of the woman who lost her drachma as "dimes"; and the thieves who were crucified with Jesus as "insurgents".Since it was during the Vietnam war, I suppose you were supposed to think of the Vietcong.

I thought that after all these decades, the period of experimentation was over, but i suppose I guessed wrong.

I like some of the changes and others I can live with them. Lets move on and use our energies to correct the injustices of the world and not wast them.

The new translations are not huge changes in the liturgy as some of you are suggesting. They are refinements to the vernacular forms that we presently use. Some of the changes are accurate translations of the Latin version, and other changes are intended to give the liturgy more majesty that is appropriate for worshipping God. If anyone is leaving the Church because of liturgy, it's because of the "dumbed-down" version that we have now. We've suffered too long for the past four decades of elementary English usage and awful folk music. Let's recover the beautiful heritage of the Catholic Church by placing beauty back into our liturgy and music. I have to laugh at the pastoral concerns that are expressed over these changes. These changes are nothing in comparison to the monumental changes that occurred following Vatican II and during the implementation of the current liturgy.

I guess I am opposed to any change in the liturgy which is not prompted by some compelling reason, and I'm especialy opposed to any change which makes it more Latin. However, if all the proposed changes are similar to the examples cited here, most of the faithful wouldn't even notice unless you specifically pointed out what was new.

On two specific issues raised above:

Germans have always been on familiar terms with God, but the French only recently chose to address the Lord as Tu, not Vous. This must have been a dramatic change in the whole liturgy and particularly in the Lord's Prayer.

I really like the Brazilian response to the priest's greeting "the Lord be with you." Their answer is obviously not a translation of the Latin. They say "He is in our midst". Do you think they, too, will have to change to "and with your spirit"?

The translations. the newest literal latin to English are bad.

Please read the entire mass wordings posted on the US Bishops web site. It is a mess.

Convuluted, full of obscure, awkward wordings, phrases and a most immature understanding of God with angels carrying trays up to God etc, Really dreadful stuff.

The Pope seems to not be a theologian at all. He is a very poor leader and seems not fit to be the Pope. So much harm is being done to the Church under his direction.

Just keep saying the old versions.

In the remark about contemporary translations of the two thieves beside Jesus as being insurgents in the 1960s I think today's equivalent would be calling them either bankers or health care executives.

I like the new translations - they adhere more to the original meaning and intent - whats the fuss about??? That mystifies me - I believe the Magesterium has our best interests at heart and are guided by the Holy Spirit - why is that so hard for some to accept? Especially since it is a basic understanding of why there is a need for real authority in the church. But then perhaps it is exactly that authority that so disturbs some folk. And the criticism of the Pope on this blog leads me to believe that the writers have not read anything he has written - either that or he challenges them in ways they are not ready to deal with honestly...

These translations are clearly superior to banal prayers we hear each day. In fact, their imagery is more evocative, and they often provide a clearer theology.

I don't see what all the complaints are about. The new language is beautiful and poetic, and the examples given in the article seem more reverent and sacred. I believe the language of the Mass should be above everyday common English. Why not praise God in a language that is poetic and beautiful. If some words are unfamiliar, look them up.

Why would Catholics around the world not be rejoicing that we have been given a new more faithful and literal translation thatwill bring us closer in nderstanding to the Eucharist and Paschal Sacrifice.