Declaring a Truce with MRIII

Though it has only been three Sunday Masses and a handful of weekday Masses, I’m ready to declare a truce with the translation of the third editio typica of the Missale Romanum. In some ways I could have simply added this as a “me-too” comment to Jonathan Day’s “Changing the Conversation” post below, but decided that I had slightly more to say on the matter than would fit in a combox.

I lived with the previous translation for my entire life as a Catholic — 29 years — and loved it despite its flaws (which were many). Some of the prayers, such as Eucharistic Prayer III, I found quite beautiful. I had long hoped that the translation could be improved and was heartened by what I saw of the 1998 Sacramentary (while being worried by some of the changes proposed for the order of Mass). I was dismayed by the drafts I saw leaked from the post-Liturgiam Authenticam ICEL in 2004 — does anyone recall “Let our hearts be lifted high / We hold them before the Lord” — and my dismay was only slightly alleviated by subsequent drafts. The post-recognitio tinkering was perhaps most dismaying of all, because it left me with the feeling that shadowy figures with incomprehensible motives were moving the furniture around in the House of the Lord.

All of which is to say that this is an issue I’ve been worrying about for a long time. And now, I’m ready to call it quits. In the few weeks since the introduction of MRIII, I have had a few surprises that have made me rethink my previous anxiety (or, in the current translation, “distress”).

I have found that the changes in the people’s parts of the order of the Mass are not as great as they seemed at first and that in many cases I have them already committed to memory (and I have a very bad memory).

I have found that the orations, while containing more than a few clunkers, are sometimes comprehensible and occasionally striking.

I have found that I often don’t even notice “for you and for many,” and when I do it sounds perfectly fine — in fact, it sounds a lot like Isaiah 53.

I have also found that I can’t get through an entire Mass without at least once saying “and also with you” (or, sometimes, “and also with your spirit”). I have found that the Eucharistic prayers (even more than the orations) still sound like the translators seriously over-egged the pudding, including every Latinate awkwardness possible. I have found that “chalice” is really a kind of ugly word and having it repeated three times in quick succession is EPIII is far more distracting than “for you and for many.”

But most of all I have found, somewhat to my surprise, that I am ready to move on. While I am still interested in hearing people point out errors — such as the implication in the collect for Immaculate Conception that it was Thomas Aquinas and not Duns Scotus who was right about Mary’s sinlessness — I’ve exhausted my interest in the translation issue as such. I’m exhausted by discussions of the machinations of Vox Clara, of the relative merits of 1998 and 2010, of whether “for you and for many” would invalidate the consecration (really?).

Both the process and the product of the translation efforts have revealed some of the more unlovely aspects of the Church: the ecclesiastical careerism and back room dealing, the intellectual and aesthetic mediocrity that often gets foisted on the People of God, the sheer ineptitude of the Church’s bureaucracy, etc., etc., world without end. But all of this is hardly news. And all of this showed itself — and, alas, continues to show itself — in far more demonic guise in the Church’s response to the sexual abuse of minors.  Indeed, if I am going to exert energy in a battle with the Church’s leadership, I think I’d rather fight on that front.

So I’m calling a personal cease-fire. The current translation is not the one I would have chosen, but it’s the one I’ve got. It’s still the Mass and in the end that’s all that really matters to me. I realize others might not be ready to move on, and that is fine by me. But I’m ready to cease the hostilities that have raged in my heart.


  1. Take it from Janet….I am glad that YOU are ready to declare a truce with the Mess from Wooooostah, however you are in the minority. It is only through continued hammering of the Mess that reform will follow….in 5 to 10 of course (wink, wink).

    My boyfriend and I, while Christmas shopping recently, actually heard it being discussed on AM talk radio and someone on the horn put it very succinctly. It sounded like an older woman who was quite put out and said: I go to church to PRAY in a way familiar to me, not to try to pass an SAT exam.

    Yup, its being likened to a vocabulary section SAT exam. Of course, once you have taken the vocabulary exam, there will be precious few left to take the MATH exam (read: Cha Ching).

      1. Now Fritz, Fritz, Fritz, taking a cat swipe at me before I have even finished my oatmeal. Never nice to do to a lady. But, from one to another, suffice it to say that this dog just don’t hunt no matter how you want to add it all up. But its nice to know that you are hovering over PT at the ready to swipe at all dissenters.

  2. “I’m ready to move on … I’m exhausted by discussions of the machinations of Vox Clara … So I’ll calling a personal cease-fire. The current translation is not the one I would have chosen, but it’s the one I’ve got. It’s still the Mass and in the end that’s all that really matters to me.”

    Exactly what “they” were counting on!

    Fritz, you’re an answer to prayer. Excuse me, you’re a response graciously granted to “their” most humble supplication!

      1. Dear Fritz: I’m sorry you found the research I shared with Father Ruff and which he then shared with the Pray Tell readership to be the equivalent of “bitching on the Internet.” And, given the level of “hostilities” that still seem to be “raging in (your) heart,” you could do with a regular visit to a cafe yourself – anywhere … though Da Roberto’s is hard to beat!

      2. The research was fine, Dr. X, and in a sense much appreciated (sort of like the way one appreciates having one’s worst fears confirmed). But what’s next? As I said, people can keep tearing their garments if they wish. I’m just not that interested.

      3. I’ve said this in other contexts, and I know it would really be close to a threat of thermonuclear holocaust, but the only thing that the hierarchs listen to is money. There was a parish outside Boston in the 1980s that didn’t like a retrograde new pastor that Cardinal Law appointed for them. They set up an escrow account for their contributions to support the parish, and told the chancery that the money would be released when they got a different pastor. Within a week an auxiliary bishop was dispatched; within a couple of months there was a new pastor.

        There’s the model for getting the bishops to listen. No change — no money.

      4. RP

        Ah yes, I believe you are referring to Sacred Heart in the place where the Revolution began…. The funny ending to that story is the pastor who eventually took over was in substance much more progressive than people realized; he had the image of a company man, but the substance of a shepherd, and people judged him by his cover too quickly. I know this because he then became pastor at a parish of mine, and I learned a lot of things…..

      5. I am grateful for Xavier’s criticisms. They give me confidence that I am not crazy when I find some sentence erroneous or ugly while some people claim that it is clear and beautiful. His clarity helps prevent Big Brother’s final victory: as long as I can retain a sense of what is right and of what is true, there is hope.

        In terms of concrete suggestions, we could pray that Pope Benedict goes to Ireland for the Eucharistic congress and that he prays the Mass using the new missal. Amazingly, I have not lost hope in him.

  3. So, now that the new missal is here, the immediate question is: how do we live with it in practice?

    It’s true that “it’s still the Mass”. That’s been a surprise for me: that I can be distracted by a multitude of jarring expressions and offended to the core by the “for many”, yet overall it’s still the Mass, still an uplifting time of the week.

    The jarring expressions are no worse for me than having out of tune musicians that distract me with a multitude of off notes: I should be able to learn to live with that. I can try to think of it as a reminder of how human our church is, faulty and imperfect by nature. Tolerating the bad words is like living with my pew neighbor’s smell or my pastor’s dull homilies: in a way it is a necessary part of being church.

    But as long as our church rejects some categories of people, in violation of its mission, I will fight the “for many”. The “for many” provides fodder to an evil quest for purity via rejection of the misfits.

  4. This is precisely the post I’ve been waiting for.

    As a graduate of Notre Dame’s MDiv Program, I have a distinct distaste for most of the changes in RM3. In particular, I have been overly sensitive, perhaps not without reason, to the changes in the people’s parts and in the clarity of the Eucharistic prayers. I have followed the discussions on and in other publications, as well as around my diocese.

    However, as a youth minister in a parish, I have moved on. My pastor, though often traditionalist in view, surprised me by telling the entire parish staff – back in December of last year – that he, like the rest of us, had some issues with the new translation. However, no one asked our input and therefore we would have RM3, like it or not, the following December. He encouraged us to read it, to study it, to go to training on it, so that by the time it gets here, we’ll have come to terms with it and have moved on. His hope was that we would all “come to a truce with RM3” and then, having moved on from our frustrations well before Advent, we could be positive voices in the mix of all the opinions and frustrations the people would encounter. And that is exactly what has happened.

    How I wish the academy would do the same! Tell me something positive. Tell me how to enter more fully into the new translation in a way a that is meaningful and prayerful. Tell me how to pastorally lead people into a deeper appreciation for this new Missal, and for liturgy in general.

    This article captured my sensibilities perfectly. Is RM3 awkward sometimes? Yes. Is it clunky sometimes? Yes. But am I already used to parts of it? Yes. Are there new prayers and words to pray with and enter into? Yes. But how can I enter more fully into RM3, and how can I lead others to do the same, if everything I hear from the voices I so appreciate and admire is negative? Let’s move on. Let’s pray this new Missal, and do some good mystagogy together over the next few months.

    1. As they say on the internets: THIS.

      I’m in a similar position as a diocesan catechetical director. After a couple years of study and preparation for “the implementation,” I’m ready to move beyond the arguments (some good, some strained) on both sides of the issue and find a way to make this prayer my own. Bring on the mystagogy!

    2. I’m breaking my own ban, for just this one remark, because I do not want to miss this opportunity to respond to this comment:

      Are there new prayers and words to pray with and enter into? Yes. But how can I enter more fully into RM3, and how can I lead others to do the same, if everything I hear from the voices I so appreciate and admire is negative? Let’s move on. Let’s pray this new Missal, and do some good mystagogy together over the next few months.

      I too am interested in positive mystagogical reception of the new translation, despite its many flaws. (Just like I was and still am interested in the same sort mystagogical catechesis on the older translation.) I think I have contributions to offer (though I am utterly without credentials).

      I can be reached at jeff AT prayingthemass DOT com.

      Back to Advent silence. Marana tha.

  5. Ever since I “converted” to traditional Catholicism I assumed the passionate hated that a number of traditional Catholics held towards the Sacramentary. Now we traditional Catholics have what we wanted for decades — a mostly literal translation of the typical tradition — the temptation for traditionalists to call for “payback after forty years” is still there. Its time we traditional Catholics retract our fangs.

    I spoke to my (also very traditional) father over the phone recently. He attended his local, quite progressive, parish on Gaudete. I exercised a bit of schadenfreude — “oh I bet they’re gonna hate it! (snicker)” Dad told me that the deacon gave a sermon exhorting the parish to not rise up in hatred against the changes. Although it was clear the deacon had significant reservations about the new translation, he nevertheless called for tolerance and obedience in the face of disappointment. My father was very humbled. Dad noted wisely that if those who have lost their translation can call for reconciliation, we “victors” can also reconcile.

    Deacon Fritz, reconciliation between the different sub-sects of Roman Catholicism is important. Still, We are still entitled to our ideologies, our cultures, our liturgies. A truce does not mean that we should give up our ways of life.

  6. The implementation of the missal has been received in the vast majority of parishes without protest signs and sit-ins, and so smoothly it’s as though we’ve always done it that way (at least by now in my parish). Yes indeed the silent majority of non-elitists have spoken and like Mikey from the Life Cereal commercial a generation ago whose brothers thought Mikey wouldn’t like it since he doesn’t like anything, the elitists can say, “Mikey likes it, he really likes it,” much to their astonishment.
    Yes, let’s move on with what is really important, following Jesus Christ made manifestly and wondrously present in this new and astonishingly well received revised Mass.

    1. A majority, evidently, but not all of them silent. Many at parish level are reacting powerfully, as described in Jeffrey Tucker’s article in the December 8 edition of The Wanderer:

      Surpassing All Expectations . . . The New Translation is a Spectacular Success

      Perhaps pertinent here: “The new text dispels the cloudiness that shrouded the Catholic Mass under the old translation and its attempt to make the incredible so commonplace. At last we have a real match between the language we use and the things we believe. Both are now serious and robust. There is no more of the disunity we had become used to after all these decades. As I thought about that throughout the day, I realized something I had not fully understood before. And perhaps this explains why the tiny opposition to this missal has been so vociferous and noisy.”

      1. The language of the new translation is cloudy and is not robust — surely that is obvious?

    2. You equate passive acceptance with actually liking the new missal they’re not the same thing.

      For me, my mass was stolen from me, and I will not attend mass again, until the old one is restored.

    3. Not true in New Zealand apparently. 70% of respondents to a sounding by the bishops are unhappy; 83% in a sounding by one bishop.

      1. An old chestnut, Joe: the NZ survey was conducted using self-selecting respondents, there was no attempt to sample the population to get a representative response and the sample size was only 180 respondents; the NZ numbers that you keep quoting were nothing more than a straw-poll, not a survey.

      2. Of course not a scientific poll, but one conducted by bishops, who must know that a negative result implies a judgment on their own stewardship. But bring on the scientific polls!

  7. I don’t know if “truce” is the right word, but for the purpose of emotional health I do reach a point at which I recognize there are errors, injustices and abuses that are beyond my ability to correct. Thus I have decided to do what I can do and not beat my head against the wall. If this soul-sucking power play begins to deplete my spirit to the point at which I don’t think I can go on, I will have to consider my options.

    I’ve found little things that can be done on the fly to smooth out the translations (as previously mentioned, by excising some of the “grovel-speak”) at which point some of them become not quite as bad. For example, most instances of “we pray” (totally redundant and needlessly obsequious) can simply be excised.

    I haven’t gotten any static for using the 1998 EP’s yet. Nobody seems to care about following in the missallette (which is a good thing – they don’t feel the need to do that).

    I think it is way to early to say “truce” because we are in the very, very early days of this. It will take at least a couple times through the cycle before we have a feel for the overall impact of the VC2010.

    1. I’ve found little things that can be done on the fly to smooth out the translations (as previously mentioned, by excising some of the “grovel-speak”) at which point some of them become not quite as bad. For example, most instances of “we pray” (totally redundant and needlessly obsequious) can simply be excised.
      Fr. Blue, In the hands of the gifted celebrant and a little “White Out”, plus a good pair of scissors can do wonders for the MR3. To the point it is almost bearable in places and when chanted can be downright uplifting.

      Some parts are much better when put to music, or simply mumbled. A little English here and a little Latin there can cover a multitude of sins.

      1. Yes, I have been encouraged to see that some orations can be trimmed a bit and they work very well.

    2. I think the current scandalous situation gives every celebrant the right and the duty to correct the texts as he sees fit.

  8. It’s great that the deacon has discovered his vocation.

    One think that can be said is that it’s not that of a prophet.

    If this post ends up with 50 postings, at least half of them will have come from himself. Seemingly he feels the need to react to everything here. Maybe he’s counting.

    His reaction to the Professor was in particularly poor taste though.

  9. Fritz

    I can agree with many of your observations. I’ve generally not felt the changes to the people’s parts were a problem, and in some respects I welcomed them, though I might tweak the clumsier attempts to replicate Latin syntax (“and on earth peace”) or use lazy cognates (“consubstantial” – my 87yo fairly conservative father called me last week just to see if I agreed with him about what he viewed as a lazy cognate, and he much prefers “of one substance” to it – dad is an engineer who casts a gimlet eye on such things). I also agree that “chalice” sticks out sorely, and sucks the gravitas out of the institution narrative and replaces it with prissiness (again, what connotes gravitas in Latin can have the opposite effect in English when cognates are used as a crutch).

    The collects will need revision in due time. Texts that the people speak or hear frequently can be rendered with greater complexity than texts that are only heard once a year – this difference needs to be taken into account at the next revision. And we await translation principles that place high value on idiomatic beauty and euphony. Fortunately, the one thing LA established in concrete is that translation principles can be changed. And for that many of us can continue to pray.

    Generally, as I’ve sampled 3 parishes in the past couple of weeks, it seems folks in the pews are taking the changes in reasonable stride, neither warmly embracing them nor stoking resentment. Three years from now, we may have a better sense for how well the changes have been received overall.

    I think those have long predicted utopia or dystopia will continue to see what they wish to see, and facts will not deter them.

  10. Well, since being “at war” didn’t mean that you actually did anything, “calling a truce” should be similarly effective?

    Forgive me, Fritz, if you actually did anything. Let’s ask the question for general consideration instead. If what one is saying is that “I’m going to stop torturing myself now,” that’s good isn’t it.

    But if all one are saying is that “I saw something morally wrong done to me/us by those in authority in the church, and I could never do anything to change it, so now I’ve given up worrying about it and will accept it as normal” I think that’s moral cowardice, compounded. It will come back to haunt you, too.

    On the other hand, a truce is often useful for rest and for considering what the other options may be for a longer assault on the root problems, rather than concentrating only on one front.

    1. Rita,

      I might just as well ask you what you’ve done. I am willing to extend you the same benefit of the doubt that you extended me and say that there may well be actions that you or others have taken that I may be unaware of. As far as I can see, however, apart from Fr. Anthony and Canon Griffiths, nobody has done much but complain.

      But, as I said to R. P. Burke above, perhaps the difference is that even after only a few weeks I don’t see the changes themselves as intolerable. And in some cases they are improvements. The process, as unfair as it was, was hardly anything new in the Church.

      1. Nobody has done much but complain.

        Those who are priests can correct the worst words in the liturgy.

        Those who are versed in literature and the English language can continue shedding light on the flaws the the text.

        Those who know Latin and translation can explain the mistranslations (for those who care.)

        We parishioners can choose what to say and what not to say during Mass.

        We can all pray that the new missal doesn’t cause some people to leave, and that the sense of the faithful will take shape and eventually reach our mistaken hierarchy.

    2. “root problems”. Indeed. And the process of MRIII is but a symptom.

      To my mind, the root problem is that Catholics in the pews have no culture of common discernment together, and we can’t wait for such a culture to be granted from, or modeled by, on high. And we certainly can’t discern together if we’re ghettoized by ideology or avoidance (this is one reason I find overargument to be so poisonous – it is toxic to creating the culture we need to cultivate). With such a culture, we could then perhaps tackle the happily non-doctrinal problem of how bishops and pastors are chosen.

      1. KLM, I agree with you and certainly I’ve heard George Weigel speak about the selection of bishops and the need to create a better system. But it is one thing to raise the subject in a very academic or hopeful way as Weigel does but quite another to foment rebellion in the Church to the point of division based upon someone else’s infallible discernment that what is unjust is in fact unjust, thus becoming the ring leader to bring others into such division and rebellion. Archbishop Lefebrve on the right is one such example and Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo on the left is another and a whole hosts of others in the middle.

      2. Fr Allan

        I can’t tell if your hectoring was directed to me personally or to those you fear might take comfort in what I wrote.

        One of things about creating a culture of common discernment is giving up the need to control the direction of things, and trusting that the Spirit will provide the direction in the Spirit’s time (and I do not believe that the clergy have an exclusive lock on that direction – nor do I think they are excluded from that, either; I am not anti-clerical). I have, you see, no utopian end point in my mind’s eye, as it were.

      3. Oh, no, I wasn’t hectoring you as I agree with your premise about how bishops should be selected. It is not you taking that to the extreme but on the hypothetical level of this being brought to extremes and thus a source of division and endless distraction about what we really are about as Catholics meant to evangelize the world about Jesus and salvation.

      4. Fr Allan

        Here is the problem: so long as the people in the pews rely on their priests and bishops to do their discerning for them, or in lieu of that do their discerning on an individual basis (that is, without a culture of common discernment), then the problem of extremism is exacerbated. If the reason to avoid discussion is to avoid extremism, that’s also the reason extremism will find fertile ground. It’s a classic mark of what in coaching speak would be called a saboteur mindset – you’re damned if you do and if you don’t, et cet. (the hierarchy feels like it is holding the tiger by its tail; choose whatever metaphor you wish to extend the illustrations) – though an Ignatian perspective might call it something else.

        Until we the people in the pews begin to assume responsibility communally, the problem is no closer to resolution.

        I will offer the observation that men and women who live in communities where there is a culture of common ordered (under an abbot/abbess who knows that imposition from above is never as successful as it would seem, because the vow of stability means everyone is more or less stuck with everyone else, for good and ill, so escape and avoidance are not generally options) discernment – Benedictines, for example? – may have a light to offer the faithful at large that is particularly needed now. You see, some talk of the “Benedictine option”, in the sense of the sixth century withdrawal from the collapsing world into monasteries. I see another Benedictine option, one that is more apt for our current needs….

      5. While I have had substantial “Benedictine” experiences both as a voluntary parish staff member and in parish small faith sharing communities, our parishes are as poor at providing community as they are in providing good liturgies. It is very often a DIY activity.

        American Grace showed that religious networks of family members, close friends, and small faith sharing groups account for most of the positive effects of church attendance. If you are dissatisfied with your parish’s liturgy / community, put your energies into building up family networks, your close friends, and small faith sharing groups. Religious networks work better than non religious networks. When you meet, attend Mass in a different parish with some family, or friends, or neighbors and have a group experience afterwards that is relevant to the members.

        The Solitary Life was highly valued in the ascetical movements of the early Church. Saint Anthony and Saint Mary of Egypt spent major parts of their lives away from parish and religious communities. The desert ascetics had all sorts of loose networks of association. The Internet has made the Divine Office very easy to follow without the aid of books, ribbons, an ordo, etc. People who are fed up with their parish liturgy might try the many opportunities here. Over my life I have used the old Roman Office in English, the LOH, the Monastic Office and the Byzantine Office. Sometime I have enriched the offices with an extensive music collection, at other times made them very simple in response to various factors interiorly and exteriorly. Be creative.

        The Jesuit model of contemplation in action is another option if you are fed up with parish life. In the parts of my life which were of most of service to others, it was necessary to minimize both parish life and solitary prayer life. Ignatius found the same thing when he was studying.

        The many spiritualities of Catholicism offer many opportunities not found in our parishes.

    3. OK, Fritz, let’s see. What have people done besides complain? It depends on what you call “complaining.”

      In my book, critique is not just complaining. It’s pointing out what and why and where the shoe doesn’t fit the ecclesial foot. Thus, XR’s posts, Anthony’s posts, my articles at Commonweal and WaPo, and numerous blog posts here and some elsewhere by other writers.

      Likewise, asking for change and communicating with bishops is not just complaining. It’s giving the people who are responsible for our common life a chance to see that all is not well down below and something needs their constructive attention. Thus the petition “What If We Just Said Wait,” and personal, respectful letters to bishops (I’ve written several of these myself, and I know that others have as well), count as doing something. I’ve read priests post here that they have talked or written to their own bishops. To no avail, perhaps, but within their niche in the system they did something.

      There were people who gave input on the drafts of the translation, pointing out the problems along the way, when they could have been fixed. There have been scholars who may not have been listened to, but they backed up what they thought with research. That counts as doing something.

      There is the Association of Priests of Ireland, who asked for delay and reconsideration. They banded together. They did something. There are the folks at Misguided Missal, whoever they are. They are doing something.

      There are people who have posted here who are refusing to speak the new responses, or refusing to use the prayers as they stand. Non-violent resistence. They are doing something.

      1. You’re right. It depends on what one means by “complaining.”

        Some of what you list I would count as complaining, some as constructive criticism, and some as downright counter-productive. YMMV.

      2. You sent me looking up YMMV. Hahaha! Yes, your mileage may vary. Thanks for the chuckle, Fritz.

      3. There is also a whole class of “doing something” by refusing to cooperate. Anthony withdrawing from engagements to speak about the Missal is doing something. I know of pastoral people who started out speaking to audiences about this topic — on the plus side — and as the true dimensions of the project became clear to them, stopped. Tough calls for people in pastoral positions to make, but there are those decisions, and if everybody did act according to their consciences instead of going along to get along, I think we’d be a healthier church.

        There is also, as Claire mentioned, the prayer component. One hates to think of adversity driving us to pray more passionately, but there you are. It’s how people are. Praying about this, frankly and fully bringing it to prayer, is doing something.

      4. Rita

        To complete the rather durable Christian formula for change (whether it be of ourselves or of the world we are in): it’s prayer plus fasting/abstinence plus almsgiving/works of mercy.

    4. How’s about ‘prevenient’ which came up on the Immaculate Conception? It hardly makes the OED — and it is a word which in English as ‘prevent’ has reversed its meaning over the years.

    5. I also got the impression that he was mostly a defender of the new translations against intemperate attacks rather than a real critic of them.

  11. In another connection (a survey instrument, I think) Jack Rakosky introduced the concept of the “mixed bag.” I think that is true of any translation, and the fact that there may be individual items or prayers that succeed does not invalidate the critiques that have been made.

    We should be very cautious about having to either like all of it or hate all of it. If we put ourselves in a state where we have to defend a position that has no nuance at all, of course we will feel after a while that this is fatiguing and untrue. (And ideological.)

    But the whole premise of action is that you take decisions and do things despite ambiguities because enough is wrong to warrant action of some sort.

    1. Here, here!

      However, the point was made earlier and perhaps a silent wheel would be heard even quicker. Money speaks volumes.

      Anybody who thinks Law was removed from Boston because of embarrassment over the situation has their head in the sand. He was removed when the money fell off the cliff. Period.

      You want corrections to the new missal? Similar action would get that done in a year or two. That remains the ONLY power the congregants exercise.

      1. Good luck with that Janet. Like so many others here, you assume the vast majority of the folks in the pews hate the new, corrected translation.

        I’m afraid it just isn’t so!

      2. John Drake, “it just isn’t so” you say, but when bishops actually checked, in New Zealand, it turned out that it is so.

      3. Janet,

        I do think that withholding money is one option we people in
        the pew have. The hierarchy does indeed seem to understand
        money, or the lack of it.

        Sad, but true.

      4. “Here, here!” … do you mean “Hear, hear!”? The former is a reference to space; the latter is often mumbled in Parliament by people who agree with the current speaker.

  12. The work continues. Like the new text or not, it is the text from which we will preach, catechize new members, and instruct our children. From this text we will teach what a Eucharistic Prayer is and how it functions, what a collect is and how it functions, why the creed is where it is, why we acknowledge our unworthiness before communion, and so on. We might have perferred some other texts to do all of this, but this is what we have. Perhaps our praying of these texts and our use of them in preaching, catechesis, and instruction will inspire the work of those who come after us to craft a better translation and, indeed, a better edition of the Missale Romanum adapted for worldwide use. After all, many of the theologians who crafted the theology of the Second Vatican Council worked quietly for years crafting that theology, often, so far as possible, below the radar. And some had died before they saw the results of their study and teaching. So let’s do our part in the Church in which we live in a way that will prepare for an even better Church in the future.

    1. ” So let’s do our part in the Church in which we live in a way that will prepare for an even better Church in the future.”

      G.E.T., I agree. However,isn’t that what this discussion has been all about? If one doesn’t care and is satisfied to see Catholics seemingly unphased by what’s happening, why bother to protest or to defend the MR3?

    2. As we say, “if you want to get there, don’t start from here” — the wretched mess now inflicted on the populus dei is no fit basis for catechesis and still less for a further improved translation — for the latter go back to 1998 — and in fact we need to get beyond the translation regime either — it is one of the chief reasons for the notorious anemia of Catholic worship.

  13. Over the past three weeks I have become far less concerned with those who really love or hate the new translation, or for that matter, the translation itself. What I find very disconcerting now is incredible majority of people in the pews who simply don’t care or even notice the changes (other than their own, of course). That says far more about where we are as a Church than the minorities on the left and right.

    1. 80% in the pews have given a big “whatever”. They just want the mass to be over with so that they can get on with their weekend.

    2. Absolutely — the translation regime has conditioned the faithful to remain deaf to the actual words spoken at Mass.

  14. “new orations . . . occasionally striking”

    As an almost random example — it just happens to be the collect we hear today — of a beautifully flowing new translation:

    Intercéssio nos, quǽsumus, Dómine,
    sanctæ Lúciæ vírginis et mártyris gloriósa confóveat,
    ut eius natalícia et temporáliter frequentémus,
    et conspiciámus ætérna.

    New Translation
    May the glorious intercession
    of the Virgin and Martyr Saint Lucy
    give us new heart, we pray, O Lord,
    so that we may celebrate her heavenly birthday
    in this present age
    and so behold things eternal.

    Old Translation
    give us courage through the gracious prayers of Saint Lucy.
    As we celebrate her entrance into eternal glory,
    we ask to share her happiness in the life to come.

    1. HE, What no “virtual coffee and buns” from St. Lucy and her candle bedecked wreath on her head?

    2. Unless you quote the 1998 translation your assessment is not very serious. I don’t think “in this present age” is meaningful at all, and “and so behold things eternal” sounds dreadfully flat and insincere. Indeed the 1973 text you quote is better (and I am no fan of the 1973 preces).

  15. I find the spiritual and moral questions raised by the post really difficult. I find that I can make some sort of accommodation with the outrage that has been imposed on us when I am presiding myself and can make appropriately discreet edits (sometimes unconsciously). I’m not (yet?) comfortable when I don’t have that kind of freedom and control over what happens. If I fall foul of temple police at some point, I will probably be very clear that what is being presented to me as the need for obedience is in fact the pragmatic necessity of trying to survive under a corrupt regime–which has to be traded off against the material co-operation with our superiors’ multiple spiritual failures embodied in an ‘acceptance’ of a text so inferior to what we could easily have had. The manifest abusiveness, corruption and incompetence in the process makes it impossible to cut authority any of the slack that it could otherwise reasonably expect.

    Maybe this is just confused and inconsistent, not to say clericalist–but maybe too there is something important to be said about not stressing the need for unity and moving on so strongly that we forget the equally important principles of truth and integrity. That Catholic tendency is one that, quite appropriately, causes scandal. It is dangerous to say ‘let bygones be bygones’ too quickly.

    1. “there is something important to be said about not stressing the need for unity and moving on so strongly that we forget the equally important principles of truth and integrity”

      I don’t find this confused or clerical in the least. It’s the impulse without which we would never move forward in good directions when the status quo is in need of change.

  16. Alan Lukas :

    Over the past three weeks I have become far less concerned with those who really love or hate the new translation, or for that matter, the translation itself. What I find very disconcerting now is incredible majority of people in the pews who simply don’t care or even notice the changes (other than their own, of course). That says far more about where we are as a Church than the minorities on the left and right.

    Only comments with a full name will be approved.

    Again – is it that people don’t care or that they have no way of expressing their reactions? Handing out cheat sheets and telling people in Church is a wonderful way of isolating each person – who is going to have the nerve to be the one person to stand up and protest? I suspect that each person assumes everyone else is content, so why make a fuss?
    No one knows what people are thinking, not even myself. Maybe most people really don’t care. On the other hand, half the native born Catholics in America have walked. They haven’t turned atheist; many have joined other Christian congregations. Withholding funds was referred to as the thermonuclear option in a post above. I submit that the real thermonuclear option is to be found every Sunday in all the empty seats!

    1. Exactly. If this blogsite is truly a microcosm of members of the church, then there are many of upset Catholics out there who are not accepting of the new missal, but who feel powerless or they have no way to express their disapproval.

      1. Just like myself, and several other people were declared to possibly be planted shills on this site, it could easily be said that what you’re saying makes you sound like you’re someone who’s been planted to say, “OK, we fought, we lost, let’s accept it and move on.”

        That’s exactly what they want. Accept it whether we like it or not. NO!!

        Ratzinger, YOU stole my mass from me and I want it back!!!!

      2. This blog is only a microcosm of those who are here. Catholic comboxers more likely represent a bar-bell curve, as it were….

      3. Sean, calm yourself. It’s difficult to see how one can blame “Ratzinger”. (And he is more properly addressed these days as the Holy Father). Liturgiam Authenticam was issued under Blessed JPII.

      4. John, Calling him Ratzinger is me being nice to him. I will never ever refer to him the way you mention because of the way he has purposely hurt so many. He stole my mass from me, and in doing so he has lost all of my respect. If I could get away with spitting in his face, I would do it.

        The man doesn’t like what Vatican II did and now that he is in power, he is reversing it, step by step. The church AFTER Vatican II is the only church I know, so he is dismantling my church. If you expect me to refer to him the way you do, then I’ve got a bridge between Manhattan and Brooklyn that I’d like to sell you.

        And the ironic thing is, this was all triggered by the changing of the missal. If we were using the same missal as last year, none of these words would exist.

      5. Maybe He did. We don’t know. I’m sure the story, while historically and spiritually accurate, has been edited over 2000 years to make Jesus look like the totally submissive martyr, instead of someone who was being physically tortured.

      6. I wouldn’t be so naive about the influence of Ratzinger in the end years when JP2 probably wasn’t really in charge.

      7. Sean

        You must not realize how often people are indeed totally submissive (with the exception of involuntary body movements) to torture: the impact of it is typically overwhelming. I see zero basis to assume Christ would have done as you wish, other than projection.

      8. I wonder if the moderator should really tolerate a commenter’s stated desire to spit in the pope’s face?

      9. I am uncomfortable with the notion that our response to the Pope ought to be the same as Jesus’ response to the soldiers who flogged him during his passion. (A) The Pope should not be “flogging” us, and (B) Enduring abuse passively is not necessarily either virtuous or Christlike. It seems more like stoicism to me.

        Willing submission to injustice can indeed be morally wrong. I think what Sean is saying by this dramatic gesture (“spit in the face”) is that the office holder has earned his contempt. Is the person who dismisses the office and its holder not making the same judgment, albeit a less colorful and dramatic way?

        I am pensive about the massive numbers who have left the church, and the even more massive numbers who do not share in the Eucharist any longer — all polite enough, but isn’t the message at least somewhat the same? Relentless growth in the numbers of people who find the pope irrelevant and the church odious or useless… these numbers are not going to be rolled back by having the faithful “take abuse” more stoically from the Church’s hierarchy.

      10. Rita

        I am not espousing passivity. I am questioning the spitting notion. That’s all. A lot of unholy crap can get in under the Potemkin village of “holy anger”. I acknowledge holy anger, but also understand its strong potential to rationalize unworthy things.

  17. Only the third Sunday of New Missal time! Already many members of the “professional class” of the Church (priests, deacons, paid employees, and some volunteers whose life is centered on church institutions) see the matter as all settled. Let’s get on with some other “professional” issues.

    As a member of the “amateur class” of the Church (those who love liturgy but whose lives are centered on their families, non-church jobs, their non-church professions, most of whom have only begun to encounter the New Missal) I wonder “why all this hurry? why this rush to move on?”

    My hypothesis is that the “professionals” want to avoid a “virtual coffee hour.” The Mystery Worshipper reviews find Catholics rarely have coffee hours after Mass. Could it be that people would discuss the homily, comment on the music, etc? Maybe us “amateurs” might begin to have a voice in the church, and begin to organize?

    Well the PrayTell management has no alternative but to institute “virtual coffee hours” to discuss last Sunday’s Mass (translation, homily, music, etc.) for the good of not only the Church but church professionals, and church managers.

    I, and many others, have the ability to establish a website anytime we want to be a “virtual coffee hour” for our parish, or our diocese. I have e-mail lists for both that could easily be the seeds to have people come to such sites. And of course e-mail lists beget e-mail lists. Think of hundreds of Father Z blogs of all stripes targeting parishes and dioceses. Church managers, this is the future unless you provide alternative forums. The ability of Church professionals to end discussions has ended.

    Fortunately this blog has many fine professionals and amateurs who could easily model what a constructive “virtual coffee hour” after Mass should look like. Maybe it could become such a fine model that parishes might decide to have real coffee hours. That would be more a change than the New Missal!

      1. I doubt Fritz and many “religious professionals” share my consumer values.

        Very few mental health professionals shared my consumer values a couple of decades ago.

        Some don’t now. My mentally ill consumer friends are fond of telling me stories that begin “You would not believe after all these years, what X said…”

        My reply is that I did not come to change minds and hearts but the environment in which mental health professionals work, a far easier task. If I had tried to change their minds and hearts directly I would have gotten nowhere.

        I would not try to change the hearts and minds of priests and bishops, or even change the people who do the management. But I hope to change the environment in which they work.

  18. One thing that 1998 got right was its decision to leave the people’s parts almost entirely alone–that in itself minimised the disruption, and the faults in what we had were by no means glaring. And the 1998 ICEL was probably needlessly provocative in the few changes to the responses that it did put forward.

    By this logic, even though I deplore some of the changes (notably the loss of ‘we believe’), I can’t be much of an advocate for their reversal.

  19. John Drake :

    Good luck with that Janet. Like so many others here, you assume the vast majority of the folks in the pews hate the new, corrected translation.
    I’m afraid it just isn’t so!

    That is just the point, many in the pews could care less. For instance, the number one parish in Rhode Island prides itself on a 20 – 25 minute Sunday Eucharist. It seems that people want to just get in and out, but, there are degrees of unhappiness beyond pure hate, and that combined with one too many sermon on money, off hand snide remark or nearly anything seemingly in poor taste, will do it.

    For some, the new Mess from Woooooostah is enough to call it quites, for others, it is simply another 28 pound book piled on the back just waiting for a straw to end it all.

  20. Our priests plow along as if nothing happened. And we mumble what we are told is the prayer of all the people but to all appearances is theirs. Listening to them recite the prayers reminds me of the first time I took part in an Anglican holy communion: it sounded like a near imitation of the rite I already knew. Hey, let me dive right in and my mumble will get me by. There is increased dialog between presider and accompanist, who from her well-tuned mike makes sure that at least one person is heard saying it as the new missal prescribes. That leaves the rest of us free to mumble. It reminds me of my attendance at the Latin mass in the old days. Then there are a couple of new lilies of the field offered to us to sing the mass – but I can hum my own lily which is no better or worse than hers.
    You tell me I am ceding ground to the centralizers? (Where is Bill when I need him?) I answer no for three reasons. First, I sing Amen early and often. Second, I demand to communicate under both species. Finally, as frequent lector I can and do break open the scriptures for the assembly. As for the rest, our church has been through several tugging cycles of directly engaging the people versus assuring beauty through elite performance. I have been present for a few of them, and I know that this ongoing cult of clergy too will pass.

  21. Thanks, Jack.

    On a number of levels, your suggestion follows the tradition of the church and the development of the sensus fidelium. (e.g. think of the hundreds of examples of men/women who the “professional” catholics tried to marginalize – without the liturgical pioneers in the early 20th century would SC at VII have happened?)

    Would suggest that this professional blog is exactly the place for catholics to theologize, discuss, and grow their faith. The church is messy; as Tim Unsworth was apt to write – “Here comes everybody”

    In terms of the specific issue of the “new” translation – three weeks in; really, who knows where this is going?
    – english conferences are impacted now (small segment of the total church). Let’s see what happens next – signs indiciate that other major language groups are resisting LA and VC?
    – there are so many related issues – lectionary translation; sacraments and how they are celebrated; etc.
    – if John Allen prognosis is correct, 2/3’s of the church is in the southern hemisphere. Do we really think that LA will impact or change the pastoral direction in the southern hemisphere?
    – sympathize with those who have professional roles in the everyday church….you each have to do the best you can in this situation. But, to swing the pendulum to the other extreme and call a “truce” feels like a combination of Pontius Pilate (washing his hands of the whole event) or, at worst, Judas Iscariot selling out.

    Would suggest that efforts to listen, obtain feedback over time, surveys (e.g. Houston-Galveston example) might contribute to a better future.

  22. The process, as unfair as it was, was hardly anything new in the Church. Quoted about Br Fr. Fritz…

    This is perhaps, for me, the true kernel of my deep and lingering sadness. The one place where I long for support and love and unity… instead I find…oh well, just take it…sure it is unfair…but it always has been….That sounds like telling an abused wife to just stick it out in a marriage where there is documented domestic violence. My Aunt did that in the name of “that’s the way it’s always been” “nothing new” and is dead now.
    We have been “normed” to accept unfair treatment in the Church and have been taught to accept it and still attempt to be healthy, loving and united. I am really confused now about how or IF that can ever happen.


    1. I am finding myself very much in that place. I feel the same way I did when my parish was closed. It’s tough getting up and driving 15 miles to Mass each week. It’s even tougher with the knowledge that every five minutes or so, the Mass will be interrupted by someone’s heavy handed attempts to make sure we all know we’re going to Hell if we don’t go to confession more and to reinforce the superiority of the clerical caste over the laity. That’s the sum effect of “through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault”,” with your spirit”, chalice instead of cup, many instead of all, etc. etc on me.
      Oddly enough, my spirits were lifted and I’m looking forward to Mass this week-end because I recalled that my new parish has the tradition (found no where in the Roman Missal!) of welcoming Santa Claus at the end of Mass. I’m certain it causes wailing and gnashing of teeth in many circles, but for a parish with many young children it’s wonderful.

      1. Brigid, can you advise which parish you reference, so I can be sure to NOT attend this Sunday. Welcoming Santa?! That’s at least as rich as the giant puppets at the Call to Action “masses”.

  23. I think Rita (in #22) nailed the problem for pastoral professionals with “moral cowardice, compounded.”

    I have given a number of presentations over the past year to illustrate the background and the theological implications of some of the most obvious changes in RM3. But always, I paused as each slide came up, to hear the gasps of surprise and dismay from the audience: “That’s awful,” “That’s sexist,” “How can they do that?” and “What can we do about it?”

    They’re not likely to blurt out such reactions during Mass. But the problems are not going away by themselves. In a way it takes more courage now to continue to name the problems in the face of the implementation of the Missal.

    And now, having recovered a bit of moral courage, I’m off to draft a letter to our local Ordinary who verbally abused a nice 88-year-old lady during a parish visit last week. …

  24. No! Fritz please don’t drink the Koolaid! It’s the too-easy way out – one sip and you’ll soon forget your worries. What about integrity and prophecy?

  25. In war strategy one of the most fundamental concepts is that it is easier and less costly to hold ground taken than try to re-take ground once ceded.

    Echoing Fritz, I’m emotionally exhausted by and spiritually disinterested in MRIII and a whole range of issues besetting the church. On one level I too am ready to move on.

    Yet, I think its a bad idea and so I won’t. LA is still in place, the authoritarian power structures are still in place, the dismantling of ICEL and the juridical re-arrangement of responsibility for the vernacular have still happened, the firing of experts who voiced concern still occurred. If all this is ignored, if we “move on” from MR3 and the circumstances that produced it, we cede the ecclesial ground gained in the liturgical reform promoted and the processes established by the V2, what do you imagine the Marriage Rite, Christian Funerals, Dedication of a Church and Altar, Confirmation, Reconciliation, and I think most significantly, the RCIA will look like when they have been “translated” ?

    No, its better to hold ground…Our Church and the world needs much better than acquiescence. It needs a language in which to express its hopes and fears.

    For Zion’s sake I will not remain silent. For Jerusalem’s sake I will not rest, until its righteousness shines like the dawn and its salvation burns brightly like a torch.

      1. The creeping dictatorship that has replaced Vatican II is now baring its teeth in full view of the faithful (who were mostely unaware of the backstage shafting of theologians, promotion of subqualified yesmen to the episcopal ranks, and many other instances of curial skulduggery).

  26. “I see another Benedictine option, one that is more apt for our current needs….”

    Is that anything similar to the “option to Benedict” one sees being voiced from time to time in the NCR’s letters to the editor?

    1. I don’t know about those letters, since I don’t read them. I was referring to a Benedictine-inspired model of community.

  27. I never realized the depths of bitterness that an accurate translation would cause. Now, I’ve lived with ,and tolerated the banal and pedestrian piece of junk we just consigned to the ashbin of history . Although I didn’t like it, I didn’t whine and complain and engage in histrionics. May the peace of the Infant Jesus bring you peace and joy and a sense of tolerance.

    1. Mr. McFadden – We’re all glad to hear you didn’t engage in histrionics about “the banal and pedestrian piece of junk” you tolerated – also known as the prayer of the Church.

      But what would be the accurate translation you’re referring to? Keep in mind, the current missal, unlike the previous sacramentary, needs to be held to Liturgiam authenticam, since it appeared after those directives.

      The current missal is not accurate, didn’t you realize that? Someone in Rome added 10,000 changes and introduced all sorts of mistakes, errors, misunderstandings, and in a few cases, at least the suggestion of heresy. For example, in suggesting on 12/8 that Mary needs cleansing like we do. Or referring to the “unity” of the Father, like Unitarians, when Orthodox Catholicism refers to the “unity” of three persons, all divine.

      I look forward to an accurate and beautiful translation someday. The new missal is neither. About the second, people might disagree. About the first, there is no question.


      1. Reverend and Dear awr, as virtually always I agree with you here but with regard to:

        “For example, in suggesting on 12/8 that Mary needs cleansing like we do. Or referring to the “unity” of the Father, like Unitarians, when Orthodox Catholicism refers to the “unity” of three persons, all divine.”

        it seems that LA and RT have a loophole; they call upon the homilist to explain around such statements and demonstrate why they are not heretical in much the same way that homilists are called upon to explain that the VC2010’s enthusiastic embrace of gender-exclusive (and dramatic culturally inappropriate) language is really not bigoted and misogynistic.

    2. More revanchism from Tom. Many of us felt the same discomfort with the 1973 texts as he did, especially with the preces. But we counted on improvement, such as 1998 initiated. These hopes have been trampled on by the Vatican.

  28. I spent a great deal of energy earlier this year on liturgical catechesis that focused on what it means for us to offer and celebrate the Mass rather than on the new texts. It looks like it is paying off because it appears that the people are even more engaged than they were before the changes. We are a long way from the spontaneity of the former responses and prayers, but it looks and sounds like the folks are resolved to make the adjustments in a way that allows us to focus on worshipping God.
    I suppose it helps that I am also adjusting even though I have serious reservations about so many of the texts. I am feeling comfortable with finding ways to smooth over the worst of the collects and awkward changes to the prefaces and EP’s. But I am doing this by being careful not in any way to alter the substance of the church’s faith. I am compelled to pray as the church believes without thinking that this means not changing a jot or tittle in the written texts. Since the people can clearly see that I am not deterred in the least by the many new texts I have to deal with, it encourages them to do the very best they can with what they have before them.
    I do believe we must look for ways to deter the folks at HQ who may be eager now to do the same thing with the other sacramental rites. This week I will begin to offer parishioners an opportunity to provide some feedback on their experience with the new prayer texts through an online survey. At some point I think it would be a good idea for others to do this and to get the information back to the powers that be.

  29. As Fritz is loudly proclaiming “Peace in our time!” with a big grin, in the background the panzerdivisions of the laity are mobilizing for something really monumental that is going to fundamentally alter the structure of power and consign the old world order, which Fritz thinks he can keep on life support forever, to the ashcan of history where it belongs. How many divisions has the Pope, by the way?

  30. Rita Ferrone :
    There is also a whole class of “doing something” by refusing to cooperate. Anthony withdrawing from engagements to speak about the Missal is doing something. I know of pastoral people who started out speaking to audiences about this topic — on the plus side — and as the true dimensions of the project became clear to them, stopped. Tough calls for people in pastoral positions to make, but there are those decisions, and if everybody did act according to their consciences instead of going along to get along, I think we’d be a healthier church.
    There is also, as Claire mentioned, the prayer component. One hates to think of adversity driving us to pray more passionately, but there you are. It’s how people are. Praying about this, frankly and fully bringing it to prayer, is doing something.

    How do you get ALL the English speaking peoples to think with a collective conscience? There will always be a margin that disagrees and when some of whom would now be termed the loudest of opponents of the new translation are satisfied an entirely new breed will be borne that dislikes another version. And the opposite end of the spectrum continues to exist, parallel to your statment that those who at the beginning supported the translation and now are aware of its dimensions have now stopped doing so. I have read the same from folks who at first thought the new translation would be a pastoral disaster and have now rethought those initial apprehensions and are even speaking positively in support. So again, what would be an effective plan to gain a collective conscience on the matter without just shifting it to en entirely different spectrum of people? Is it even possible?

    1. Mitch, in answer to your good question, let me point out that I said “consciences” above because indeed I do not envision a collective conscience or predict that unanimity is quickly or easily attained. I do believe however that listening to one’s conscience, and respect for the conscience of the individual, is essential to the eventual resolution of conflict. Agreement really can happen without being forced, and even when it requires some sacrifices or compromise, but it takes a commitment and time. The imposed solution that forces people into acquiescence does violence to them; this isn’t good. That’s my point. What would be an effective plan? I think having an opt-out alternative would have allowed those with misgivings or aversion to the new texts to keep what they are used to, and go through whatever gradual process is necessary to either grow eager for the new to overtake the old, or allow time during which the new might be purified so that in a later edition it might be better accepted.

      Peace to you.

    2. Maybe there needs to be more than one liturgy? Most parishes have more than one mass each weekend. Based on demand, why couldn’t a parish offer both masses?

  31. Fr. Ruff,

    Interesting critique. On my office bookshelf I have a few volumes of the United States Code. Undoubtedly there are mistakes which we find occasionally. They do not, however, effect the applicability of the document(s). Similarily with the new missal, it’s what we’ve got.

    Somehow I think, though, your real concern is the process used to generate this Third Version. To quote you from your piece in “America” magazine, that bastion of heterodoxy:

    “The forthcoming missal is but a part of a larger pattern of top-down impositions by a central authority that does not consider itself accountable to the larger church. When I think of how secretive the translation process was, how little consultation was done with priests or laity, how the Holy See allowed a small group to hijack the translation at the final stage, how unsatisfactory the final text is, how this text was imposed on national conferences of bishops in violation of their legitimate episcopal authority, how much deception and mischief have marked this process—and then when I think of Our Lord’s teachings on service and love and unity…I weep.”

    It must be hard for some these days when we have a Pope actually acting papal. It is the ROMAN rite. It is supposed to reflect unity of the universal Church. Accepting your appraisal of the “centralized,” “top down” process used in this instance – I am heartened where you are saddened. If only this command and control model would be used in other portions of the vineyard requiring weeding!

    1. “when we have a Pope actually acting papal”

      You seem to be confusing fascism with the exercise of the primacy of Peter. The papacy is there to “confirm the brethren in faith” not to “weed the vineyard” or exercise a top-down, centralized autocracy.

      Although the exercise of papal power during some epochs of Christian history has followed an imperial model or resembled the kind of autocracy you seem to favor, these episodes are not normative. All history does not rise to the level of Tradition.

      Fortunately, we have another model for the chair of Peter. It is found in reference to the texts of the New Testament, in which the greatest among us is a servant, and the separation of weeds and wheat is left to the Son of Man at the end of time. Peter, the rock, was not an autocrat.

      What you are cheering for, in short, is an aberration which ought to be deplored rather than encouraged.

    2. So, guessing Paul VI was not “acting papal” when he stated this:

      Paul VI, Address to a general audience, on the new ORDO MISSAE, 26 November1969:Notitiae 5 (1969) 412-416 (Italian) English translation, Documents on the Liturgy, 1963-1979 [ICEL] (The Liturgical Press, 1983)

      “Clearly the most noticeable new departure is that of language. From now on the vernacular, not Latin, will be the principal language of the Mass. For those who appreciate the beauty of Latin, its power, and aptness to express the sacred, substitution of the vernacular certainly represents a great sacrifice. We are losing the idiom of the Christian ages; we become like profane intruders into the literary sanctuary of sacred language; we shall lose a large portion of that wonderful and incomparable, artistic and spiritual reality, Gregorian chant. We indeed have reason for sadness and perhaps even for bewilderment. What shall we put in the place of this angelic language? We are sacrificing a priceless treasure. For what reason? What is worth more than these sublime values of the Church? The answer may seem trite and prosaic, but it is sound because it is both human and apostolic. Our understanding of prayer is worth more than the previous, ancient garments in which it has been regally clad. Of more value, too, is the participation of the people, of modern people who are surrounded by clear, intelligible language …. If our sacred Latin should, like a thick curtain, close us off from the world of children and young people, of work and the business of everyday, then would we, fishers of men, be wise to allow it exclusive dominion over the speech of religion and prayer?”

      Using your “command and control model” leaves us with picking and choosing which papal pronouncements to obey – how do we weed out papal pronouncements that contradict each other?

  32. Dear Father Ruff,

    Thanks for your response. I suspect if the new translation includes ” 10,000 changes and introduced all sorts of mistakes, errors, misunderstandings, etc” then the previous translation must have included over a 100,000 mistakes, errors, misunderstandings, etc.” On balance, for its supposed errors, the new translation is welcome to my ears.



    1. No, that’s actually not the case with the previous translation. Keep in mind that it was translated according to the Roman guidelines in force, and they called for a translation which was free and flexible, and encouraged simplifying to make it more understandable to people. Now you and I may disagree with that translation theory, but that’s what it was. So it was no mistake in translation for the previous sacramentary to have taken freedoms – it was in accord with the translation theory. Maybe an inadequate theory, but at least they were sincere and consistent.

      There is a difference now: the theory calls for complete accuracy, but somebody in Rome got it wrong and didn’t follow the document.

      However much you like or prefer the new translation, please don’t claim it’s accurate – it’s not. Please don’t claim it’s more accurate – that reflects a misunderstanding of how translation works, and of what the official documents called for and call for.


  33. My bafflement continues with statements like “We must pray as the Church wants us to” – when “we” and “us” ARE the Church. The statement “We all must pray as the hierarchy wishes us to” is a different statement.

  34. In response to Alan Hommerding (Dec 13, 1:40 pm, #61 the last I checked):

    I was invited by three types of groups: parish groups, church-reform groups, and one guest lecture at a university in Germany. In each case I spoke not as someone charged with implementing RM3, but as a guest expert presenting background information, the texts themselves, and why the RM3 was controversial.

    The background served as a reference-point to explain where one or another expression came from. “How can they do this?” needs to be heard as a howl of angst, not an information question.

    Concerning “what to do,” with parish groups I simply facilitated their own responses in discussion. For the church reform groups (who were already determined to do something before I began!) I listed six commonly-heard responses and the negative side of each:
    1. Use the new Missal and wait for the next reform ( the downside: tolerating awkward, self-abasing English);
    2. Use old Sacramentary (DS: your priest will get flak; they’re long out of print; old style sounds a bit 1970’s);
    3. Reply with old responses (DS: causes dissonance and disturbance in common prayer; language problems are more obvious in the presider’s texts);
    4. Keep silent (DS: contradicts principle of active participation; would eventually wear thin as a protest);
    5. Self-edit the new Missal (DS: this needs to be vetted by a liturgy expert to avoid creating even worse texts);
    6. Use the 1998 (DS: must download and print; still have to catechize the parish; and yes, your priest will get flak.

    For the German lecture I added two other proposals we were starting to hear frequently: sign a new petition for a moratorium; stop contributing money.

    Ultimately the folks will make their own decisions.
    As an educator I tried to report, not advocate … well, I tried…

    1. But like all angst, they need to be purified. As an educator myself, it is silly and tiring to respond to every tantrum and whims of parents. Letting them calm down then articulate their rationale behind their feelings help them get a good grip on the actual magnitude of the problem.

  35. I suppose this is a kind of inbuilt survival mechanism – – that serenity prayer mentality. But when survival is more important than any other thing, everything else suffers.

    There are psrts of the translation I hate, and I don’t even have to sy them, like “for the many”, but the translation problem is a symptom of something worse ….. the people leading our church lie, cheat, bully. That’s bad enough, but most of us then accept this as the cost of doing business.

    Someone wrote above that we should get over this so that we can …”move on with what is really important, following Jesus Christ”. Is it only me that finds this attitude painfully ironic?

    1. I think you have it! most people leading our church lie, cheat, and bully and then accept this as the cost of doing business . This is the dysfunction underlying it all! I know very good pastors that have thrived despite it. I know many more clerics who play the “candle money game” to survive on the human and spiritual level – and then the laity in the shadow of it all who must go along to get along. There are systemic contagions in the church and MR3 is but a symptom…one need only to look to the US, Ireland, Belgium, Germany and Austria for now public evidence. But S. America, Africa and Oceania have their still private issues as well that will become all too apparent in the coming decades. Until this church understands and acts like it is the Church in the Modern World it will be beset by woes.

  36. I was given the 1998 prayeer for St Lucy; “see #51):
    Enlighten your Church, O Lord,
    through the intercession of the virgin martyr Lucy,
    that we who celebrate the festival of her birth into heaven
    may one day behold with her the vision of your glory.
    We ask etc.

    Intercéssio nos, quǽsumus, Dómine,
    sanctæ Lúciæ vírginis et mártyris gloriósa confóveat,
    ut eius natalícia et temporáliter frequentémus,
    et conspiciámus ætérna.

    New Translation
    May the glorious intercession
    of the Virgin and Martyr Saint Lucy
    give us new heart, we pray, O Lord,
    so that we may celebrate her heavenly birthday
    in this present age
    and so behold things eternal.

    Old Translation
    give us courage through the gracious prayers of Saint Lucy.
    As we celebrate her entrance into eternal glory,
    we ask to share her happiness in the life to come.

    1. Score a point for 1998.

      1973 ignores the light of Santa Lucia, the Holy Light. 2010 suggests it, but 1998 uncovers it and leads us to remember what makes St Lucy memorable. (I presume Latin speakers hear Lucia evoking lux, light, and filling out the sense of the prayer)

    2. Jim, in the latin text, the link to St Lucy’s life is through the word ‘conspiricamus’, I was given to understand. “confoveat” is to be nourished, cared for. I like the expression ‘give us new heart” which always reminds me of the wonderful things a mother can accomplish by her nurturing.

      The use of the word “behold” links back to a story about St Lucy. So the final, corrected text is more faithful and better than the 1998 text.

    3. I think 1998 goes too far the other way, though. It makes more of the “vision” theme in the prayer than exists in the Latin.

      “[W]ith the vision of your glory”: is that supposed to be a translation of aeterna?

      And is “enlighten” a better rendering of confoveat than 2010’s “give us new heart”? Neither strikes me as that great, I have to confess: they both miss out on the idea of warmth present in the Latin, confoveat being related to foveo.

      1. Lucy’s betrothed admired her eyes, so she tore them out and gave them to him, saying, “Now let me live to God”

        St Lucy’s story is about light and vision. If you read the Latin as St Someone, it translates as you say. But if you read it in light of Lucy, the glory is a shining light and a glimpse of the light eternal. She helps us see what cannot be seen.

        So I agree with you. A word by word translation cannot capture the vision of St Lucy. The context, St Lucy’s story, tells us that everything should be read in terms of the earthly light she gave up to see heaven’s light.

      2. Jim: I would say, however, that the place to expound upon the history of St Lucy is not in the translation of the collect, but in the homily. The collect in the Latin is quite subtle in its use of themes associated with St Lucy. To overexpose, if you will, those themes (as 1998 does) spoils the picture of the collect. It also gives us a false security about the texts: the looser renderings of 1998 (and 1973) in general act as a barrier to effective catechesis.

        For me, at least, this is where I part company with dynamic equivalence as a translation theory. To explain what I alluded to just now: I think part of the problem with the now defunct 1973 translation – and it’s a problem 1998 continued – was that the translation itself took on too much of the catechetical work in many parts. It condensed difficult Latin phrases in many places (e.g. the Roman Canon), and banally expanded simple Latin words and phrases in other places (e.g. “Through our observance of Lent” for Qui corporali ieiunio [2010: “For through bodily fasting”]). The end result is that we all think we know what the texts say and mean, and so there’s little incentive to really get to grips with them, little scope for catechists and homilists to start the process of weaning us all off milk and onto solid food (1 Cor. 3:2).

        If the new translation results in priests and laity looking at the texts in the Latin and starting to really get into the meat of them, that can only be a good thing. And it’s something that, in my opinion at least, wasn’t really possible with the old texts, 1973 or 1998.

      3. Disagree with your opinion. Your final paragraph – “If the new translation results in priests and laity looking at the texts in the Latin and starting to really get into the meat of them, that can only be a good thing. And it’s something that, in my opinion at least, wasn’t really possible with the old texts, 1973 or 1998.” – is it really the purpose of liturgy and our ritual to be like a science or class assignment so that folks can “really get into the meat of them”? Would venture to say that there is no one, perfect translation of the “original latin” (another meme). And how can a brief collect/prayer “overexpose” the feast or saint’s day? The homily provides images, stories, parables to open up the scripture and link to the prayers – it is not a search for the perfect answer sheet hidden in heaven. Folks in the pews are not looking to “dig deep into the latin” – they want to pray and celebrate using the best, most poetic, and prayerful langague that comes from the conversation between the latin and the receiver language, english (to borrow from john francis robert);

        Again, venture to say that not many think that they know what the texts say and mean – they look to the homily to open up the meaning – it will change year in and year out; it develops and moves with the times. It is not a search to unlock the “one truth”. Each person brings their own joys, fears, hopes, futures and look to the liturgy to inspire, bless, confirm, and support them. For example – the light of Lucy may mean one thing in 2011 and, for a specfic community, it may address a different image or event in 2012.

        You cite a couple of latin words/phrases – you have one opinion about how it should be translated but another may see that the words/phrases to have a different meaning and thus a different translation. These are judgment calls at times – latin was once the vehicle but vernacular is now.

  37. Father Ruff, Comme Le Prevoit was a highly suspect form of “translation” if you could even call it translation in an academic sense. It was designed to yield a particular result and a purely ideological one at that. So I would suggest you not try and claim it was something other than that. Best, Tom

    1. Tom, you’re confused. You wrote “Comme le Prevoit” but meant to write “Liturgiam Authenticam”. Everything you said, I believe, applies to LA.

    2. Comme Le Prevoit had the very noble goal of making the liturgical prayer of the Church accessible to the Church. Its very intention was not to be “academic”. Thanks be to God for that.

      There is a line in Il Postino which I have recently adopted for myself regarding the liturgy:

      “Liturgy doesn’t belong to those who write it, but by those who need it.”

      This is the true measure of our language.

    3. Wow, you’re harsh in criticizing a document of the magisterium. 🙂

      Yes, of course it’s a form of translation in an academic sense. Because in the academy a very wide variety indeed of manners of translation are acknowledged.

      But – so we don’t lose the point – whatever we think about CLP, and I certainly wouldn’t defend everything in it, the previous Sacramentary followed CLP and made ue of the freedoms CLP allowed. The previous Sacramentary had integrity, and it was consistent, in that it had a translation theory and it stuck to it.

      The problem with the new Missal is that there is no discernible translation theory guiding it. A lot of the time it follows Liturgiam authenticam, but oftentimes and in quite shocking ways, it completely ignores LA and does the opposite of what LA calls for, or blatantly does what LA prohibits.

      However much better the new translation is – and I think it is better in many ways – it is not consistent in following any translation theory or any document of the magisterium. It is arbitrary, and it lacks integrity.

      This is why I must react quite strongly when anyone asserts (as many do) that the new Missal is an accurate translation and the previous Sacramentary was not.

      It’s fine to prefer the new Missal – I do, in fact – but it’s not fine to mistate and distort reality concerning what the new Missal achieves.

      Otherwise, an unfortunate association is created between ecclesial obedience and the distortion of facts. I’d hate to think that’s what obedience means.


      1. You prefer 2011 to 1973? Surely not the new EPs and Prefaces? And surely you mean that you prefer 1998 to either?

      2. Oh my goodness! Has a more controversial statement ever been uttered by Fr. Ruff?

        “However much better the new translation is – and I think it is better in many ways …”

        I think I may faint from joy!

  38. As Claire says, LA is a highly suspect form of translation. But that is not the issue. By the rules of ClP, 1973 is a competent translation and 2010 is awful. By the rules off LA, 1973 is awful, and 2010 is full of errors. ( replete with transgressions of English and Latin codes for grammar and definition, for those who think like 2010)

    BTW, 10,000 is not the number of errors in 2010, but the number of “corrections” made after the bishops approved the 2008 text. There was no similar intervention in 1973, so there are no “mistakes, errors, misunderstandings, and in a few cases, at least the suggestion of heresy” caused by meddling with the text approved by English speaking bishops.

  39. This is, in my opinion, the most sensible post I’ve seen on this site for quite some time.

    Several people above have mentioned the majority of people don’t care one way or the other. This sorry state of affairs has very little to do with translation: if many don’t care about the new words, did they care about the old ones? Did those who vaguely remember them care about the old old words? How is it possible that Catholics are indifferent to the Mass, the “source and summit of the Church’s life” (LG 11)?

    All of us, across the spectrum, might do well to work together in the new evangelisation, and start to reverse the catastrophic failure in catechesis that has taken place in the West over (at least) the last half-century. The new translation is here, and it’s not going anywhere soon, whether one likes that or not. “Bitching on the internet” isn’t going to change that.

    (And I hope the cynic in me is wrong about the sort of reactions my words may provoke.)

  40. I am having a feast of Schadenfreude as I see my worst predictions realized. The bishops have shown to the entire world what spineless incompetents they are, and the brutality of the Curia is being directly felt by millions of the faithful (except those too benumbed by long abuse to feel anything). Will good come of this? We may hope so.

  41. I agree with Fritz, but with a few qualifications.

    I think we need a cease-fire; I am not happy with the language of “moving on”. The new translation is dreadful. But the conditions for good dialogue around it are not present now.

    Three related points.

    First, the important prophetic statements have already been made, in blogs and in the academic literature. Peter Jeffery demonstrated that Liturgiam Authenticam was profoundly anti-traditional and unlearned: ‘the most ignorant statement on liturgy ever issued by a modern Vatican congregation.’ John Baldovin wrote a powerful response to the critics of liturgical reform. Philip Endean, Andrew Cameron-Mowatt, Rita Ferrone, Joe O’Leary, Fritz Bauerschmidt and many others have pointed out the flaws of the new translation. On this blog, I think of the consistently clear views set out by Anthony Ruff and his courage in refusing to promote the new translation. XR has done the world a great service in exposing the shameful revision process. But people aren’t listening, or even engaging with these critiques. They are responding like parrots. A pause might give everyone a chance to reflect and improve the dialogue.

    Second, we need more time to see how the people of God respond to the new translations. Is the general silence about them that I see in my parish the silence of a stunned ox or a happy assent to a better translation? Time and more systematic information gathering will help answer this question.

    Third, there are more important battles to fight right now. The new translation is a symptom of a much deeper problem in the Church, a creeping traditionalism that is itself anti-traditional, a move toward an isolationist and anti-ecumenical religion that barely deserves the name ‘Catholic’. Given the limits of time and 2,000 character comment boxes, those are much better issues to attack than the new translation.

    At least for the time being.

  42. Meanwhile, the people who have been abandoned, well, they mustn’t have been true Catholics to begin with………….

      1. I’m sitting, waiting for the mass that I went to one month ago, to be said, and it’s not there. Nobody has come to say it. The church moved away from me and millions of others who want the old missal restored, even if they’re not voicing it, because there’s no way for them to voice it.

        If the old missal will be used in church this Sunday, I’ll be there. If it’s not, I won’t.

        It’s the church’s decision. They chose to change, don’t blame me for wanting the mass that I grew up with. This mass is the mass of a different religion.

      2. Actually John, given the direction in which the church is being dragged, you’re more likely to be in the Lefebvrists’ company, because the church is being transformed into the traditionalist church that they so much desire.

    1. Sean, I don’t know where you live, but surely in your diocese somewhere there is a Mass in some foreign language (Spanish, maybe? Korean?). You could consider going to Mass there. You might not understand the words, but at least that would not be the result of an objectionable process.

      Or perhaps you can find a Catholic nursing home nearby and check out the Mass there. If their priest has any measure of common sense he will have stuck to the Mass that the elderly are familiar with. I think that the odds are good.

      I think that the Mass is a time of grace, and I would be very sad if the various obstacles sometimes put in our way prevented me from going.

      There is a quote that escapes me now: the way to Catholic holiness goes through, not simply suffering for the sake of the (institutional) church, but also suffering because of the (institutional) church.

      1. Claire,

        Thanks for your concern. I may just do that. I’d rather sit through a foreign language mass where I didn’t know what was being said, than listen to what they’re forcing us to accept. Every time I hear the new mass in English I start crying because it only reiterates what was taken away from me.

    2. Something we’ll never know is whether the number of people who are ultimately driven away, was more or less than the church expected would leave. What’s the military term, acceptable casualties??

      A change that would even drive one person away is too radical.

      1. “A change that would even drive one person away is too radical.”

        What about a failure to change that drives one person away? And there have been people who have been repelled by the old translation, lest we forget. I am dubious about this standard – if it is to be genuine rather than agitprop, it has to cut both ways….

  43. I have been reading this blog for the last few weeks and have hesitated to make any comments because I am certainly not educated in the liturgy like most of you who post here. I have been an active Catholic my whole life and at 58 years old am seriously considering leaving the church. I have heard things in the new translation that has made me laugh at the awkwardness of what is being said, and the elimination of any gender neutral language has me furious. We repeat or hear over and over again that we are unworthy sinners. Any Catholic that doesn’t have self-esteem issues will certainly have them after a few years of this.

    I have to believe the lack of reaction from the pew is the result of years and years of being told what to do and knowing that as a Catholic you have absolutely now power to change anything.

    My husband is Presbyterian. His church has a woman pastor who is wonderful, the church supports many charitable causes and the congregation is very active (and yes, they serve coffee after services). When I have attended with him I have felt welcome and uplifted. When he attends with me all he feels is excluded. He can’t even say The Lord’s Prayer with us because our pastor has us chant it.

    I find the whole direction the Catholic Church is taking away from Vatican II very upsetting (and wrong).

    1. Why can’t your husband chant?

      How in the world is the new translation taking the Church “away from Vatican II” ?

      The Order of Mass is exactly the same as that promulgated by Paul VI. The translation of the Latin has been improved. So how can that possibly be somehow against Vatican II?

      1. Um, because he’s not familiar with the chant, which is not used outside our Church – the context is that he is only an occasional attendee with his wife.

    2. Deb,
      You make a great point by saying that the lack of reaction from the pews is due to a belief that there’s nothing that can be done about it. I don’t doubt that there are many who are overjoyed by the new missal, but there has to be many out there who are heartbroken by it.

      Words that we’re said in church our entire lives are no longer valid to say, responses are now illegal to use, and words that were said before Vatican II are now required.

      How long do we have to wait before the ban on eating meat on any Friday is restored, before the priest is turned around, before they put a gate at the front of the altar, before we’re no longer allowed to receive communion in our hands, women have to start covering their heads, ….

      1. Actually, I doubt they were said before Vatican II. Many of them were, however, said between 1965 and 1970….

      2. How long do we have to wait before the ban on eating meat on any Friday is restored

        This is currently the universal law of the Church, though there are local deviations (such as in the U.S.):

        Can. 1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

        The U.K. has just restored the practice.

      3. If it is currently (since 1983) the “universal law” – you make it sound as if it really were a law, how could the UK just have restored it?

        Thankfully that code is regarded with nothing even remotely similar to the force with which the Friday fast used to be observed.

        That particular toothpaste is well out of the tube.

        It’s now as it should be: do it if it seems good to you. Otherwise do something else.

      4. Because the bishops removed the alternative (as noted in the canon) that they had previously permitted.

      5. And so if someone in the UK eats meat on Friday it’s a sin?

        And if it is, how can something that was not a sin last year suddenly be a sin at the whim of some bishops, that’s crazy!!

  44. Sean: “This mass is the mass of a different religion.

    Surely not. No more than the new Mass of Paul VI was of a different religion than the Faith that the Church had preserved under the guidance of the Holy Spirit since apostolic times. Though in 1969 it certainly looked, felt, and smelt like a different Mass than the one we had loved and grown up with. With an entirely different language, context, and ceremonial — not merely tweaks in the texts of particular prayers — that confronted us who lived through it with an incomparably more abrupt and jolting a change than anything currently being experienced by anyone. But most of us did not leave Holy Mother Church, we stayed and prayed as loyal Catholics for the restoration that is now well underway (seemingly after the biblical forty years wandering in the desert).

    1. Henry, I wasn’t alive when any other mass was said. The fact that it changed before I was born does not come into play. My only mass has been stolen from me.

    2. Henry, I’ve been watching you post your blather all over blogs and forum sites for many years.

      I think the most disappointing part of the recent Mass changes, is that it gives you and the vanishingly small minority of folks like you, an imaginary soapbox from which to gloat and proclaim that your “justice” is finally being served.

      Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe that in any way. I think you and your ilk are a deluded minority that’s so small in number, that I’ve never actually met any of you in person.

      I don’t understand why these changes were made, and perhaps I never will. But I’m sure that this isn’t a “restoration” of obsolete ways, made at your behalf. No no, it just can’t be that.

  45. Exactly. If this blogsite is truly a microcosm of members of the church, then there are many of upset Catholics out there who are not accepting of the new missal, but who feel powerless or they have no way to express their disapproval.
    (from Sean Parker)

    Sean Parker….I echo this comment 1000%….Until the internet and blogs like this one we have NEVER had a voice. I wrote to the Pope. That is not effective. I have tried to talk to people I respect within the church including a current associate at my home parish. The answer from the majority by far is”you have a valid discontent and pray and discern about where God will help you find the spiritual world that fits you” It is ridiculously sad that that place, after 53 years, may not be my home base Roman Catholic Church. It is time for the “hierarchy says so…just do it” mentality to change. Look at the numbers of Catholics leaving the church. Do we want to keep sending them away because “unfair” is what we are all used to? I don’t. This is the first place I have found to “have a voice” and I am extremely grateful. If there was something else I could be doing (and I have tried that too) that felt like someone was actually listening and cared, I would have done it already. Fr. Anthony actually cares. And he listens. I wish Fritz, the Pope and others did too. Jesus did. I am going with the Jesus Model. Amen. Blessings to you Fr. Anthony for this blog.
    Respect, love, hope, mixed with concern and sadness,
    Josephine Ludwig

  46. This Advent, two things changed in my parish: we got the new Roman Missal and new aisle carpeting. The carpeting has generated more conversation than the Missal. It’s not the disaster that some feared.

    As a liturgist, I have followed these discussions with great interest for several years. As a pastoral minister, I now need to get on with the work of serving our people. We are participating in the Catholics Come Home campaign for Christmas, and this promises to have a real impact on our Mass attendance and the fervor of our active parishioners. Now that’s interesting.

  47. Anthony Ruff, OSB :

    This is why I must react quite strongly when anyone asserts (as many do) that the new Missal is an accurate translation and the previous Sacramentary was not.
    It’s fine to prefer the new Missal – I do, in fact – but it’s not fine to mistate and distort reality concerning what the new Missal achieves.
    Otherwise, an unfortunate association is created between ecclesial obedience and the distortion of facts. I’d hate to think that’s what obedience means.
    <a id="c

    Hear, hear.

  48. Mr. Hazell,
    Good point and I agree. I think the previous translation took alot of liberties, whether authourized by CLP or not (and that will be forever debatable), that either tried to explain too much or on the other end simplified too much. The end result was often distorted. Not necessairily what we may have heard but when held up close to the Latin text for comparison. And whether we like it or not that is the threshold. The Latin text. And with so many different interpretations over the years with each revision or translation of the other sacraments, often it strayed too far from the original Latin. Some of the examples can not be denied. Critisism is well documented. I do hope the critiques that come in on the new Missal are addressed sooner rather than later, but the principles behind LA appear sound.

  49. The bishops of England and Wales (as did the bishops of the other 10 English-speaking bishops’ conferences) colluded with the undermining of their own authority by the actions of the CDWDS, reversing the hierarchical roles laid down by the last Ecumenical Council.

    And they expect that the faithful will take their decision about meat on Friday seriously?

    They didn’t think that their authority was worth fighting for in the MRIII debacle. Why should anyone else?

Comments are closed.