What if we just said, 'wait'

[johnquinn39]

At the risk of going off-topic - I do not see the point of the 'New Missal'.

God remains powerful and mighty, and Christ has indeed risen.

Why deny this?

Latinate, obscure, archaic and non-inclusive language will just be ignored by the person in the pew.

This sort of thing obviously appeals to mincing vicars and right-wing American 'Catholics', but as they will not be using it, what's the point?

John

[Gabriel]

I try not only to be pragmatic - it's coming get used to the idea - but also benevolent - looking towards what is good. Now according to John that either makes me a 'mincing vicar' or a 'right-wing American' - since I was neither last time I checked I am not sure whether to worry or not.

I am not sure that the text is as latinate, obscure,archaic or as exclusive as suggested - and as I have wondered before is this based on looking at the text or just hearing about it. To take one - archaic - I was bemused to see CAFOD using 'bounty' in a recent prayer - a word previously derided as archaic in the original draft of the translation. It might be fairer to criticise syntax and sentence structure but this is often coupled to the surprised statement that priests may have to prepare texts beforehand - something we would obviously not expect of other ministers

There are lots of basic questions you can ask - I think John is saying 'why do we need a new Missal?' but you might also ask 'why is fidelity to the Latin text important?', 'what are our expectations of a liturgical text?' etc.

[festivaltrumpet]

I do not see the point of the 'New Missal'.
God remains powerful and mighty, and Christ has indeed risen.
Why deny this?

I cannot see any way in which the new missal is denying the resurrection or omnipotence of the Almighty. As God remains powerful and mighty, and Christ has indeed risen whether or not we worship, one could equally use this very poorly constructed argument to say that there is no point in liturgy at all.

[presbyter]

God remains powerful and mighty, and Christ has indeed risen.
Why deny this?.........

Bless you John, no one is denying this. The liturgy is shot-through with God's power and might (and wouldn't work without it!!)

All that's happening in the Sanctus is that we are going back, almost, to what we had before (pre 1973) - which is a more concise reflection of Isaiah 6:3

‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts' (NRSV - and see also Isaiah 1:9/Romans 9:29; James 5:4) (For the meaning of Sabaoth - do a Google search)

The "Christ has died" acclamation isn't actually in the Roman Missal of 1970 or 2002 (Latin) - the Latin words are not there to translate! Yet as to whether or not the Bishops will succeed in retaining this English loose adaptation of the Missal text, we wait and see.

The Latin in the 1970 and 2002 Missal is:

. Mortem tuam annuntiamus, Domine, et tuam resurrectionem confitemur, donec venias.

Now translated as:

We proclaim your death, O Lord,and profess your Resurrection until you come again.

Keep calm - and carry on!

[presbyter]

By the way, John - don't think that every language group in the world has been proclaiming "Christ has died....etc" for years.

The Italians, for example, say this -

Annunziamo la tua morte, Signore, proclamiamo la tua risurrezione, nell'attesa della tua venuta.

- a translation of the Latin.

The French say this -

Nous proclamons ta mort, Seigneur Jésus, nous célébrons ta résurrection, nous attendons ta venue
dans la gloire.

[presbyter]

I do not see the point of the 'New Missal'.

I think John has possibly articulated the view of many people in saying that - and how many of the faithful realise a so-called 'New Missal' is on the horizon anyway?

The catechetical material will have to be excellent. What's the Liturgy Office doing to help everyone prepare? Anyone know?

And by the way - look here http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/faqs.shtml and see how our US cousins have failed to answer the first of the FAQs. "Why is there a need for a new translation?" - it doesn't say! I think we can do better than that.

[presbyter]

And by the way - look here http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/faqs.shtml

Sorry, I messed up the link. Here it is.

http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/faqs.shtml

[mcb]

But in my case, "And with your Spirit" is not one of them.

Have to say it is for me. As far as I can see, the argument runs: (i) these words were originally an idiom meaning "and also with you"; (ii) the idiom was already opaque in ancient times, such that at least one saintly commentator tried to make sense of it by inventing, post hoc, a more literal interpretation of the words; (iii) we've been doing this so long that we can't stop now.

Many of the good aspects of the liturgical renewal have involved stripping away the encrusted ornamentation of the centuries. I thought this was one of them.

[presbyter]

Have to say it is for me.

I think I would tend to agree with you more mcb, were it not that other major language groups stuck with "your Spirit" in their translations of the 1970/1975 Missal.

De Heer zij met U.
En met uw geest.

Der Herr sei mit euch.
Und mit deinem Geiste.

etc....

and for those who are irritated by the restored triple "mea culpa..." in the Confiteor, again, other language groups retained it -

moja wina, moja wina, moja bardzo wielka wina. (in my best Polish!)

per mia colpa, mia colpa, mia grandissima colpa.

por mi culpa, por mi culpa, por mi grande culpa.

mo j grijeh, mo j grijeh, mo j preveliki grijeh. (Croatian)

but the French (who are manifestly more saintly than the Spanish) just utter: oui, j'ai vraiment péché

(I must stop this or mcb and I will be speaking Armenian again!)

I suppose this could raise a question of the universality of the liturgy (along the lines of those so-called traditionalists who murmur that when Mass was in Latin, you could go anywhere in the world and it would be the same).In the Western Church, is exactitude of translation of the Roman Missal - in whatever language - an absolute necessity for the liturgy to be truly Catholic? (Read Liturgiam Authenticam before answering )

[Southern Comfort]

I think I would tend to agree with you more mcb, were it not that other major language groups stuck with "your Spirit" in their translations of the 1970/1975 Missal.

De Heer zij met U.
En met uw geest.

Der Herr sei mit euch.
Und mit deinem Geiste.

etc....

But the Portugese (and therefore the Brazilians too) all say:

O Senhor esteja convosco.
Ele está no meio de nós.

The Lord be with you.
He is in the midst of us (literal, but more poetic would be:) He is in our midst.

(though I'm told that Rome has told them that eventually they'll have to stop it!)

This is very close to the C of E:

The Lord is here.
His Spirit is with us.

Incidentally, the whatifwejustsaidwait website is now reporting 13,000+ signatures. Their aim is 20,000.

[presbyter]

Incidentally, the whatifwejustsaidwait website is now reporting 13,000+ signatures. Their aim is 20,000.

20,000 is hardly enough to make this a reflection of the sensus fidelium.

One of the comments on the website about the translation: " It isn't even good pompous English!"

[Southern Comfort]

20,000 is hardly enough to make this a reflection of the sensus fidelium.

I agree with you, but the other website, let'sjustgetonwithit (or whatever it's called) has barely achieved 3,000, I gather. It's merely an indicator of how people who care are reacting to the (admittedly) little concrete news that is available.

[johnquinn39]

This discussion is a waste of time.

The only thing RC priests know about the liturgy is that there has to be a hymn to Our Lady at every Mass (at communion), and that singing the psalms and acclamations are forbidden.

[PaulW]

The only thing RC priests know about the liturgy is that there has to be a hymn to Our Lady at every Mass (at communion), and that singing the psalms and acclamations are forbidden.

Unneccessary and untrue, John.

[johnquinn39]

OK - not all priests - but most