Fr. Ryan makes excellent points. The older English translations are, in many places, awful. But replacing awful with awful is not an improvement. However, most priests are reluctant to question bishops on even the most trivial matters. Our ancient role of advising bishops has withered to the meaningless nodding of our resigned heads. We will publicly say that these translations are wonderful. Privately, with each other, when no bishops are within earshot, we will bemoan them.

Thank you for a wonderfully lucid and compelling case for giving these translations a 'trial run' that will allow the people of God some input into the language in which our communal prayer will now be prayed. Sadly, I don't think this proposal will gain much traction as evident by how little the bishops seemed to listen to the well-argued, well-reasoned objections raised by Bishop Trautman.

Thank God someone is encouraging the People of God to have some spine!    

Kudos to Father Ryan for being willing to put in print what so many of us priests have been saying to each other. These translations are based on the assertion that there is something superior about the Latin texts. How could a text in a language which virtually no one speaks be superior to texts composed with vibrant and living languages like English? I'll tell you why. Because this assertion comes from clerics who are in a position to impose their will on the whole church. Is this the kind of authority that Christ extended to his apostles? Sounds more to me like a form of "lording it over their subjects".

Of course the Holy Father and the officials of the congregation for Divine Worship have the authority to ensure that all texts used in the celebration of the Eucharist are doctrinally sound. In 1975, they did exactly that in approving the texts we have been using ever since. I have been praying those texts with and for the people I serve over all these years and can attest that they could use a little improvement based on what we have learned from their actual usage. A number of the proposed "improvements" however are anything but that.

"Consubstantial with the Father"....."Incarnate of the Virgin Mary"....."it is right and just" are just a few of the odd sounding English expressions whose only "virtue" is that they are more like the Latin texts. The text of the Gloria is particularly awkward and guarantees that none of the sung texts which the people have mastered over the decades will be available for use. Same is true for the text of the "Holy". For the sake of one word-"hosts"-all new sung texts will have to be composed. Dare I suggest that someone over there may have had in mind doing in the ubiquitous "Mass of Creation"?

I have signed on to Fr. Ryan's movement and hope that other priests and laity will do as well. Let's not reduce this to a "who's more loyal to the Holy See" pushing and shouting match. Blessed Gamaliel, pray for us.

The pastoral and accessible need not be in opposition to the uplifting and the memorable. Sadly, the new proposals are lacking in all four respects. They show little concern for the natural genius of the English language, not least its rhythms and cadences. They are broken-backed and inelegant, more like a first draft than a text ready for introduction in our parish churches. Surely a higher standard should be insisted on. For a start, why not look at the rejected Missal of 1998, canonically approved by eleven conferences of bishops?

Serious and sincere consultation of the Catholic faithful at the grassroots level has never characterized the implementation of the reformed liturgy during the past 40 or so years.  "Catechesis" was always supposed to prepare the faithful to receive what the "higher-ups" thought was best for them. but which the Council clearly taught was theirs by right in the first place.  And if change without consultation did not not work, we tried to solve the problem by throwing more catechesis at them.  Catechesis as problem-solver didn't work, and I believe this is at least in part the cause of the present-day backlash. Even with the best of programs, many people justifiably felt talkd-down-to and manipulated. What if, for example, right from the start, a highly public and intensely engaging process of consultation, with a real openness to listen on the part of not only bishops but professional liturgists (remember the old "terrorist" joke!), had characterized the process from the beginning?  I think the "liturgy wars" and a lot of resistance could have been at least mitigated.  Sadly, chances of any real openness to effective consultation seem less now than ever.  I just read today's piece by John Allen (on Pope Benedict and populaist Cathlicism, a different but related topic) in which he quotes Chesterton: "A progressive is someone who keeps making the same mistake, while a conservative is someone who prevents a mistake from ever being corrected." 

My own general reaction to this article is that the author is expending a lot of energy and spite on a very minor problem.  He doesn’t like several of the new phrases in the latest missal about to be released.  He says that this will result in “an almost certain fiasco”.  He attributes this new translation to a determined dismantling of the outcomes of Vatican Council II.  He tries to get up a tremendous ire at all this but it comes off flat.  His citation of No 40 from the council documents does not give the cover that he wants for experimentation etc. Actually it is precisely the assumption by the clergy that they have a right to always and everywhere tinker with the liturgy that has brought the Novus Ordo into such disrepute and opprobrium.

On occasion, he gives in to disparaging remarks thrown in for seemingly no purpose whatsoever.  The “so-called Tridentine Mass” for instance which simply refers to the revised Missal issued by the fathers of the Council of Trent and which since that time up to the Vatican Council II had gone through only minor revisions so the name seems appropriate enough to me.   I have no idea what the author wishes to indicate with the adjective “so-called” as if there were some gross mistake underlying this identification.

In his rendition of the historical development and implementation of the Novus Ordo Mass after the second Vatican Council, the author fails to mention that even then there was no consultation with the faithful laity of the Church nor would the council have risked posing such a question for concern that it might be answered overwhelmingly in the negative.  The main reason for believing that it would have received a negative reaction is simply that many laity would possibly or probably not have fallen in for “buying a pig in a poke”, a totally unknown yet-to-be new Mass.  And they would have been right, seeing the inane, mundane texts we ended up with, watered down and twisted.

When the author does get down to his cases, he cites only five instances of what I suppose he believes are poorly translated phrases but of the ones he cites I cannot for the life of me understand what is so poor about any of them in his understanding except that he says they incited disbelief and indignation at a dinner party.  Why any of these phrases would incite such a hostile reaction is hard to imagine.  Later he mentions the phrase from the Eucharistic Prayer “Joseph, spouse of the same virgin” and this may very likely be of questionable quality but this is only one phrase from an entire Missal. 

The author never once addresses the reasons for this new translation, why it does not come from ICEL (The International Commission on English in the Liturgy) or why the project was removed from ICEL in the first place.  The quality and accuracy of ICEL’s translations have long been a sticking point in the English-speaking world and the Vatican has received complaints from laity around the world concerning these translation as well as objections by liturgists in essays, pamphlets and books.  When the Vatican tried to work with ICEL, the committee simply ignored or paid lip service only to the feedback provided.  So finally in frustration at the inaccuracy and poverty of the translations, the Vatican removed the work on this project from ICEL, and the new translation comes to us from Rome itself.  But this history in a nutshell, and the author overlooks it and ignores it entirely, as if this translation fell from the skies of Rome, unannounced and unexpected.

The author cites Bishop Trautman who, in his complaints, sounded more like a turn of the 19th century bishop noting the lack of education among his immigrant flock saying that the words were obscure and not commonly understood and citing incarnate, oblation, etc as examples.  I don’t think it wise for a bishop to denigrate the intelligence of 21st century American Catholics.  But in truth the author of this article is cut from the same cloth.  We ignorant laity need priests such as the author to defend us from the machinations of the Vatican or so the author imagines.  I doubt that all laity would want this author defending them insofar as it has been the constant stream of complaints from this laity that was the impetus for this entire project in the first place.

For myself, I am ecstatic that the generation of the Council is passing and that the Church has set herself for the past 28 years to the great task of reforming the reform.  I earnestly pray that this great project will continue so that a true liberalism will be born of orthodoxy in every parish where Masses of every sort from Tridentine, to Novus Ordo may be said. I am happy to witness the passing of the phony liberalism of the sixties and seventies clergy, narrow minded liberals denigrating everyone else who dared to question them.

In response to Jack Feehily - the Latin was sung - the "Dark Ages" weren't that dark - the liturgists understood a principle of physics that sound elevated in pitch is more intelligible, travels better and is less prone to the problem of "standing wave reflection".  This must have been on their minds when the first translations were first made.

The new texts are an "un-singable", word salad.  The whole episode reminds me of the Jesuit scholastic who, verily, and in truth, mocketh, despitheth and reiecteth the poor latin student who had used a Victorian inter-linear translation to get through Caesar's Gallic Wars.

...and those of the hoi pollois who took all those Latin courses still know how to diagram sentences.

Sigh. 

Thank you, Father for taking a stand and urging dialogue and a process respectful of those in the pews.

I fear the Holy See is not particularly interested in what we think.

Thanks for a pastorally wise and prophetic pastor with the courage to speak the truth about the new translation's linguistic problems, its damaging effect in promoting full, conscious, and active participation at common worship, and its deeper theological issues.  The 'modest proposals' are eminently practical - if we but muster the energy to just wait!

Thank you Fr Ryan, for this article.

I thought I was losing my mind when I first read the new translation, and the amount of hostility I received in Catholic web forums for being critical of it.

As a seminarian of the North American College who also stood in St. Peter's square for an historic moment and rejoiced with glee at the election of Pope Benedict, I will gladly accept the new translation and help my people to receive it with love for the Sacred Liturgy. I come from the generation that was deeply affected by the abuses that came from a misunderstanding of the Council (and a non-reading of Sacrasanctum Concilium!). We deeply love the Church's worship and look forward to being able to participate fully, consciously, and actively in an English translation that will now say the same thing that the Latin does, and thereby be in unity with the people of God throughout the world. As our Holy Father said in his first words after the election, "Let us GO FORWARD in the joy of the risen Lord." This is no time to dig heels in the mud and stay stagnant. Let's go forward, brother. 

Thank Goodness for Father Ryan!  This exercise in arrested development that passes for liturgical reform is as sad as it is anything. 

Retreating to literal translations of the old missal only ensures that we'll have a careful translation.  Our Good Lord didn't write the missal, however, and there is nothing magical about it.  Indeed, hewing to this new approach will only encourage people to think that we Catholics do have a belief in the "magic" of the sacraments.  Truly, how sad.

Still, my great fear is for young people, in their 20s and 30s  who have been raised as thoughtful Catholics, who are very well educated and ready to lead, but who will see the translation as silly and anachronistic.  They already wonder at steps that keep women at arm's length and at the burgeoning communion wars ... (never mind the anti-Semitic Holy Week language that had to be forced out - God forbid that a Jewish friend might have attended a liturgy with it intact) ... these young people might well (and perhaps accurately) think that their church wants to push them away.  As a parent I want my children in my church.  I don't want them discouraged and sincerely hope that they, and others in their generation, will have the benefit of our faith as they face the joys and tribulations of life.

To that end, I might just add one more suggestion to Father Ryan's.  Why not "field test" the new missal with college students at Holy Cross, Yale, Santa Clara or BC?  Why not try it with a late Mass at Notre Dame or Harvard? Why not ask the rising generation of smart Catholics what they think?  I suspect we will not and because of fear of what they might say.  Still, they are the future...

Mark Twain wisely observed that it takes two to tell the truth, one to speak it and one to hear it.

Father Ryan has articulated a smart and a thoughtful response that should be heard (and acted upon).  I surely hope that will be the outcome, I truly fear that it will not. What has happened to the Church? 

Having read the proposed changes and watched the evolution of the date of implementation, this article was quite an eye opener.  Our Bishops have the right to protect the liturgical integrity of our Faith in spite of Rome's directives.  The question before us is, if the Bishops were unable to amend the changes; how can our priests hope to do so through these very unsuccessful Bishops? 

And as the responses clearly show, there is a definite movement in our church to return to the isolating practices that were promulgated by a church responding to cultural, social and spiritual attacks from the 1500s forward.  We are witnessing a slow but sure return of clericism, a need to use the Liturgy for the power of 'mystery' (strange language, unusual sounding words and limiting non-ordained participaiton); and religious practices that border on fetishes. 

Jesus spoke to the people in words they themselves ueed; He left a Eucharistic Memorial built upon the most basic of experiences, owned by the poorest of the poor and the richest of the rich; and He expected the Apostles and through them, their representatives, to teach the Good News simply and compassionately and welcoming. We must pray that our Church can heal this pendulum return which is away from Jesus and back into the darkness of myth, exclusion and intolerance. 

What I find funny is that most of the phrases that everyone here is complaining about, are still found (and routinely used) in the Episcopal Church and other "high liturgical" denominations.  They don't seem to have much of a problem understanding what "consubstantial" means.  Or "incarnate".  This seems like a condescending intellectual argument to me.  

Of course, since I attend Yale currently, I'm perfectly willing to field test these translations.  You might actually be surprised with the support they would receive, since we "smart Catholics" would appreciate a text that doesn't assume (presume?) that we need "dumbed down" theology.

In any case, perhaps you all would like to vote in this poll: http://iwillserve.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/what-if-we-said-finally/ 

How timely...to be asked, not to disclaim, but to "wait".  The importance of the word, in its original or in its translation, has always engaged us christians for whom the "Word" assumes both power and importance in our daily lives and in the liturgy in which we participate.  As an old Catholic, I welcome scholarly insights that produce new insights for us; as a lover of the English language I applaud the beauty of a translation that is both scholarly and eminently readable/prayable.  Can we not agree to use this period of liturgical waiting,at aminimum, as an opportunity to arrive at inspired AND beautiful English?

Three cheers! You have reminded me that we are the church. Now let the voice of the church be heard.

My father was born in 1940. He lived with the old Mass for 30 years. When, in 1969, he disagreed with some of the changes in the Novus Ordo, he was told by one of your "enthusiastic reformers" to, quite literally, "Shut up and do it." Because that was the way the Church was going. There was no alternative. His old Mass was taken away. He was expected to sing cheerfully, hold and shake hands, and just go along. For him and countless others, there was no "Wait." They were not allowed to "Wait." They were to "Do."

After that, and after a priest told him in confession that something (I don not know what) that was once a sin was no longer, my father left the Church for 15 years. He only came back when I was born. He attended the new Mass, but it wasn't until my younger brother became interested in the priesthood, and after several agonizing conversations about that interst, that my dad began to see the Church as he once did. He died four years ago, about a year after my brother started discerning his call. God rest his soul.

If he had been allowed to "Wait", perhaps his return wouldn't have been so circuitous, so painful.

And so my question is: Why, Father, should we wait for you? What right have you to "wait," when you took it away from my father and countless others? Why is the Novus Ordo so sacrosanct now, after 40 years, when the old Mass was so unceremoniously dumped after 400 years?

Perhaps a "Wait" would be nice to allow all those who cherish the new Mass as much as my father cherished the old a chance to adjust. But don't, DON'T, act as if you deserve one. After what happened to those like my father 40 years ago, if this world is just, you should be expected to fall right in line, just as he was.

There is such a thing as clearly expressing the sacred liturgy in the home language. And there is such a thing as preferring and exalting the liturgy over the simple matter of clearly expressing it to those present when spoken. The phrases our author alludes to as illustrative of the clumsiness of the proposed new language, leave me looking around the parish wondering what folks will think. Those who've been with the Church for years and years will shrug and suck it up, but I believe the new translation's disconnect from English usages will only result in sending more and more of our young people to a Church where English is spoken. I do not buy the notion that I should be a good boy and get out of the way. This situation is Pharisaism at work, elevation of form over communication. I protest. But what do I know? Possibly if I were ordained it would all seem clear, eh?

I checked the etymology of the word "wait." Old High German in origin, the word means "to watch, to awake." Sounds like an Advent alert to me. And it sounds like good medicine for translations that came about, not in the customary manner, but by a committee without representation from the people in the pews or sufficient scriptural scholarship either.

Bishop Trautman from Erie PA tried to "awaken" his brother bishops but got mostly groans from the good shepherds. Do they convene twice yearly just to groan? Does that sound like openness to the Spirit to anyone?

I applaud Fr. Ryan's carefully discerned and, most certainly courageous, suggestion that we all sit with the Spirit and watch for the right translation. Let their first effort be field tested. But do not start the presses just yet.

The bishops should know that the people for whom the Word is intended will tell them when they get it right. 

It is so cool that a priest will stand up and ask for a time out. Thank you for speaking for us, the people of God in the pews. Thank you for treating us like adults and expecting that we will act like adults. Thank you for your common sense and wise letter.

The most powerful critique of the liturgical reforms that followed immediately after Vatican II, as a result of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, is the "old wine in new wine skins" approach of uncritical, authoritative, non-consultative implementation. My pastor's heart goes out to those, like Alan's father (above), who were given no opportunity to prayerfully recieve the reform of the liturgy, the revision to the Missal, and the 'new language' of the Mass. Had there been a slow and careful catechesis - an intentional trial period like Father Ryan is suggesting - 50 years ago, then perhaps the liturgy would not be the casualty of internecine ideological warfare that it has sadly become.

Arguing that we should repeat exactly the same mistake in order to "correct" our previous mistake is nonsensical, however. There is no argument that the first translations of the mass needed further development. That's what ICEL was for, and in 1998 the work based on nearly 25 years of lived experience, legitimate critique, and thorough theological reflection was approved by the appropriate episcopal leadership. We could have spent the last 12 years implementing the new missal instead of delaying it. It is not Father Ryan or the USCCB or the other Anglophone bishops who has caused the delay, it is the CDW and the Vox Clara commission.

Anyone who has taken Latin at a Catholic university will tell you that a good translation is not a transliteration. Having an English version "closer" to the Latin does not necessarily make it more beautiful, sacred, or orthodox. But that's the selling point with my peers, those of us too young to have experiencedeither Vatican II in the way described by the author, or to have experienced the messiness of the 1970s and the pain caused by poor implementation of good principles then.

This is bolstered by the practiced ecclesiology of the last 15-20 years. Rather than the communio identified by the 1985 Synod of Bishops as the major theme of Vatican II, we still have the Vatican I model of curial elitism, bishops as branch management, and the lay faithful as disenfranchised clients paying for services from a monopoly: Don't ask questions, don't critique your 'superiors', don't think.

Maybe that was how the first implementation of Vatican II was handled in some places as well, and that's a pity - but it is not an excuse to make the same mistake all over again. Father Ryan is not reccomending dissent, disobedience, or proposing a liturgical filibuster. Rather, it is part of the process of reception of Vatican II.

Choose: Accept the new translations because of their merit, not because of uncritical "obedience". Or retain the currrent translation until a truly worthly translation can be done, not because of "disobedience". Let the Spirit go where he may, and see the truth of it then.

I often felt that now that the new missal is translated from the latin, to it's literal english equivalent. That piece should then be given to the bishop's conferences of the English speaking world, and then translate it into, let's say American English, Australian English, England english, etc.   Then that is sent back for Vatican approval. So the work that was done on the missal is not wasted, it's only a first step to a three step process.

I am no Latin scholar, but I have had enough experience and learning in both Latin and several modern languages to know a good translation and a bad one. I heartily agree with Fr. Ryan that this is a bad translation. Merely shifting a Latin word into English for is not translation. Taking "consubstantialem" and dropping the Latin ending to make "consubstantial" does not translate the word or the meaning. Even educated Catholic Christians do not use the word "consubstantial" in spoken language. Its begs for definition. If the words we speak in liturgy are meant to move mind, heart, and spirit they must be readily recognizable to the people who are speaking them. There was great wisdom in choosing "one in being with the Father" because it made sense.

How would it be if we stopped saying "for ever and ever" and went to "for ages of ages" because it is a more literal translation?

I would like to know just what Sacrosanctum Concilium was supposed to liberate us from, besides going to church, entertaining a religious vocation, making church doctrine a part of our lives? If these were some of the things it was intended to cause us to take out of our lives it was a huge success. The writer must have been living on a different planet before the disaster that was Vatican II.

Dear Father,

I am a 72 year old member of a small (waning) parish in Port Hope, Ontario. I consider myself a faithful Catholic christian. I read your article with great interest, especially because this is indeed news since I was never made aware of a new translation of the Roman Missal.

Answering with all respect for your stance where you sincerely advise "Wait", the most likely response from the people in the pew would be "Who cares?"

When we get almost no one to come to our bible study why would people even be interested who's husband Joseph really is? I think that the few translation niceties you mention in your article would hardly be noticed during the celebration of Jesus' memorial. Sadly enough there are more important things waiting outside.

With all respect Father Ryan, we have been waiting long enough. Bishops of a certain era and mindset have impeded the progress on this project for nearly a dozen years. Ever since I first had to respond "And also with you" rather than "And with your spirit", I have longed for a return to a more uplifting, sacred translation. From what I now read, the new English translation is a very welcome improvement, and I, for one, can hardly WAIT to pray it!

Father Ryan writes:

"So the question arises: Are we priests going to give up, too? Are we, too, going to acquiesce? We do, of course, owe our bishops the obedience and respect that we pledged to them on the day of our ordination, but does obedience mean complicity with something we perceive to be wrong—or, at best, wrongheaded? Does obedience mean going against our best pastoral instincts in order to promote something that we believe will, in the end, actually bring discredit to the church and further disillusionment to the people? I do not think so. And does respect involve paying lip service to something to which our more instinctive reaction is to call it foolhardy? Again, I don’t think so."

That entire paragraph could easily have been written by another clergyman: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Isn't it interesting that Lefebvre was considered wrong and backward for thinking this way yet so many "America" readers think Fr. Ryan is correct and courageous and visionary?

Oh, and by the way, words like "incarnate" and "consubstantial" have already been used by Catholics in other parts of the English-speaking world for some time. That's a point too many Americans forget: we, in the USA, don't get to determine how English is spoken. The Church doesn't want British and American and Canadian missals anymore. There is to be ONE English missal which means the English-speaking world has to compromise. How fitting that this essay should appear in "America" magazine because so many Americans forget that the rest of the world doesn't do everything the way we do, nor should it. Some of those translation issues have nothing to do with the Latin. They are simply proper English, which too many Americans, like Fr. Ryan, have forgotten how to speak!

Thank you, Father Ryan.

I wish I had the energy to follow the path you suggest. It is not only in liturgical matters, but in many other areas that we see a dismantling of Vatican II. And it is not subtle. Discouraged? You are not kidding!

It is already so challenging today to try to bear witness to the Good News in such a way that it gets a fair hearing. We can do without the extra burden of having to deal with an imposed tranliteration of our worship texts as opposed to the good tranlation that the former ICEL had worked on so diligently.

Blessings upon you, Fr. Ryan. You have no idea of the profound joy that wells up as I read your words. I could write a comment on virtually every one of your sentences (as well as on a number of those who disagree), but for now, simply Thank You.

The English language is second to none in nuance, clarity, precision, and indeed beauty. To subject it to mere literal translation is grossly disrespectful to the language and believers who use it carefully, especially to presiders who must stand before God's holy people and actually pray those words, not merely recite them.

I applaud Fr. Ryan, both for his courage and his conviction. At 72, I find myself becoming less and less patient with the increasingly bothersome manifestations of hierarchal "mismanagement" that make it so difficult to keep focused on Christ's mission-to love one another, to work for justice for the poor and disenfranchised, to be stewards of our environment, and to live in peace. It seems to me the Church leaders have better things to do than instituting liturgical reforms and investigations of the nuns. People are leaving the Church in droves, priests are a dying species, money is a scarcity, parishes are closing up shop, abuse scandals abound, women remain second-class citizens, and we have leaders who spend time splitting hairs on "also with you". Give me a break-

How do you say in Lation:  we want a smaller, meaner Church?

That's what it's coming to === and fast.

HOW sad it is that we, the faithful, have NO say in what will be used in our worship......DOES anyone at the USCCB or ICEL or the Vatican remember that this generation of Lay Faithful has more liturgically trained and educated members  than in any previous era in the history of the Church?

How harmful to their CLUB would it have been to include and consider seriously some intelligent input from those of us in the daily "trenches" trying to explain this "CORPORATE church" word game  to our children as something completely separate and apart from the BODY OF CHRIST??

we have come so far since SC  and now are backsliding, for what?  FEAR? NOSTALGIA? In test markets (and in my own parish setting) we LAUGHED out loud when the GREY edition was  read....... it reads like a DICKENS' novel only with bad grammar...and we "get it"  .... the gibit and the dew just are NOT going to be causes for the conversion of ANYONE!

I am surprised Fr. Ryan has not been tared and feathered yet!!  i'll be right beside him if i am so honored...

Excellent article! I fully agree that we should wait. But in the meantime, we should "Just Say No!" What would happen if we simply refused to use the new translation, or if pastors refused to buy the new Sacramentary? What could they do to us? Maybe it's time to make our voices heard. It's our Church and our Eucharist- or is it? Our bishops, including the Bishop of Rome, are are servants- or are they?

Well said, Fr. Ryan.  "clumsy and precious" is exactly correct.  I simply cannot believe that our Bishops have approved some of these 'translations'. 

But then I remember the process of 'natural selection' that has produced the current species of American Bishops.  God gave us all, including the Bishops, free will; I guess that makes the work of the Holy Spirit a lot harder. 

I am a molecular biologist, and a life-long Catholic.  Like all of those posting here, I would imagine, my faith means everything to me. 

I sometimes picture the interraction of human beings with the Holy Spirit as resembling that between a compas needle and a weak magnetic field.  Lots of swinging of the needle on either side of magnetic north, but over time one gets an idea of where north is.  Over the course of something like geological time I suppose the Spirit will give us the liturgy we need, in the meantime I guess I will have to suffer this Curial idiocy as best I can, try not to let myself get irritated during those moments of the liturgy, and focus as I always do on the Eucharist and my communion with my God.

I agree with the content and "tone" of the appeal for common sense, courtesy, and pastoral sensitivity in modifying the texts of the Missal.  Respectfully but firmly I reject the intrusive retrogression of alleged experts-expert perhaps in Latin and technical translations but lacking in communicating through langauge to people assembled for common worship.  Further, why the desperate attempt to reconstruct phrasing based on Latin texts? Who wrote those texts?  Much of the Mass text is  not scripture but the accretions of language over the centuries, crafted by Churchmen (not women?) at various points amid developing cultures and linguistic practices.  This obstinate program of church appointees seems out of touch with actual pastoral contexts.  I may respond with obstinate disregard for this ill-formed and fruitless endeavor that may also push me to regrettable lessening of respect and reverence for the liturgy as well as for the hierarchy that endorses and promotes it.  I hope it doesn't come to that, but my patience with  the waning "authority" of the hierarchy amid widespread abuses and scandals and wasteful nit-picking  is wearing down.

What a bunch of nonsense. I've had the opportunity to read samples of many of the new prayers and, by and large, I believe them to be vast improvements over the current English language Sacramentary.

Wait, you say? As a seminarian well over 20 years ago I can remember being told of the new English translation that was due to be released "any time now." Of course, it never came. It was rejected, as a whole, by the Vatican when it was completed in the mid 90's as the Third Latin Edition was being completed and released in 2000.

Yet, with the rejected translation, I don't recall anyone screaming for collaboration, consultation, etc.! Had Rome approved it, it would have been implemented without "test markets" or "pew surveys."

No, I don't believe the laity are stupid, and while I don't know all those involved in the work on the new translations, I have no doubt that there are lay staffers involved in the translation and implementation process. Actually, I believe this to be an opportunity when education can be enhanced.

Why is it that the English language Missal is the only one that has these language problems? I tend to think that we Americans pride ourselves on being different, just for the sake of being different ... and we often think we must be difficult in the process as well.

From where I sit, I believe it's time to finish the discussions and go about the implementation  and after what will be surely a rocky start (wasn't post Vatican II?), we'll all be just fine.

What the priests seem to forget is that when the objective is to make the wording of the litergy as close as possible to the original Latin, there can be not point in opening this exercise to the people in the pews, who, even if they had studied Latin in High School, are not really prepared to enter into this discussion with the scholars who have made Latin their llifes work.  The people can say what they think sound good or nice or acceptable to them, but let us face the face that most of them do not really speak good English , let alone understand Latin.  I have to say that I had the same reaction to many of the phrases in the new translations that I have read on-line when I found the new translations on a web site.  I am prepared to follow the new teaching of the Magisterium and get used to the new translations just like I did after Vatican II rather than to start complaining and moaning and groaning.  I want to pray and love the Lord in the way that our Church says is best, not to spend my time involved in today's solution to every problem, the establsihment of yet another committee of untrained individuals who can do no more than express their own uninformed personal opinions.

We are NOT alone. Lest anyone think that the Vatican's continuing pastoral insensitivity based on multicultural ignorance is English-language specific:

http://www.ucanews.com/2009/11/30/humpty-dumpty-in-the-vatican/

Father Ryan is absolutely correct. A GLOBAL time out would seem to be in order.

I will try to be brief.  I applaud Rev. Michael Ryan's article.  It pains me to see the ignorance of history with which his comments are received by many.  First, "liturgy" means "the work of the people".  The "mass" that was "imposed" on people in the 1970"s was the fruit of many years of scholarly research into the history of the early Church and its several Eucharistic Prayers.  The "Latin Mass" of the 1950's was not sent by God, full formed, but was a cumbersome, repetitious conglomerate.  Liturgy of the 1970's was attempt at simplification and return to the original sources of the Church, including the early Church Fathers.  Renewed liturgical forms were tested among the faithful before they were implemented.  I know, as a youth I lived in one of the test dioceses-Oklahoma-under Bishop Reed. Following Vatican II, four Eucharistic Prayers were put forth as appropriate; those prayers were based on early Church prayers.  Each of the four, adapted, (prayer of St. Basil, St. James, Roman Canon, and Hippolytus) was considered legitimate and could be used in the celebration of the liturgy.  These form the canon (most important part) of the Mass.  All of this was approved by the full-body of the Church in its coming together in the meetings of Vatican Council II.  The vernacular language was promoted as being the best way people could express themselves in worship.  The faithful were also encouraged to develop appropriate liturgical celebrations for children and youth which would respect the sensibility and understanding of the age group for/through which it was being developed-it is this appropriateness for the group that allowed Pope John Paul II to circumvent the Council and return to the Latin Mass (which was the Roman Canon in Latin) then later revert to the Tridentine Mass-to accommodate the elderly who seemingly could not adapt-this was never intended to be a movement to supplant scholarly wisdom or the voice of the Church at large, that is, the voice of all the faithful.  Prior to Vatican II, much scholarship was done on the issue of the clarity and meaning of the Liturgy.  I won't go into the details here, but I suggest that those who are critical of Rev. Ryan might study church history before making strident comments.  I would suggest that "the Church" needs to get its priorities straight-one of these might to figure out just how important the contribution of the people is to the substance of what Jesus wanted to pass on.

I have always had trouble understanding why those who feel the Church is such a power hungry, mysogonist, antiquated institution deside to remain in it. In fact what baffles me most is that these people are usually the ones controlling the parish structure. Have we not had enough of liberal experimentation with the liturgy? Do all of you who are whining and complaining think the we the laity are stupid and cannot understand the changes being made? Many have opined that "there are more important things" to worry about than the text of the liturgy. Isn't the Mass the most important act of worship that we can offer God? If you haven't noticed our Catholic brethren are suffering from a chronic lack of catechesis. Do people know the faith now more than when the Mass was in a dead language? How much did the vernacular help convert souls and enrich our faith? Thats just it, many Catholics are more worried about the "social gospel" (and fall festivals!) than about offering God a true sacrifice and keeping the Gospel in their souls, not just the soup kitchen. With having the Mass in the vernacular we had an opportunity to bring people closer to Christ and to an understanding of Scripture and Tradition. Instead many in the clergy and laity saw it as an opportunity to break ranks with the Apostolic See and openly defy Church teaching. Theological discussion is important and fruitful but only if done with a charitable spirit. Both sides have erred, but some "liberals" are asking of the Church to do what she cannot; accomodate her doctrines to the whims of the World. This new translation can be a great opportunity at catechesis. For all those complaining and saying like a previous poster that "Much of the Mass text is  not scripture but the accretions of language over the centuries, crafted by Churchmen (not women?)" I urge you to read parts of that text and see the footnotes which point to the Scriptural origin of the words and gestures of Mass http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/WhiteBookAnnotated.pdf  Some comments here are very hostile towards the Church and her teaching authority. If our Church is so terrible then why not become a Lutheran or Episcopalian? After all I'm sure many here believe that ANY Church is just fine and that Dominus Iesus was the most terrible thing ever. We are tired of lazy liturgies and the spread of irreverence at Mass. Hopefully this new translation will bring with it the opportunity for those sitting in the pews to actually reflect on what we are celebrating and the True and Salvific nature of this sacrifice.

Let take a look at the 1973 translation of that 27th Sunday (as given by Fr Z. at WDTPRS):

Father, your love for us surpasses all our hopes and desires.

Forgive our failings, keep us in your peace and lead us in the way of salvation.

(WDTPRS blog) Fr Z's slavishly literal translation of the 2002 Roman Missal Latin:

Almighty and everlasting God, who in the abundance of Your goodness surpass both the merits and the prayerful vows of suppliants,

pour forth Your mercy upon us, so that You set aside those things which our conscience fears, and apply what our prayer dares not.

Almighty and eternal God, Whose bounty is greater than we deserve or desire, pour out upon us your abundant mercy; forgive the things that weigh upon our consciences and enrich us with blessings for which our prayers dare not hope."

My translation:

Almighty God eternal, who from Thy pity's abundance even exceeds the supplicant's merits and vows, pour out Thy mercy over us, so that Thou may dismiss all that the conscience fears and increase anything that the prayer doesn't anticipate.

The 1998 prayer add abundance to the mercy requested whereas the Latin mentions His abundance of pity or faithfulness.  The 1998 prayer also loses the theological significance of asking for the His mercy

He might remove our conscience's fear and might give us whatever the prayer didn't ask for that we will need.  That 1998 ICEL translation is far closer to Latin prayer than 1973 prayer is obvious, but it could still do better.

Right now what the new translation needs to be compared to is the 1973 translation not the 1998 translation and the new translation is far better than the 1973 translation.  However the translation still doesn't in place cathch the Latin words meaning esp. when the Latin uses "cum", in english "with". most time this expresses a use of the object of that preposition i.e. it's an instrumental expression, which however the English preposition doesn't catch as with is largely used as an associative with the object of the preposition being equal to whatever it is associated with.  That's not the case in Latin.  Take "Et cum spiritu tuo" which should be translated as "And at the head of thy spirit" or "And with thy spirit leads" (I prefer the latter).  Let's face it the Vatican wasn't going to approve a translation of 1998 when the 2002 Roman Missal had already been issued and ICEL's 1973 translation was so loose that no one trusted them anymore.  They should have said wait in 1973, but now all that can be done is to try to remedy what was done then as soon as possible.  We've waited long enough.

This is an excellent article and I do hope that a few bishops listen and take heed.

I live in South Africa and we have been the "guinea pigs" for the new translation this year. It has caused an enormous amount of liturgical pain and chaos in parishes. The "letters" column of our national Catholic paper

 has been full of responses, 95% negative. The bishops have insisted that this literal translation is an excellent one and that we must obey Rome. We also have been told that since English a "minority language" here, the responses of English-speaking Catholics do not need to be heard.  Priest friends have told me that it will take them a very long time  to memorize the Eucharistic Prayers because they are so poorly constructed; that they cannot be "prayed", but only read.

I hope that the US Catholic laity will make a major uproar when this translation begins to be used. South African Catholics can be ignored but the US Church cannot, especially since it is US money which funds the Vatican.

Wouldn't it be helpful to see the 2009 translation of the collect for the 27th Sunday in Ordinary Time for comparison's sake? But, of course, it is kept from us because of the secercy imposed by Liturgiam authenticam. I will risk breaking pontifical secret. Here it is: "Almighty everlasting God, who in your overflowing compassion surpass the merits and desires of those who pray, pour out your mercy upon us, to pardon what conscience dreads and to add what prayer does not venture to ask." Memorable?  Clear? It certainly has a lot of sibilants.The final line is not only graceless but obscure.

With respect, your own translation is so convoluted as to make even silent reading a challenge. Imagine the text being PROCLAIMED in the liturgy.

In my reading of the beautifully balanced 1998 text, the forgiveness asked for is a clear consequence of the mercy which the assembly has, after acknowledging its unworthiness, just called on  God to grant in abundance.

Those who did the work on the 1998 ICEL Missal were an entirely new team from those who worked in the late 1960s/early 1970s on the 1973 Missal. When work on the 1998 Missal was begun in earnest in the mid 1980s, only two of the 1973 participants were still involved in the work of ICEL. 

The eleven conferences of bishops in ICEL decided in the early 1980s that a thorough revision of The Roman Missal of 1973 was needed, and all of those conferences, after a four to five year period of deliberation, gave their canonical approval to the 1998 revision. it makes no sense to say that Rome had no confidence in ICEL because of the work done a quarter centry before. 

The 2000 editio tertia of the Missale Romanum retained without change over 90% of the material contained in the editio altera of the Missale issued in 1975 (including the collect under discussion here). The 1975 text was the basis for the ICEL revision carried out in the 80s/90s. Had the CDWDS allowed dialogue with the conferences in 2000-2002, changes could have been agreed in the 1998 text and the newly added material could have been finished within two years, by 2003 at the latest. Instead, the new ICEL began the work all over again. This was a huge waste of time and money, the people's money.

The translators of the new ICEL were so intent on adhering to the questionable stipulations of Liturgiam authenticam that they often became so lost in the Latin text that they were unable to come out on the other side of that dialogue between two languages that any credible translation effort represents. The Latin was so exalted that the English was reduced to being little more than an unwanted step child. The natural genius and properties of the English language have been all but ignored, not least its rhythms and cadences. A trained actor would despair of reading these broken-backed texts.

Judging by the number of comments on Fr. Ryan's article people are interested in the prayers of the liturgy whether they are for or against the new translation or the manner in which it came about. They are the ones who are still going to Sunday Mass. How few they are.

I love going to mass and worshiping God present in all those around me and as food in the eucharist. I try intently to listen to the prayers of the mass and make them my own. The words do not have to be perfect but they do have to be prayed sincerely and heard clearly for me to be in sync with them. If hearing fails me on certain words I should be able to see them. That doesn't often happen. I never know what Canon the priest chooses to use. Sometimes by the time I find it in my missal, he is just about finished with it.

If I could change the celebration of mass, I would have all the people in the pews praying all the prayers of the mass in union with the priest and deacon. Imagine how long I will wait for that.

Richard

Thank you, Father, and God Bless you for you courage.

For more from Father Michael Ryan listen to his interview with America on this week's podcast: http://www.americamagazine.org/content/podcast/podcast-index.cfm?series_id=1135

This is happening; accept it.  Diocesan Directors of Liturgy work for bishops and they will deliver it to the pastors who will fall in line. 

Fr. Ryan's text is futile, hurtful and a waste of time. The essay pointlessly attacks unity and spreads confusion.

What I don't like about this article and many of the comments is that many of you assume that most people (practically everybody in your opinion) do not like the new translation and that we should wait. However, in my opinion, and the opinion of many people I've talked to is that many people are, in fact, in favor of the new translation. Do not assume that everyone shares the same opinion that the new translation is awful! 

One quibble I have with Fr. Ryan: he attributes this awfulness to translators who are "better versed in Latin" than in English. I don't think so! If they really were all that well versed in Latin, they would recognize the idiomatic/syntactical elements of the phrases in their original context, and hence would not mistake word-for-word verbatim literalism for accuracy.

To give but one example: "eiusdem Virginis Sponsi" identifies Joseph in the First Eucharistic Prayer, and yes, indeed, if you fed those three words into a computerized Latin-English translation program - or gave them to a (not exceedingly bright) first-year Latin student - "spouse of the same virgin" is what you would get.

But this is why we usually do not rely upon machines, or said neophyte students, for translations that people will actually use.

The teacher of our hapless freshmen would, it is hoped, explain to them that 1) Sponsus/a was used exactly equivalently, idiomatically speaking, to 'husband' or 'wife' according to its gender, so the BETTER translation would actually be the more straightforward English word, not the weirdly neuter 'spouse'; and 2) the convoluted 'of the same Virgin' is dictated merely by the desire for precision, since the most ordinary possessive pronoun would misdirect us to the nearest noun as an antecedent, which in this context was Jesus, and that is not who Joseph was married to, after all. The simple, one-word "her" achieves exactly the same goal in English. Real English, that is, not "translation-ese."

In sum, Fr. Ryan is guilty of being a little too kind to these "translators"; or maybe of assuming that just because they're in Rome, their Latin is good. "Translations" of this caliber would not even get a good grade from me as an exercise in an elementary Latin class.

I am so disheartened by the apparent attitude of the young seminarian who calls himself sacerdos in aeternum. Does anyone else see a sense of personal elevation in his statement about "my" people? As though we laity are his as a sort of possession, and assuredly below his status as "eternal priest". Not even his name or even first name suffice. It's the position that dominates.

What about "our" people where we are co-equals as part of the People of God? Where we are consulted about liturgy and accepted as adults, not subservient followers?

I am reminded in tone of the cultic model of priesthood of so many young men. The more clerical garb and vestments the better. I've had to endure their self-righteous smugness, as arbiters of certitude of all things Catholic. It's almost a rigid obedience to me that recalls memories of the vacuum-packed spirituality of pre-Vatican II days.

I do not wish this as a personal attack on someone caught up in his world, but the sense and tone are truly depressing to this oldster. It's a going back to what I swore I would not raise my children in, and didn't.

See http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_14_132/ai_n27859689/ for an excellent article by Rev. Paul Stanosz that was in Commonweal, describing attitudes in seminarian training today. What a disconnect is in the making.

Fr. Ryan, you are a breath of fresh air. Thank you.

Timely article.  I attended a Latin mass in Las Vegas last weekend for the first time as an adult Catholic.  It reminded me of attending mass said in a foreign language.  How will using tortured English or foreign language (Latin) improve the religious experience?  Maybe giant television screens can be installed in the churches with subtitle translations similar to foreign movies?

We will get used to whatever language Rome decides we must use. It will be just like the old days, when the Mass was celebrated in Latin, and few knew or cared exactly what the words meant. Rome has spoken, and our duty is to salute and obey, even if it means standing by as the current crop of SSPX-wannabes continues to dismantle the work of Vatican II.

Thank you, Fr Ryan, for saying what so many people feel. Thank you for using such positive and lovingly cricitcal language.

The liturgical and other going-backward situations in the church are so closely linked to the role of the pope that I must admit that each time I pray for him at Mass, my prayer is that he will have either a change of heart or a change of address.

In fact some friends and I have started to "vote" for the next pope by a special type of activity. As a prayer that the next pope will return to the vision of Vatican 2, we have begun picking up a few bits of rubbish from the street each day, offering this act of humility as a prayer that the next pope will take the documents of Vatican 2 out of the rubbish bin, so to speak.

As we pick up a bit of rubbish, we pray "Jesus, please give the world a Vatican 2 vision pope".  Each time we put a piece of rubbish in the bin, we see that piece of rubbish as a voting card!

Whenever I read this sort of prattle I wonder if the author has actually read the Council document they are referring too, in this case Sacrosanctum Concilium. Had the "paster of St James Cathedral Seattle" (sic) done so I wonder what he would make of the document’s prohibition of personal innovation and its insistence on tradition, Latin as the principle language of the Mass and the pride of place of Gregorian chant in the liturgy. The fact that the rubrics of the missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI built upon this, interesting with the presumption that the Mass is said facing East, also seems to have escape Ryan’s notice. The failure to consider the document's eloquent appraisal of the Mass as a work of redemption, the sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ made for the remission of our sins, however says it all.

Thank you Father Ryan. If all are welcome in this place, we would, in charity, praise the Lord in a vernacular understandable and meaningful to all.

I agree we need to slow down and look at the new translations, but I don’t think it will happen.

What I regret most is the catechetical energy we are going to expend in the next year or so explaining “And with your spirit” and the other changes in the texts.   
 
Where is Romano Guardini when we need him? We need to look at his “Sacred Signs” again and talk about walking and seeing and listening as part of the way we pray. Our people should hear that more. Where is Thomas Berry when we need him? We need to look at the bread and wine and see them pointing, surprisingly,  to where we come from in the great work of creation we are only beginning to understand. Where are those great liturgists and scripture scholars and theologians and mystics who can open our eyes to the mysteries of the breaking of the bread and make our hearts burn within us?  

The last sentence on the bishops’ internet site about the changes says they will impact ordinary church-going Catholics and lead them to the deeper meaning of the Mass. I’m not sure. I think about recent complaints against drug companies for introducing new medicines and applications without proving they are better and more cost effective than previous ones.

A picture on the site’s opening page shows the back rows of a congregation at church at Mass. From where the picture’s taken those back row Catholics can hardly see the altar in the distance. Wouldn’t it be nice if we all talked to those back row Catholics?

If you give your son the toy truck that he has always wanted for a Christmas present and then he begins to beat his sister over the head with it. You take the truck away from him.

Your article is titled "What if we said wait" A better question to ask is "What if we had  actually said the words in the current translation" Perhaps this change wouldn't be occuring. I'm just saying.

I still do not understand (actually, I think I do) why the laity are never consulted on these matters - or anyone else for that matter.  It is continually emphasized that the only voice listened to is the voice of the few - the bishops and they seem to be convinced that the Holy Spirit works only through them - tha they are the Church.  Further, I don't understand why the English speaking bishops, the Spanish speaking bishops, the Polish speaking bishops do not have the authority to approve the liturgical prayers in their own language - how is it that some small group in Rome has that authority.  Vatican II never happened - it was just a mirage or a figment of our imagination??

Re. Post #76 (is this really the author of the recent NYT's op-ed piece?!): Is there any actual point being made about Fr. Ryan's proposal except the wish that he would die quickly? For all the anger by liberals on this blog I don't remember anything quite as despicable this.

I happen to think that there were some very bad practices in Masses in parishes and campus chapels in the decades after Vatican II, and that the full richness of our liturgical tradition is not being realized (Thomas Day's WHY CATHOLICS CAN'T SING nailed it almost twenty years ago). Still, the few times I have attended a Tridentine Latin Mass I have come away with the feeling that I'm hanging out with Civil War reenactors-the obsessive talk in the vestibule after Mass about the design of the chasuble worn and whether the rubrics performed during the Canon were done in correct sequence were kind of creepy.

I also am one of those who feels that there is a "systematic dismantling of the great vision of the Second Vatican Council's decree".  But it seems we are witnessing that very thing!  I find the new translations appalling and hard to understand.  After working for the church for 11 years ( as a church secretary)  I have wondered and worried about the seemingly endless turning away from the liturgy.  I truly feel that if this translation is instituted, there will be more and more of this; and in my case I worry about my children and their families.   I would  hope that our bishops would hear and recognize what this article and many priests and laity are saying.

I'm delighted with the new translations.  Even the more awkward phrases that have been cited are, to me, more thought-provoking and fruitful for reflection.  They may require us to slow down a little to pray them, because they don't sound like casual speech.  Otoh, I have no desire that the Sacramentary oughtta sound like da way I and other people talk in normal conversation.  I say, let us allow prayers hewing more closely to those of the Universal Church elevate our thoughts to embrace all the richness they contain, rather than trying to dumb them down for a laity who supposedly cannot understand them.  If there is a phrase that begs explanation, let's take the time and effort to explain it, rather than whining about not having been personally consulted in the process.

I think Fr Ryan's suggestion for some test flights of the new missal is entirely appropriate. I suggest the Bishops do this themselves, that is PERSONALLY.

When the first 400 books are available, they should be shipped off to the Bishops who will begin using them immediately in their Cathedrals, and anywhere else they happen to be presiding at liturgy, whatever liturgy it is. Other priests who could obtain a copy could also start using the new translations, but only by replacing the current missal entirely.

The rest of us could wait for the printing presses to catch up - and the music. In the meantime, I'm stockpiling copies of the current Sacramentary.

I was so pleased to read this excellent article that comes from the depths of a loyal priest, one committed to Church, both its hierarchy and its people.  I could not agree more with Fr. Ryan’s pleading for a time to wait.  I would hope that in that time of waiting further work on the translations would come forth from assembled groups of theologians, scripture scholars and yes, poets!  It would seem that our truest and most beautiful verbal expressions should adorn the very words we presume to speak to our God.

The idea that there is one, true, unified English language from Canada to South Africa, for which a single Book works most effectively ... is idiotic.  Even within a single culture, it's hard to write texts that are well understood by and inspiring to teenagers as well as seniors. Every competent writer knows that.

For example, it is beyond dispute that a text that writes "spouse" instead of "husband" is less effective communication within the United States. If it is be otherwise for the English-speaking community of the Vatican, that is all the more reason for a diversity of texts.

Why the Vatican should think that a single text should be mandated for the English-speaking part of the Planet, which encompasses a vast array of different cultures and linguistic subsets, is beyond rational explanation, except for a desire for Control. It cannot be out of a desire for Service because to serve a population with a text, you have to write a text that communicates effectively.

The ultimate question here:

Ultimately living the liturgy in the Word and in the Eucharist means that we must imitate the example that Jesus gave us to enter into a relationship with the Father (God) and with one another (seeing God in one another).  Building relationship and building community is difficult enough without using awkward and archaic language. It somehow seems a little dishonorable to hide our true intentions and expression of feelings behind phrases we do not use in public commerce.  St. Paul used direct speech in his communications with his followers through his letters.  That seems a good precedent.  Jesus walked side by side with his apostles, I imagine, teaching and talking with them as they went.  I interpret Father Ryan's suggestion as walking with his parishioners side by side.

How is it "beyond dispute" that spouse is more effective than husband?  Husband is more casual, I suppose.  But every word and phrase has been open to dispute, for years and years.  And now we are asked to "wait" while we take three steps back and give every single priest and every parish and every committee of every parish a chance to weigh in with their phrase-by-phrase amendments.  In every English-speaking nation.  Enough!   Let us receive with joy and good will what we are given, stop nitpicking, stop rehashing the same arguments that have been hashed around for years by the translaters and others, and get on with the work of praise and worship.

As for generating different English editions, it's an obvious and unsurprising observation that different countries have differing usage.  This is not a shocking idea and perhaps, just perhaps, it was taken into consideration by Rome when they came down on the side of uniformity within one language.  Countries speak differently, regions of countries speak differently, localities within regions speak differently.  How many editions do we need?   How much effort will it take to make sure that all of these dialect-friendly editions are truly and fully faithful to the editio typica (which, despite all the chest-thumping here about the value and beauty of English, happens to be written in Latin).  The point is not that the new translation sounds more like Latin, as if Latin were some linguistic idol.  The point is that while the new translation is less colloquial, it is also closer to the original, authoritative edition.  When every single word of the prayer needs to bear the weight of the entire Tradition and transmit it faithfully, clearly and unmistakeably, it seems to me we can afford a little stylistic  awkwardness in exchange for greater precision and uniformity.

"...every single word of the prayer needs to bear the weight of the entire Tradition ..."

That is an impossible burden to lay upon a poor little word. It is foolish to try. Far better to develop prayer texts that do the job of prayer, and teach the Entire Tradition in more suitable venues. The ritual Mass, outside of the sermon, is an ineffective avenue for religious instruction ... which is why we have sermons, CCD, Bible study, etc.

Here, sir, you flaunt your ignorance.  The ancient rule of prayer is Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi.  The law of prayer is the law of belief. That is, what we say in our prayers teaches us what we believe.  So yes, in fact, the prayers of the Mass are precisely tasked with reflecting accurately and precisely our beliefs.  We cannot afford to chuck out difficult language in favor of warm and fuzzy phrasings that suit your particular taste in poetry.  The liturgy is the source and summit of all we do, says Vatican II. Its not just a collection of pretty prayers that we can enjoy, and then leave the real teaching  to catechesis at some unspecified time. 

Thats also why its ludicrous to suppose that we could or should have a gazillion different translations for every style and region.  Every prayer in the Mass does indeed need to teach what we have been given in the Tradition.  Thats why its taken so long to get it right with just one edition.  Imagine trying to make a gazillion.

As to serving or ruling, the bishops are to SERVE by LEADING.  That is the task given them.  It is not fashionable now to remember that the ordained are meant to function in the person of Christ the Head of the Body (tho that fashion is changing as the 1970s Old Guard recedes and young people like the Yale woman take over).  It is their job to lead us and make decisions.  To be sensitive to the people, yes.  but not to govern by focus group. 

Finally, you fall into a common error by presuming the Church should be run like a business, and that the members are "consumers" who need to be test-marketed and catered-to.  The Customer is Always Right, after all.  What a dreary ecclesiology it is that reduces the Mystical Body of Christ to those peddling from "above" and those consuming from "below."  The Church is not Microsoft, and no Microsoft or any other business could do what the Church does.  To suppose that Microsoft's programs are far more complex than Church Teaching is to show how little you know of the development of doctrine, and how many centuries it took us to arrive at words like "consubstantial".  And you want to just chuck it because you don't grasp its importance or relevance.  Because you think the only possible importance it could have is in its practicality for moral decision making.  I guess that's because at its heart, our religion is nothing but a collection of ethical guidelines for living a moral life.  Oh wait, that's Ethical Humanism.  Please learn the importance and centrality of the Eucharist before presuming to be as qualified as the next person (or pope) to decide how to celebrate it. 

There also seems to me to be a distressing misapprehension here of the Mass as somehow belonging particularly to the people participating in it.  It does not belong to us in the sense of something we can modify at will to suit our predilections, or that needs to be approved by every single Catholic.   It is not "Father's Mass" or the parish's Mass.  It is the Mass of the Catholic (that is, Universal) Church.  Its unCatholic to suppose the language is fungible and should be tailored to suit every practicioner.

"I understand the modern Church is stuck with that distinction, but isn't requiring it as part of the liturgy an unnecessary form of intellectual hazing? Can you cite ANY moral decision made by anyone you've ever heard of that depended on consubstantiality? Are there ANY commands given us by Jesus that would be interpreted differently if the consubstantiality issue were treated like the geocentric theory of the universe?"

Excellent example.  What you need to know about consubstantiality is that it means that Jesus is of the same stuff as the Father, and therefore is God.  You have the luxury of taking that idea for granted, precisely because the Church has kept it in the Mass and kept teaching it.  It was not always so obvious. If Jesus is not of the same stuff as God, then he is less than God.  There was a name for that idea... it was Arianism.  The Church fought hard for centuries to maintain the truths of the faith instead of falling into that highly popular heresy. 

So, to the question, "can I name any commands of Jesus that would be interpreted differently if he were not considered consubstantial with the Father (and therefore, Not God)" the answer is, "All of them."

But yeah, you're right, who needs all this complicated theology stuff clouding the waters?  Let's just all take a whack at reinterpreting the Mass in nice simple English! lol

To respond to Kenneth J. Wolfe's comments:

I call you on your comments. It is fine to have a different opinion than the author of the article. BUT, we are Catholic Christians here. Traditional or not, there is no room, no need to be less than lovingly respectful to one another. Your name calling, mean-spirited, and judgmental words are out of line. Example: "....as they prepare to retire and die."

The topic of translations aside, we are called first to "love one another."  I am horrified by your words, and am sure that traditionalists out there (I am not one of them, ) who love the Church and want to follow our Savior are horrified as well. Let's work together in the unity Jesus prayed for. LOSE the mean spirited comments, and attempt respectful dialogue.

Thank you for printing this article!  It expresses exactly what I think about the new translation.  I hope there will not be a stifling of the editors for doing so.

Anytime I have given a brief preview of the new translation to parishioners, there has been a reaction that says:  "You have got to be kidding!"  I agree that some of the proposed text is good and could be preserved, but the language that contains words not even remotely understood by the vast majority of people ought to be changed!

C.H. Schramm

Hales Corners, WI

Funny, when I have presented the changes to parishioners in a context of appreciating the beauty and greater fidelity of the language, the reaction has been the opposite.  They are receptive and eager to hear more.  Maybe it's the way the message is being presented, not the content, that will affect the reception.  If people are told "here are a few examples of the crazy stuff Rome is forcing on us," then they will naturally be indignant.  I say again... if there are words that are not immediately clear, it is our task, in humility, to explain them and use the teaching moment, not to denigrate Rome for giving them to us.  If one were to spring the words "transubstantiation" and "absolution" on parishioners as examples of Rome's overly-theologised detachment from daily life, then that's how they would see them.  But to my continuing surprise, the People manage to not only use and understand these words, but to embrace them for their connection to qualities that make the Catholic faith stand apart.

I am a regular parishioner, a member of the Catholic laity. I love my Church and am proud to be a Catholic. I grew up mouthing Latin prayers and responses during mass, not understanding what they meant. It was only when the Vatican II reforms came around and we, the laity could respond to the priest in English, that I understood and appreciated the real meaning of the mass. It was inspiring to be able to pray in unison with the congregation and to be able to pray with the priest. This is what is so meaningful about the mass and why the mass has meaning for me.

Fr. Ryan's letter motivated me to look at the changes that are about to be introduced to ordinary people like me. I do not understand how the new translations improves our understanding of the mystery of the Holy Eucharist or how the mass can be more uplifting because we should now say "and with your spirit" or use heavy words like "consubstantial" Responding with "and also with you" is so natural and so culturally acceptable in the English-speaking world. What exactly does "and with your spirit" mean?  How is it really different?

I would prefer, as a devout and proud Catholic that if there are any changes that come from the Vatican, that these changes be about an issue that is more substantial, like the issue of giving women a significant ministerial role, or how can Catholics address more effectively poverty around the world.

Forcing the new translations on us is really much ado about nothing. Fr. Ryan is right. Let's wait and do some testing before a worldwide dissemination of the new translations occurs.

Amen to Mark Magee's comments (#90). An added note:  anyone who could characterize Father Michael Ryan as "singing the hits of the Saint Louis Jesuits with [his] fellow Baby Boomers" has obviously never met him or experienced the liturgy at St. James Cathedral.  And the placement of the altar at the crossing of the nave and transepts in the renovated St. James was modeled on St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican!  http://www.stjames-cathedral.org

Thank you, America, for having the courage to publish this piece and let a dialogue begin.

I had the enormous good fortune to know the late Msgr Fred McManus... priest of the Archdiocese of Boston, distinguished academic and administrator at the Catholic University of America, peritus at Vatican II, friend of church leaders, beloved teacher of many and one of the architects of the liturgy as it found its way from arcane, distant Latin text to English.  This brilliant, erudite and elegant man pioneered efforts to draw the celebration of the Mass closer to the people... people for whom he cared deeply.  When I hear the snivling comments about the state of the liturgy, I am dismayed.  "Father Fred," unknown to many, but a profound force behind the scenes, did so much good and together with his colleagues at ICEL, brought the liturgy into the modern world.  I agree with an earlier commentator that we cannot turn back the clock... and simply giving literal translation to Latin texts won't fill the emptying pews.  Simple, thoughtful liturgies have the power to unite... I am truly sorry to see the new text arrive... and pained at the small minded, nasty comments of those who are happy for it. 

I most appreciate Fr. Olsen's post #92.  I wish more priests had your humility.  I also appreciate kenneth Wolf's post.  I think his blunt point is that there are many priests that are living in the past.  They need to get with the present!  Change we can believe in!

Msgr. Byrne (post #98) has it exactly right - these comments are about much more than the words we'll use in church. The divide I'm seeing here is between those who thought Vatican II meant that local Bishops and even priests and laypeople might have a say in how the church does things, and those who think Rome is always right and the unwashed masses have nothing to offer except obedience (and $$). It looks like the pendulum is swinging way back toward this latter view, and I'm afraid it has a lot of momentum. When we hear that SSPX and all their illicitly ordained priests are welcomed back into the fold we'll know the days of Vatican II, ecumenism, and collegiality are gone.

I don't know who these Revisionists think they are and what they think they're doing to our Church other than driving people away.  Fine!  We don't need to stay, and they can be left with a following of small-minded reflections of themselves.

Two considerations:  1.  Why only one English translation for all English speaking countries when various countries have diffeent phrasing, vocabulary, etc.?.  There are several Spanish texts that have been approved according to usage, e.g. different texts for Mexico and Spain.

2.  This will further erode ecumenical progress.  The Books of worship for the Epicopal Church in the USA and the Methodist Church were modified to answer "And also with you" as well as introductions to the prefaces to correspond to the Catholic text.  Now we aill no longer be in sync.  Perhpas a small thing but many spouses in mixed religion marriages attend each other's church.

Thanks to Mr. Zelaney, who laid out for us way back at comment #7, how this process happened, and reminded us that the laity (especially among liturgical professionals) had been steadily, competently and vociferously complaining about the work ICEL had been doing.  It was only after repeated efforts to get ICEL to address the concerns of the People throughout the English-speaking world that Rome stepped in, as responsible leadership ought to do in any organization.  I respectfully suggest to those who see this as a Vatican power-grab that they are seeing what they are inclined to see.  I get the sense that some of us here have a pre-vatican II-Church chip on their shoulder, and are wont to draw us-them lines between the members of the Church who are lay and the members of the Church who are ordained.  Many of us, like the young man from Yale, who grew up in the midst of the Vatican II changes (including the wave of absurd over-correction that came in their implementation) or later don't have that baggage.

Wipe the windows of perception clean.   Liturgy Is our golden stairway to the gates of Heaven.  I prefer my prayer and praise to rise like incense with well chosen words at the feet of Our Lord.  All fine things take time and preparation.  I prefer grains of incense in the thurible rather than a cast off butt of a cojiba.  Knowledge is structured in consciousness.  Thank you very much Father Ryan!!!

V. PLEASE PRECIOUS LORD, LET US WAIT! 

R. AMEN

I've had much to say on this subject in other venues. Here is some of it, followed by a couple of other comments.

[The new text] has an "elevated" tone only in the sense that it uses unfamiliar words and a syntax imported from a language that is constructed entirely differently.

Where is the artistry? I submit that, in the excerpts we've seen, there is none. It's nothing more than false nostalgia for the lugubrious translations from old popular missals. ... Where are the real artists, the poets and novelists and essayists who could really bring the presence of God through their art and craft? Nowhere to be seen, just as the real artists in music have been marginalized these last 35 years.We are about to lose a marvelous opportunity to make real, substantive improvements in our worship: more artistry in music and word, and especially in preaching and teaching. We are going to blow it, big time.

So I absolutely agree with Sister Susanne Toolan that poets need to be as involved as translators in the creation of a text that transmits both the cognitive and affective substance of the Mass.
I am also very skeptical of the claim that the wave of the future is more fussy literalism, more mantillas and maniples, more compulsion toward the literal letter of the law. The idea that "there are many priests that are living in the past.  They need to get with the present!" is bogus. It could only be made by someone who did not live in the old pray-pay-obey days. The bishops of the world who attended and supported Vatican II were formed in those stultifying times. They knew, as the great Pope John did, that the church needed fresh air. The idea that today we would start pumping in stale air, both in substance (introducing an amateurish translation) and style (by fiat), would be well beyond their comprehension.

I signed the online petition. Here are the comments I left there (nice to see Fr. O'Brien's comments - greetings from a former parishioner):

I am appreciative and humbled that this effort springs forth from my hometown. Fr. Ryan is doing a great service to the People of God. I'm a post-Vatican II Catholic, and in all honesty have never attended a Latin Mass. The current liturgy has nourished my faith my whole life long. Am I to believe that I'm therefore somehow less than Catholic because some believe the current liturgical texts aren't a "pure enough" translation? Has therefore the Eucharist I've received ecstatically all these years been 95% Jesus? I love the Mass - it's not about being against change, it's about being against the implication inherent in the new translation movement - and the lack of collegiality and force with which it's being implemented - that the Masses I’ve participated in all these years have been defective.

Thank you again Father Ryan, thank you Msgr Byrne (you are so right about control), thank you Sister Toolan...

I agree with Mr Maher that people like Fred McManus and John Page who did such an able job at ICEL deserve better...

Dare I say that the problem has not been in the language of the liturgy but the delivery? I am not out to castigate priests, but honestly, I think that much of the responsibility for the disgruntled lies right there.  Can we really be honest about that?  I have been in parishes where well trained and holy priests have embraced it and have led their congreations into a special place.  Can we put as much energy (and money) in supporting all these good men (liturgical support and homiletics) as we have put into the work of this wild translation?  Are we next to be treated to sermons spoken in Elizabethan English?  Why not have a communion war (we are getting good at that!) and bar those of us who don't like the translation from communion?

I grew up as an "altar boy" and loved the old liturgy, benediction, holy hours etc ...

  Are we so hide-bound that we only feel secure moving backwards?  The language of the new translations will outfit priests in "the emperor's new clothes."  That's unfair to them and to us ...  priests and congregants will know the difference. 

Father Ryan has penned a somewhat provocative article.  I say somewhat because I imagine a majority of American Catholics are not even aware of what is being decreed or decried.  For me worship centers on the Eucharist celebrated in simple terms and language.  Father Ryan mentions that clergy chuckled at the "new" language.  I wonder if Christ would chuckle or even recognize such as worship?  If we are to take our cues from the gospel accounts we might be more concerned about clothing the naked, feeding the thousands, healing the lepers, and waging peace.  The language Christ spoke was clear, direct and not pridefully ornate and inaccessible to masses.  Looks like the scribes and Pharisees are up to it once again.

For all those supportive of Fr. Ryan's proposal, he has a website where you may sign to so indicate.   www.whatifwejustsaidwait.org

There are major SJ names there, and many priests, including some who posted here. It being a clerical world in this church of ours, their courage is noteworthy. I can sign without possible repercussion; they cannot.

IMHO, the bottom line has little to do with words and language in prayers but ecclesiology. Power, who has it and how they exercise it, is the core here.

Just a thought, to add to the discussion - in the lengthy process for making these changes, was any consideration given to Canon 119.3, which I believe says, "what touches all should be approved by all", and if so, what provision was made for such approval by all who will be touched by by them?

Father Ryan’s candor, courage and integrity offer a beacon of hope to us who love the church and want to hold onto the last vestiges of the Second Vatican Council and the way we pray.  

I’ve been attending daily Mass since 1939, when I received my First Holy Communion. It is the most important activity of my day, no matter what happens at work, at home, or with the latest medical procedure.  It seems to me that I should have some say in a decision that affects the core of my being.  Rather, the Vatican is creating an obstacle course between God and me in its attempt to once more unravel the heart of Vatican II.

In the Reform of the Sacred Liturgy, the Council states that there be no innovations “unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them;” and that they should be clear and easy to understand, so that the entire community can participate.

From where I stand, I see no requirement for innovation. The liturgies at St. James Cathedral speak to me in my seeing, my listening, my reading, my singing and, most important, in my heart.  Furthermore, there is nothing that convinces me that “Joseph, spouse of the same virgin” is simpler than “Joseph, her husband.” I doubt if the homeless man in front of me, or the dot.com executive in back of me will understand it any better. So the idea of community could go out the window.

As one of those fortunate enough to be a parishioner of St. James Cathedral, I am frequently reminded by Father Ryan that I am the church. Yet I get messages from Rome to the contrary.  My son, 47, who loves the church, reminds me that the Vatican treats its flock like children. Even at 77, when I’d like to subtract a few years, I find it demeaning to be treated as if I’m in kindergarten. Besides, it seems to me that there are other agenda items shouting for attention: the shortage of priests, women’s role in the church, the clergy abuse scandal, world poverty, the environment, social justice issues, and the unspeakable word in my Tridentine years’ education, “sexuality.”

So what if we said “wait?” Mary said “yes” when she knew she had to wait nine months to give birth to the Savior of the World. Can’t we postpone “oblation of our service” until there is a consensus? Perhaps this will be the first step to rekindling Vatican II’s smoldering candle, “Lumen Gentium” – “a light to the nations.”

Did Jesus pray or preach or even read in Latin?

Why is there such an over-riding need to have absolute uniformity in the Engllish speaking world? Do any substantial number of priests currently use the alternative Eucharistic Prayers now in the Sacramentary or its supplements? They are so refreshing and so full of meaning...

What if the priest (and people) did more ad-libbing during the Mass prayers? More sung responses? More like the celebratory African and South American church?

Our worship must be more than just formula, recited and quickly over with. We can do much, much better than this!

Thank you, Father Ryan and the Editors of America!

Warmest thanks to Father Ryan for launching this grass roots effort and to America magazine for publishing his excellent article.  I have been advocating trail runs of liturgical changes for several years.  I launched a blog on July 17, 2006, at http://creativeadvance.blogspot.com.  My first posting, A Better Way to Change Catholic Liturgical Language, was a reflection on many of the changes that Father Ryan is questioning.  I argued for experimentation before new liturgical changes were implemented, as well as for continuing celebrations of older liturgies in ways that did not detract from the normativity of new ones.  I have returned to this theme is several other postings.

So I am delighted that a veteran liturgical expert whose voice is widely respected has had the courage to take up this cause.  I hope all who treasure what the Spirit achieved at Vatican II will sign the Statement of Concern on his website.  The list of signers grows by the hour.

The lay Church has despaired of repairs to the Church coming from the top. Our only hope is with the Spirit, from the bottom up.  Way to go Father Ryan, and also Fr. McBrien. 

DON'T TAKE YOURSELF TOO SERIOUSLY, FR. RYAN. Your perfervid words remind me of what Shakespeare once wrote: “It's a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.” For years, more so than you, I think, I have closely followed the ins and outs of the ICEL process of translation.  I assure you I know English AND Latin very well. I have reviewed the final text and find it outstanding. It's infinitely better than the sophomoric and inaccurate translation that tortured us for lo these 40 years with the so-called "dynamic equivalency" translation, which was a fraud.

You would probably look down your nose at the venerable Anglican translation of the Mass, which - thank God - we will soon be able to enjoy even in the Latin Rite. You also seem to be a bit upset by the "recognitio" [the ratification] that the Holy See MUST give the ICEL translation. You forget that the Holy See is the ancient and venerable custodian of the Latin Rite. Since "lex ordandi est lex credendi," an accurate, reverent and elegant English translation is supremely important because it will be used by dozens of English-speaking countries. And the Holy See is the guarantor of orthodoxy.  English is the "lingua franca" or koine' of the modern world. So, let's get on with it, Fr. Ryan. I asssure you that the people will love the new translation and happily use it for generations to come.

God bless Bishop Trautman and you for speaking up with a courteous attempt to side track this awful translation.  Some of the language is archaic belonging to the 40' and 50' and the Baltimore Catechism days.

I would cringe to hear laughter at liturgy and was experienced at the mentioned gathering when introducing the translation.

Please allow us to pray in a language and in words we understand.

The people have spoken about the ICEL translation.  They've spoken in their plummeted Mass attendance.

Perhaps more significantly, though, even many of those who would tell you that they like the current language of the Mass have suffered its downsides.  Rapidly declining belief in Transubstantiation among Catholics, lack of reverence for the Eucharist, lack of understanding of the sacerdotal role of the priesthood, etc., are all powerful statements about the problems with the ICEL translations.

If Catholics are now so out of touch with our rich Patrimony that they are "indignant" that Christ be described as "incarnate of the Virgin Mary," and are in disbelief that we might imply beautiful biblical imagery in phrases like " “send down your Spirit like the dewfall,” then the state of Catholicism these days is poor in deed and the new translations are all the more necessary.

It mystifies me that the members of the Catholic laity are treated the way they are. No wonder the Churches are becomming empty.

The posts reflect the great problem that Pope Benedict has highlighted: to interpret the Council in continuity with the tradition or against it?  There is what the Council actually said and a mythical/spirit of the Council according to which it's as you like it.  The Council called for no abandonment of Latin but simply for greater use of the vernacular.  Latin has sign value in an age when Catholics are overdosing on particularisms: this is the English Mass, this is the Spanish Mass, this is their Mass, this is our Mass, this is.(fill in the blank) Mass.  There is a great danger of nationalisms getting in the way of Catholic unity.  Latin is a reminder that the Church speaks all languages and is supra-national. 

With respect to the translations I think a lot of this opposition is a smoke screen.  The current "translations" are often para-phrases with an agenda.  Every Catholic has a right to pray the liturgy of the Church as acurately translated from the actual text and not the text of some Committee with an agenda  sifting out what they don't like which is what we have presently.  Lastly the notion expressed above that we have had "over-governing" from Pope JP II and Benedict is laughable.  We have had practically no government since Bl John XXIII's medicine of mercy speech.  That's one of the reasons we have the mess we have and the Church is infiltrated with dissent and disobedience. There is a fifth column of heresy and apostasy seeking to re-make the Church in its own image, an anti-Church if you will.  It's time to put things in order with the help of God.

I just looked at what I believe was the new version of the Missal.  If I am correct, it still says in part, "For us men, and for our salvation He came down from heaven...." Surely it is time to do away with this misogynistic statement which boldly proclaims that Christ had no interest in the salvation of women. Why can it not simply say, "For our salvation, he came down from heaven?

Seems to me that Fr. Ryan is setting us up to hate the new translations even before we've experienced them.  Sounds like someone bitter with the fact that things didn't turn out his way.  I've read those parts of the new translations available on the internet and nothing struck me as so horrible.  

Without trying to be too harsh, why would anyone seriously consider the opinion of a liturgical theologian or liturgy commission?  Aren't they the ones who've contributed so much to making the mess of worship that inflicts so many parishes today?

In any case, Fr. Ryan shouldn't worry too much.  If any priest doesn't care for the new translation, I'm sure he'll just make the prayers up as he goes, like so many do today, confident that he's doing his people a favor by sparing them the horrible new translations while blessing them with the wonderfulness of his own personality.

Several months ago, the young priest in our parish started to introduce Latin phrases into the Mass.  Immediately, several of us objected openly to these attempts to go backwards, in our opinion.  We talked to him, emailed him about our concerns.  I told him that Jesus spoke to His disciples in their language at the Last Supper, why can't we have that same opportunity?  That young priest soon after was transferred to another area.

We had lived through all the marvelous changes during Vatican II which took a much longer time here to be accepted by our then Pastor!!!  Our parish has changed greatly since that Pastor retired.  During his tenure the people had no say whatsoever in anything going on in the church.  Today, Thank God, we are one of the warmest, most welcoming, spirit-filled communities in the area - with hundreds of people ministering to 6,000 families.

Myself and my friends agree with the comments made by Fr. Ryan and seek the Bishops intervention - can't we just WAIT awhile?

Thank you Fr. Ryan from this post-Vatican II convert for proposing a time of waiting and reflection, and yes, of study and learning by the laiety about the history of the Mass, its development, the diverse cultural contexts in which it is celebrated, and the importance of its language and how it is translated.

Thank you for presenting an opportunity to us for learning and discernment and for your keeping the window open for 'the fresh air' of the Holy Spirit to enter.

I whole-heartedly agree with Father Ryan.  If anything, the Liturgy could be simplified further to be made even more understandable, without reducing or demeaning the beauty and grandeur of the feast we join together to participate in.  As society and humankind evolves, the Church should, to a degree, evolve as well.  However, as society takes strives to take  steps forward, the Church ought not take the proverbial "two steps back."

Let's wait.

Thank you, Msgr. Welbers, for the Chesterton aphorism, and forgive my attempt at one of my own: "Liberal Catholics follow the Church when they agree with her; Conservative Catholics unequivocally follow the Church when she agrees with them."

What will it take before the Catholic laity find their voice. Must we always speak, sing and pray in words that the Vatican has approved?  Thank you America for listening  

Thanks to Father Ryan for an insightful article. I welcome his invitation to wait. As for me, I find that in the celebrations of Eucharist I attend the celebrants are attentive to the approved language now in use. I haven't noticed any abuses, but only reverence and care.

With the new translation, I will find it difficult to say "new" phrases. I probably will not say "only say the word and my soul will be healed." Such a phrase sets up an old dualism. When Jesus came and healed, he healed the whole person, both spirit and body. So I'll continue to say "Lord I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed"-all of me as a person.

Thank you Father Ryan for your very reasonable and coherent proposal.

With the rehabilitation of the Tridentine rite, the excessively accommodating outreach to Lefebrists and conservative Anglicans, and the dismissal of our English version of the Roman Missal as not Latin enough, it's not unreasonable to feel that our Church is regressing to a place in which individual conscience and free will are no longer of any consequence and must simply and resignedly subject to authority.  Say it ain't so.

Pre-Vatican II canonico-liturgical precedents are also on the books for a WAIT and SEE approach:

"For the mission countries, the Sacred Congregation

in 1941 and then again in 1948, issued a provision that in every nation a bilingual Ritual should be compiled. The apostolic delegate to India, H.E. Mgr. Kirkels, on July 8, 1949, communicated to the bishops that they should form a commission of 'priests having a knowledge of the languages at issue,' in order to prepare an Indian Ritual. The translation would then be approved FOR A DECADE 'without it being sent first to Rome.' The commissions were held responsible for the approval. The approval, however, was given BY THE BISHOPS CONCERNED. See

Taken from Piero Marini, A Challenging Reform, page 27, note 15.

http://www.amazon.com/Challenging-Reform-Realizing-Liturgical-1963-1975/dp/product-description/0814630359

What I still cannot understand is how and why the USCCB let Rome shelve the 1998 ICEL translation? Once again, centralization of power and control, NOT pastoral concern for language and liturgy.

Teresita, excellent observations! Thank you.

I wonder if those following this discussion are aware of another excellent one on the

. 

My translation from Liberal Cant to English, goes as follows:

"Not in my wildest dreams would it have occurred to me that I would witness the systematic dismantling of my own systematic dismantling of the Church".

A little poll set up by a priest who disagrees with the article:

"We've Waited Long Enough"
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/enoughwaiting/

Warren P.

The documents of Vatican II have no warrant for any notion of "throwback Catholics" or the notion of "Tridentine Mass" or "returning to Latin."  Latin was to be retained according to the Council.  More vernacular may be used according to the Council. The Conciliar Fathers celebrated one Mass the Mass of centuries.  The Council built on the foundation of the Church over the centuries as the footnotes of the Conciliar documents indicate espesially the Magisterium of Pope Pius XII.  Nor did the Council say anything about gold and the altar one way or the other.  On the other hand the false explanations of the Council based on various agendas have the Church's foundation firmly planted in mid-air starting in 1965. According to that "Council" Latin, accurate translations from Latin, celebrating Mass facing East, splendor in the liturgy and gasp the Tridentine Mass are like showing the Cross to Dracula.  Sad.  This is why the Pope is advancing an authoritative interpretation of the Council which eschews any notion of pre and post Conciliar Church.

Thank you, Father Ryan, for stating the problem and proposing a positive, restrained response, perhaps the best we could hope for at this point. I too am dismayed at the regressive steps taken to change again the translations of our liturgical texts.  It seems to me that the need today is not for new words, (or, rather, old ones resurrected).  I think that many active U.S. Catholics of today would find it difficult to relate to these translations and perhaps would be put off by them as unconnected with life as they experience it and not helpful to their understanding of what it means to be a faithful Catholic in today's world. 

All the effort and expense that have gone into this project, and will go into it if new publications must be purchased and efforts must be made to introduce them, would be better invested if the Vatican were to embrace the good elements in U.S.culture and, in consultation with those on the ground, offer support in our efforts to live the Gospel in the midst of that culture.

Aren't there more pressing matters that the Vatican should concern itself with than trying to return to a more Latinized liturgy?

Are these superfluous and unnecessary changes to our liturgy worth the time to make them? Is this where the Peter Pence collection goes? Yep, the scribes and pharisees are certainly busy.

A lot of comments in agreement with Fr. Ryan are overly simplistic, or just completely irrational.

The Pope has no more important job than leading Catholics to God, and that is done largely through liturgy.  Obviously our current liturgical practices aren't leading people to God.  Since we've implemented them, Mass attendance is down, those who attend Mass don't believe in the Eucharist, and it' a tiny minority of Catholics who look to the Church for moral guidance.  We urgently need to restore reverence to our liturgy. The salvation of many souls depends on it.  So, no, the Pope doesn't have "more important things" than making sure that the Mass is properly conveying the Truth and bringing people into a personal encounter with the divine.

And supposed Catholics should be supportive of the Church and try to help rather than using this as another chance to snipe at our Holy Father.

And, Sr. Elizabeth, the Church isn't saying that we shouldn't live in our culture... it's saying that we have to be Catholics above all else, and embrace our Faith.  We can serve God in the world, but God must always come before the world.  We cannot serve God and mammon.  Wouldn't it be nice if Catholics really did stand apart as the Holy People we're called to be?  Perhaps if we didn't try to reduce our identity to the level of "the world," we could maintain our distinctness in the face of a secular culture which often denigrates the Truth.

I appreciate the effort taken to ensure the translation of the Mass is the most accurate translation possible. 

I look forward to the day that the attitude of American members of the Roman Catholic church is one where we seek to be in line with Rome. We should strive to be with the Church, not in front and not stuck in the past.

I think it is vitally important to be in line with the Pope, we should trust that he is guided by the Holy Spirit to best shepherd the Church.

Seems to me like some of the commentators would prefer that we have separate churches that range from compliance to Rome to outright defiance to what the church is teaching.

I cannot help but think that some of the responsibility for people leaving the church rests with the clergy who cannot decide if they are going to trust Jesus and his promise that he will guide the church till the end of time, and that the Vicar of Christ is to be trusted to lead us.

If I recall correctly Father Ryan was disappointed when Cardinal Ratzinger was elected to Chair of Peter, so I am not surprised that he is publicly expressing his opposition.

My thought is that we have waited long enough for a better translation and we ought to trust the Vatican in this matter.

I pray that priests embrace the new translation and teach us to receive it with love and help us to participate fully, consciously, and actively in an English translation more faithful to the Latin .

Sadly however, I am sure that there will be priests who will continue to choose to change the words of the liturgy to suit themselves.

Having just moved from St. James Cathedral-to a more conservative parish, I am now receiving the quiet and LOVE I so missed there... in a parish that is growing by leaps and bounds, using Latin responses (even the Pater Nostra), and in a Church where pagentry is NOT the order of the day (but has Perpetual Adoration and nearly everyone volunteers-not just the same old crew doing everything.)  I do NOT miss the empty pagentry at the Cathedral, nor the bombastic liturgy.  The liturgy here is beautiful, the Church is gorgeous (I'm a visual artist, musician, as well as a poet), and the music is even beautiful (it has greatly improved since the last time I was here five years ago)... and it is the meditative experience that makes it preferable to me.  If one doesn't know Latin-one has the missal from which to learn it.  I'm sorry-but tradition means a great deal to me... and while I also embrace the "going back to the beginnings" of Vatican II-the "vernacular" means nothing at all (except for the homily as well as having ALL the readings-which is VERY important to me, and not part of the Latin Rite).  However, since I embibe all the readings of the Divine Office everyday-including the wonderful homilies of our Church Fathers, like so many in my new parish...  If one is going to go back to the Latin Rite, one simply must do one's homework with the Divine Office, or personal Scripture reading time.  THAT is what the pastor here expects of everyone.  I personally know people are adhering to this.  Are pastors afraid to expect similarly of their parishes?  It is well-known that the more languages a person knows-the better grasp of the English language they have.  It sounds like a good idea for Americans (who hardly even speak English) to me.  Fr. Ryan already speaks five languages... he doesn't need the Latin Rite (and went to the Gregorian Institute for seminary, I believe).  My new parish is also better at "spiritual food for those who are practicing Catholics"... the Cathedral caters to many "newbies", and many leave for real "meat" after initiation.  Therefore, I agree with my esteemed above commentator.

(see above) in short: going back to the Latin Rite doesn't seem so horrendous to me... but as for the translation-there are theological reasons for what the bishops did-or it wouldn't have been so difficult to change "even a comma."

I'm sorry to again be posting-but it appears Fr. Ryan has led us into even more division... we are "to be ONE..."  Yes, we have these differences-much of it brought on by our cultural heritage... but consider: St. James Cathedral doesn't even teach the "St. Michael prayer" because it offends the sensibilities of some there.  I, myself, seem to be doing the same thing: a certain self-righteousness.  But we ALL need to be careful about destroying the Church we ALL love and care about so deeply.  I'd be more than dismayed to see a second Reformation.  We ALL know WHY that occurred, too.

re: comments by Letha Chamberlain. For Ms Chkamberlain's sake I hope that when she goes to her heavenly reward and comes face to face with God that she speaks Latin. 

Congratulations Father!!!  I am a lay minister and cradle catholic.  I was so excited about Vatican II and the changes it brought and have been steadily declining in that excitement over the past few years.  With the changes in the GERM and the changing of words in the worship music, to be politically correct or non offensive, as well as the recent changes in not using "Yahweh" so as not to upset our Jewish bretheren, have gotten out of hand.  Is this a Church for worship?  Are we proud to be Catholic Christians?  Or are we here to appease others in order to keep peace?  I believe that Jesus is looking upon us and shaking his head in disbelief.  Much like the apostles in Mark's gospel, we still don't get it. 

There is something to be said for Tradition, as well as tradition.  I love the fact that some still ring the bells at the consecration.  I loved red robes being used for Confirmation.  I love holding hands to pray!  I would love to be able to have the option to attend a Latin Mass if I choose too.  However, I love the changes of Vatican II as well.  I am grateful to be able to participate rather than observe Mass. 

I personally feel that we are verging on that "Great Schism" and could loose many of those who are already Catholic by changing the ruberics and verbage.  If it isn't broke, don't fix it".  At least don't send us back to the middle ages.  The Holy See moves slow anyhow. Not only do I agree with "wait" but I also feel like we need to work on being Church instead of a dictatorship. 

Lisa,

Does using the word "incarnate" move us back to the Middle Ages?  I don't think Catholics are as dumb as many of you seem to think.

And how, exactly, do the changes make the Mass less "participatory" ?  

As for "If it isn't broke, don't fix it," I think the Holy Father has judged that the current translation IS "broke."  I think he has a lot of data to back that up, too.  I love that we have a Pope who cares enough about Catholics and their spiritual welfare to fight for a better, more correct, translation.  

During the so-called liturgical experimentation of the late 60's and 70's, Rome did not participate as did so much of the world.  Today's sacred liturgy in the US and in other parts of the world, has evolved into being a true expression of the "work of the people". For Rome to decide that it is not good enough, is stealing a part of the spirituality of the people, which Rome herself invited us to experience and develop.  We need to at least say "wait", but I would prefer we say "no".

It seems counter-productive for the question of liturgical translation to degenerate into quarrels between “liberals” and “conservatives.”  Our limited human languages are always inadequate to express the mystery of God. Nevertheless, no matter what our theological or political stance, the translation must be the best that language has to offer, which this one does not seem to be. Unless a translation is beautiful, sensitive, and pastoral, it is not worthy of the Eucharist.  

Thank you, Father Ryan, for your respectful and reasoned essay.

I thought this article was so good that I sent it to every priest in the diocese.  I am the director of Continuing Ed.  I hope other dioceses will do the same.  Thank you Fr. Ryan for writing this article.  It excited me more than you could imagine.  I could't contain myself.  It was so excellent.

To Fr. Ryan and those priests who share his position:

Please don't fight the Holy Father on this.  Please don't sow division in the Church, don't set your congregations against our Bishops, and please, please don't sour your congregations to the new Mass translation.  These translations pose a great opportunity to teach Catholics about their faith.  We (at least, I) have longed for legitimate catechesis from our priests, and this provides an excellent opportunity for you to provide that.  If, instead, you lead your congregations to hate this translation, you will only distance them further from the Mass, and thus from our Lord.

Please do everything you can to make this transition go as smoothly as possible. Most Catholics will need guidance for these changes to be successful.  Please try to provide that guidance instead of leaving us blowing in the wind while you fight a turf war with the higher-ups in the Church.

What if we welcomed the new English translation with open minds and hearts rather than nostalgically clinging to the 40 year-old translation with which many of us grew up?  Change is good.  We need to open our 40-year-old liturgical windows and embrace new fresh and more accurate translations.  Do I detect some worry from the aging liturgical establishment of U.S. because perhaps their monopoly on liturgy and liturgical music is finally in jeopardy?  The tides have changed.  It's time to get on board and be a team-player.  Who knows?  Maybe you'll actually feel inspired to follow the example of our Holy Father and receive communion on the tongue while kneeling?  What if all priests and bishops embraced the new translation and implemented it as if the new translation were there agenda?  The people in the pews are not stupid.  We will embrace with at least the same amount of enthusiasm as our leaders and pastors.  The fruits of our pastors instructions will be evident in the way that the people embrace the new translations.  Where there is resistance and negativity...we can only look to those priests and bishops and wonder what there real agenda is.  The new English translation is a blessing and gift that should be embraced by all.   

Father Ryan, Would that you were a Bishop and their spokesman. Vatican II represented the intellectual response of OUR Church to the errors of the Reformation. Need we go back to them? For what purpose.

The man for whom I worked reminded the people that THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE IS THE VOICE OF GOD. Aa secretary to an Archbishop he, Cardinal Pio Taofinu'u was there. For  his people he listened.

Is not the blind, deaf and dumb obedience of the bishops the greater sin than would be listening and fighting for the future, rather than retreating several years for no apparent reason. The Mass and our liturgy belong to the  People. It is ours, not some guy in a red hat in another world and culture. Don't be so shy, Father Ryan. Be our voice loud and clear and filled with conscientious righteousness. 

Keep on them. Get the WAIT and longer job done. A strong man is hard to find.

Contra Mr. Malone, this is not about the Reformation or the voice of the people. The voice of the people as the voice of God is not Catholic doctrine. The Mass belongs to no one.It is God's gift to the Church. It is a treasure received. The Church is not a democracy.  According to Vatican II it is hierarchical. The People of God include the hierarchy!  This is about bad translations which don't reflect the actual prayer of the Church.  The People of God have the right to pray the prayer of the Church not paraphrases, or made-up prayers, or defective prayers because the translators arbitrarily leave out words reflecting often times an agenda.  Accurate translations are long long overdue. We've waited enough!

I believe that the church (read:  people of God) has to change the wording of prayers and responses during the Mass so that Benedict 16 can feel more comfortable.   Our pastor has been trying out the liturgy from the new missal a couple of times, and the Canon of the Mass is so long that I almost fell asleep.  And what's with this Sign of the Cross that makes no sense in the middle of the Canon?  Yes, there will be chaos at the Preface and other times.  I will continue to say, "And also with you," and I will not make that silly Sign of the Cross.  I am seriously considering bringing my iPod and listening to some good, baroque, classical music during the Eucharistic Prayer, while standing, of course!)  BRAVO, Fr. Ryan. 

As a priest in the 60's I had the great priviledge to introduce  the liturgical changes from Vatican 11. The joy experienced on the faces  of the people of God to worship The Lord in an intelligent and meaningful way is one the highlights of my life. Their new found ability to worship in a meaningful language enabled them to practice their religion with a new found zeal. Totally agree with Fr.Ryan to wait to get the translations correct in a language spoken by us daily.

Let's see...so now parishes will close because of the new English translation?  Save the drama for your mama! Sensationalism and drama are not going to persuade anyone.  The people who have already decided to reject the new translation are just as stubborn as the people who have decided to accept the new translation.  In the meantime, the vast majority of Catholics will go along with this change just like they've gone along with every other change.  If the priests put aside they're own imbedded bias' and instruct the faithful in a sincere and loving manner, there will be no drama.  It can't be as bad as walking into your parish sanctuary one day and noticed that the tabernacle is missing....without an explanation of any kind.  Come on people!   The liturgical battles are getting old!  Stop it already! 

Re:  What if we Said ‘Wait’?

I have read What If We Said, ‘Wait’? and feel compelled to say that the article disturbs me.  As one who is sympathetically aware of the translation process from several perspectives, I may not claim to be an unbiased observer. But as a consultant to the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy (now Divine Worship) for some time,  I have seen first-hand the work that has gone into the preparation of this translation and the care with which it was approached.  I have also prepared some of the materials to be used in the education program that will precede the release of the translations.  I see the article as an almost petulant reaction, not so much to our bishops, but to the Holy See, and I am troubled by it. 

In terms of “just waiting” some more, I think we have waited long enough! The work of translation has been going on for at least fifteen years.  For one thing, in that time we have had many saints and blesseds added to the calendar for whose liturgical celebrations we have no prayer texts.  Since these individuals often represent cultures more recently come into the Church, the continued absence of prayer texts for individuals representing these racial and cultural backgrounds is particularly detrimental to them.

From the point of view of “grass roots” involvement, in the preparation of the new Missal, as each segment of the translation was revised and completed the bishops had two opportunities to evaluate the texts.  In these evaluations they were free to consult with anyone they wished before submitting their suggestions and I know that there were bishops who involved a broad range of people.  It should be borne in mind that in these consultations there was an enormous amount of material to be reviewed, involving an equally enormous amount of paper received on the local level.  Hours and hours of time were spent in gathering, then collating and organizing responses.  In fact, one could say that from an historical perspective, in the development of liturgical texts never before have so many people been involved in the process. 

At this stage, to submit the texts to a general consultation in parishes would involve a mechanism that would be incredibly complex and would take years to complete.  Just think of the implications:  Who would do the organizational work?  Who would gather and collate the data?  Who would tabulate and evaluate the data?  And how long would all this take?  Before a recognitio  could be given by the Holy See, our bishops would first have to review the texts once more and then submit them once again to the Holy See for a review of changes recommended. The number of years this would involve is pretty much beyond our ability to calculate.

Another point to be made is that the texts that the Bishops approved in November were not simply texts for the use of the United States.  They are to be used by all the English-speaking countries of the world.  Many of those countries have already given their approval.  In some respects this strikes me as one more instance where the United States considers itself above the rest of humanity.

With regard to the translations, I have seen them.  Are they perfect?  No.  Are they better than what we have now?  I believe they are.  It‘s the old “… one saw mud; the other stars … “  issue all over again.  There are some truly beautiful translations.  I enclose, for example, the suggested text for the 27^th Sunday in Ordinary Time [see below], which in my estimation is considerably stronger and more poetic than the translation in use today.  Likewise, the absolution in the Penitential Rite which now reads May almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us our sins, and bring us to everlasting life ,  will, in the new translation, read: May almighty God have mercy on us and lead us, with our sins forgiven, into eternal life.  I see the new translation as more poetic and more pastoral – a significant improvement over its predecessor.  All may not agree on that;  to some degree it will be a matter of taste.  But you can’t legislate taste, and where “taste” is concerned it is useless to try to achieve general consensus.

There were some serious errors in the previous translation, e.g. the omission of several lines from the translation of the Gloria and the inaccurate translation of some Eucharistic Prayers with the omission or mistranslation of phrases.  It is important that these corrections be made. 

I believe the decision to use direct Scriptural translations in the New Missal, rather than paraphrases of Scripture which were used in the old, is an appropriate one.  Our people’s knowledge of Scripture is, in many respects, deficient.  To reinforce their familiarity with the word of God, through texts taken directly from Scripture and used regularly in the Order of Mass, e.g. Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word … can only benefit the faith community.

As to the objection to the use of “difficult” words such as “consubstantial,” that is an argument with which I don’t have much patience.  It won’t hurt any of us to learn a few new terms and in doing so, perhaps to gain some new insight into the meaning of our faith.  The number of words that falls into this category is very small and certainly not a sufficient reason for jettisoning the whole enterprise.

We are NEVER going to find a translation on which everyone will agree.  It is certainly possible to pick it over word by word and find flaws:  too-lengthy sentences; difficult words; some phrases that don’t trip lightly off the tongue.  But for every negative example that can be found, I bet I can find an example of a text that has been improved.  It’s all in how you choose to approach it.

What REALLY concerns me is the effect that a movement such as this can have on the people.  I too was around for the introduction of the Mass in the early ‘70’s.  As I remember it from my days as a teacher in a co-educational high school staffed by priests, sisters, brothers and laity, there was a general sense of eager expectation.  Most of us – not all of us, but most of us - couldn’t wait to get the new translations!  If as this new translation goes forward a few  members of the clergy, battered by the tempests of the past few years choose this issue as their line of demarcation, refusing to give it their full support, I believe their decision will have a seriously detrimental effect on the people entrusted to their pastoral care. Our people, who have hung on through everything else, will find just another intra-church battle on their hands and will eventually survive.  But for many, a most unusual and valuable opportunity will have been lost, and the Church will be poorer for that loss.

Sister Janet Baxendale, S.C.

Liturgical Commission, Archdiocese of New York

SUNDAY OF THE TWENTY-SEVETH WEEK IN ORDINARY TIME

Omnipotens sempiterne Deus,

qui abundantia pietatis tuae

et merita supplicum excedis et vota.,

effunde super nos misericordiam tuam,

ut dimittis quae conscientia metuit,

et adicias quod oration non praesumit.

Per Dominum ...

Present translation

Father,

your love for us

surpasses all our hopes and desires.

Forgive our failings,

keep us in your peace

and lead us in the way of salvation.

Through our Lord...

New Roman Missal Translation

Almighty, everlasting God,

who in your overflowing compassion

surpass the merits and desires of those who pray,

pour out your mercy upon us,

to pardon what conscience dreads

and to add what prayer does not venture to ask.

Through our Lord ...

Sister Baxendale,

it is great that you are willing to engage in this discussion. 

From the point of view of “grass roots” involvement, I have heard that the amendments made by the bishops were largely ignored.

You write that "there were serious errors with the previous translation". But the new translation introduces at least one grievous error, with the "for many" which, I am told, will come with a catechesis explaining that it really means "for all" - but how often will that catechesis be repeated so that the error of thinking that "for many" means "for many" instead of "for all" does not creep up over the years?  Retaining the "for all", I believe, was a proposed amendment that was ignored.

If it is true that the feedback from grass root via the bishops was ignored, then what does grass root involvement mean?

As a member of the laity, I will give a try to the new translation when it comes out, and if I can't get used to it, I'll shop around for a parish that sticks to the old translation, or at least petition our pastor so that he removes the most offensive changes and leaves the old translation in place at those sensitive spots.

I imagine the catechesis for "many" should work as well as the catechesis that was given to Catholic regarding the Body and Blood or our Lord fully present under ONE species; ALTHOUGH, it is now encourage that all the faithful receive it under BOTH species.  Has this caused a crisis of Faith?  I doubt the teaching behind the word "many" will be too difficult for lay people to understand.  Lay Catholics are not as stupid as they sometimes seem. 

Maybe, with the new catechesis, bishops can add in some catechesis on the role of the Papacy.

We have a bunch of lay people claiming that they're going to look for a parish that brazenly disobeys the Vicar of Christ who holds the Keys to the Kingdom of God?

And, Marie, if the Church wanted it to say "for all," they would have left it that way.  The Roman Missal says "pro multis" not "pro omnia."  And, so does the Bible.  If Christ wanted to say "for all," I'm sure he would have done so, but if you open up your Bible to Matthew 26:28 or Mark 14:24, you'll find that he said His blood would be shed for many.

Finally, by the Grace of God, we'll have a translation that accurately represents the Bible.

After reading Daniel McGlone's published letter in the Dec. 21-28 America edition, I went online to read "Sacrosanctum Concilium" myself.  I did so because of McGlone's assertion that this document insists on Latin as the principal language of the Mass.  I found that assertion to be in error.  Furthermore, I found his reference to Fr. Ryan's article as "prattle" quite disrespectful.  Christians-in my opinion-should discuss their differences with mutual respect.  "Sacrosanctum Concilium" doesn't impose vernacular translation upon anyone, and THAT in part seems to be Fr. Ryan's objection to the recent directives from Rome which 1) are being heavy-handedly imposed and 2) have produced unwieldly and awkward English translations.  In that I do not find the spirit of the Second Vatican Council.  I find, instead, a lamentable resurgence of pre-Vatican II, hierarchial paternalism bent upon positing the Holy Spirit not in God's people but in ecclesial office.  That's enough to make me cry.

Mike, "pro multis" does not mean "for many" but something along the lines of: "for the multitude of human beings, past, present and future". Christ shed his blood for all. Any translation that would lead people to believe that he shed his blood for many and not for all is grievously misleading. And that's what a literal translation does: in many instances, it distorts the true meaning and purpose of the original words. 

Marie, did the translators of every English language bible translation get it wrong?

The Greek texts of the Bible say many, every english language translation uses many.

The current Mass language is inconsistent with the Bible, that is, with what Christ said.

Mike, you can find the following explanation on the USCCB web site (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew20.htm#v28)

Many does not mean that some are excluded, but is a Semitism designating the collectivity who benefit from the service of the one, and is equivalent to "all." While there are few verbal contacts between this saying and the fourth Servant Song (Isaiah 53:12), the ideas of that passage are reflected here.

Mike: your comments are very interesting. In the Bible the "many" does not bother me so much because there are the context, comments, and cross-references for us to draw from and better understand the meaning. But at Mass we have just a few words, repeated every week. If you think that the new Missal is correcting an error in the sense that, as you think, Christ did not shed his blood for all, then you are the first casualty of the new translation.

Besides, there are no casualties of faith from the current translation and paraphrasing in use for the past forty years.  Forty years of the current translation has brought forth a golden age of spirituality.  There has never been such zeal for the Faith in 2000 years that we see in the English speaking world today!  Let's just keep the current missal that has inspired so many to a religious life, increased vocations to holy orders and filled the pews.  We know it by the fruit it has produced.

Thank you Fr. Ryan for recognizing that there is an intelligent laity wanting to dialogue with the Vatican about how we pray.  Many of us work hard to live our baptismal vocation, and we have cultivated a voice and spirituality worth listening to.  My husband and I, along with our children, were received into full communion after formation and ministry in the Lutheran and Evangelical church back in 1996, and it is practically sinful how little the Catholic church cultivates and blesses the gifts of her laity.  In regard to the liturgical reform coming up, we would do well to remember that God doesn't actually speak English, or Latin, or Afrikaans-and is most concerned about the posture of our hearts.  If the words we choose increase the distance between God and his people, or sow confusion in our hearts, we can easily become cynical about our faith.  Our new pastor has quite a pre-vatican II way of steering the liturgy, and has asked people to change their prayer, to change deeply formed habit of being, in the words we speak, to the degree that one feels that Christ cannot come to us in the Eucharist if we get some of the words wrong!  As if our words perform some sort of "magic" in the rite!  Do we really believe that God could be so petty?  but then again, some of our priests are... How we implement the change can have a huge impact on the spiritual life of our people. 

Too bad our current Pope wasn't around during the Second Vatican Council.  Had he been there, I would trust his judgement.  But since he wasn't there, I'm gonna follow Fr. Ryan because Fr. Ryan knows best; not the Pope.

I feel compelled to respond to Sister Janet Baxendale's commentary, above.  It is unfair to dismiss Father Ryan's serious objections to these texts as "petulant." It is also unfair, and perhaps dangerous, to assume that the faithful in the pews will passively receive or reject the texts depending on how their pastor presents them.  As anyone who has worked in a parish knows, that's an unlikely scenario, to say the least!  I sincerely hope that those associated with the Bishops' Committee on Divine Worship and those who, like Sister Baxendale, are helping with the catechesis around these texts, will carefully listen to and take seriously the concerns and objections of the priests and the faithful. 

I think most of us are all in agreement that we need a new translation of the Roman Missal.  The question is, are we there yet?  The translation we are being presented with is certainly an accurate rendition of the Latin texts.  But in other important respects-musical, literary, pastoral-it is uneven, and in far too many places simply unacceptable.

I honor the long years of work of those who prepared this new translation.  But those long years are not an argument in favor of the speedy implementation of a faulty text.  The 1998 ICEL translation was also the fruit of many years' labor, and it was set aside.  Yes, the logistics of a review process would be tedious, labor-intensive, and time-consuming.  But we are talking about the celebration of the Eucharist-the source and summit of our Christian lives.  The texts we use to pray the Mass are so important that I believe they are worth waiting for. 

The same way liturgical leaders, priests and bishops carefully listened to and took seriously the concerns and objections of the faithful before removing tabernacles from our sanctuaries and telling us to stand instead of kneel?  To WHICH faithful should they seriously listen?  The ones who are stubbornly in favor of the new translation or the ones who are stubbornly against the new translation? 

What bothers me about the article is what appears to be Father Ryan's veiled attempt to foment dissent, mistrust and dischord among the faithful.  He sounds like he has an enormous chip on his shoulder; it surprises me not that he begins his article by looking back to the 1960's because it sounds as if he's still living there.  As a man in authority, Father Ryan has an enormous responsibility in choosing the type of rhetoric and tone he uses when writing or preaching to the faithful.  It is disturbing to see a man in such authority using his position irresponsibly by calling for some sort of "rebellion" against Rome and the bishops, just because he doesn't like the new translation.  One wonders what Father Ryan would say to those in the pews who "pay his salary" if those people requested a Tridentine Mass.  (We can guess). Already we are reading about the faithful who are threatening to leave their parishes if their pastors implement the new translation.  One has to wonder about the motives of priests who seem get a kick out of inciting division among the flock -because that's exactly what he is doing.

Sr. Janet makes a good point about the Church in the US thinking that it exists in a vacuum. Yet only in the U.S. would a priest suggest "marketing" devices in dealing with the Sacred Mass, or the Divine Liturgy as our Eastern-rite brothers and sisters call it thereby trivializing and cheapening what is our most holy work.  Most Catholics in the U.S. are bilingual (Spanish/English) anyway, and would find no problem with responses such as "and with your spirit" which has been common in Romance-language translation for years. Father Ryan needs some perspective here.

Some people within the Church like to create a false dichotomy by using terms like "pre Vatican II" and "post Vatican II" as if it were BC and AD.  Most of us who were born after the Council do not think in these terms.  In fact, as the pre-Vatican II generation dies out, the terms are becoming quite archaic.  Yet I am always puzzled by people whow weren't even born before the Council saying that that so-and-so is "pre Vatican II."   I'd like to ask the Lutherans who became Catholics in 1996 (above) how they know their priest has "pre-Vatican II" ways if they became Catholics almost 30 years after the Council!  My guess is that their perception is really someone else's - but is it reality?  Father Ryan's resorts to fearmongering by saying that there is a  (he uses the current media catchphrase) "systematic dismantling" of SC and that the powers that be want to bring us back to the Tridentine Mass.  Not only does he not give any evidence for any of this, he makes the false presumption that somehow the "New" Mass and the Tridentine Mass are not related at all, that they are apples and oranges, not part of the same Tradition.  I am not familiar with the Tridentine Mass, but sometimes we need to look at the past in order to gain perspective.  The Second Vatican Council did this repeatedly as when it restored the ancient catechumenate.  In any case, the idea that Benedict wants to bring back a passive laity and the Tridentine mass is an absurd assertion used to incite mistrust and fear.  And if anyone thinks that SC has brought forth a more active laity, just look at the state of lay participation at any Sunday Mass in the U.S. (if and when they attend). 

When one has to resort to dinner-party conversations and personal anecdotes to substantiate an argument, one is in trouble.  If this article is Father Ryan at his best, he shouldn't be given a forum on America magazine - any first year philosophy undergraduate can argue better; by encouraging disunity and disobedience in the Church "he loves"  Ryan should not be in a position of authority.  If we are to resort to petitions, there already is an alternative petition to Father Ryan's online.  I guess we have to wait and see which petition "wins."

Marie:  I understand what Christ meant by many.  I think that the word many and the word all can both be misunderstood in that context.  Does all mean that all are saved?  No.  Does many mean that some are not offered salvation?  No.  I think, though, that it's important to stick to Biblical language when possible and teach people the Truth from that.

Irene:  The "faithful" these days seem to have an overinflated view of themselves.  The Pope was divinely appointed to lead the Church.  You have every right to your opinion, but your opinion doesn't matter.  I don't think God will look kindly upon people who decide to turn away from Christ's Church because they don't like big words or complex sentence structures.

And, finally, come on, guys.  Read the new prayers.  If you can, read the Latin version of the prayers.  Then, look at the Mass for Idiots style translation the ICEL gave us.  I've accepted it because it's what the Church gives, but the ICEL's translations are boring, sound like they're written for 4th graders, and often don't close to resemble the meaning of the prayers in the Roman Missal, which are consistently filled with much more meaning and symbolism than the ICEL bothered to put forward.

Mike: point taken. We agree on the meaning. It only remains to agree on the translation that best expresses that meaning. The bishops' conference, I believe, sent an amendment asking to retain "for all", and Sr Janet Baxendale explained to us that the opinion of the bishops was formed after, in some dioceses, extensive consultations with people and thorough work. Why was that amendment not accepted, and is there an explanation from the Vatican to dialogue with them and discuss it?

my wife pointed me to this article and to the responses generated by it.     my response is directed primarily to the clergy who are reading and or responding to the article.   

i am quite aware of how little impact my comments will have on this issue and am not in the least concerned, since that is part of the idea i hope to impart.     i grew up with the tridentine mass, experienced vatican II, and agree that V-II was a good idea.    i long ago filtered out the "teachings" of the clergy which were incorrect (ranging from misguided to malicious) and took to heart the teachings (from the same clergy, and others) which were good, inspiring, and sounded like the jesus we heard about in the gospels.     since the message was delivered by people who often said what sounded like the opposite of what the last cleric said, it took time to grasp the truth.    the truth became evident not by what was said but more by how the person lived what they preached.    "who you are" is far more important than what you say or which words you use to describe how your religion works.     the fact that you and your hierarchy are so intensely interested in the wording of group prayer causes me to worry that you are more concerned with being great proclamators than in being great servants.    

i worked very hard to keep this civil, but i'm pretty sure that some of my comments have been heresy at one time or another.      luckily, nobody pays much attention to heresy any more.      problem is, even if you get the wording exactly right, many won't pay attention to that either,,, wording's not the problem.

tim kennedy

Lex orandi, lex credendi.  The relationship between worship and belief is an ancient Christian priciple.  The Church believes as she prays. Liturgy is a constitutive element of the holy and living Tradition.  I hope this isn't why some find the new English translation so problematic. 

Maybe we should have said WAIT back in 1969 when the Order of the Mass was approved.  Maybe we should have said WAIT back when they took the communion rails out of many churches.  Maybe we should have said WAIT back when they took the kneelers and statues out of churches.  Maybe we should have said WAIT back when they took the tabernacles out of our sanctuaries.  Maybe we should have said WAIT back when they replaced our pipe organs with pianos and guitars.  Maybe we should have said WAIT 40 years ago! 

The following text by Cardinal Ratzinger discusses the "for many" and "for all" controversy (when Germany switched from "many" to "all") at length.  http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/ratzinger_formany_nov06.asp

"Both formulations, "for all" and "for many", are found in Scripture and in tradition. Each expresses one aspect of the matter: on one hand, the all-embracing salvation inherent in the death of Christ, which he suffered for all men; on the other hand, the freedom to refuse, as setting a limit to salvation. Neither of the two formulae can express the whole of this; each needs correct interpretation, which sets it in the context of the Christian gospel as a whole. I leave open the question of whether it was sensible to choose the translation "for all" here and, thus, to confuse translation with interpretation, at a point at which the process of interpretation re- mains in any case indispensable."

Thus, Pope Benedict (then-Cardinal Ratzinger) refuses to decide between the two possibilities. The US bishops want to retain "for all". Why, then, are they not allowed to? Who is interfering in that matter?

What a bunch of baloney.  The proper translation of the Latin is going to confuse people??? I am a 48 year old Catholic and a product of the Seattle Archdiocese "wait and see" approach to Catholicism.  Most people my age and under are so poorly catechized - the changes are the least of our problems.  This archdiocese has allowed so much liturgical abuse ,yet cry out over these changes.  Hopefully this missal will stop some of it and the people will begin to see what the Holy Mass is supposed to be.   Many Catholics are grateful and relieved these changes have finally come.

We have waited long enough!

Father Michael Ryan laments the liturgical updates, particularly the new translation of the Roman Missal that will soon replace the current translation that has been in use since 1970.  Perhaps what he really laments is the loss of an illegitimate power that the so-called visionaries of the Second Vatican Council assumed.

I was born in 1968 and never knew the Extra-Ordinary form of the mass.  I grew up in their so-called experimental time and I have seen the disaster for the faith.  Father Ryan was ordained to a church in which the faith of the people was taken for granted and where people practiced their faith, despite all the so-called evils of the time’s liturgical expression.  I was ordained in 2003 to a church that is emptying and, when the baby-boomers (those who were raised with a strong faith) die, will shrink even more.  I dare not entirely blame this on the experiments but I also am not so naïve as to believe they did not have a serious negative effect.

Separation of Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC):

Father Ryan, as do many, does not make any distinction between the great “Magna Carta”, Sacrosanctum Concilium and the results of the liturgical reforms that did take place and the so-called “spirit” of the document which is used as a super dogma to justify all types of illegitimate changes and adaptations to the liturgy.  I offer two examples:

SC 116.  “The Church recognizes Gregorian chant as being specially suited to the Roman liturgy.  Therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services”.  This is what the Council thought of Gregorian chant and yet it has disappeared from the liturgy almost completely.  Instead of chant, I had the pleasure of the “hippy” generation guitar music from Glory and Praise.  I have never heard “Be Not Afraid” sung the same way from parish to parish.  The answer is simple, the music is difficult – I dare say a strange arrangement – which is written in a high key that is unreachable for most.   That is but one example of many.  SC 121 which says the musicians should produce music that can be sung not only by trained choirs but the congregation as well has not been fulfilled very well.

SC  126.  “Ordinaries should ensure that sacred furnishings and works of value are not disposed of or destroyed, for they are ornaments in God’s house”.  There are parish churches throughout Canada and the United States where the people were at Mass one Sunday only to return the next to see their sacred altars lying in pieces in the back yard.  Their statues smashed and slated for the dump. 

Fr. Ryan speaks of the implementation of the reforms of Vatican II and seems to believe that this was achieved in a pastorally sensitive manner.  Ask the older members of any parish.  In one of my parishes, tears still well up in one’s eyes when they consider the destruction of the old High Altar and the communion rail.  There was nothing pastorally sensitive about the implementation.  Pastors were told that this had to be done, and it was done, without explanation or any sensitivity to those whose families had sacrificed of themselves to adorn their parish church. 

Many lament the return of the Tridentine form of Mass and the re-introduction of Latin in the liturgy.  Why is it that we extend pastoral sensitivity to those who have conduct clown masses, who ignore Catholic teaching and sound liturgical practice but we cannot, under any circumstances tolerate those who are attached to the Tridentine Mass?  The so-called “progressive liberals” in our Church are, in essence, more dogmatic than the Vatican and its congregations could ever hope to be.

Let’s cut out the nonsense.

“The Council wisely made provision for times of experimentation and evaluation”.  Yes, and the time for experimentation is over and the evaluation is in and it is not good:  Lack of faith, lack of mass attendance, more and more rejecting the Lord Jesus Christ, liturgical abuses, confusion of symbols, confusion of roles in the liturgy, indifference to the faith and pure apathy.  The grade could only be a passing 50%.  Now we must work on the other 50%.

The real issue facing the church is not global challenges, nagging scandals, the priest shortage or the disenchantment of women (and I must note that we cannot simply ignore these issues) but it is a lack of faith or an apathy towards the faith.  People are not on fire with love for Jesus Christ.  The liturgy has failed miserably in addressing this issue so the credendi of the Church is suffering because the orandi is suffering.

And so, let’s cut out the nonsense and the longing for the 1960s and 1970s – they are now ancient history.  Let’s get on with a new translation, a new approach to liturgy that embraces what the Council truly said.  Let’s embrace our liturgical tradition as we move forward in proclaiming the Good News to the entire world.

We have waited long enough!

Rev. Mitchell Beachey

Pastor of St. Joseph, St. Alphonsus Liguori and St. Paul the Hermit Parishes.

Christopher Scott:

Please point to where I said that the reason was that the clergy was not speaking enough Latin.

Please point to where I said anything about Life Teen or children's Mass.  I said clown mass - where sacred ministers dress up like clowns.  Exactly what it means.

Please point to where I said that we needed to go back to the Tridentine mass.  (but it is interesting that most of those who are attached to the Tridentine mass are the young - not my statistics).  I do not see the Tridentine mass as a solution.

Please read where I noted that other issues, including clergy abuse scandals cannot be ignored or neglected.  

This new translation is just being finished and it does not pre-date VAtican II so your comment at the end is not only illogical but pointless.  As the Mass of Paul VI was only published in 1970, there could not have been a translation prior to VAtican II.  You use the word oxymoron but it is inappropriate and makes no sense to use it.

Your comments have nothing to do with what I have written.  They are rude and unhelpful to any discussion.  Indeed, they are offensive.

In response to Chris: Latin is NOT jibber jabber any more than ANY non-English/vernacular is jibber jabber to one who is not a heritage speaker of that language.  It is a classical language (at one time vernacular language that God probably still understand).  The topic here is the new ENGLISH missal not the Extraordinary vs the Ordinary Form of the Mass (which by the can also be done completely in Latin). 

It seem sensible to have the trial runs suggested in this article.  Few of us have full knowledge of the changes.  They could be great, or or horrid - most likely some place in between.  The Mass is what brings us all together to worship, grow in faith, to go forward to be God' hands and feet in the world.  As such we need to be drawn closer to that mission.

Jesus was a leader who lived in the real world, and spoke in the language of his people so that he could teach them.  Sometimes they did not understand, but they learned by how he lived his life.  That is what we all must do - top to bottom.

I take great issue with the changes.  I've grown up with what is being termed "experimental".  So, as a cradle Catholic let me explain my viewpoint in as simple a statement as I can:  Since the creation of the earth and universe God has never changed.  He has been the same loving Father regardless of people's thoughts and interpretations.  Why do we need to change?  The order of the mass should be as close to what Saint Peter did...He's the keeper of the keys.  Personally, I want the same order of the mass I grew up with and I want to die with the same exact liturgical cycle to be in practice.  Mass should be constant and create stability.  Our faith should be unchanging and constant as well as how we practice it.

English vs Latin: Unless you are going to say the mass in Latin everywhere in the world, you tailor the order to the language you say it in.  The new Nicene creed...you might as well say the Apostle's creed and forget all the fancy wording.  Do you think a child is going to understand coinsubstantiated?  I thought Jesus prizes and treasures children as he asks us to be more like them why are we being asked to complicate things.

Contrary to articles I see here, I find comfort in repetition and reminders.  After all, if repitition and having things identical wasn't part of the medidation and focus, why say a rosary?  You could say one prayer and be done.  I believe the whole idea is to medidate on the prayer.

I think Fr. Ryan is bang on.  Pick an order of the mass with the intent you will NEVER change it....EVER.  Most people I know look for the consistency and need it in their lives.  If people aren't going to mass because they don't like the repetitiveness, they are missing the point.  This life is about loving Christ and God with your whole heart, soul and mind.  Everything else is secondary.  Most people who don't come to mass don't have the right priorities.   

I really struggle with this.  It really makes me question why I need to go to mass vs. say prayers at home.  Are these changes really what Jesus wants or more what human pride wants?

Phil,

First, to point out the obvious, the new translation is supposed to make the Mass more true to the Mass of most of Catholic Tradition.

And if we want to stay true to St. Peter, shouldn't we accept the guidance of his successor?

Should we really taylor the Mass to children?  Our faith presents great mysteries, and while we should make them as accessible as possible to the young, we can't dumb everything down to the least common intellectual denominator.  Throughout most of my Catholic education, I felt like I was being treated like an idiot.  It was only when I discovered how intellectually rich our faith really is that I found what I needed.  Perhaps that's a symptom of a weakness in faith on my part, but I don't think it's uncommon.  Sure, there will be people who will have difficulty understanding the word "consubstantial."  But there are only a few such words that will be in the new translation, and we have seminary educated priests to guide us through these changes.  Plus, we're dealing with an inherently difficult concept.  We should expect that some of these things will be difficult to intellectually grasp.

Mike, your example is unfortunate since "consubstantial" is a translation of the Latin word "consubstantialis" which is itself a poor translation of the original Greek "homoousios" which means "one in being with". Ironically "one in being with the Father" is a much better translation of the original Greek than "consubstantial with the Father"!

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ousios this has been controversial since the beginning. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea the word "consubstantialis" may have been imposed directly by Emperor Constantine using his imperial authority. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_heresies there were many heresies around that time regarding the true nature of Christ. The word was chosen specifically to highlight the differences with Arianism and to directly fight that heresy.

So, why insist on sticking to a word that had been chosen by a particular historical character in a specific historical context, rather than a more easily understandable and more accurate wording? 

Phil,

When our Lord asks us to be more like children, I don't think he's telling us to stick to kindergarten level vocabulary.  I believe he's referring to the innocence of children.

I'd be amazed if anyone reads down this far. but  something inside of me wants to be heard in my Church...for once. As a Catechist on the elemantary, high school and adult levels I 've always been saddened when people feel like inferior members of "The Body". The most discrimination between insiders and outsiders is caused by theological jargon....clerical vocabulary.  Be careful (WAIT)! More people are on the verge of leaving than Rome could ever imagine.  It  may just be one ecclesiastical word that is the last straw. 

NOBODY is going to leave the Church because of an English translation; HOWEVER, people do leave the Church for other reasons (i.e. poor catechesis resulting in a weak spiritual foundation).  But maybe catechists who refer to the English words of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as theological "jargon" and "clerical" vocabulary do not help the situation any.  Catholics can be catechized and educated just as easily as any other population. 

Fr. Michael Ryan: (I hope this will not be too long!)

Thanks for your pastoral sense. I can not believe Popoe Benedict XVI could approve of changing the prayer of consecration to "many" from "all". It has been his own insistence in Caritas in Veritate to lift the expectation of the Church for the salvation of all according to the mind of Christ. "Many" implies a predestination to hell. The "many" mirrors the "Last Judgement" of Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel. That is a beautiful and refined artistic expression of Michelangelo's own angry demons. I think he meant it to keep the Hierarchy honest at least in Church.

Moreover, there is an underlying presumption in all this discussion that any language can be accureately translated in another. English will not ever truly translate: rationabilem acceptablemque with its original meaning. My reading of that phrase is a prayer that the Father bless what we have to offer along with the meaning we give to the offering so that it becomes acceptable even to the Father, God Almighty. "Ratio.." here should be guided by "meaning" rather than "ratified", or worse still "reasonable". There is more to this story, but I thinkI haved made the point. Think of translating the English "cool" into Italian!

To translate the Latin of the Eucharistic Prayer requires the combined services of prayerful people of faith with an accumulation of skills in Latin and Greek, history of religions and philosoophy and theology. Add to this someone who is a poet! Are any of these skills represented in the Vatican commission? They are represented in the community parish where I am suppposed to be a spiritual and pastoral leader. It is an embarrassment stand before them as leader from amongst them and mouth the insipid. I become a pious sycophant, the lukewarm Jesus would prefer to vomit.

I think you really could have stuck to "No!" Then ask people to think more clearly and pray more intently to excise the anger. There is a critical issue of discernment that must emerge. And for that may Heaven help us! Which in Latin might be praying "May the sky not fall upon us".

Have more confidence in the guidelines set out in Liturgiam Authenticum.  In a perfect world everyone would speak the same language;  but we are not in a perfect world.  The closest you could get to a perfect translation would be NO translation at all (and you know what that would mean...horror of horrors...Latin!).  Anyway, the new English translation is far superior to the one in present use.  I hope the bishops implement the new translation as soon as possible.  Everyone needs to come to grips with the fact that it will be implemented and we need to get on the boat with Peter.

Mike, of course it is not for me to decide. But I (and many others) see obvious places where the new translation is *not* better. In the examples I discussed above, the bishops asked for an amendment, and their advice was ignored. Mike, is it really "the rightful authority" that has acted, or is this a case of abuse of power? According to the constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium:

39. Within the limits set by the typical editions of the liturgical books, it shall be for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to specify adaptations, especially in the case of [...] liturgical language [...]

40. In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed, and this entails greater difficulties. Wherefore:

1) The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, must, in this matter, carefully and prudently consider which elements from the traditions and culture of individual peoples might appropriately be admitted into divine worship. Adaptations which are judged to be useful or necessary should when be submitted to the Apostolic See, by whose consent they may be introduced.

2) To ensure that adaptations may be made with all the circumspection which they demand, the Apostolic See will grant power to this same territorial ecclesiastical authority to permit and to direct, as the case requires, the necessary preliminary experiments over a determined period of time among certain groups suited for the purpose.

3) Because liturgical laws often involve special difficulties with respect to adaptation, particularly in mission lands, men who are experts in these matters must be employed to formulate them.

The bishops WERE consulted.  Just because you do not agree with them does not mean that they are wrong.  Would you disagree with them if they said "no more tabernacles, kneelers, statues, Latin, altar railings, communion patens or mantila head coverings for women..."?  Be aware of your own imbedded liturgical bias' before skewing Church protocol to fit your own fancy.  If the bishops had gone with YOUR preferences, would you still make the same "abuse of power" accusation?  It's time to accept the new English translation.  Change is good.

You're right Veronica in that I am disappointed that the US bishops voted to accept the new English translation. But I am not convinced that Church protocol was properly followed, and that is also a big part of the problem.

Marie,

The Pope is the ultimate authority.  He did consult the bishops, but he correctly pointed out that the current translations in a number of places aren't really translations of the Mass at all but are a whole new creation of the ICEL, who had no right to do that.  The Pope stepped up and defended Catholics who are tired of having the language of the Church stolen from them in favor of something designed to appeal to 8 year olds.  Most of my religious education took that form, and I'm tired of being given Catholicism for Dummies as if I'm some kind of idiot.  If you can't understand the word "incarnate," fine, walk up to the priest and ask him to explain it to you.

Look at the example Sr. Baxendale gave in post 174.  Do you not agree that the new version is far better than the current one?

It's time for people to accept the authority of the Pope, and the decision of our Bishops, and to support the new translation.  It might not be to your taste, but it will be to others.

If you want to point to Sacrosanctum Concilium to make your point, I think you should recognize that the new translations seem more in keeping with the liturgical vision set forth in Sacrosanctum Concilium.

Comments by members of OLF parish in Seattle were removed because, per our policy, they did not have a name attached. Feel free to post again with your name and the comments will be published.

It's interesting how some of those who are opposed to the new English translation are trying to attribute the current decline in Mass attendance to a translation that hasn't even been implemented yet!  Unbelievable!  It's also interesting how some have commented that priests and bishops should only listen to the people who pay their salaries.  Which people?  The pro-new-translation financial contributors or the pro-current-translation financial contributors?  Are some suggesting that we need a modern day indulgence system in which the biggest contributors get their liturgical way?  It's time to draw this discussion to a close (which I know won't happen).  Too many commentators seem to be talking in circles and repeating the same unconvincing talking points.   

"Roma locuta, causa finita"....Dynamic equivalent English translation:  It's time to move on, the matter has been settled. 

He also spent a good bit of his ministry teaching us not to judge others.  The new English translation of the Roman Missal is NOT an "EITHER-OR" issue.  We can have both.  You don't have to stop thinking about the poor and helpless just because you're in favor of or against any particular translation.  Many people can walk and chew gum at the same time.  We can still be in favor of the new English translation AND give loving care for our fellow man.  None of us are in a position to judge the conscience or intentions of another.  Let's serve the poor and helpless with humble and loving hearts while we welcome the new English translation of the Roman Missal with humble and loving hearts. 

Michael Ryan's article was discussed at our Liturgy Committee meeting this month and I offer my response with thanksgiving for the opportunity.

There is a challenge as a believer in Vatican 11 as concerns the "fresh air" that was invited into our church.  Once the window was opened I do not believe it can be tightly closed again! That fresh air gave many of us a reason to hope, to believe and to worship in our own tongue, with more understanding and participation in the liturgy. It gave me a "road less traveled" as a young woman in the church at that time.  I have traveled that road, with all its bumps and joys.  We were made cognisant of our own baptism which called us to be "priest, prophet and king".  The short term of Pope John the 23rd, has done great things for me and a multitude of others in the church. We have recognized ourselves as adults and not so easily "spoon fed."

Michael Ryan invites us to be "church", to have a voice and to own our membership. The changes in the church, some are subtle others are not, are trying to close that window.  We were not asked to participate in the translation from conception to distribution.  Why not, like Rosa Parks, take our rightful seat on this bus that should be open to all of God's people, not driven by dictators not going backwards. I only ask for a voice, a bit of civility and recognition as I travel this "road less traveled."

Thank you for the opportunity  to be heard and to Michael Ryan for his strong voice of leadership in the church we all love.

Nancy Drennan, Pastoral Associate 

It doesn't surprise me that parish and diocesan liturgical leaders are on the defensive with the new English translation and that they would want to spend more time discussing Father Ryan's article rather than Cardinal Ratzinger's "Spirit of the Liturgy" (a.k.a Pope Benedict's "Reform of the Reform").  Many of the liturgical activities that they have brought about during the last 40 years are in direct contradiction with Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI ' s liturgical instructions (not that either of these Popes would know anything about Vatican II).  I understand why the status quo liturgical establishment would feel threatened by the new translation but we really need to take our RIGHTFUL seat, not the seat we want.  We are a Church of ordained priest, prophets and kings  and non-ordained priest, prophets and kings.  The only dictators in this church are the ones who are trying to have their own liturgical coup d'etat.  Be aware of your own imbedded liturgical bias' and pray to overcome them to make it easier to accept and welcome the new English translation that our Holy Church is giving us.  It's time.   

I think there is a hidden agenda at the vatican behind these changes to the english translation. this is just the first step in returning the liturgy to the pre-vatican council latin mass ,including the celebrant with his back to the parishioners,communion on the tongue and only from a priest ,etc...  this to me makes it much more important to resist the current proposal before it is formally adopted. i wouldn't be surprised if father ryan also sees this . 

Bernardo,

You must be secretly in favor of the "hidden agenda" of the Vatican because I have heard much more intelligent arguments against the new translation than that and your comments border on mockery of progressives.  And by the way, I never thought of the priest facing the same direction as the people (Ad Orientum?) as having his "back to us"; after all, it's not as much about us as it is the One who saves us.  But then again, I guess having the priest facing a different direction from the rest of the gathered assembly helps to highlight the difference between the ordained and the non-ordained....ooops...I didn't mean to scare progressives into favoring ad orientum.    

I suspect our Institutional Church's moguls hope that the restoration (regression)  movement will return the Body of Christ to the halcyon, and thrilling-for-the ordained days of the 1950's yesteryears when Catholics paid, prayed, obeyed and never did much thinking.

Lots of luck, boys! 

Pray, pay and obey cliche is only attached to the "pre-conciliar" ways....NEVER...to the post conciliar ways of gather, gab and good eats.  This was the way the Mass was taught to me when I was going through CCD.  There are three parts the Mass:  1.  Gather (when the gathered assembly gathers), 2.  Gab (the Word & Homily..aka Storytelling),  3.  Good Eats (Eucharist aka....Mealsharing).  Basically we've gone from a pray-pay-obey Church to a gather-gab-good eats Church!  We can't have balance; we can only have extremes!  Remember!  We follow the either-or philosphy.....further evidence that we need the new English translation of the Roman Missal to help foster liturgical and theological sanity instead of the hopes and dreams of liturgical hacks.

Thank you, Pope Benedict XVI for cultivating sense of the sacred in the Roman Rite of the Church.  It's long over due.  Let us all welcome the new English translation with open minds and open hearts.   

Yes!  We are to let this go unchallenged because it doesn't need to be challenged.  A handful of people anonymously and repeatedly signing a petition is not going to change hearts.  Rather than trying to change other people's hearts, pray that all may accept the new translation with open hearts and minds.

Veronica (or Monica) Spera

You have monopolized this conversation in unfortunate ways. If this post continues, please consider the good charity of letting others speak without issuing a knee-jerk and angry response.

NOBODY is monopolizing this discussion.  My responses do not stop others from responding as well.  It's called dialog and conversation.  Everyone should actively participate in this discussion more frequently.  Just because your opinions differ from mine does not mean that either one of us should be silenced or limited in our free exchange of thoughts.  This must be a free and open discussion.  Just because you disagree with me does not mean my responses are knee-jerk or angry.  Why not focus on the topic at hand rather than me? 

Veronica Spera:  I agree with Linda Daily, above, that you are attempting to monopolize this conversation.  If you read the "comments policy" of America Magazine, you'll find this guideline: "Choose your spots. Resist the urge to comment on every post, or respond to every poster. Let other readers have their say."  You have posted 21 comments on this string-nearly a tenth of all the comments posted.  That's clearly in violation of the policy America has asked us to follow in responding to the article.

Ladies, can we please get back on the topic at hand?  The new translation?  Not each other.  I think the new translation is needed.  Why would anyone be opposed to elevated vocabulary?  Even in Texas we believe that the way we address our God in formal worship should be more elevated than the way we talk to each other on the streets. 

I am a member of our church Liturgy committee.  The committee has been charged with becoming familiar with the new changes to the Roman Missal and providing catechesis for our parish.

Having recently read the proposed changes I am in complete agreement with your comments. I had already signed my name to "Just Say Wait" after one of our members had forwarded the web site.  I am concerned that our parishioners are not going to understand the proposed new prayers and may have as I have a negative reaction.

I personally found the wording difficult to comprehend and awkward.

Fr. Ryan’s article is one of the best exemplars of the “spirit of Vatican II mentality” I have encountered. Filled from beginning to end with the sentimentalized, one might even say romanticized, notion of Vatican II, it reflects little of the documents and the facts of either the Council or history sinse. Consider just of few of his statements, taking only the first few paragcaphs.

“the systematic dismantling of the great vision of the council’s decree” 

The Council’s decree is textually opposed to most of what Fr. Father writes. Questions of the primacy of the Holy See are clearly stated (Ryan takes on that authority throughout his piece), of the proper and worthy celebration of the liturgy according to the rubrics  (mere rubricism to Ryan), of the meaning of active participation (as primarily interior, as opposed to “activity” and lay ministerial roles), and that collegiality does not actually mean that the Holy See must not dare to intervene, but merely deign to approve the decisions of episcopal conferences (a reading of Vatican I and “Apostolos Suos” might be in order, not to mention canon 1369 - sorry for the legalism, but I get very sentimental about the text of canon law).

“We can see the present moment only as one more assault on the council and, sadly, one more blow to episcopal collegiality.”

If the US bishops were represented on ICEL and Vox Clara, and the majority of the USCCB voted for the texts, it would seem that Ryan is inflamed because the minority did not succeed in opposing them. The bigger issue is not his detachment from the facts but the outrageous claim that it was an assault on the Council to produce texts consistent with the liturgical tradition and theology of the Church, whatever flaws these, or any human product, might have. 

“one need look no further than recent instructions from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments that have raised rubricism to an art form, or the endorsement, even encouragement, of the so-called Tridentine Mass”

At last the real cause célèbre rears its head - The Latin Mass. But anyway, on rubrics, the Council did not ACTUALLY do away with rubrics, though certainly a mechanical celebration is not the mind of the Church. However, one faithful to the texts and the rubrics is, as evidenced by the liturgy constitution and every liturgical document published since – even by previous mean old popes and dicasteries. Indeed, the lack of fidelity to the texts and the rubrics has been decried beginning with Paul VI and every Pope.

“the liturgy, the prayer of the people, is being used as a tool—some would even say as a weapon—to advance specific agendas”

Such irony!  Was Fr. Ryan present when liturgical dancers gave the homily at an ordination, and for the “clown” Mass, both at St. James Cathedral? I believe he was an associate at the Cathedral at the time, if my memory serves. The liturgical abuses perpetrated in the name of progressive agendas are legendary.

“Before long the priests of this country will be told to take the new translations to their people by means of a carefully orchestrated education program that will attempt to put a good face on something that clearly does not deserve it.”

A massive conspiracy to teach people the Catholic faith and pass it on consistently. How dare the Pope!

“the council also wisely made provision for times of experimentation and evaluation (S.C., No. 40)—something that has been noticeably missing in the present case.

Yes, the glory days. Actually, Paul VI FIRST stated that the time of experimentation was over. Come on children, put away your liturgical Legos and grow up!

But, isn't Fr. Ryan suggesting that we only run some trials with the new text? Superficially, and out of the context of the entire article, it might appear so, but in context he is clearly opposed to anything that anchors the liturgy more firmly in the tradition - and is, therefore, the usual progressive cant.

“What if we were to awaken to the fact that these texts are neither pastoral nor ready for our parishes? What if we just said, “Wait”?” I know it might smack of insubordination to talk this way, but it could also be a show of loyalty and plain good sense—loyalty not to any ideological agenda but to our people, whose prayer the new translations purport to improve, and good sense to anyone who stops to think about what is at stake here.”

That opportunity was had, through the USCCB. Fr. Ryan's suggestion is indeed insubordination and presumes he has the right to speak for the rest of lay Catholics and clergy. Let him speak for his parishioners, and to his bishop, and leave the rest of us in peace.

I came back to this article, now several months down the line, to finish reading what had been posted after I commented... I appear to be the last to post...

Fr. Ryan is highly-articulate and has an extremely-gifted aesthetic sense (what drew me so "fervently" into my formation as a Catholic-I am creatively-minded)... and the results of it, for me, has been a life-saving of such immense proportions I have devoted all my life, in religious vows, to serve Christ and the People of God.  There is no small debt of gratitude!  I DO love Father greatly, even though our relationship fell into disrepair, then ended.

I was accused of being a "divider" at the Cathedral in a letter addressed to me by him (for which I knew at the time there was a certain "influence" that had nothing to do with his love and caring for me).  Because of this "influence" and many other unfortunate happenings... I left understanding I could no longer be "in union" with the lack of appropriate honor/respect shown to ALL the Sacraments; and the undermining of many who need to have a REAL relationship with their Savior... all due to the lack of understanding by the lay ministers/protestant-ordained minister that Christ IS present in ALL of them (and to quote a spiritual mentor of mine "we get exactly what we need" in the Sacraments).  This lack of honor/belief in Christ's healing Presence ended up becoming so difficult for me... I have become all too vociferous!  Having now attempted to help heal the rift many, many times... my efforts have been dismissed as "from an incompetent."  They have since hired a "mental health nurse" at the Cathedral (as I, a Certified Parish Nurse, once suggested) but I know now my prior suggestion was "all wet"-what is needed is another priest (or two), for heaven's sake!  Father Ryan has too much to do, leaving much of the Cathedral ministry to lay people, who simply do not uphold Church teaching!  Of course he has to rely on them-as well as be loyal to them!  Father Ryan is a loving priest, and loves his parishioners... surrounded by a coterie of people who defend his time and energy-including one known as the "hatchet man" (not my words), he cannot do what he is most gifted doing-being a pastor!  Soon to retire, I sincerely hope he does not leave with a sense of "thank God that is over!"

I do suggest, however (and for what it is worth)... we all take seriously our commitment to unity-under the Chair of Peter.  Obedience is a discipline (oh, how I long to be obedient to a human superior!) Obedience isn't "passive", by any stretch of the imagination!  It promotes order in a culture... something Americans have great difficulty in understanding.  There are always ways to get your voice heard-even when being "obedient".  The new missal will be a test, in many ways, of American ability to learn the discipline of this once-hallowed virtue... so necessary to the learning of how to follow the Holy Spirit's guidance!  As per the Blessed Virgin's words "let it be done unto me" because God's hand is in everything-bringing goodness of our miserable human failings.

I love you, Father Ryan, and thank you.  From your hand I received the Bread of Life!  My mission now is the simple life of prayer/writing... and no longer activism.

Thank you, America, for allowing this personal story...