The National Catholic Review
Welcoming the New Roman Missal
Image

A faithful friend is a sturdy shelter…. A faithful friend is beyond price.” These words from the Book of Sirach (6:15-16) resonate with all who know the joy of friendship. A good friend is someone I know well, someone who knows me well. A faithful friend is a trusted companion who enriches my life, as I do for my friend.

For Catholics, the Mass is where our relationship with the Lord, who is much more than a true friend, is nurtured and strengthened. The Mass itself is a “faithful friend” because we know it well, and our participation draws us ever deeper into the grace of the Lord. Later this year we will be introduced to a new translation of the prayers of the Mass in the new Roman Missal. Some are wary of this change—perhaps the most significant change in the liturgy since the reformed liturgy was first introduced after the Second Vatican Council. Such change is never easy, but perhaps a better approach might be to welcome the new translation as a new friend about to lead us to a new moment of grace.

The revised Roman Missal will be introduced in parishes on Nov. 27, 2011, the First Sunday of Advent. The occasion offers an unprecedented opportunity for in-depth preparation and thorough catechesis. The new translation reflects more fully the power of the prayers of the Mass, both when we are celebrating Eucharist and also when we are sent forth to “go in peace glorifying the Lord” with our lives.

Over these past 36 years as a priest and bishop, I have celebrated Mass not only in English but also in Spanish and Italian. Often I have been struck by the accuracy of those translations in contrast to our English version. I can appreciate the work that went into the new English translation, knowing that no one translation can completely serve every English-speaking nation. Am I satisfied with every single change in word or phrase? No. But since we will be using an English-language missal that must serve many English-speaking countries around the world, it is helpful to be mindful of the great diversity and nuances of the English language. Indeed the subtle differences in English usage in the United States are a good indication of the fact that there is no such thing as a single, perfect English translation.

A Eucharistic Church

The Catholic Church is a eucharistic church. The coming months will be a time to consider again how and why this is so and to come to a new appreciation of the Mass and its prayers. From the very first days when the disciples gathered, “they devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers” (Acts 2:42). “Breaking of the bread” refers, of course, to the celebration of the Eucharist. It was probably not until the third and fourth centuries that ritual texts, or formularies, were used for the celebration of Mass. Eucharistic Prayer II (once attributed to St. Hippolytus) probably emerged in the third century, and what we commonly call Eucharistic Prayer I (or the Roman Canon) more than likely emerged in the mid-fourth century. Over the following centuries, local bishops approved set formularies for Mass texts, and many of those texts found their way into the precursors of the Roman Missal for use by the Latin church.

Recent polls suggest that many Catholics do not fully understand the truth that the Eucharist is the sacrament that gives us the real body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. The newly revised Missal provides an opportunity to consider this and other truths of the Catholic faith.

The timing is propitious. When the Sacramentary was first published in English some 40 years ago, there were fewer ways to communicate instantly than there are today with smartphones, tablets and a plethora of computers. This development puts us far along the path in helping to prepare better for the reception of the newly revised Roman Missal. During the time of liturgical reforms following the Second Vatican Council, catechesis was inconsistent and not always sufficient to prepare the church for what was being introduced. Today, catechesis is not limited to the Sunday homily or faith formation classes. Two outstanding Web sites offer excellent resources online, through download or for purchase.

The first site is that of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, one of the very best: www.usccb.org/romanmissal. In addition to sample texts, commentaries and explanations, it provides a wide variety of resources useful for parish communities making final preparations for implementation. Seeing the current and the new texts side by side will help illustrate the richness of the language in the new translation. The second resource is the Web site of the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions: www.fdlc.org. Included among their many offerings are audio recordings of many of the prayers of the Missal. These will be particularly helpful for priests in learning the style and cadence of the new texts, so they can effectively proclaim them.

Parishes would be wise to make a special effort to involve catechumens and, most important, Catholic children and young people in understanding the new translation and, in turn, the importance of the Eucharist in their lives. Perhaps there could be materials online just for young people: for first Communion children and for young people preparing for confirma-tion. YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites are ideal vehicles for reaching out to this audience. U.S.C.C.B. resources are available through all of these media.

From Translation to Understanding

This preparation period for the newly revised Roman Missal is a way to inform and catechize Catholics more deeply. Over the years, for example, the priest has proclaimed, “The Lord be with you.” And the congregation has responded, “And also with you.” But the Latin text should have been translated, “And with your spirit.” The response “And also with you” does not capture the Christian meaning of the Latin, Et cum spiritu tuo. One of the earliest exchanges invoking reciprocal blessings from God and God’s spirit is found in the Book of Ruth (2:4): “...The LORD be with you!” and they replied, “The LORD bless you!”

The early Christians who were baptized into the body of Christ had also received the Holy Spirit. They honored the presence of the Lord in one another’s lives through this greeting and response (Dominus vobiscum/Et cum spiritu tuo), understood as a mutual salutation and a sign of their union. The power of this greeting and response is far greater than “And also with you.”

Many of the newly translated texts allow all people to understand more deeply God’s saving work in and through the eucharistic mysteries. The newly revised Roman Missal is not simply an exercise in finding different words; rather, it is a fountain of new insights into Catholic teaching and praying.

To be sure, the transition to the new translation will be a logistical challenge. Both the priest and the congregation will need to rely upon a variety of participation aids. Because there are word changes from the very beginning of the Mass until the dismissal, priests will need to have the Roman Missal in front of them throughout the Mass; the congregation will depend on pew cards, hand missals and hymnals. Initially this might feel awkward because we are accustomed to praying and participating by heart, but we need to welcome the Roman Missal, in a sense, as a new friend. It will take time to become fully acquainted with the Missal, and only through practice will that happen. Openness to this new experience will lead to hidden riches, where Catholics learn something more about their faith and find new ways to express their devotion and love for the Lord. To ignore this invitation to friendship would be to deprive ourselves of new opportunities and new riches in our liturgy.

I am convinced that the introduction of the newly revised Roman Missal next November will be an inspiring moment in the life of the church in our country and in other English-speaking countries. The new words will invite a fresh perspective as we pray, as though viewing a work of art in a new light. This is a moment to enter more deeply into the greatest mystery of our faith, the Eucharist.

Cardinal Roger M. Mahony is the retired archbishop of Los Angeles.

Comments

6361949 | 6/1/2011 - 12:06pm

I received “A Study Text with Excerpts from the New English Translation” from the Vox Clara Committee, and I’m not impressed.  On November 27, 2011, we will become a praying Church of subordinate clauses and ablative absolutes.  Of course, in English we do use subordinate clauses and ablative absolutes, but we use them sparingly.  The prayers are so twisted and contorted in English that we might as well be praying in Latin.  In fact, it does sound better in Latin.  Maybe that’s the subtext for the Vox Clara (sic) translation: to make it so awful that we we’ll go back to Latin!


I do think, with Cardinal Roger Mahoney in “Welcoming the New Roman Missal” in America, May 23, 2011, that the new translation is “A Graced Moment,” not because of the new translation, but because of the “in-depth preparation and thorough catechesis” that has little to do with the new translation, and everything to do with the New Rite. While learning the new responses, it always good to review the New Rite, but having the attitude that the liturgical renewal in the last 50 years wasn’t done with “in-depth preparation and thorough catechesis” disregards the men and women who dedicated their lives to implementing Vatican II and Sacrosantum Concilium.


The new translation, albeit cumbersome and pompous (an ablative absolute?) does reveal the Roman Eucharistic Prayer for what it is, a good example of the hermeneutics of discontinuity.  So says Arnold Angenendt in Worship, May 2011, “Questionable Praise of the Old Liturgy.”  One example of discontinuity is found in the new translation, but not in the old.  The new translation, in its commemoration of the living, says “Remember, Lord, your servants and all gathered here, whose faith and devotion are known to you.  For them, we offer this sacrifice of praise or they offer it for themselves and all who are dear to them…”  The old translation avoids the confusion of just who is offering the sacrifice, the priest or the people or the priest and the people: “We offer you this sacrifice of praise for ourselves and those who are dear to us.”  The old translation leaves out the priest offering the sacrifice on behalf of the congregation.  In contrast and in line with the hermeneutic of continuity, the newly translated second Eucharistic Prayer, which was used a century before the Roman Canon, has no ambiguity: “we offer you, Lord, the Bread of life and the Chalice of salvation.”

Bill Freeman | 5/26/2011 - 2:19pm
This is simply another example of the repudiation of the Second Vatican Council by the horrific pontifical reigns of JP2 and B16.  Coupled with the sexual abuse priest scandal, millions (literally) of Roman Catholics are leaving the church.  I recommend that those seeking a contemporary expression of the ancient catholic tradition consider the independent catholic church.  
MARIEL BIRNBAUMER | 5/26/2011 - 1:33pm
I doubt the first Christians greeted each other as Cardinal Mahony exemplifies in his article.  Aramaic and Greek, and then Latin were the predominant languages of the early Christian communities.  The Cardinal's reference applies to the post-schism period when the Greek remained with the Eastern Church and Rome kept the Latin and the "Filioque" clause.

I also want to remark on the lack of mention to Mass presided in Latin.  This article is an effort to put a positive spin on a controversial issue where the American Bishops relented whereas in other countries the Bishops have resisted the Vatican advances on this front.
Pamela Wright | 5/25/2011 - 4:28pm
As a member of our parish's liturgy committee that is struggling on how to prepare our parish for the upcoming changes, I can see a glimmer a hope in Cardinal Mahony's comments.  I am a convert and a student of theology, getting my Master's degree.  I never knew the Latin Mass.  But I do know that many "cradle Catholics" have no clue where our liturgy came from, why we do what we do, or that Mass is supposed to be a communal spiritual experience, not just something done from memory or habit.  The prayers and structural rhythms that stretch back unbroken 2000 years are, for me, are one of the most wonderful and most attractive parts of being Catholic.  While I am not comfortable yet with some of the changes, for the most part they are not that earth shattering and many make more sense theologically-if one knows one's theology.  In our parish, we are already planning to fully examine the Mass, from the moment we enter the church to the moment we leave.  This is a chance to re-educate and re-dedicate ourselves to a truly communal experience where every word has meaning and that meaning is known throughout the community-not just in our own time but springing from the earliest roots of Christianity stretching out to generations to come.  The precise word is immaterial-the communal meaning is what should take precedence.  Is this a perfect translation?  No, but let him who is without sin cast the first stone.  We all err: in our interpretation, in our participation (or lack thereof), in our responsibility to study both Scripture and Church teachings, and in our living the Gospel.  This is why we believe in a forgiving God!  The Mass is supposed to be more than recitation.  This can be a special time, a moment of Grace, but only if we are open to the possibility.  Got lemons?  Make lemonade.  I am looking forward to new possibilities and maybe educating a few "cradle Catholics" on just how wonderful it is to be Catholic.

P.S.  I think consubstantial is a far better and more meaningful word than the phrase "one in being."
JOSEPH ALEXANDER | 5/21/2011 - 10:34am

I was disappointed to read Cardinal Roger Mahony’s article on the new translation of the Roman Missal in several ways, but there is one thing in particular that stands out.  Like other commentators on the translation, he states that “During the time of liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council, catechesis was inconsistent and not always sufficient to prepare the Church for what was being introduced”.  I was in the 5th grade in 1970 when those changes were introduced, and I believe that over the next several years I was extremely well catechized.  To take one example, when discussing the use of the words “and also with you” in lieu of “and with your spirit”, my teachers and parish leaders pointed out that since only the priest was addressed with the word “spirit”, there was a danger that this encouraged people to think of the priest as more spiritual than the laity, which ran counter to the emphasis of the council on the universal call to holiness.  

Indeed, it is Cardinal Mahony who seems unaware of this.  In his remarks on the return to “and with your spirit”, he points out that this is closer to the language used in the early Church of Rome.  True enough, but he fails to point out that we Christians no longer greet each other this way on a regular basis, and that therefore it is only the priest who is greeted with the word “spirit”, and thus the problem addressed by the 1970 translation returns. 

Perhaps the real issue is that we were too well catechized back in the 1970’s.  We see the implications of these things even if our bishops don’t or worse, if they do see them and are proceeding anyway.  This is why many wonder if a restorationist agenda is at work, as the key elements of the solid catechesis that we received when receiving the translation of 1970 are not even being addressed by the proponents of this new translation, it seems, sadly, including Cardinal Roger Mahony.  

Joseph R. Alexander

Linden, NJ

Craig McKee | 5/20/2011 - 6:04am
p.s. Just one final technical question:
Since when did the Latin OREMUS "traditionally" rendered as LET US PRAY in English, and located at the beginning of all of the orations I've ever seen (including those in the 12th and 13th century manuscripts I studied in Europe) become the floating WE PRAY in the NEW Roman Missal? While it may be more grammatically accurate, it's certainly not elegant.
Louis Macchiarulo | 5/18/2011 - 2:23pm
Brethren in Christ,

Anything that will prevent, or seriously impede, the priest from saying the Mass "ad libidinem" is a most welcome change.  I attend Mass at Our lady of Fatima and much too often find myself having to leave early because the priest has made himself, instead of the liturgy, the center.  Of course, if we simply reverted to Latin, it wouldn't matter where we went to hear Mass: we'd be united in a common language as well as in a common faith.

Semper laudetur nomen Christi, Salvatoris nostri!
Vincent Gaitley | 5/17/2011 - 10:24pm
The new translation is driving me closer to the Orthodoxy of the East.  They pray together without private masses, and the personal pronoun, "I" does not appear in the Divine Liturgy.  Oh, and the bishops and Patriarchs have not spent a generation lying to the flock in any language.  If Paris was "worth a Mass" to King Henry, perhaps our Eastern brethren are worth droping the "Filioque".  And the priests can marry before ordination, and the world did not end, amazing.  I am seeking the original, historical Church, and I am afraid Rome has hoaxed us too long.  
Thomas Rowan | 5/17/2011 - 6:57pm
The major problem I have with the missal translation that is being extoled for its virtues is the way this came about and when.  If the Mass was experiencing so much difficulty in understanding, then why wasn't this addressed in the context in which it was occuring?  If there were parts of the liturgy that defied meaning, then why weren't they unpacked, shown their scriptural roots and explained to the people?  Cumbersome language in itself has, in my opinion no greater claim of grace.  I still do not see the rationale for this change at this time, unless, it is ti distract the people from what is in sore need of healing, the relationship of the faithful with the clergy.  I fear that this wound will remain open and festering regardless of translations.  I am a life long Roman Catholic and have experience liberation theology and have earned a Masters degree with honors in Pastoral Ministry, have felt welcomed and rejected.  I am staying with the welcoming community.  The Holy Spirit cannot be contained.
Catherine McKeen | 5/17/2011 - 5:25pm
As I work my way through the study guide for the new Roman Missal, I am struck by some weird new/old wording, along with the new/old actions that are supposed to accompany them: 

The "Penitential Act" now goes as follows: 

"I confess to almighty God and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have greatly sinned, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do...

(And, while striking our breast, we are to continue)

"through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault..."

At that point I think a lot of us will be feeling more sinned against than sinning for all that has been done to the prayers and readings supposedly for our edification.    
William Bagley | 5/16/2011 - 5:30pm

A further thought:  Some commentators (well-intended no doubt) see those of us who are unhappy with the new translation as simply being uncomfortable with change.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  In fact, I wish that there were more change!   No, I agree with the commentator who observed that dressing the dead in new clothes won't bring them back to life.  

Here's why I care.  I have lived my life in close proximity to young people who are perplexed by the Church's retrogressive approach to many things.  I see those young people, in their 20s and 30s, drifting further and further away from the Church.  No amount of pretensious phrasing will bring them back...

Indeed, hope lies in VIBRANT urban Catholic churches that have comfortably embraced the future, that are truly inclusive in their reach and whose sermons, liturgies, celebrations and culture appeal to young Catholic hearts in a manner that moribund suburban churches do not...   

A friend said recently that no one would buy a poorly translated novel at a bookstore.  Why should we be satisfied with a poorly translated missal?  If 4th C Christians greated each other with a particular phrasing, does that simple fact make its repitition worthy of the 21st C?  While Hippolytus' liturgy may be worthy of great regard, it needn't set the standard for the 21st.  

Please... it's time dear Cardinal to find the courage to open your heart and speak from it ... let those who really like the translation have it!  But, please, as a matter of pastoral care, can we not find some way to prevent this from being imposed on us all? We've done a really good job of driving young people away, it's time to stop pushing them even further...

James Sheehan | 5/16/2011 - 9:09am
The new translations are quite similar to the ones we rushed to in the mid to late 1960's.   I made my first communion back then and had to memorize the responses.   The 1970's translations were to be an updated version reflecting a more the language of the people rather than the literal translations of the latin. 
My own concern is that the new translations are born out of the belief for uniformity and conformity.   The latest studies out regarding the "Catholic exodus" state that many people are leaving the Catholic Church because the worship does not fulfill them spiritually.   In order for  congregations to address this issue they need more freedom and creativity, not less.  Yesterday we celebrated "Good Shepherd" Sunday.   We need pastors who will protect us and nourish us and listen to our needs and wants, not shepherds who lord their power over us and think they know what we want and need.
NORMA NUNAG | 5/16/2011 - 1:09am
Correction:  Fr. Baldovin's work is not a book but a series of lectures. They are on 5 CD Set which includes written guide on CD.  They can be purchased at Now You Know Media. Tel. 1 800 955 3904  9am-5pm M-F   or www.NowYouKnowMedia.com
NORMA NUNAG | 5/16/2011 - 12:27am
I think it would be useful to know the history of the Liturgy to appreciate the current changes.   One can begin by reading "Defending the New Missal". by Peter M. J. Stravinskas.  Then, read "The History of the Mass". by Fr. John F. Baldovin, S.J., Ph.D.
Craig McKee | 5/15/2011 - 11:52pm
Nicely constructed Apologia Pro Missa Mea, your Eminence, but you cannot deny that the New Roman Missal in toto remains an unfortunate metaphor for the negation of Vatican II's de-centralizing empowerment of local episcopal conferences in determining appropriate liturgical texts for their people as they have been merely "allowed" to basically RUBBER STAMP the texts as dictated by Rome.
Had you yourself emulated the obtuse syntactical style and archaic vocabulary being foisted upon the English-speaking Catholic world, your article would never have graced these pages. The REAL PRESENCE being celebrated in the liturgy has been hijacked by the REAL ABSENCE of those most closely responsible for their people's pastoral care. Given the variety and diversity of the English-speaking world (and I speak as an English teacher on four continents!) the very prospect of a "one-size fits all" translation is naive at best and ludicrous at worst. It's nothing but a RESTORATIONIST CURIAL POWER GRAB and you know it!
To paraphrase the eminent linguist Sarah Palin, "THERE AIN'T ENUF LIPSTICK IN THE VATICAN TO PUT ON THIS PIG!"
NORMA NUNAG | 5/15/2011 - 1:50pm

Very interesting!  Those who are  now resisting the new translation of the New Roman Missal behave like those who resisted the translation of the Missal to the vernacular from latin! after Vatican II.  Go figure! 

I guess we are really creatures of habit..... we hate to change!  It is too cumbersome and inconvenient.  

Note:  English is not just English, there is UK Engllish, Australian, New Zealand, Canadian,  American, Indian (from India), Carabbean English (Jamaica) etc. etc.  Like the Cardinal says.... "it's  helpful to be mindful of the great diversity and nuances of the English Language."

Good suggestion from #14 David Smith:  Let's just go with the flow!  Crabbing is just a waste of energy.  As we say in the olden days: Offer it up for the souls in purgatory!

David Smith | 5/15/2011 - 12:42am
Change happens.  Go with the flow :O)
RICHARD KUEBBING | 5/14/2011 - 3:32pm
I am an aging Catholic. My base theological training was pre-Vatican II. I received intense training in Latin and Greek, to the point I can still read the old Mass texts w/o much hesitation. I have sung Latin and English for 6 decades.

We live in a time when the present becomes past at an ever-increasing rate. I have worked in IT for 5 decades making that happen. The programs that I wrote decades ago still run on modern computers, but are not used as the needs of today are not the needs of yesterday.  I have gotten over that.

When people think of the "sustainability", they think of food and energy and natural resources. I would be helpful te examine all of life with that hermaneutic.

Today I pray and sing the liturgy w/my sisters and brothers in English. I know that poets and non-poets can produce beautiful English. At one time the church appreciated the use of beauty in praise of God and his creative energy and works. It seems to place other goals higher these days. There is a difference between faithfulness and slavishness. Dressing up the dead in stylish clothes does not bring them to life.

C Walter Mattingly | 5/14/2011 - 1:03am
Cardinal Mahoney,
Please excuse the vitriol directed your way by some of the commentators above for expressing your opinion on the impact of the new translation of the mass. Some here believe that the greater fidelity of the translation to the underlying text might cause insurmountable problems for those of us in the pews; that it is beyond the purview of the laity, for instance, to know or learn the meaning of the word "consubstantial." I personally would have preferred some different word choices, such as "the multitude" in place of "many" here, yet if catechesis arises from the new translation, it will be well worth the time and effort invested. If the raising of the hackles of the multitude above is any indication, it is off to a promising start.
If as we suspect half of all Catholics don't know what Transubstantiation, a tough word for sure, means, we have a faith knowledge problem before us. With the ensuing brouhaha, maybe we can learn the meaning of that word along with consubstantial.
Theo Verbeek | 5/13/2011 - 11:40pm
It seems to me that too much time has been spent in producing new liturgical texts In the process generated much anguish, anger and and frustration but not much of real value. Can the church not use its time and expertise better? The elephant labored long and hard and produced a mouse. 
ANDY GALLIGAN | 5/13/2011 - 10:13pm
I have admired Cardinal Mahoney for many years dating back to his involvement with the United Farm Workers as a Monsignor in California's San Joaquin Valley.  He has ever striven to be a peace maker, as I think he is here in his article.  In this instance, however,  trying to be "a loyal son of the church" I feel he is overly sanguine and not making full disclousure. I will add, though, that I do hope that the new, although stiff and faulty, English translation approved by our bishops at the insistence of the Vatican will not drive people away from love of and participation in the Eucharistic liturgy.  We who were raised in pre-Vatican II days have seen worse, and we came to love the Mass even then. 
For another view than Cardinal Mahoney's I would suggest that you click onto the report of Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie PA in the 11/06/09 edition of the National Catholic Reporter. ncronline.org/news/last-ditch-effort-dump-mass-translations-Cached  The report is entitled "Last Ditch Efforts to Dump Mass translations" and is authored by Jerry Filteau.  Bishop Trautman, whom I believe will soon retire because of age is in a position to speak with inside knowledge of the whole situation since he was the chairman of the U.S. bishops' liturgy committee. You may like what he has to say, even though his views have apparently lost out.  
Richard Sullivan | 5/13/2011 - 4:53pm

Participating in the Liturgy of the Eucharist is a very important part of my life. It enables me to associate with my parish community, to be one at prayer with it as I try to establish some communication with God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I focus as best I can on the prayers of the Mass but here I fall down easily. I attempt to listen intently to what the priest is saying and to bring his words into my heart to make them my prayer, too. Sometimes, the priest may have a clear voice and pray with sincerity and that works well. However, coughs here and coughs there and other noises may block words, fragmenting the prayer and disrupting my connection. Years ago, that would not have happened. I could have followed all the parts of the Mass in a Missal. In today’s Missal I find that impossible because I don’t know which Eucharistic prayer the priest will say. He is not telling. Maybe, if we all prayed the entire Mass as is our baptismal priestly right we would feel at one with God, the priest, and each other. If we had that I could put up with a poor translation.

William Bagley | 5/13/2011 - 4:53pm

No.  While I have come to admire Cardinal Mahony for many reasons, what he sees as a “graced moment “ I perceive more as a disgraced moment.

The path taken in the English revision is far from uplifting.  Lacking serious engagement with the lay community, it has ignored critics and prepared a “roll out” worthy of a Marlboro cigarette campaign.      

Advocates of this change seem to want to draw us back to the 4th Century (or at least what some medieval minded translators market as 4th Century language) expecting that a “more faithful” translation would somehow magically make things more uplifting.    As to success with it?  Look to South Africa (and please don’t say that their problem was catechesis – the problem was the translation).

Why must the language be so “faithful” to 4th Century Latin usage anyway?  Is there magic in the use of older English translations?   Are we tending closely to kind of thinking that led to lampooning of the Eucharistic Latin prayer:  hocus pocus?   Did our good Lord not give us extraordinary Catholic schools and colleges simply to adhere to ad altare days as old phrasing was somehow more faithful? 

“And with your spirit?”  What is a spirit?  Is it a soul? Is it a frame of mind? Is it a pep rally value?   I wouldn’t use that phrasing to say good-bye to my mother or dad and I love them dearly … is that the best that we can do for a response to a priest?  Do we only care about the priest’s spirit?  Does the Lord only care about his spirit?  Should a 4th C phrasing be our guide just because it is ancient?  There is no lack of clarity when we speak in unison “and also with you.”  It is a simple, clear expression of community with the priest and one another – it offers a clear sense that the Lord actually will go with you!  I just don’t see the issue.  I might add that the “under your roof,” “consubstantial” and other phrasing/archaic usages make the Cardinal’s position more tenuous. 

A Eucharistic community?  No, not a community under these terms.  As a parent I took great pains to engage my children in decision making – with the belief that it would make us a more solid family and would endow them with the confidence to face a challenging world.  While in 1932 it may have made sense for the hierarchy to dictate to a largely less well-educated faithful, we’ve come a long way.  It is a disservice to a smart laity to say this is your only choice… even if it comes with cookies and coffee and smiling priests in the parish hall. 

It is sad to see the good Cardinal as a liturgical Marlboro man.  
Joe Kash | 5/13/2011 - 4:06pm
Thank You Bishop Mahony,

I agree that we all should humbly use the change in the translation as a way to grow in faith and love for Christ and His Church.

I think it is unfortunate that America Magazine does not delete some of the very harsh uncharitable comments directed at the bishop.
Frank Hartge | 5/13/2011 - 2:42pm
I have been following this translation odyssey pretty closely the last few years. I truly appreciate, and wholeheartedly agree with, His Eminence's words of support and advice. Every phrase I have read in the new corrected translation I find to be superior to the 1973 version with which we have suffered these many years.
Roy Van Brunt | 5/13/2011 - 2:25pm

Your Eminence - I truly feel sorry for you if you genuinely believe that the new Missal somehow represents some kind of advance in the notion or concept of Catholic worship. The real Church - the one that Christ left behind and that is personified and embodied in the People, and not just in its hierarchy - does not long for this stilted, awkward, and generally unprayable translation. And just because it has been "accepted" or approved by the USCCB does not mean that it will be "received" by those people. We will simply not use those words to pray. You and the other advocates of this missal are making a grave mistake in imposing it on the practice of American worship. How is it that you and they do not comprehend the notion that people want to pray and worship in the words they use to think and speak, and not in the words of a translated Latin that would fail a sophomore in high school if he or she used them? How is it that you think "consubstantial wih the Father" can be better understood than "one in being with the Father?" Why do you assert that the Eucharist was shared wth "many", but not with "all?". How outrageous an assertion! Such rubbish! I genuinely pray for you and your fellow shepherds, all of whom who seem to be the lost sheep here. The Holy Spirit is indeed moving in the American church this Advent, but I truly believe that it is not moving us to this Missal. I continue to pray for you and your brothers, all of whom are so obviously out of touch with your flock(s)


 

Todd Phillipe | 5/13/2011 - 1:54pm
I've read so much that's negative (too much, in fact) about the new English Mass translation.  I appreciate Card. Mahoney's perspective and his call to approach the Mass as a friend, and even more to reconnect with this treasure of our faith.   In the rush after Vatican II to come up with the English vernacular language, mistakes and some sloppiness happened.  It's time for a small course correction, and that's what this is all about.  Although in fairness I must say it's going to take some real effort to learn the new Creed.
James Collins | 5/13/2011 - 1:46pm
Nice try Cardinal but your attempt at putting a good spin on this new translation won't do it. No one asked us what we thought about this and they don't give a darn what we think. The very conservative scribes and Pharisees are running the show and they will do whatever they please. In the words of our German Pope, "und you vill do vwhat you are toldt."Don't insult our intelligence Cardinal.
JOHN WALTON MR | 5/13/2011 - 1:06pm
Troubled by this: "Over these past 36 years as a priest and bishop, I have celebrated Mass not only in English but also in Spanish and Italian."  Didn't ever celebrate the Mass in Latin?  Perhaps some kind of pedagogical deficit at the seminary...
Mike Evans | 5/13/2011 - 12:52pm
All this change will serve only to inflame negative remarks and to undermine people's loyalty and faithfulness. Awkward translations and insensitive and complex wording are not a help at all. See the many critiques of the new missal in so many places elsewhere. Irish clergy, German clergy, Australian clergy all have substantial numbers who would like to NOT use this new mandate. The cardinal should know better and this endorsement of the new missal is a great disappointment.